While that's a pretty good looking batman/batmobiel, I kind of hate how he makes movies. They're some of the worst adaptations I've ever seen, that tend to fundamentally change characters and stories and make them worse: He decided that the Watchmen would be morally unambiguous and badasses unfettered by doubt, while Superman apparently murders people if he can't figure out better ways of stopping them.
spiralingcadaver wrote: While that's a pretty good looking batman/batmobiel, I kind of hate how he makes movies. They're some of the worst adaptations I've ever seen, that tend to fundamentally change characters and stories and make them worse: He decided that the Watchmen would be morally unambiguous and badasses unfettered by doubt, while Superman apparently murders people if he can't figure out better ways of stopping them.
timetowaste85 wrote: Plat, where is that image from? Never seen those costumes before. Photoshop?
I honestly don't know if they appear in the film(maybe near the end? it's been over a decade since I've seen it), but considering I'm finding different images of them in them from different angles:
I think they're real, even if only for promotional stills.
Hmm... It looks okay I suppose. The one thing I don't like is the stubby ears; I much prefer the long pointy ones like the way Tim Sale drew them in The Long Halloween and Dark Victory.
timetowaste85 wrote: Plat, where is that image from? Never seen those costumes before. Photoshop?
I honestly don't know if they appear in the film(maybe near the end? it's been over a decade since I've seen it), but considering I'm finding different images of them in them from different angles:
I think they're real, even if only for promotional stills.
These costumes were indeed used in the final scenes when they go to take down Mr Freeze. I can't remember if they bothered to give a reason for it in the film and I'm not watching it again to find out
These costumes were indeed used in the final scenes when they go to take down Mr Freeze. I can't remember if they bothered to give a reason for it in the film and I'm not watching it again to find out
Obviously, Bruce had extra money in the suit budget.
Apparently, the batarang budget is large enough that Robin can ship a Batmobile across country without Bats noticing...
I like it, but I can't help but think it's going to be too big a departure (especially with the stubby ears - might be reminiscent of 60's batman for some viewers?) to be too popular.
These costumes were indeed used in the final scenes when they go to take down Mr Freeze. I can't remember if they bothered to give a reason for it in the film and I'm not watching it again to find out
Obviously, Bruce had extra money in the suit budget.
Apparently, the batarang budget is large enough that Robin can ship a Batmobile across country without Bats noticing...
Compel wrote: I like it, but I can't help but think it's going to be too big a departure (especially with the stubby ears - might be reminiscent of 60's batman for some viewers?) to be too popular.
I like them a lot, actually. To me I was immediately reminded of the Frank Miller batman.
Compel wrote: I like it, but I can't help but think it's going to be too big a departure (especially with the stubby ears - might be reminiscent of 60's batman for some viewers?) to be too popular.
I like them a lot, actually. To me I was immediately reminded of the Frank Miller batman.
Having seen a better quality picture, it's not that much a departure, it actually appears to have the current New 52 suit's raised panel lines.
The Batgirl costume always made me laugh. It's like, somehow Alfred knew she was going to become Batgirl so he made her the Batgirl suit. Okay, I can accept that. But then you mean to tell me he also made her a ice-fighting suit just in case Batman had to take on Mr. Freeze? Really?
Anyways, I love the look of the Batsuit. It looks very much like Frank Miller's take in The Dark Knight Returns, which is apparently a big influence in this film. I am cautiously optimistic for this film. Though, personally, most of my reprehension is with Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman more than Ben Affleck as Batman.
Compel wrote: I like it, but I can't help but think it's going to be too big a departure (especially with the stubby ears - might be reminiscent of 60's batman for some viewers?) to be too popular.
I like them a lot, actually. To me I was immediately reminded of the Frank Miller batman.
Yeah, you know that and I know that... But 90%+ of the viewing public that brings in the cash? I'm just worried that all they'll see is 1960's style batman.
Ben Aflecks looking good. Not digging the ears like many others but I think the angle he's at really lends itself to the more pointed ears. I think face on he'll look the part
Still gutted that Kevin Spacey isn't going to be Luthor. I think Eisenburg was the wrong choice...
Also re Tatum as Gambit: Isn't he a little too built for that role?
Darth Bob wrote: The Batgirl costume always made me laugh. It's like, somehow Alfred knew she was going to become Batgirl so he made her the Batgirl suit. Okay, I can accept that. But then you mean to tell me he also made her a ice-fighting suit just in case Batman had to take on Mr. Freeze? Really?
And it fits perfectly, too. How did he get her dimensions without asking? Alfred's a creeper.
Regarding the picture, I like it. Willing to give Aflec a chance. Just don't Daredevil it, Ben.
Medium of Death wrote:Ben Aflecks looking good. Not digging the ears like many others but I think the angle he's at really lends itself to the more pointed ears. I think face on he'll look the part
Short ears make more sense. I never got the love for long ears bat cowl, that makes them a handle to grab in fights and that's a bad thing.
Gitzbitah wrote: I didn't feel that strongly against him, but I was pretty unimpressed.
I feel the same. He was just kinda there, not really Gambit.
kronk wrote: How did he get her dimensions without asking? Alfred's a creeper.
Alfred was her uncle in that movie. It actually makes sense that she'd notify him of her measurements before she got there so she could have a stocked room waiting(she arrives with like a single rather small bag).
As for Batfleck, if I didn't already know it was him, I would have no idea it was him from that shot. He really doesn't look like Affleck there.
Easy E wrote: Zach Snyder is directing. The movie will suck. Truth.
Yeah, I feel it's going to be similar to The Amazing Spider Man movie series both will be way too soon remakes of already well-done comic movies from decent directors, will be significantly worse than the older movie series and will leave you with a sense that the movie is just a soulless
Yeah, as I think I've said before, my only real problem with Man of Steel was Zod's final scene. I don't like Superman himself, personally being grimdarked up, even slightly. Sure, make the world he lives in a horrible, cynical, grimdark world (or, well, the real one), but he himself shouldn't be, in my view. - It's why my favourite Superman film I've seen yet is 'Superman Vs The Elite' which was based on the, 'Whats so funny about Truth, Justice and the American Way' comic, I believe.
In saying that, I'd be fine if at the start of the next film, Superman feels really, really, badly about what he did at the end of Man of Steel and vows 'never again.'
mega_bassist wrote: Last I checked, most people liked the Amazing Spider Man series more than the Toby Maguire ones.
Um, what are you basing this on? Even then something being popular doesn't mean it's better, like the Transformers movies are big box office successes but I wouldn't call them good movies. You know what, I'm making a poll and thread to find out what people's favourite version spider
man is to answer this international mystery once and for all.
Darth Bob wrote: Anyways, I love the look of the Batsuit. It looks very much like Frank Miller's take in The Dark Knight Returns, which is apparently a big influence in this film. I am cautiously optimistic for this film. Though, personally, most of my reprehension is with Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman more than Ben Affleck as Batman.
It's an almost perfect mashup of Lee's and Miller's suits. I think the reaction has been fairly positive so far, especially from comic fans.
I know what a lot of people are thinking about Gal Godot. But she's 5'8 and will look about 6" taller in heels and on camera. She's never going to have gigantic muscles, but that's okay...something more like a beach volleyball player build is a more realistic athletic build for a female anyway. And even if you *hated* Sucker Punch, Snyder showed in that film that he can turn females into action heroes.
I doubt WW will be in this film much, but give the character a few choice scenes and scene-stealing lines (think the Hulk in Avengers) and WW might end up the breakout character in the film.
mega_bassist wrote: Last I checked, most people liked the Amazing Spider Man series more than the Toby Maguire ones.
Um, what are you basing this on? Even then something being popular doesn't mean it's better, like the Transformers movies are big box office successes but I wouldn't call them good movies. You know what, I'm making a poll and thread to find out what people's favourite version spider
man is to answer this international mystery once and for all.
I've never seen it personally, but everyone I talked to liked the Amazing Spider Man movies more.
When there are quite a few women in hollywood that fit the physical better and act on the same or better level I'm totally against Godot. Being tall is crap. We've seen what they can do with height with actors like Stallone and Cruise. Height is the one thing they can pretty easily adjust for.
I'll admit that she was in a film, side by side, with someone I would have preferred for the role when it was announced which probably made it worse. (Last Fast & Furious Movie)
Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I submit that Gadot is also a notch or two more beautiful than Carano. Gadot can lift lots of weights, but Carano can't do anything to match Gadot's cheekbones.
Maybe that's a shallow thing, but WW is supposed to be a goddess whose presence makes jaws drop and knees weak. Carano is a beautiful woman, but I don't think her looks are capable of delivering that kind of presence. Carano gives off a slightly less feminine, more tomboyish vibe IMO. I think she'd make a great Black Canary, Hawkgirl, etc. where she doesn't need to be the most beautiful woman in the room by a wide margin.
A lot depends on what Snyder and company are going for, and we don't really know that. For a more grounded, pure warrior WW, maybe Carano is the better choice. For WW as a goddess, I see a rationale for Gadot or someone like her.
Now, if you want to question the choice of Gadot based on her acting chops, I think you can get some definite traction there. But then that's just as much of an issue with Carano. The buzz was that they talked to Jaimie Alexander, but the timing didn't work for her. I'd probably park her between Carano and Gadot in terms of looks and athleticism, and she's probably a better actress. Still, she's not exactly Meryl Streep either.
As for Wonder Woman, nothing against Gal Godot personally, but I'm with Comic Book Girl 19 in that I'm tired of seeing models as superheros that don't look like they could punch through a wet paper bag. It isn't just physique but also attitude and she doesn't seem to have either. I'm still willing to give her a shot at the part, but I am skeptical to say the least.
gorgon wrote: Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I submit that Gadot is also a notch or two more beautiful than Carano. Gadot can lift lots of weights, but Carano can't do anything to match Gadot's cheekbones.
Maybe that's a shallow thing, but WW is supposed to be a goddess whose presence makes jaws drop and knees weak. Carano is a beautiful woman, but I don't think her looks are capable of delivering that kind of presence. Carano gives off a slightly less feminine, more tomboyish vibe IMO. I think she'd make a great Black Canary, Hawkgirl, etc. where she doesn't need to be the most beautiful woman in the room by a wide margin.
A lot depends on what Snyder and company are going for, and we don't really know that. For a more grounded, pure warrior WW, maybe Carano is the better choice. For WW as a goddess, I see a rationale for Gadot or someone like her.
Now, if you want to question the choice of Gadot based on her acting chops, I think you can get some definite traction there. But then that's just as much of an issue with Carano. The buzz was that they talked to Jaimie Alexander, but the timing didn't work for her. I'd probably park her between Carano and Gadot in terms of looks and athleticism, and she's probably a better actress. Still, she's not exactly Meryl Streep either.
Both of their acting skills are....lacking? So that wasn't even on the table. If the image we've got of Batman and last Superman are anything to go by we're not going for agility in our actors this time around That said I realize it's a taste thing, I don't find Gadot's body type attractive in the least and like has been pointed out I'm tired of "super-hero" women in films looking like they can't fight out of a wet bag. Having seen the shape and look of Carano when she's muscled up I could believe her as a combat monster. Granted, Wonder Woman is a goddess but Super Man is basically a god and he's built like a monster. Just sayin
I've just remembered that this Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman are supposed to be the same universe as the Flash and Arrow tv series. How do people think they will fit together?
There's never really been much discussion about that.
I imagine they'll avoid breaching the topic until they need to start casting the various characters.
The thing is, the Man of Steel events, with General Zod's broadcast going worldwide, with the associated chaos and ramifications would be pretty awesome to see from other characters / cities viewpoints.
I think the plan is that Man of Steel (and hence the sequel with Batman) is set after the events of Arrow seasons 1&2 and the Flash season 1. It would be awesome to see the broadcast in Flash season 1 or Arrow season 3, probably as a finale teaser.
