Gorgon, my familiarity with Superman is obviously very casual compared to yours. I'm a fan of his Reeve appearances, Lois and Clark, some cartoons that I barely watched, kingdom Come, Death of Superman and Red Son. Typically, I preferred Marvel comics when I did read comics. Super dude fits in better with them, anyway.
Long story short, I hope the Superman in the Justice League movies is a better person.
As someone who grew up on Bronze Age stuff, I can remember them being described as being in the northeast US and near NYC.
You're not the first person to have complained about this. But quite frankly, this is another example of a baseless gripe by fans who aren't as knowledgeable about this stuff as they think they are.
.
Im pretty sure in recent times they have changed how close the two cities are. Since they introduced the city of Bludhaven in the 90s, which is supposed to be very close to Gotham, and I might be wrong, but I thought across the bay from Gotham, like Metropolis is shown to be.
Yeah, at least in one incarnation. I think that map is post-Crisis, though. I can only assume that in the DC universe, all those corporate headquarters in Delaware for tax purposes are actual headquarters and more than small offices with phones, and Metropolis built up around them.
The funny part -- if you know Delaware -- is the nature of the central section shown there. Delaware basically consists of Philly suburbs and Wilmington in the north, shore points in the south, and Alabama in between. Metropolis it ain't. It's QUITE the opposite. It's nice though that Metropolis has easy access to the DE and MD shore points, and Gotham isn't far from Cape May, AC and other NJ shore points. Citizens can just go to the beach when disaster strikes.
Anyway, the point was that Snyder and company do have some cover and precedent for placing the two cities in proximity across a body of water. While I understand the narrative reasons why Smallville -- and maybe some other works too -- seemed to move Metropolis to the Midwest, both Metropolis and Gotham are traditionally Northeastern cities. They're both fictional versions of NYC created by NYC-based comics creators. I think we see a similar real-life situation with NYC and Newark, NJ.
Yeah, I'm a little familiar with the DelMarVA layout, hence the "WTF?".
Never expected DC to put Metropolis on the map as a low rent rest stop in the sticks between DC and NY.
I'd have accepted Metropolis as Chicago, which would have been perfectly reasonable for the vast number of Smallvilles downstate or surrounding. That city is fun and has character.
But yeah, as above, I've always figured Metropolis to be NYC , like Marvel calls out by name, where Gotham is Newark. Or Atlantic City.
It's been known as one of the biggest plot holes in comic history, e.g. why Superman doesn't just quickly flies over to the neighbor city and solves any problem Batman would need days to fix.
Personally, I have always seen them as two sides of a medal with Gotham being the dystopian version of Metropolis.
Sigvatr wrote: It's been known as one of the biggest plot holes in comic history, e.g. why Superman doesn't just quickly flies over to the neighbor city and solves any problem Batman would need days to fix.
Personally, I have always seen them as two sides of a medal with Gotham being the dystopian version of Metropolis.
Once, years ago, I saw someone suggest a Superman-Batman film in which they're in the SAME city - basically NYC - which Superman views as a gleaming city of tomorrow and Batman views as a crumbling, crime-ridden hellhole. Almost certainly too conceptual for the masses, but it was a fascinating idea.
Sounds like an actually awesome idea. It would be a good idea for a Superman vs. Batman movie as it would give the characters give actual motivation and bears potential for character development with Superman seeing the dark sides of NYC he wasn't aware of and can't help with (i.e.: detective work, schemes etc.) and Batman seeing the good sides of NYC too, realizing that by only focusing on the dark side of it, he too developed a very narrow perspective of the city and slowly got dragged down into it as well. Cue in Nitzsche, abyss.
Yet...as you said, that would be far too complex for your average audience. You can't expect them to watch a movie that requires actual thinking
I always liked how their views on justice clashed, superman being the more idealistic hopeful side batman being the dark and gritty with just enough common ground in the end. Superman reminds me a lot of Lancelot where he's an embodiment of virtue and excellence, both his weakness and strength is love/passion. Where Batman is more like Arthur who is consumed with obsession and an often relentless rage.
It was a very minor point and glossed over it quickly but I found the cities sitting across the bay a bit odd, amusingly Superman is constantly breaking the sound barrier when he takes off yet Batman can travel between cities faster in his bat plane?