Ahtman wrote: As for Wonder Woman, nothing against Gal Godot personally, but I'm with Comic Book Girl 19 in that I'm tired of seeing models as superheros that don't look like they could punch through a wet paper bag. It isn't just physique but also attitude and she doesn't seem to have either. I'm still willing to give her a shot at the part, but I am skeptical to say the least.
Out of curiosity how do you feel about Scar Jo's portrayal of Black Widow as she seems to fall into that model category but she also made her into a fun, smart, sarcastic character?
Every once in a while, I post that one of you has become my new best friend. D-USA, your "many reasons" picture show has made you my new best friend. I loved it. So you're now my new best friend. Deal with it.
Ahtman wrote: As for Wonder Woman, nothing against Gal Godot personally, but I'm with Comic Book Girl 19 in that I'm tired of seeing models as superheros that don't look like they could punch through a wet paper bag. It isn't just physique but also attitude and she doesn't seem to have either. I'm still willing to give her a shot at the part, but I am skeptical to say the least.
Out of curiosity how do you feel about Scar Jo's portrayal of Black Widow as she seems to fall into that model category but she also made her into a fun, smart, sarcastic character?
Black Widow is a spy with no super powers (in MCU) whereas Wonder Woman is damn near Superman tier in ability. Scarlet Johannsen has a long resume as an actress, not a model, whereas the inverse is true for Gal. In the Avengers Black Widow's reaction to Hulk was believable, but Wonder Woman has to act and carry herself like Thor did in that scene. I would probably find Scarlet more believable as Wonder Woman as well, but again, I am willing to give GG the benefit of the doubt.
Ahtman wrote: As for Wonder Woman, nothing against Gal Godot personally, but I'm with Comic Book Girl 19 in that I'm tired of seeing models as superheros that don't look like they could punch through a wet paper bag. It isn't just physique but also attitude and she doesn't seem to have either. I'm still willing to give her a shot at the part, but I am skeptical to say the least.
Out of curiosity how do you feel about Scar Jo's portrayal of Black Widow as she seems to fall into that model category but she also made her into a fun, smart, sarcastic character?
Black Widow is a spy with no super powers (in MCU) whereas Wonder Woman is damn near Superman tier in ability. Scarlet Johannsen has a long resume as an actress, not a model, whereas the inverse is true for Gal. In the Avengers Black Widow's reaction to Hulk was believable, but Wonder Woman has to act and carry herself like Thor did in that scene. I would probably find Scarlet more believable as Wonder Woman as well, but again, I am willing to give GG the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, I know Scar Jo is an actress just a lot people on the web act like like she's a supermodel (probably because a lot of people find her hot). Either way thanks for the clarification.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gunslingerpro wrote: For anyone questioning Affleck's physique, did anyone watch the Town? He was ripped out of his mind in that film!
In terms of the Superman 'I will never kill thing', what's the alternative in this film? The banishment zone? Freezing him?
It was a plausible, human solution. No unneeded or over-done 'lock up' scene.
It works in some films, (Amazing Spiderman 2), but would've felt cheap in Man of Steel.
Wouldn't the Superman thing to do would be to challenge Zod on the Moon rather than have massive amounts of destruction on Earth?
The moon works, if you can ask Zod "hey, I know you wanna feth up the earth, but I'm gonna chill on the moon. Can you stop destroying earth for a minute and meet me there?"
There's been a few more shots of the new Batmobile -- WiP shots kind of thing --- doing the rounds -- see the Man of Steel movie FB page.
With Cyborg being confirmed for this film too.. and Wonder Woman ..... looking more and more like the JL(A?) movie will be shooting if not alongside or as part of this film then not too long afterwards.
Why did Cyborg start gaining so much ground? I mean, I was introduced to him being a Teen Titan. Are any of the other iconic titans on the JLA? No. What makes him so special? Yet now they make such a big deal out of him. He gets promoted to being on the JLA in the new 52, despite being in HS still. He saves the JLA in the movie Doom. He sends the forces of Apocalypse home in War. I remember him being an annoying brat kid in TT, constantly stuffing his face and video game fights with beast boy. What the hell? Do. Not. Want.
timetowaste85 wrote: Why did Cyborg start gaining so much ground? I mean, I was introduced to him being a Teen Titan. Are any of the other iconic titans on the JLA? No. What makes him so special? Yet now they make such a big deal out of him. He gets promoted to being on the JLA in the new 52, despite being in HS still. He saves the JLA in the movie Doom. He sends the forces of Apocalypse home in War. I remember him being an annoying brat kid in TT, constantly stuffing his face and video game fights with beast boy. What the hell? Do. Not. Want.
The Teen Titans cartoon was a fun show, but it's terrible representations of every single character in it. Except Beast Boy. He's actually toned down for good reason.
Cyborg in the comics is actually more like DCAU's Martian Manhunter. He's the stoic who suffers from some self doubt. Doom is pretty much spot on to how he always was, even in the older run of Teen Titans.
As for why he's front and center so much? They needed a replacement for Martian Manhunter after he was killed in the stuff leading up to Final Crisis, especially since they'd killed off the character who took up the traditional "token black character" roles(FFS, the martian's human disguise was even black).
Well, I think showing some diversity is a good thing. I wasn't sure about Cyborg in particular when the New 52 hit, but I warmed up quickly. He fills a legit role on the team beyond the color of his skin. Now, I like John Henry Irons better in the tech guy role, but they obviously needed time to work out a new origin for him.
An interesting question is which Green Lantern we'll see. There's a little less pressure to go with the John Stewart version with Vic Stone on the team. But Stewart's inclusion would be even better diversity, and give them a workaround for the Ryan Reynolds GL film. Hal could just be off in space somewhere. Personally, I'd rather see Hal and think Reynolds wasn't the problem with the movie. But they'll almost certainly recast it.
And I agree with reds8n...there's a good chance they're going to be doing at least some filming for JL. It would also explain them pushing back the MoS sequel a full year...it's going to be a longer-than-usual shoot.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Speaking of which, does anyone know how involved he is with this project? He is a close friend of Ben Affleck and huge Batman nerd.
Beyond getting an early glimpse of the suit because Ben showed it to him, pretty much none. If you want more from him you can always listen to his Fatman on Batman podcast.
-Shrike- wrote: Damn. Back to the sculpted, single-piece latex suits? I preferred Nolan's armoured take on it, to be honest.
Yeah, this totally does not work for me. The armored look is far more realistic and believable. This isn't even a well-done latex suit. The cape should connect lower and conceal more of the shoulders, the bat-ears should be longer and pointier, and that huge expanse of chest desperately needs an emblem to break up all that space. He looks like a dumb palooka to me, not Batman. Like his name should be Chest-Man.
Not that it matters, I have no intention of seeing this film. Zach Synder is a horrible director and DC Comics has no idea how to handle their properties. After Green Lantern and Man of Steel, I have zero faith in DC's ability to not completely screw this up. I'm not even worried about Batfleck -- this movie was doomed before casting even began.
I think the suit looks fine and am glad they tried to distinguish it from the Nolan one (I like the Nolan one too) so it feels more like a different take with a batman movie, that being said I'm still skeptical since it's directed by Zack Snyder...
Hated the Nolen films with a vengeance - looking forward to seeing if this one works for me - not seen anyhting yet match the first Michael Keaton film.
Man of Steel was ok but not a patch on the Marvel films like Avengers, Cap A 2 or Thor 2..... if they actually can match that level of quality DC will be redemed for me.
-Shrike- wrote: What exactly did you hate about the Nolan films? Just curious, you're the second person I've ever met who's told me they hated them.
Length of the films - usually about an hour more than needed
plot - lack of it - either set peices or all about the Mary Sue Joker who can predict every single thing anyone is ever going to do.
Dull overused plots like - lets learn to be a super ninja in 6 weeks AND be better than any other ninja
Lack of humour in the film in general
Lack of anyone to actually give a damn about
Lack of any "heart"
Otherwise they were fine The first film has some good elements - the Scarecrow was good, Michael Caine is good, the second is just dire, did not bother with third - where apparently Nolan gave up any sembalance of a coherent plot.
I also hated Inception................kind of a theme and for much the same reasons
timetowaste85 wrote: I generally regard people who hate the Nolan Batman movies as "crackpots" and "whackjobs".
And you would be right to do so, probably even deserving of a medal.
Too many confuse their ability to like a movie with how good that film is. I get that the Nolan films were what many people wanted from Batman, but to take that sense of disappointed "not what I wanted" and declare them bad is certainly whackjob territory
Speaking of the word Beyond, am I the only one who can totally get behind a Batman Beyond film?
I know I would have zero interest in it, but I think there are a few fans out there. I mean, obliviously there are people with bad taste in media, such as those that hate the Nolan Batman films, so anything is possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Too many confuse their ability to like a movie with how good that film is. I get that the Nolan films were what many people wanted from Batman, but to take that sense of disappointed "not what I wanted" and declare them bad is certainly whackjob territory
I just like to give out medals. Usually they are made from bottle caps. I don't think the Nolan films were the best thing ever, but to call them crap is certainly deserving of a little friendly ribbing.
Speaking of the word Beyond, am I the only one who can totally get behind a Batman Beyond film?
I know I would have zero interest in it, but I think there are a few fans out there. I mean, obliviously there are people with bad taste in media, such as those that hate the Nolan Batman films, so anything is possible.
Hey - lets all have the same opinion as you FFS - obviously that would be a better world - narrow minded much.
I know I would have zero interest in it, but I think there are a few fans out there. I mean, obliviously there are people with bad taste in media, such as those that hate the Nolan Batman films, so anything is possible.
My fanhood. Tis wounded
I loved Beyond, maybe more than was really warranted (Justice League kind of mucked it up with that contrived "btw Terry your a Bruce Wayne clone via contrived scheme" moment) but I really liked that series XD
Not sure getting bent out of shape because others express an opinion different than yours is the best time to get all riled up because their opinion doesn't line up with yours. I feel like there must be a word for when someone does what they are mad at others for doing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I loved Beyond, maybe more than was really warranted (Justice League kind of mucked it up with that contrived "btw Terry your a Bruce Wayne clone via contrived scheme" moment) but I really liked that series XD
I know a lot of people (I was tempted to spell it alot just for the attention) that really like it, but it never clicked with me. Still, lets be honest. If they released a Batman Beyond film I would go see it because Batman.
I know a lot of people (I was tempted to spell it alot just for the attention) that really like it, but it never clicked with me. Still, lets be honest. If they released a Batman Beyond film I would go see it because Batman.
While I think it could make a good film (and a cool change of pace from the normal batty flare) my fear would be that Terry would be cast as "annoying punk kid" and that he'd never be fleshed out on screen which would just make him annoying. And that they'd fail to accurately portray a version of Bruce so worn down and beat from his endless crusade that he's basically given up without him looked wangsty.
Speaking of the word Beyond, am I the only one who can totally get behind a Batman Beyond film?
I know I would have zero interest in it, but I think there are a few fans out there. I mean, obliviously there are people with bad taste in media, such as those that hate the Nolan Batman films, so anything is possible.
Hey - lets all have the same opinion as you FFS - obviously that would be a better world - narrow minded much.
We get it...Nolan's version of Batman slept with your mommy. Guess you either be angsty or you can call him daddy now.
Mr Morden wrote:Hated the Nolen films with a vengeance - looking forward to seeing if this one works for me - not seen anyhting yet match the first Michael Keaton film.
Man of Steel was ok but not a patch on the Marvel films like Avengers, Cap A 2 or Thor 2..... if they actually can match that level of quality DC will be redemed for me.
What about the second Michael Keaton film ?
Also, man did I ever hate man of steel. Who the feth thinks it's cool to repeatedly break the sound barrier while accelerating? What does that even mean? Are there secret sound barriers that only aliens can break?
Mr Morden wrote:
-Shrike- wrote: What exactly did you hate about the Nolan films? Just curious, you're the second person I've ever met who's told me they hated them.
Length of the films - usually about an hour more than needed
plot - lack of it - either set peices or all about the Mary Sue Joker who can predict every single thing anyone is ever going to do.
Dull overused plots like - lets learn to be a super ninja in 6 weeks AND be better than any other ninja
Lack of humour in the film in general
Lack of anyone to actually give a damn about
Lack of any "heart"
Otherwise they were fine The first film has some good elements - the Scarecrow was good, Michael Caine is good, the second is just dire, did not bother with third - where apparently Nolan gave up any sembalance of a coherent plot.
I also hated Inception................kind of a theme and for much the same reasons
I cared about Gordon. Buy yeah, they weren't very good. I was able to forgive the joker plot for the good performance, and yeah, Scarecrow was well done-again, mostly due to the performance. Can't agree on michael caine: he mostly sounded bored in the second movie, waiting for his pay check.
And yeah, Inception was pretty terrible, and directly ripping off some fairly famous stuff (but dumber), like Paprika. They managed to take a story about something composed of imagination and illogic, and make it about rules and conventional fights.
Mr Morden wrote: plot - lack of it - either set peices or all about the Mary Sue Joker who can predict every single thing anyone is ever going to do.
Misuse of Mary Sue and obviously Dark knight we be a much better film if we had a non-powerful and non-intelligent villain that would feth over the dramatic tension in the film, that's what makes for good movie watching entertainment.
Dull overused plots like - lets learn to be a super ninja in 6 weeks AND be better than any other ninja
You completely missed the point it wasn't about being better than the ninjas Bruce Wayne didn't believe in killing others or the destruction of Gotham so he destroyed the ninja place out of moral disagreement and later becomes "Batman" in hopes of improving Gotham.
Lack of humour in the film in general
Not all superhero movies have to be comedic.
Lack of anyone to actually give a damn about
I felt bad for Harvey Dent, Rachel, the citizens, I was impressed by the Heath Ledger's performance as "the Joker", thought that Alfred and Lucius made good "sage" characters, etc but whatever I can't force you to like the characters.
Lack of any "heart"
This is such a vague term I don't even know what you're trying to say.
So the Joker was not completely infallible and could predict every possible combination of actions like some kind of supercomputer but was also supposed to be an anarchist – which he wasn’t. Heath Ledger played him well with what he was given but that wasn’t much.
No you missed my point – the ninjas stupid plot was stupid and the fact remains that Bruce travelled to Tibet (where all the ninjas are for some more stupid reason) and in a Team America Montage proves the best of the best of the best who none could stand against – such a mighty westerner he was and so weak were they.
They then, being silly Ninjas ignored him for years and continued with their bizarre lets randomly burn a city now and then and “change the world” in due course.
Not all superhero movies need to have a decent plot but they are better with them – same with humour, hence why Avengers and most other Marvel films are so much better than Batman ones in all possible respects.
The “characters” you list, for me, were so dimly sketched that they did not really exist except to be killed in an desperate attempt to try and have some emotional impact or “heart”.
Apart from Batmans sorta girlfriend – although there was zero chemistry there -What citizens of Gotham did the Joker kill – he offed some gangsters and blew up an empty hospital but very few others. Jack N Joker was much more scary – he killed an entire museum full of people just on a whim to see Vicki Vale.
I get that you all love and worship Nolan and whish you luck with it – I was asked why I did not like the films and said so…………
thanks for the contempt expressed about expressing an opinion but you are all obviously much better people than I so I won't trouble you in this thread any longer. Enjoy yourselves
Best be careful Cadaver - you are expressing Heresy by daring to critise the blessed Nolan - but yes I agree with all you said and oh I totally agree that Batman Returns was not good at all - Michelle Pfeiffer yes but terrible mixed up plot...........
Mr Morden isn't actually alone in this, I frequent a lot of comic fan sites and it is an opinion I see again and again.
A lot of comic fans think he did an awful job, totally missed Joker's character and made a sub par Gotham which is embarrassing to watch.
This Batman looks better, as in overall look... but with Nolan at the helm I am not that optimistic. Man of Steel was terrible... the destruction to Metropolis alone beggars belief, he is literally the worst version of Supes I've seen so far on screen and that's made all the worse because I had a fair bit of hope from the trailer when it was released the year before that he was going to be the best.
As Someone noted on Facebook a while back, Nolan is so obsessed on the gritty, he has forgotten to make the movies fun to watch.
Mr Morden wrote: So the Joker was not completely infallible and could predict every possible combination of actions like some kind of supercomputer but was also supposed to be an anarchist – which he wasn’t. Heath Ledger played him well with what he was given but that wasn’t much.
\
I never got the sense that the Joker could predict every possible combination of actions. Seems like he often had to improvise in the movie.
No you missed my point – the ninjas stupid plot was stupid and the fact remains that Bruce travelled to Tibet (where all the ninjas are for some more stupid reason)
He traveled all over the world, for many years, in many weird places.
and in a Team America Montage proves the best of the best of the best who none could stand against – such a mighty westerner he was and so weak were they.
He had been fighting for quite a while. It doesn't seem like he learned to fight in that montage, he simply got better with his technique. He didn't fight them as much as burn their place dowm.
They then, being silly Ninjas ignored him for years and continued with their bizarre lets randomly burn a city now and then and “change the world” in due course.
Their plan was to change the world, not to kill him. It would be dumber for them to ignore the history of everything they have done for the entire time that they existed to kill a single man. Bruce Wayne was no threat to them.
Not all superhero movies need to have a decent plot but they are better with them – same with humour, hence why Avengers and most other Marvel films are so much better than Batman ones in all possible respects.
No argument there, although I think the Batman movies were okay without humor. Batman was never a "funny" superhero in my opinion.
Apart from Batmans sorta girlfriend – although there was zero chemistry there -What citizens of Gotham did the Joker kill – he offed some gangsters and blew up an empty hospital but very few others.
Well: every person helping him rob the bank, bank manager, then some mobsters of course, fake Batman, more mobsters, a judge, the police commisioner, two more people that had a name similar to Harvey Dent, lots of cops during the chase scene, belly-phone g uy, burned Lau on top of a giant pile of money, and was in the process of blowing up two ships when he was stopped.
I get that you don't like it, but the reasons are just...weird.
Man of Steel was ok but not a patch on the Marvel films like Avengers, Cap A 2 or Thor 2..... if they actually can match that level of quality DC will be redemed for me.
I`ve only seen it once but while I agree MoS was not up to TDW or Avengers level, I would put it alongside Cap 1, Thor, and maybe not IM 1 but certainly better than 2 and 3. Yes, there is some silliness, but these are comic-book characters where realism has to give way to coolness or the whole point is lost.
Batman is supposed to be dark, not humorous. Yes, we got humor with Adam West, but it was a campy romp through Gotham. Typically, outside of that universe (including B:tBatB), Batman is grim with little humor. Humor on the good side comes from Nightwing, Drake (not much, really), and Jason Todd. None of which were in this movie. You got humor with Joker cross dressing. And if he could calculate every event, how come his plan with the boats failed? Because he can't predict everything. He has plots all over the place it's true, but they can fail, and they did. He was outsmarted with Gordon's death, outsmarted at the boats...yeah. We get you dislike Nolan's Batman. Not everyone likes the same things, but you came to the movie expecting something that shouldn't be in it (humor) and missed the kill count and labeled the villain incorrectly. Of course you'd be disappointed.
timetowaste85 wrote: Batman is supposed to be dark, not humorous. Yes, we got humor with Adam West, but it was a campy romp through Gotham. Typically, outside of that universe (including B:tBatB), Batman is grim with little humor. Humor on the good side comes from Nightwing, Drake (not much, really), and Jason Todd. None of which were in this movie. You got humor with Joker cross dressing. And if he could calculate every event, how come his plan with the boats failed? Because he can't predict everything. He has plots all over the place it's true, but they can fail, and they did. He was outsmarted with Gordon's death, outsmarted at the boats...yeah. We get you dislike Nolan's Batman. Not everyone likes the same things, but you came to the movie expecting something that shouldn't be in it (humor) and missed the kill count and labeled the villain incorrectly. Of course you'd be disappointed.
Ok I'll bite
Batman when Tim Burton did it splendidly and evocatively with actual characters was both dark and humorous - in fact on order to be really dark, in my opinion, you need to counterpoint the darkness with light to show how dark it is - if you see what I mean. Tim Burton managed it but its (once again) beyond Nolan.
Simply being dark and grim on its own is just, well dull. However, the disappearing pen was funny.....
The Jokers massively convoluted plots made 24 look simple and realistic by comparison and only fail at the very last moment.
Death count - as I said - almost everyone the Joker kills are gangsters or mobsters - wow soo scary - he just about manages to kill some cops and in another super infallible plan, batman's sorta girlfriend - seriously did anyone see any chemistry there. He does blow up a empty hospital.
Compare this to the deaths caused by the Joker in Burtons film - thousands - mostly on a whim - as the Joker should be.
I went hoping to be entertained in the same vein as Burtons first "dark" film (not the 2nd one which was not great) - instead I found the first massively overlong film with a poor plot and the 2nd was truly awful and waste of my time - time I did not spend on the third...............
Man, thanks for those animated Batman series links...the clips are amazing. The love tunnel clip is just shy of 4 minutes, but it feels so..."heavy" and "dark". The music goes right along with it. Amazing. Thanks, going to watch some of it with my waifu
Is the entire series just called "The Dark Knight returns"?
The only thing that has stood the test of time in the Burton Batman films is Michelle Pfeiffer in that Catwoman outfit.
I wasn't as much of a fan of "The Dark Knight Rises", but the first two were cracking films. Shaky plot really let the 3rd one down. Bane's voice made it legendary though.
timetowaste85 wrote: Batman is supposed to be dark, not humorous. Yes, we got humor with Adam West, but it was a campy romp through Gotham.
A much better example would be Burton's Batman and Batman Returns, which I enjoy more than Nolan's trilogy. Michael Keaton's Batman actually seems to enjoy what he's doing, and clearly is having some fun with the villains at certain points. It managed to be both dark and twisted without losing a sense of wonder. More importantly, Burton wasn't embarrassed to be working on a superhero film. Nolan turned Batman into a hi-tech crime drama in which a few of the characters begrudgingly wear costumes. Burton wasn't afraid to have fun with the animal motifs of the hero and villains in Batman Returns, or to have a crime carnival, or straight up gags like the henchman who jumps into the fight in the bell tower only to crash through the floor boards and plummet to his death. And as great as Ledger's anarchist Joker character is, that's not really the Joker. Jack Nicholson's Joker is the Joker from the comics, complete with acid-squirting lapel flower and killer joy-buzzers -- and he totally makes that work. Nolan strips everything but the greasepaint from the Clown Prince of Crime to create his ideological terrorist.
Don't get me wrong, Nolan's trilogy is really great in a lot of ways, As an over-the-top hi-tech crime drama it totally works, and from a purely technical standpoint they're really quite amazing. But as superhero movies go? A lot of its was disappointing. I felt the entire third act of Dark Knight, which is by far the best of the three, was weak because Two-Face was unrealistically realistic -- the movie grounded itself so much in reality that I spend the whole third act thinking "Dent would either be screaming in agony or so high on painkillers he'd be incoherent in this scene." And while it's clear that Bruce Wayne is the protagonist, I don't get the sense he's the hero of the films. He's just not likable, and while is motivations feel more grounded in real psychology, they also make him kind of unpleasant. It's not a good sign that I find myself rooting for the Joker every time I watch that movie.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: made all the worse because I had a fair bit of hope from the trailer when it was released the year before that he was going to be the best.
I just felt my heart sink and eyes puff up. I forgot about that gorgeous first trailer. That movie looked like it was going to kick ass, and be something completely new (at least within the genre). Such hope.... such squandered potential.
Moral of the story: watch trailers for Zack Snyder movies instead of the movies- they're better, and you won't have wasted 2 hours being confused and angered.
Batman actually seems to enjoy what he's doing, and clearly is having some fun
Spoiler:
Men so obsessed with their parents death that they devote their entire life to seeking out and punishing crime rarely have fun doing it. He isn't really a 'fun' character, nor should he be, unless we are going full camp like the (awful) TV show. Of the Burton films I liked Batman Returns better than Batman.
timetowaste85 wrote: Batman is supposed to be dark, not humorous. Yes, we got humor with Adam West, but it was a campy romp through Gotham.