The cities made me think of this: spoiler for language
Sigvatr wrote: It's been known as one of the biggest plot holes in comic history, e.g. why Superman doesn't just quickly flies over to the neighbor city and solves any problem Batman would need days to fix.
Personally, I have always seen them as two sides of a medal with Gotham being the dystopian version of Metropolis.
Once, years ago, I saw someone suggest a Superman-Batman film in which they're in the SAME city - basically NYC - which Superman views as a gleaming city of tomorrow and Batman views as a crumbling, crime-ridden hellhole. Almost certainly too conceptual for the masses, but it was a fascinating idea.
I thought they were originally conceived as both Metropolis and Gotham being versions of NYC. One showing the futuristic glass, the other the gothic grandeur.
I've read somewhere that conceptually, Metropolis is New York by day, while Gotham is New York by night.
I'm not a fan of superhero comics in general, so everything in this film to me is coloured only by previous films, not by what goes on in the comics.
Superman as the "big blue boy scout"; I understand where this film and Man of Steel were coming from, in that Superman should be a bit more nuanced than that description, and I like how he is at least trying to do the right thing. I also like how the film points out that "trying to do the right thing" doesn't always work out. I'd still like a bit more optimism in the character, though. Hopefully in the next outing.
Ben Affleck is looking awfully like George Clooney in this film. At least there were no nipples on the batsuit. I had wondered before seeing this if you could fit the Nolan films in front of this one, but sadly not. The third Batman in three decades it is, then. There's clearly a lot of backstory in there, though; I wonder how they're going to address that, or will it all be Easter eggs for the fans? There was also a decent attempt to play up the "worlds greatest detective" angle, too - not just punching goons (or machinegunning them, for that matter)
(also, my understanding is that Batman killed plenty of people in the first decade of his existence as a character. It was only the Comics Code and the suppression and censorship of comics and films in the 50s that forced the writers to make him less violent. )
Man of Steel worked well in portraying what happens when two gods decide to let loose in a human city. The opening scene of this film carried that further, I felt, by being primarily from the human point of view - right until the end of the scene, you can't even see Superman or Zod - just the city crashing to the ground.
I wasn't so keen on the final bad guy. It's not really the film's fault; I Gogled him, and that's pretty much what the comic character looks like, and I don't like that, either.
The main flaw with the film, I thought, was the scene it was named after - the fight itself. It just didn't make sense. Or rather, the way it was wound up, and the pair of them seemed to get over it all too quickly. It seemed like a lot of things happened because the plot needed them to happen, rather than arising "naturally".
Overall, not bad. Could do better, but I've sat through worse.
Off-topic: Judge Dredd. It's not so much that he's a parody character; he's played fairly straight (although the setting? parodies anything the writers can crowbar in ). It's that you're not supposed to empathise with him. It's that the world is so messed up that a horrendous set-up like the Justice Department is the only way to get any semblance off order. When people start thinking "yes, that's the way things should be run!" is when I think they've missed the point.
Oh, and one last point:
Spoiler:
The photographer with Lois in Africa, the one who gets shot? Jimmy Olsen, apparently.
Cities in the DC universe have always moved around a bit.
In fact in mainstream DC continuity the actual planet is a bit bigger as there's more countries.
IIRC in the JLA/Avengers crossover Superman comments about how the Marvel earth is a a bit smaller.
Telescopic vision has its advantages t'would seem.
For me the geography is thus :
That's cool stuff. I liked the inclusion of Happy Harbor and Rutland, VT on the map of the Northeast. Weird stuff always happened to the JL in Rutland.
And hey! Looks like I'm living in Civic City! Who knew!
The photographer with Lois in Africa, the one who gets shot? Jimmy Olsen, apparently.
Yeah, I kinda got whipsawed on that one. At first I figured he was, then stuff was revealed and happened, and I figured not. Then later I read that he was, and the director's cut will make this clearer.
Potentially a big waste of that character...but then to be fair, they're going to be juggling a fethton of characters in the DCEU. They probably won't have the screen time to build that relationship anyway.
Potentially a big waste of that character...but then to be fair, they're going to be juggling a fethton of characters in the DCEU. They probably won't have the screen time to build that relationship anyway.
I was going to disagree with you, but then I stopped and thought about how many compelling supporting characters Marvel has managed to maintain in its films. Even major love interests like Jane Foster and Pepper Potts have struggled for sufficient screen time, especially in the team-up movies