A much better example would be Burton's Batman and Batman Returns, which I enjoy more than Nolan's trilogy. Michael Keaton's Batman actually seems to enjoy what he's doing, and clearly is having some fun with the villains at certain points. It managed to be both dark and twisted without losing a sense of wonder. More importantly, Burton wasn't embarrassed to be working on a superhero film. Nolan turned Batman into a hi-tech crime drama in which a few of the characters begrudgingly wear costumes. Burton wasn't afraid to have fun with the animal motifs of the hero and villains in Batman Returns, or to have a crime carnival, or straight up gags like the henchman who jumps into the fight in the bell tower only to crash through the floor boards and plummet to his death. And as great as Ledger's anarchist Joker character is, that's not really the Joker. Jack Nicholson's Joker is the Joker from the comics, complete with acid-squirting lapel flower and killer joy-buzzers -- and he totally makes that work. Nolan strips everything but the greasepaint from the Clown Prince of Crime to create his ideological terrorist.
I have a hard time understanding how you can claim that considering how different the Joker's been at different times in the character's history. Grant Morrison even wrote this into his rendition of the character (describing him as having a kind of supersanity) to explain how he's been a silly bankrobbing clown at times and a murdering psychopath at others.
The issue with the DC characters seems to be that people get attached to *certain versions* of characters. This is probably more of a DC phenomenon because their characters are mostly older, and so have been through many changes and a few universe reboots in their histories.
Batman is probably the most conceptually malleable superhero ever. As Kevin Smith and Grant Morrison riffed once, you could probably find a way to make disco Batman work. Superman isn't quite as malleable, but the Golden Age, Silver Age, pre-Crisis, post-Crisis, and New 52 versions all have their differences. He's killed at times. He killed Zod a couple decades ago. He killed plenty of people in the early Golden Age years, tossing them in ways they couldn't possibly have survived. And he has a slightly different vibe in the New 52, thinking in a recent book "I'm not a boy scout, I'm here to protect."
Hell, he and Wonder Woman recently turned a nuclear reactor into a fission bomb in order to shut a Phantom Zone portal, without any regard for what that'd do to the surrounding countryside, any bystanders, etc. "But Superman would never have done that!" Well, he just did.
Personally, I think Nolan's trilogy and MoS have at least been *thoughtful* approaches to the characters. In comparison, I think basically all the Marvel films have been formulaic brain candy, with some more entertaining than others. Avengers was highly entertaining the first time I saw it, but hasn't held up for me as well after repeat viewings. Iron Man was very entertaining, but highly formulaic. I really liked Cap 2, but it wasn't as complex of a political thriller as promised, nor was it a particularly thoughtful film IMO.
There's nothing wrong with brain candy. It really hits the spot at times. But I fundamentally disagree with anyone who says Nolan and Snyder got those characters "wrong," or that their efforts were bad filmmaking. If their Batman and Superman simply weren't the version of the character that you prefer, fine. I can understand and respect that viewpoint.
Batman actually seems to enjoy what he's doing, and clearly is having some fun
Spoiler:
Men so obsessed with their parents death that they devote their entire life to seeking out and punishing crime rarely have fun doing it. He isn't really a 'fun' character, nor should he be, unless we are going full camp like the (awful) TV show. Of the Burton films I liked Batman Returns better than Batman.
Which tv show? if you mean the Adam West one then I can't comment, as I haven't seen it, but if you mean The Brave And The Bold cartoon then I don't know how anyone could describe it as awful
Sigvatr wrote: Man, thanks for those animated Batman series links...the clips are amazing. The love tunnel clip is just shy of 4 minutes, but it feels so..."heavy" and "dark". The music goes right along with it. Amazing. Thanks, going to watch some of it with my waifu
Is the entire series just called "The Dark Knight returns"?
I kind of like how batman doesn't Please don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n around anymore in this. Seems to sort of let his anger get to him. Perhaps he is about to go dark side.
The kid joker takes hostage is pretty ballsy. Holy crap.
I dunno why the cop didn't just shoot. Seriously after all the people he's killed just shoot him.
I'm wondering if I should get this movie for my comic book friend's birthday. He's a massive batman fan and considers himself one of the only ones to have managed to debate batman winning in a fight vs superman. To my knowledge there's a video clip from this movie showing just that too and he wins in pretty much the way my friend mentioned. Something tells me my friend would squee like a little fangirl even though he's a guy.
Even outside of the.. less serious continuities, Batman has been known to make a snarky joke occasionally.
Which scares the ever living gak out of both enemy and allied alike. Why?
Because The Goddamn Batman just made a funny.
And, of course, we can't forget Batman's favourite joke...
"See, there were these two guys in a lunatic asylum...and one night, one night they decide they don't like living in an asylum any more. They decide they're going to escape. So, like, they get up onto the roof, and there, just across this narrow gap, they see the rooftops of the town, stretching away in the moonlight...stretching away to freedom.
Now, the first guy, he jumps right across with no problem. But his friend, his friend daren't make the leap. Y'see...y'see, he's afraid of falling. So the first guy gets an idea. He says, "Hey! I have my flashlight with me! I'll shine it across the gap between the buildings. You can walk along the beam and join me!"
B-but the second guy just shakes his head. He suh-says...he says "What do you think I am? Crazy?"
"You'd turn it off when I was half way across!"
Goliath wrote: Which tv show? if you mean the Adam West one then I can't comment, as I haven't seen it, but if you mean The Brave And The Bold cartoon then I don't know how anyone could describe it as awful
Adam West. I never was a big fan of camp, though I still watched it as a kid because, again, Batman. I also mainly watched the Electric Company because sometimes they did Spider-Man shorts.
Personally, I think Nolan's trilogy and MoS have at least been *thoughtful* approaches to the characters. In comparison, I think basically all the Marvel films have been formulaic brain candy, with some more entertaining than others. Avengers was highly entertaining the first time I saw it, but hasn't held up for me as well after repeat viewings. Iron Man was very entertaining, but highly formulaic. I really liked Cap 2, but it wasn't as complex of a political thriller as promised, nor was it a particularly thoughtful film IMO.
I disagree and fail to see where this thoughtful and intelligent look at things comes in - there is nothing new in his Batman - at least the Burton version seemed broken and damaged by his parents death - something he had obviously never recovered from which made the Batman persona more reasonable. There is so little emotional depth in the depiction of the Nolan Batman and pretty much every other character in the films. The only person he seems at all interested in is the Joker and he's a infallible (right up to the last act) super terrorist with apparently precog powers......
The second film in particular seems to lurch from set piece to another - whereas the better Marvel films moth smoothly and coherently through the plot. Also compare the wonderful final fight scene from Thor 2 with the frankly increasingly dull one from man of Steel.
The whole Krypton background seemed a complete mess - everyone is born to fulfil specific roles - apart from Sups dad who is a reclusive scientist noble ninja (what?) with a pet Dragon who lives in a castle................not exactly well thought out or especially intelligent.
The varied Marvel directors seem to understand that you can mix fun with dark elements to produce a superior film, I just don't see this in any Nolan film I have watched.
Mr Morden wrote: The varied Marvel directors seem to understand that you can mix fun with dark elements to produce a superior film, I just don't see this in any Nolan film I have watched.
I have to admit. I was surprised at how well Thor 2 blended the dark and the comedic.
gorgon wrote: There's nothing wrong with brain candy. It really hits the spot at times. But I fundamentally disagree with anyone who says Nolan and Snyder got those characters "wrong," or that their efforts were bad filmmaking. If their Batman and Superman simply weren't the version of the character that you prefer, fine. I can understand and respect that viewpoint.
Like I said, I enjoyed the Nolan films (except for Two-Face, which I just found completely implausible) but they just don't feel like super-hero movies to me. I'd compare The Dark Knight to Heat before I'd compare it to Avengers. I didn't like Man of Steel at all. I found it turgid and boring, the ending was a series of ridiculously contrived coincidences to keep the supporting cast relevant, Amy Adams was completely lifeless, and the whole thing smacked of Snyder's heavy handedness and utter lack of nuance. He's really a horrible director and Hollywood needs to stop giving him projects.
I couldn't disagree with you more about the Marvel movies, but a lot of people confuse cynicism for seriousness and optimism for immaturity.
gorgon wrote: But I fundamentally disagree with anyone who says Nolan and Snyder got those characters "wrong," or that their efforts were bad filmmaking. If their Batman and Superman simply weren't the version of the character that you prefer, fine. I can understand and respect that viewpoint.
The batman series had decent characters (I liked the joker and scarecrow, thought the rest were bland or bad) and generally okay-to-good performances (though christian bale kinda' stank up the place IMHO), but the plots were so abysmal that it detracted from the rest. I'm fine with people who liked or didn't like the characters, but the story was just bad storytelling (particularly the third one). I'm surprised you're critical of the avengers for underlying problems when the batman series suffered from the same problem of being superficially coherent but being pretty nonsensical on closer inspection.
Man of Steel... I don't even particularly like superman, but that was an atrocity. The only movies I can think of that so fundamentally missed the point of characters or a story were Beowulf and (maybe not coincidentally) Watchmen. I could make a movie called "the awesome spider-man" which featured a guy who got bitten by a radioactive spider and ran around new york in red and blue spandex biting criminals and liquifying their internal organs for nourishment because his uncle told him that "with great power comes great responsibility", which he interpreted as killing people who preyed on innocents... but that wouldn't make it my interpretation of spider man: it would be a movie that took a premise someone else created, and made something completely different out of it. Like Abraham Lincoln, Vampire hunter (which I've only seen trailers for)- it's not a different interpretation or version than the one with daniel day lewis: it's something that nominally and superficially similar.
There's batman as camp, dark, moody, gothic, tongue-in-cheek, etc. They're still fundamentally batman. Man of Steel is not analogous... pretty sure outside of that I've only ever seen super-man kill people in alternate realities, where it turns out he's evil superman.
Slarg232 wrote: Might make me weird, but I kind of enjoyed Man of Steel. I found it to be rather entertaining, if not up to the level of the Marvel movies.
The only part I didn't like was the Zod neck snap at the end...
After all that fighting why didn't Superman just throw him into the air or punch him on the side of the head. The destruction levels were ridiculous too.
Medium of Death wrote: After all that fighting why didn't Superman just throw him into the air or punch him on the side of the head.
That is what had been happening the whole time. Forgoing that, this isn't the Superman from All-Star Superman at the apex of his abilty and knowledge, this is a newbie who hadn't been Superman for even 24 hours.
Well I have to imagine a World Engine would cause a lot of damage. I also think that two god-like beings fighting would cause a lot of damage as well, especially when one gives zero feths about the planet or its inhabitants.
Personally, I think Nolan's trilogy and MoS have at least been *thoughtful* approaches to the characters. In comparison, I think basically all the Marvel films have been formulaic brain candy, with some more entertaining than others. Avengers was highly entertaining the first time I saw it, but hasn't held up for me as well after repeat viewings. Iron Man was very entertaining, but highly formulaic. I really liked Cap 2, but it wasn't as complex of a political thriller as promised, nor was it a particularly thoughtful film IMO.
I disagree and fail to see where this thoughtful and intelligent look at things comes in - there is nothing new in his Batman - at least the Burton version seemed broken and damaged by his parents death - something he had obviously never recovered from which made the Batman persona more reasonable. There is so little emotional depth in the depiction of the Nolan Batman and pretty much every other character in the films. The only person he seems at all interested in is the Joker and he's a infallible (right up to the last act) super terrorist with apparently precog powers......
Nolan's Bruce Wayne is a rage tank, there's no doubt about that. It's really just a narrow slice of what that character's been in the comics. If someone doesn't like that, I get it.
However, there were *definitely* a number of larger themes going on in those movies -- especially in TDK -- that had a lot to do with the events of that decade. They've been discussed ad nauseum. Cap 2 tried to play in the same sandbox, but it was two-dimensional in comparison, never really asking deeper questions or suggesting answers.
I completely understand why someone might not like raging counterterrorism Batman who drives an APC. But there are reasons why TDK was talked about as having an outside chance at an Oscar nomination, while the Thor movies definitely weren't.
gorgon wrote: There's nothing wrong with brain candy. It really hits the spot at times. But I fundamentally disagree with anyone who says Nolan and Snyder got those characters "wrong," or that their efforts were bad filmmaking. If their Batman and Superman simply weren't the version of the character that you prefer, fine. I can understand and respect that viewpoint.
Like I said, I enjoyed the Nolan films (except for Two-Face, which I just found completely implausible) but they just don't feel like super-hero movies to me. I'd compare The Dark Knight to Heat before I'd compare it to Avengers. I didn't like Man of Steel at all. I found it turgid and boring, the ending was a series of ridiculously contrived coincidences to keep the supporting cast relevant, Amy Adams was completely lifeless, and the whole thing smacked of Snyder's heavy handedness and utter lack of nuance. He's really a horrible director and Hollywood needs to stop giving him projects.
Nah, there's some good direction in Man of Steel, but then a lot of people are so blinded by hate for the guy they watch his movies through a red haze.
I couldn't disagree with you more about the Marvel movies, but a lot of people confuse cynicism for seriousness and optimism for immaturity.
Nope, not a bit of confusion over here. I know dumb fun when I see it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
spiralingcadaver wrote: The batman series had decent characters (I liked the joker and scarecrow, thought the rest were bland or bad) and generally okay-to-good performances (though christian bale kinda' stank up the place IMHO), but the plots were so abysmal that it detracted from the rest. I'm fine with people who liked or didn't like the characters, but the story was just bad storytelling (particularly the third one). I'm surprised you're critical of the avengers for underlying problems when the batman series suffered from the same problem of being superficially coherent but being pretty nonsensical on closer inspection.
I don't know really know what you mean by that.
And I don't think Avengers and, say, The Dark Knight are remotely comparable. The Avengers isn't *about* anything, it's a smash-up. It's fun. Whedon did a great job just getting the characters to work onscreen together. But there's nothing TO it. There's a lot more going on with TDK.
Man of Steel... I don't even particularly like superman, but that was an atrocity. The only movies I can think of that so fundamentally missed the point of characters or a story were Beowulf and (maybe not coincidentally) Watchmen. I could make a movie called "the awesome spider-man" which featured a guy who got bitten by a radioactive spider and ran around new york in red and blue spandex biting criminals and liquifying their internal organs for nourishment because his uncle told him that "with great power comes great responsibility", which he interpreted as killing people who preyed on innocents... but that wouldn't make it my interpretation of spider man: it would be a movie that took a premise someone else created, and made something completely different out of it. Like Abraham Lincoln, Vampire hunter (which I've only seen trailers for)- it's not a different interpretation or version than the one with daniel day lewis: it's something that nominally and superficially similar.
There's batman as camp, dark, moody, gothic, tongue-in-cheek, etc. They're still fundamentally batman. Man of Steel is not analogous... pretty sure outside of that I've only ever seen super-man kill people in alternate realities, where it turns out he's evil superman.
Your analogy is completely overblown. Again, the problem is that YOU have a certain idea about the character, based on what you're admitting is incomplete knowledge of the character's "fundamental" nature. He's killed before. He's done reckless things. He's killed Zod, regretted it, and grown from it.
MoS touched on MANY important and traditional themes for the character, and borrowed lots of little details from this or that version that even a lot of "fans" never realized. His unique birth? That was inspired by something from the comics...and probably another obvious source also. The wrecked moon in Krypton's sky is in that condition for a reason. Those combat moves that Jor-El had? I'm pretty sure that I know what that was supposed to be also.
And sure, they changed some things (Lois knowing his identity from the beginning), and wrote that shocking scene in the station. But that scene served a purpose, and made a point. If that was a Silver or Bronze Age Superman story, he might have used his super-breath to create a reflective ice mirror to deflect Zod's heat vision, then built a Phantom Zone projector at superspeed from a bunch of junk and spare parts in the station. Which is to say that Superman stories are traditionally full of bad writing. He'd get in a bad spot, and he'd use his super-powers -- sometimes in ridiculous fashion -- to escape it. Issue after issue, while Batman was making tougher calls in his book and using his brain. Hell, look at the '78 film. Disaster strikes, so he breaks the time barrier so that NOTHING BAD HAPPENS. All gone. Anytime he wants. This is good writing?
Now, you may like a Superman who doesn't kill, and would prefer a straight-up Silver or Bronze Age Superman story. That's fine and a legit opinion. But Goyer and Snyder didn't piss all over the concept of Superman the way you think.
gorgon wrote: Nah, there's some good direction in Man of Steel, but then a lot of people are so blinded by hate for the guy they watch his movies through a red haze. ...I know dumb fun when I see it.
You also know how to be extremely rude and argumentative. Allow me to disagree: People who like Zach Snyder will mindlessly defend his bowel movements, and anyone who doesn't love Marvel films is a joyless, soulless automaton incapable of appreciating life. You see what I did there? I implied that anyone who disagrees with me does so for irrational, emotional reasons, and that people who like things I don't are simple-minded.
One wonders why one would even bother to have conversations when everyone who doesn't agree with you is so dumb...
Snyder hasn't done anything to make me happy. I went into watchmen, excited as all hell. I hated it. I saw the trailers for Superman, extremely excited. Hated it the first go round, found it acceptable on the second viewing. He hasn't instilled me with confidence. Do I have to watch all his movies to find out my dislike is appropriate? If the answer is "yes", then the person who says yes is an idiot. I've seen his comic renditions, and they've been bad. On the first viewings, they were terrible, but MoS moved up to acceptable, so it averages out to "bad". That said, he has impressed me with the image of Batman. We'll see if my level of impressed stays after we start seeing trailers. Personally, I think Kevin Smith would bitchslap Affleck if he screwed up Batman, so maybe there's a chance.
I'm going to be the odd man out. I've liked every one of Snyders movies I've watched exept for Beowulf.
300 was an awesome male power fantasy. Bonus points for having so many half naked sweaty guys that your significant other will watch it with you. I saw Watchmen before reading the comic, but I liked its alternate take on the storyline. Jackie Earle Haley stole that movie. I'm one of those people that feels the need to talk about how much I hate Superman, but I loved Man of Steel. Michael Shannon as Zod was great. I even liked Sucker Punch.
But I'm aware I have terrible taste in movies. I mean, I also like Michael Bays movies.
I was annoyed they weren't carrying over Joseph Gordon Levitt as Batman/Nightwing and tie in the Nolan films, but I'll give Affleck a chance as Batman. I'll sure as hell give Snyder another go with Superman.
gorgon wrote: Nah, there's some good direction in Man of Steel, but then a lot of people are so blinded by hate for the guy they watch his movies through a red haze. ...I know dumb fun when I see it.
You also know how to be extremely rude and argumentative. Allow me to disagree: People who like Zach Snyder will mindlessly defend his bowel movements, and anyone who doesn't love Marvel films is a joyless, soulless automaton incapable of appreciating life. You see what I did there? I implied that anyone who disagrees with me does so for irrational, emotional reasons, and that people who like things I don't are simple-minded.
One wonders why one would even bother to have conversations when everyone who doesn't agree with you is so dumb...
I thought 300 was fine and funny, if nothing special; was pissed off how watchmen came out; was ready to give snyder a chance to redeem watchmen after seeing a spectacular trailer for man of steel- was vaguely optimistic and completely let down.
thanks, friendlycommissar, for the counteragrument.
Loki, Beowulf wasn't Snyder.
also, think I'm done here. rather leave on an informative note, then be dragged back into a debate over something I think has no merit.
gorgon wrote: Nah, there's some good direction in Man of Steel, but then a lot of people are so blinded by hate for the guy they watch his movies through a red haze. ...I know dumb fun when I see it.
You also know how to be extremely rude and argumentative. Allow me to disagree: People who like Zach Snyder will mindlessly defend his bowel movements, and anyone who doesn't love Marvel films is a joyless, soulless automaton incapable of appreciating life. You see what I did there? I implied that anyone who disagrees with me does so for irrational, emotional reasons, and that people who like things I don't are simple-minded.
One wonders why one would even bother to have conversations when everyone who doesn't agree with you is so dumb...
And some people are so blinded by love that anything and everything Nolan does is beyond perfect and can accept or understand no criticism
Agreed - apparently we are just not "clever or deep" enough to appreciate Nolans god like skill - see that's pretty standard - anyone who dares speak against the "great Mans work" is simply not clever enough to understand it - oh I understood it - despite the prostrations there is little actual depth to the film or the characterisation whereas Marvel "brain candy" is actually much better thought and plotted far more tightly. The only reason TDK returns had an Oscar chance was the death of one the actors.
I loved 300 - as a story the Spartans would tell to inspire themselves and cower others - the 2nd film is beautiful - historically it gets virtually nothing right - especially Artemisia - but Eva Green does make a deliciously evil queen.
gorgon wrote: Nah, there's some good direction in Man of Steel, but then a lot of people are so blinded by hate for the guy they watch his movies through a red haze. ...I know dumb fun when I see it.
You also know how to be extremely rude and argumentative. Allow me to disagree: People who like Zach Snyder will mindlessly defend his bowel movements, and anyone who doesn't love Marvel films is a joyless, soulless automaton incapable of appreciating life. You see what I did there? I implied that anyone who disagrees with me does so for irrational, emotional reasons, and that people who like things I don't are simple-minded.
One wonders why one would even bother to have conversations when everyone who doesn't agree with you is so dumb...
And some people are so blinded by love that anything and everything Nolan does is beyond perfect and can accept or understand no criticism
Agreed - apparently we are just not "clever or deep" enough to appreciate Nolans god like skill - see that's pretty standard - anyone who dares speak against the "great Mans work" is simply not clever enough to understand it - oh I understood it - despite the prostrations there is little actual depth to the film or the characterisation whereas Marvel "brain candy" is actually much better thought and plotted far more tightly. The only reason TDK returns had an Oscar chance was the death of one the actors.
I loved 300 - as a story the Spartans would tell to inspire themselves and cower others - the 2nd film is beautiful - historically it gets virtually nothing right - especially Artemisia - but Eva Green does make a deliciously evil queen.
Just to add my thoughts in here, even though I love the Avengers, the plot is full of holes. I'm not going to claim TDK as faultless, that plot has flaws as well, but to claim that all of the Marvel films are plotted far more tightly than Nolan's trilogy is ludicrous.
Also, while people are ranting about the Superman portrayed in MoS, what are your thoughts on the portrayal of the Mandarin in IM3?
Also, while people are ranting about the Superman portrayed in MoS, what are your thoughts on the portrayal of the Mandarin in IM3?
Not sure - its an interesting one - I really enjoyed all of the Iron Man films - but am still in two minds about the Mandarin aspect, it was certainly interesting as I knew very little about the comic character except where he popped up in Xmen stuff I used to read.
they left hints and a mini episode, that amounted to... The Mandarin is rather annoyed that Killian was going round saying he's The Mandarin.
-Shrike- wrote: Also, while people are ranting about the Superman portrayed in MoS, what are your thoughts on the portrayal of the Mandarin in IM3?
Terrible on both uses of the character.
Trying to pull a switcheroo and use Killian as the Mandarin? Flat out terrible. He had none of the screen prescence that Ben Kingsley did, who stole the movie. Though I'm just not a fan of Guy Pearce, so I didn't enjoy him as a villain at all.
However, using a one shot to give a wink to fans saying 'he's totally still out there'? If you're going to pull something that big with such a huge character, at least stick with your descision. He's never going to feature in a film again (especially with the scuttlebutt about Tony Stark not getting any more solo movies), so it was an empty gesture to fans of the character who will never get to see the 'real' portrayal of the character.
Also, while people are ranting about the Superman portrayed in MoS, what are your thoughts on the portrayal of the Mandarin in IM3?
After getting pissed off about how he was an actor "playing a role" and essentially ruining the character on the surface.... I went back and thought about it. Personally, after more thought, I think that it was a brilliant ploy, ESPECIALLY given the Mandarin's character. The supernatural/alien tech aspect of him doesn't quite fit into the IM franchise (though it does better in the Avengers line), so I think that having the Mandarin be an "actor" opens him up to cause more havoc in follow on movies, because I think that Ben Kingsley being an actor playing the Mandarin is a perfect ploy to show the real genius of the Mandarin.
I find Nolan and Snyder to fall into the same category as Tarantino; you either enjoy the entire catalog or dislike almost all of it. There are of course exceptions, but I've found it to ring true. Not all directors are for everyone.
In terms of this film, I'll continue to look forward to it. I've haven't seen a superhero film I actively disliked since Green Lantern and Ghost Rider. I guess I take everything as an adaptation, and each has its own merits.
Then again, I'm likely younger than most here, having known Batman as grittier than Keaton ever was. I also think Jack doesn't compare favorably to Heath, though both interpretations fit the films they are in very well.
I don't really care for the West era, but I don't begrudge others for liking it, plus, you know Julie Newmar and Eartha Kitt. I like both the Keaton and Bale films as well, for varying reasons.
d-usa wrote: Batman is a dark, bitter, angry, tragic person. The only "fun" Batman has is when he wears the mask of Bruce Wayne, and most of that fun is fake.
d-usa gets it. I don't know what it is exactly, but this is Batman.
Depends on what the guns fire, it might just be rubber bullets of some other form of non lethal round.
Didn’t the Burton Batmobile and Batwing both have machine guns on them as well? Not that they actually killed anyone. I think the Batmobile guns where just used to perforate a straight line in the door to Axis chemicals and the Batwing guns completely failed to kill The Joker, not for lack of trying though.
Mind you seeing as in the Snyderverse Superman has already violated his own no killing rule, I suppose there is no reason that Batman shouldn’t abandon his principles as well.
And Ben is at least giving a halfway decent angry-batman face...
Please use orkmoticons when using sarcasm.
I immediately recognized Affleck in that picture. He is using that same slack jawed expression that has been his goto expression since Mall Rats.
It is a bad acting habit he picked up early and has never fixed. It was tolerable when he was a young novice but actors are supposed to get better over time.
In that shot, he looks like a bored actor waiting for the cue for his next line.
Ouze wrote:I reiterate my opinion that I think Ben Affleck might be a really good Batman, especially the tired, world-weary version. I am cautiously optimistic.
Optimism = Hope
Hope is the first step on the path of disappointment.
gunslingerpro wrote:
In terms of the Superman 'I will never kill thing', what's the alternative in this film? The banishment zone? Freezing him?
It was a plausible, human solution. No unneeded or over-done 'lock up' scene.
No, this was a case of having him kill just for the sake of having Superman kill. It was lazy writing in that it did not examine the most obvious solution.
"What is that solution?", you might ask.
Simple, Supermans hand is on Zods forehead for the neck snap. Now instead of snapping neck he just slides his hand down.
This forces eyelids closed= Zod hurts/blinds himself or at least shuts down heat vision.
Also, not like it will hurt Supermans hand from what we see earlier in the film.
This is a case of where he kills just because the writer/director wanted to crap all over the superman ideal.
We really do live in backward bizzaro times. This director an DC give us a Batman who won't let Joker fall ( opposite of original character concept) and a Superman that kills just because it is easier (Also exact opposite of Supermans origins)*.
*Note- I said Superman, not the original non-super powered Uberman that was abandoned for obvious political reasons.
In case you guys hadn't guessed yet, I "will not" be watching this movie.
Also will not be watching Gal Gadot ruin Wonder Woman nor will I support another Superman movie from this current team.
No, this was a case of having him kill just for the sake of having Superman kill. It was lazy writing in that it did not examine the most obvious solution.
"What is that solution?", you might ask.
Simple, Supermans hand is on Zods forehead for the neck snap. Now instead of snapping neck he just slides his hand down.
This forces eyelids closed= Zod hurts/blinds himself or at least shuts down heat vision.
Also, not like it will hurt Supermans hand from what we see earlier in the film.
This is a case of where he kills just because the writer/director wanted to crap all over the superman ideal.
We really do live in backward bizzaro times. This director an DC give us a Batman who won't let Joker fall ( opposite of original character concept) and a Superman that kills just because it is easier (Also exact opposite of Supermans origins)*.
There is almost nothing in this statement that is actually true. Well done.
LuciusAR wrote: I've warmed to Afleck over the years, I think that his acting has improved and he's proven himself to be a very capable director.
I am treading carefully with Ben Afflop's presence in the Batman vs Superman movie. His comic book hero potential has been tarnished by DareDevil (some of that flick was... ok-ish the rest was garbage)
IMHO Henry Cavill totally nails the Superman look- even has elements of Christopher Reeves in there.
Ugh. Meh? I gotta say I've not really felt any of the movies they've put out based on DC heroes. Man of Steel was kind of interesting stylistically, but it felt entirely devoid of substance. Engaging in the moment but ultimately unfulfilling and forgettable. With the exception of the Joker in the dark night and I guess bane's voice (and really only his voice), in rises the batman movies were a snooze fest for me in their best moments, eye-rolling stupid in their worst.
I'm still waiting to really like one of them. I mean I don't have anything against the characters & concepts they're using. I totally dug the DCAU both as a kid and the stuff that came out a bit later.
No, this was a case of having him kill just for the sake of having Superman kill. It was lazy writing in that it did not examine the most obvious solution.
"What is that solution?", you might ask.
Simple, Supermans hand is on Zods forehead for the neck snap. Now instead of snapping neck he just slides his hand down.
This forces eyelids closed= Zod hurts/blinds himself or at least shuts down heat vision.
Also, not like it will hurt Supermans hand from what we see earlier in the film.
This is a case of where he kills just because the writer/director wanted to crap all over the superman ideal.
We really do live in backward bizzaro times. This director an DC give us a Batman who won't let Joker fall ( opposite of original character concept) and a Superman that kills just because it is easier (Also exact opposite of Supermans origins)*.
There is almost nothing in this statement that is actually true. Well done.
Your casual and highly incorrect dismissal of my points leads me to wonder if you have actually seen the movie or more importantly ever read any of the old Superman back story.
Well done.
I suggest that you watch the lazily written man of steel (again?). Or you could try to point out the things in my post that you contend are not factual.
We really do live in backward bizzaro times. This director an DC give us a Batman who won't let Joker fall ( opposite of original character concept) and a Superman that kills just because it is easier (Also exact opposite of Supermans origins)*.
There is almost nothing in this statement that is actually true. Well done.
Well, he's not talking about the Golden Age Superman, because he killed people. And not the post-Crisis Superman, because he killed Zod. The New 52 Superman...probably not, just because he's a little more rough-and-tumble and whatever-it-takes. He more-or-less left someone to die in Superman Unchained.
He's talking about the Silver & Bronze Age Superman...the ORIGINAL and ONLY. Um.
Well, he's not talking about the Golden Age Superman, because he killed people. And not the post-Crisis Superman, because he killed Zod. The New 52 Superman...probably not, just because he's a little more rough-and-tumble and whatever-it-takes. He more-or-less left someone to die in Superman Unchained.
He's talking about the Silver & Bronze Age Superman...the ORIGINAL and ONLY. Um.
Ah, no. I love how people take one incident that happened in an alternate dimension as some form of proof that GA supes casually killed without remorse.
In Golden Age he only kills once and feels bad about the decision afterward. Yes, it was an execution killing rather than the heat of battle but it was clear from how it was written that this was an exception to the norm.
Now you might point to times where he threatened to kill or the time he let a criminal cause his own death while trying to kill supes. There was and is a difference between threats and actual killing.
Same could be said for the guy that used poison gas on superman while he himself had no gas mask. The story had it that the gas was so deadly that the villain was dead as soon as he broke the vial. So supes just standing there watching him die does not constitute a kill.
However, This is all horribly off-topic from the upcoming Batfleck turkey that this thread is about.
focusedfire wrote: In Golden Age he only kills once and feels bad about the decision afterward. Yes, it was an execution killing rather than the heat of battle but it was clear from how it was written that this was an exception to the norm.
You realize that is what happened in Man of Steel right? Only it wasn't an execution, it was in the heat of battle. How you can excuse one while pretending the other is radically different is baffling.
In Golden Age he only kills once and feels bad about the decision afterward. Yes, it was an execution killing rather than the heat of battle but it was clear from how it was written that this was an exception to the norm.
Err.. No.
Veritable swathes of Japanese soldiers, pilots, navy personnel , 5th columnists ( and to a lesser extent Italians and Nazis) were dealt with in lethal fashion.
This is a case of where he kills just because the writer/director wanted to crap all over the superman ideal.
I disagree entirely.
The point of the scene was that he did have no other option.
Zod was never going to stop, there's no prison that could hold him, the phantom zone is now inaccessible, if it's not those people stood there it'll be someone else later on.
He wasn't exactly overjoyed at having to do so, and they've said his actions will have repercussions to be followed up on in the sequel(s).
focusedfire wrote: In Golden Age he only kills once and feels bad about the decision afterward. Yes, it was an execution killing rather than the heat of battle but it was clear from how it was written that this was an exception to the norm.
You realize that is what happened in Man of Steel right? Only it wasn't an execution, it was in the heat of battle. How you can excuse one while pretending the other is radically different is baffling.
There are several key differences.
1)Happened in another dimension. And we all know the rule...."What happens in Bizzaro World stays in Bizzaro World. All joking aside, it has been a long accepted practice that what happens in an alternate dimension/reality is some how seperate from the base story. That the writers feel that they have the latitude to have the characters step out of their established norms.
2)It was an exception to the norm. They didn't start off with Supes just casually killing and then showing little to no remorse. This is even more notable when you consider his earliest uberman incarnation. That the writers over the years worked to distance supes from that concept.
In MoS he decides to kill when there are other options and this is a part of our(the audiences) introduction to this version. Having him kill and then show no regret was a clear statement that this superman has nothing in common with prior versions.
3) The emotional abuse that the Kevin Costner version of Jonathan Kent heaps on young Clark sets the stage for an emotionally unhealthy older Clark/supes.
Now this is probably done to set up the Batman vs Supes battle but it definitely breaks from prior incarnations.
Again, my basic point is that even in GA Supes killing was out of the norm. Man of Steel made a point of establishing this as a very normal thing for this version of Supes.
Look, we've clogged the thread up enough. Lets just leave this at s difference of perspective/point of view.
In Golden Age he only kills once and feels bad about the decision afterward. Yes, it was an execution killing rather than the heat of battle but it was clear from how it was written that this was an exception to the norm.
Err.. No.
Veritable swathes of Japanese soldiers, pilots, navy personnel , 5th columnists ( and to a lesser extent Italians and Nazis) were dealt with in lethal fashion.
This is a case of where he kills just because the writer/director wanted to crap all over the superman ideal.
I disagree entirely.
The point of the scene was that he did have no other option.
Zod was never going to stop, there's no prison that could hold him, the phantom zone is now inaccessible, if it's not those people stood there it'll be someone else later on.
He wasn't exactly overjoyed at having to do so, and they've said his actions will have repercussions to be followed up on in the sequel(s).
As to Supes killing the Nazis and "Japs". Don't think it was ever depicted. The planes destroyed always showed parachutes and as far as infantry and tanks went....I remember him opening up tanks and removing obstacles but that he left the actual killing to the GI's.
Could have missed something though. If you could point me to issues were supes kills that would be helpful. Just remember that implied deaths does not equal a depicted kill.
As to that end of fight scene in Man of Steel.....I feel that this is just setting this version of Supes up to play the baddie in Bats vs Supes.
As I said before, would rather not clog thread up more with this off-topic topic
He blows up tanks, trucks -- and a reasonable chunk of Tokyo too really -- and no one gets out.
In the radio plays he shows a similar lack of restraint , at one point he bombards a Japanese .. battalion..? .. force with rocks and then goes in and finishes them off, telling Jimmy " It was nothing more than they deserved."
I must admit the 'OMG Superman doesnt kill!' comments are a tad ott. With the best of intentions sometimes the lesser evil is to kill someone and in the case of that situation with Zod I don't see what choice old Supes had.
Perhaps if he'd killed him earlier even more humans might have been saved. It's one thing to go out of your way not to kill, but refusing to do it regrdless of circumstance is daft.
Besides the Christopher Reeve Superman killed Zod. Just becuase we didnt see him 'die' doest mean he didnt do it. Superman rendered him moral and then chucked him down a chasm. How exactly is he supposed to have survived that?
That can be excused because of Superman II's close adherence to the source material -- Kryptonian finger beams, expanding "S" entanglement gadgets, Super-Forgetful Kisses, etc.
So, the next Superman movie will feature Batman, Wonderwoman, Aquaman, and... oh yeah, Superman. So DC is making the Justice League movie and just calling it "Superman 2"? Is that the game? It's clear DC learned nothing from the pre-reboot Batman movies, where an excess number of super characters (heroes or villains) detracted from the film. Remember Batman? It was Batman and the Joker. It was a good movie. Remember Batman 2? It was Batman, Catwoman, and the Penguin (and Christopher Walken). It was a less-good movie. Remember Batman the Third? Batman, Robin, Two-Face, and The Riddler? Extra less-good movie. Remember Plan Batman From Outer Space? Batman, Robin, Batgirl, Bane, Poison Ivy, and Mister Freeze? Way much less-gooder movie.
I see no reason why the knee-jerk inclusion of the entire Justice League (with no thought to plot or characterization) in Superman 2 Electric Boogaloo will work out any differently than it did with the Batman series.
SM 1: Spiderman and Goblin.
SM 2: Spiderman, Hobgoblin, Dok Ock.
SM 3: Spiderman, Hobgoblin, Venom, Sandman.
Also, you can't forget that the villain has to be present too, so so far its Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Lex. And were there not rumors of Green Lantern and Cyborg being present as well?
So, the next Superman movie will feature Batman, Wonderwoman, Aquaman, and... oh yeah, Superman. So DC is making the Justice League movie and just calling it "Superman 2"? Is that the game? It's clear DC learned nothing from the pre-reboot Batman movies, where an excess number of super characters (heroes or villains) detracted from the film. Remember Batman? It was Batman and the Joker. It was a good movie. Remember Batman 2? It was Batman, Catwoman, and the Penguin (and Christopher Walken). It was a less-good movie. Remember Batman the Third? Batman, Robin, Two-Face, and The Riddler? Extra less-good movie. Remember Plan Batman From Outer Space? Batman, Robin, Batgirl, Bane, Poison Ivy, and Mister Freeze? Way much less-gooder movie.
I see no reason why the knee-jerk inclusion of the entire Justice League (with no thought to plot or characterization) in Superman 2 Electric Boogaloo will work out any differently than it did with the Batman series.
Counterpoints.
The movie isn't called Man of Steel 2, is it?
Did the Avengers have problems with "an excess number of super characters"?
Does Marvel seem even a little gunshy about including even more characters in Avengers 2?
Were the 4 Batman movies you mentioned the same in all other respects except for the number of super characters?
Have you read the script to know that the inclusion of other characters in BvS has "no thought to plot or characterization?"
Do you think that it might make some difference that an Oscar-winning writer wrote the script?
Can you confirm that the characters other than Bats and Supes will get anything more than cameos -- especially Aquaman and Victor Stone, who may not even be Cyborg in BvS?
Are you aware that the rumors point to a solo Man of Steel sequel down the road?
Did the Avengers have problems with "an excess number of super characters"?
Totally different situation. Barring Hawkeye, the rest had all had at least one movie to establish those characters, how they act, who they are, and what they can do. It's why Avengers works so well: the characters are all there and complete from the start, so it can go forward from the very beginning.
While I'm not saying BvS will have trouble fitting everyone in, and I imagine most will just have cameos at first, I'm not sure you can really compare it to then unique way Avengers works in this regard. It remains to be seen how Avengers 2 will cope fitting in Quicksilver, Witch, Vision and Ultron in with no prior introduction.
The movie isn't called Man of Steel 2, is it?
Did the Avengers have problems with "an excess number of super characters"?
Does Marvel seem even a little gunshy about including even more characters in Avengers 2?
Were the 4 Batman movies you mentioned the same in all other respects except for the number of super characters?
Have you read the script to know that the inclusion of other characters in BvS has "no thought to plot or characterization?"
Do you think that it might make some difference that an Oscar-winning writer wrote the script?
Can you confirm that the characters other than Bats and Supes will get anything more than cameos -- especially Aquaman and Victor Stone, who may not even be Cyborg in BvS?
Are you aware that the rumors point to a solo Man of Steel sequel down the road?
Counter-counterpoints: Avengers worked because it wasn't an origin story for 5 characters. It was a continuation of the story of 5 characters we'd already been introduced to. Superman v The Mangaer From Fashionable Male will have to be origin stories for Batman, Wonder Woman, and now Aquaman, as well as the villain (presumably Lex). Origin stories bog movies down and the more you have to include, the slower and more bloated your movie becomes (Batman 4, case in point). Even the Spiderman movies didn't escape this, with Spiderman 3 trying to cram too much onto intself with Venom and Sandman, on top of the second Green Goblin.
The first 2 Batman movies had the same creative minds behind tham, and the latter 2 had the same creative minds. The only consistent things accross all four were a declining level of quality, and an increase in the number of villains/heroes. So it is entirely possible that another DC movie with a different creative team than Batmans 1-2, and 3-4 will have lots of characters and be good. But earlier trends seem to indicate that this is an unlikely outcome.
Have I read the script? Nope. But given the fact that scripts that include lots of characters as well as give a lot of thought to plot and characterization are in the extreme minority in Hollywood (not just in DC superhero movies)... well, see the above bit about past trends indicating potential outcomes.
As for Oscar winners doing stuff... Ridley Scott won an Oscar for a really good movie, once. He also made Prometheus. Just because you can achieve greatness does not mean you can't also achieve garbage.
TL;DR I'll believe DC can make a really good super hero movie when they actually make a really good superhero movie that isn't the first Nolan Batman.
Mr Morden wrote: X Men 2 is IMO the best X movie and has a huge cast
Its also not a DC superhero movie. DC is the one with the crap track record. Apart from Fantastic Four movies, and Ang Lee's Giant Green Thing film, Marvel does better overall.
Mr Morden wrote: X Men 2 is IMO the best X movie and has a huge cast
Its also not a DC superhero movie. DC is the one with the crap track record. Apart from Fantastic Four movies, and Ang Lee's Giant Green Thing film, Marvel does better overall.
Oh completely agree I only real like and rate one DC superhero movie (The first Michael Keaton Batman) - I was just saying that a good director and tream can work with a big cast
Totally different situation. Barring Hawkeye, the rest had all had at least one movie to establish those characters, how they act, who they are, and what they can do. It's why Avengers works so well: the characters are all there and complete from the start, so it can go forward from the very beginning.
Wrong. Hawkeye was in Thor 1.... He was perched up "guarding" the hammer, and even asked Colson if he could engage. Granted that's about all I can recall, and doesn't do much to really establish him as a Marvel character, but he at least had a bit of face time prior to Avengers. I think it gave you enough that people either outright knew it was Hawkeye, or they were wondering enough about it, that when he showed up in Avengers, they weren't surprised to see him.
Totally different situation. Barring Hawkeye, the rest had all had at least one movie to establish those characters, how they act, who they are, and what they can do. It's why Avengers works so well: the characters are all there and complete from the start, so it can go forward from the very beginning.
Wrong. Hawkeye was in Thor 1.... He was perched up "guarding" the hammer, and even asked Colson if he could engage. Granted that's about all I can recall, and doesn't do much to really establish him as a Marvel character, but he at least had a bit of face time prior to Avengers. I think it gave you enough that people either outright knew it was Hawkeye, or they were wondering enough about it, that when he showed up in Avengers, they weren't surprised to see him.
In other words, the cameo established the character.
So folks, let's assume that's roughly the treatment that Aquaman and Cyborg will get in BvS. Black Widow also didn't have her own movie, but she had a small role in Iron Man. Let's assume that Wonder Woman will get that level of treatment in BvS. Supes got his own film already. While Batman is sharing BvS, we've seen him on the big screen umpteen times and don't need another origin movie to reintroduce him. Audiences get Batman. Look at how the new Batmobile is almost a perfect mashup of the Nolan and Burton versions.
Green Lantern is in a similar situation to the Hulk character. It'll probably be recast just like Bana => Norton => Ruffalo. But moviegoing audiences have already been introduced to the space cop with the ring. Flash will have his own TV series, so audiences should be good there too. These characters don't all need solo films to make sense in JL. And let's forget about superheroes for a minute. How many stinkin' good ensemble films has Hollywood produced over the years? Superhero characters are just characters.
Frankly, Iron Man 2 and 3, Cap 1, Thor 1 and 2, and the Incredible Hulk have shown that Marvel is completely capable of producing mediocre, forgettable fare too. I'm not sure why the Marvel fanboys need to chime in and dump all over every thread about a DC character on film.
Frankly, Iron Man 2 and 3, Cap 1, Thor 1 and 2, and the Incredible Hulk have shown that Marvel is completely capable of producing mediocre, forgettable fare too. I'm not sure why the Marvel fanboys need to chime in and dump all over every thread about a DC character on film.
While they may be mediocre, I believe that they have demonstrated themselves to generally be a better brand of mediocre than the DC offerings... I mean, aside from Christopher Reeves Superman, has a single one been either remotely good, or even one that Supes' fans say "well, they fethed that one up, I'm done with Superman movies" (a buddy of mine is a HUUUUUGE Superman fan, and said that after the last reboot... but ended up watching MoS, and said it again.... I'm sure he'll probably say the same about BvS)
Yes, there are some Marvel movies that we simply like to ignore or deny even exist (Daredevil, Hulk, Elektra??) but, IMO, IM 1/2 were pretty damn good films, 3 was "OK", Cap 1 was a "necessary evil" as far as "dull intro film" type of plot goes. I actually liked Thor 1 a lot, and while 2 was a slight step back, that quality was very VERY slight to me.... But then, we are talking an art form, and as so much art goes, it's quite subjective.
Compel wrote: The Thor films are generally rather positively received at large. Tom Hiddleston as Loki is immensely popular.
From what I can see, iron man 2 and 3 are generally seen as less popular, with the Hulk solo film(s) seen as Marvels worst effort in that universe.
The only ones I wouldn't watch at the drop of a hat are IM2/3 and maybe hulk. IM1,Thor 2, Cap 2 and Avengers are all 10/10 films in my opinion, and Cap/Thor 1 are easily 9. Guardians of the Galaxy goes up to 11!
Compel wrote: The Thor films are generally rather positively received at large. Tom Hiddleston as Loki is immensely popular.
From what I can see, iron man 2 and 3 are generally seen as less popular, with the Hulk solo film(s) seen as Marvels worst effort in that universe.
The only ones I wouldn't watch at the drop of a hat are IM2/3 and maybe hulk. IM1,Thor 2, Cap 2 and Avengers are all 10/10 films in my opinion, and Cap/Thor 1 are easily 9. Guardians of the Galaxy goes up to 11!
Agreed. Except I would watch Ed Nortons Hulk at the drop of a hat too. I quite enjoyed that one. IM2/3 are pretty much the only ones I'm meh about. GotG in particular is awesome. I haven't seen a movie in theatres more than once in a decade. I saw it 3 times.
On topic though MoS was pretty bad. I couldn't sit through it again after the first watching. I'm hoping for better but if they cram all these people in poorly it isn't going to go well. Hopefully it's more nods or brief encounters that establish other super beings exist and not a team up type movie outside of the Bat and Supes.
Compel wrote: The Thor films are generally rather positively received at large. Tom Hiddleston as Loki is immensely popular.
From what I can see, iron man 2 and 3 are generally seen as less popular, with the Hulk solo film(s) seen as Marvels worst effort in that universe.
The only ones I wouldn't watch at the drop of a hat are IM2/3 and maybe hulk. IM1,Thor 2, Cap 2 and Avengers are all 10/10 films in my opinion, and Cap/Thor 1 are easily 9. Guardians of the Galaxy goes up to 11!
Agreed. Except I would watch Ed Nortons Hulk at the drop of a hat too. I quite enjoyed that one. IM2/3 are pretty much the only ones I'm meh about. GotG in particular is awesome. I haven't seen a movie in theatres more than once in a decade. I saw it 3 times.
On topic though MoS was pretty bad. I couldn't sit through it again after the first watching. I'm hoping for better but if they cram all these people in poorly it isn't going to go well. Hopefully it's more nods or brief encounters that establish other super beings exist and not a team up type movie outside of the Bat and Supes.
I'm the opposite. I loved the Ang Lee Hulk, IM2 (I like both bad guys in that) and MofS . Cap1 bored me so much the wife fell asleep and I went to surf the web. Thor I and II were warm barf to me but the wife liked the pretty boy. New Hulk was pedestrian. We're agreed though IM3 was just bad.
I don't know what to think about the new movie. I'll just wait and see the previews and reviews.
I don't understand all the hate for IM3. It was far and away a superior movie to IM2. I get why the hardcore IM nerds didn't like it when they discovered that the film makers wanted to avoid the whole cheap "yellow peril" aspect of The Mandarin (and also that they wanted to be able to sell the movie to China... news flash, kids: you will not see a major Hollywood movie with a Chinese villain for at least the next 20 years. Sorry!) but I thought the fact that the villain was the villain because of actions Tony Stark took in the past was a great thing. The villain had a motive *and* was a credible threat (something nobody in IM 2 managed to be) and Tony learns that he is an a-hole, despite being a hero.
squidhills wrote: I don't understand all the hate for IM3. It was far and away a superior movie to IM2. I get why the hardcore IM nerds didn't like it when they discovered that the film makers wanted to avoid the whole cheap "yellow peril" aspect of The Mandarin (and also that they wanted to be able to sell the movie to China... news flash, kids: you will not see a major Hollywood movie with a Chinese villain for at least the next 20 years. Sorry!) but I thought the fact that the villain was the villain because of actions Tony Stark took in the past was a great thing. The villain had a motive *and* was a credible threat (something nobody in IM 2 managed to be) and Tony learns that he is an a-hole, despite being a hero.
I think the biggest issue that many (including me) had with IM3, was in the way in which the Mandarin was handled... He should never have been "simply an actor" playing the part of a terrorist organization leader. Granted, misdirection and the sort of actions that "The Mandarin" in the movie took would be along the lines of how the "real" Mandarin would do things, but that the writers made the guy a fake really irked many fans, especially since the Mandarin has been one of IM's longest and biggest foes, and they really cheapened him (well, at least they did until the One Shot came out where we find out "someone" wants to meet Trevor because he's been using "their" name)
squidhills wrote: I don't understand all the hate for IM3. It was far and away a superior movie to IM2. I get why the hardcore IM nerds didn't like it when they discovered that the film makers wanted to avoid the whole cheap "yellow peril" aspect of The Mandarin (and also that they wanted to be able to sell the movie to China... news flash, kids: you will not see a major Hollywood movie with a Chinese villain for at least the next 20 years. Sorry!) but I thought the fact that the villain was the villain because of actions Tony Stark took in the past was a great thing. The villain had a motive *and* was a credible threat (something nobody in IM 2 managed to be) and Tony learns that he is an a-hole, despite being a hero.
Er...no. I'm not a hardcore comic fan-your attempted insult is as lame as it is incorrect.
I didn't like IM3 because it was...boring. The bad guy was a dork. The good guy just kind of goofed off through most of the film.
Ben's performance was the one bright spot in the film.
Frankly, Iron Man 2 and 3, Cap 1, Thor 1 and 2, and the Incredible Hulk have shown that Marvel is completely capable of producing mediocre, forgettable fare too. I'm not sure why the Marvel fanboys need to chime in and dump all over every thread about a DC character on film.
DC did that themselves with the terrible recent Batman films which threw away character development (look at the lauugable bad relationship between Batman and his so called girlf firend and compare it to the well crafted and believable one with Tony Stark and Pepper), a sense of the actual meaning of the charcter in favour of "Dark imgery" over susbtance and a series of set peices that the plot (such as it was) had to try and bridge - and failed.
I loved the Tim Burton first Batman film in direct contrast..................
I loved the older Superman films and found the new one again very disapointing - the Krypton bits in particular was just soooo bad.
Marvel currently makes films with heart, charcters, plot and a sense of enjoyment whilst maintaing dark aspects - DC makes films that are dark and have no heart or soul - just imagery.
squidhills wrote: I don't understand all the hate for IM3. It was far and away a superior movie to IM2. I get why the hardcore IM nerds didn't like it when they discovered that the film makers wanted to avoid the whole cheap "yellow peril" aspect of The Mandarin (and also that they wanted to be able to sell the movie to China... news flash, kids: you will not see a major Hollywood movie with a Chinese villain for at least the next 20 years. Sorry!) but I thought the fact that the villain was the villain because of actions Tony Stark took in the past was a great thing. The villain had a motive *and* was a credible threat (something nobody in IM 2 managed to be) and Tony learns that he is an a-hole, despite being a hero.
Er...no. I'm not a hardcore comic fan-your attempted insult is as lame as it is incorrect.
I didn't like IM3 because it was...boring. The bad guy was a dork. The good guy just kind of goofed off through most of the film.
Ben's performance was the one bright spot in the film.
So you are saying you were mad when you found out that the Mandarin *wasn't* a poorly-concieved racist characiture, even though you aren't a dedicated Iron Man fan? I'm not sure I understand. All of the casual fans I know thought it was a nice twist, as the revelation of AIM as the actual villain was handled well. The hard-core Iron Man nerds raged at the horrible betrayal of the source material; I've never met a casual fan who had a problem with it. (In other words: When I said "I know why IM nerds hated it" I was not saying "Frazzled is an IM nerd" I was saying "Frazzled is not an IM nerd, so I do not understand why he hates it.)
The bad guy was a dork? Well, yeah. That's the point. He was a dork that Tony ignored, who got superpowers from someone else Tony ignored (well, he didn't ignore her; just her mind and her research... he paid lots of attention to her boobies) and then set about trying to take over the country with a plan that was actually very well thought out (for a comic book villain.... get a scapegoat for everyone else to focus on so nobody tries to stop your actual plan). In the meantime, he also tries to kill Tony, because vengeance is a beeyotch. He was far, far more effective than a CEO who is so stupid and incompetant he cannot even dress himself (Hammer) and a guy who barely speaks and has whips and a keyboard (Whiplash or whatever they decided he was). And you're right: Tony goofed off for most of the film. Rhoades is always responsible, always prodding Tony to become more self-aware and pay attention to how his actions affect others, while Tony just goofs off.... and then Tony realizes that his behavior created the very villain he is fighting. His past jerk-ass behavior put him in a situation where his friends' lives (and his own) were in jeopardy. The realization helps him develop as a character, and it works so much better than the whole "did my daddy ever really love me" subplot form 2.
My issue with 3 is that Tony Stark has tons of issues with PTSD, and through the magic of a child, he gets over it. feth that gak. That's the problem, right there. Their attempt to "redeem it" by having him be a tool to the kid after wasn't enough to save face.
So you are saying you were mad when you found out that the Mandarin *wasn't* a poorly-concieved racist characiture, even though you aren't a dedicated Iron Man fan?
Wow. Not sure what planet you're on to get "Ben's performance was the only bright spot" to this. Whatever drugs you're on can I have some.
So we'll use little words to help you this time. "Ben's acted good. Ben's role was good with good lines."
I'm not sure I understand. All of the casual fans I know thought it was a nice twist, as the revelation of AIM as the actual villain was handled well. The hard-core Iron Man nerds raged at the horrible betrayal of the source material; I've never met a casual fan who had a problem with it. (In other words: When I said "I know why IM nerds hated it" I was not saying "Frazzled is an IM nerd" I was saying "Frazzled is not an IM nerd, so I do not understand why he hates it.)
I didn't say jack about the twist.
The bad guy was a dork?
Yes and more importantly A BORING DORK.
Well, yeah. That's the point. He was a dork that Tony ignored, who got superpowers from someone else Tony ignored (well, he didn't ignore her; just her mind and her research... he paid lots of attention to her boobies) and then set about trying to take over the country with a plan that was actually very well thought out (for a comic book villain
.. get a scapegoat for everyone else to focus on so nobody tries to stop your actual plan). In the meantime, he also tries to kill Tony, because vengeance is a beeyotch. He was far, far more effective than a CEO who is so stupid and incompetant he cannot even dress himself (Hammer) and a guy who barely speaks and has whips and a keyboard (Whiplash or whatever they decided he was). And you're right: Tony goofed off for most of the film. Rhoades is always responsible, always prodding Tony to become more self-aware and pay attention to how his actions affect others, while Tony just goofs off.... and then Tony realizes that his behavior created the very villain he is fighting. His past jerk-ass behavior put him in a situation where his friends' lives (and his own) were in jeopardy. The realization helps him develop as a character, and it works so much better than the whole "did my daddy ever really love me" subplot form 2.
blah blah blah you're thinking too deeply about a popcorn comic book movie. If you're thinking this deeply about that On the Waterfront will blow the brains right out of your head.
So you are saying you were mad when you found out that the Mandarin *wasn't* a poorly-concieved racist characiture, even though you aren't a dedicated Iron Man fan?
Wow. Not sure what planet you're on to get "Ben's performance was the only bright spot" to this. Whatever drugs you're on can I have some.
So we'll use little words to help you this time. "Ben's acted good. Ben's role was good with good lines."
I'd appreciate it if you did not deliberately alter my quotes to put words in my mouth that I never said nor intended. Please change the quote to reflect what I actually posted.
Compel wrote: The Thor films are generally rather positively received at large. Tom Hiddleston as Loki is immensely popular.
From what I can see, iron man 2 and 3 are generally seen as less popular, with the Hulk solo film(s) seen as Marvels worst effort in that universe.
The only ones I wouldn't watch at the drop of a hat are IM2/3 and maybe hulk. IM1,Thor 2, Cap 2 and Avengers are all 10/10 films in my opinion, and Cap/Thor 1 are easily 9. Guardians of the Galaxy goes up to 11!
Speaking of which, my homework tonight is to watch Thor 1, so that I can map out the Hero's Journey Thor goes through and present it to my cotaught ESE/Inclusion class. Those students love that Norse stormbringer.
They also ran through it following Elsa in Frozen. But that's for a different thread,
squidhills wrote: I don't understand all the hate for IM3. It was far and away a superior movie to IM2. I get why the hardcore IM nerds didn't like it when they discovered that the film makers wanted to avoid the whole cheap "yellow peril" aspect of The Mandarin (and also that they wanted to be able to sell the movie to China... news flash, kids: you will not see a major Hollywood movie with a Chinese villain for at least the next 20 years. Sorry!) but I thought the fact that the villain was the villain because of actions Tony Stark took in the past was a great thing. The villain had a motive *and* was a credible threat (something nobody in IM 2 managed to be) and Tony learns that he is an a-hole, despite being a hero.
Yeah, IM3 was terrible for a lot of reasons. The crap with the Mandarin (fixed in the OneShot that came on the Thor 2 Blu-Ray) was only part of it. IM3 destroyed Tony Stark as a character, and the villain was completely lame. But as we're talking about a movie, the best idea is show, don't tell, so I'll just show you (with humour!) the reasons why IM3 does not work:
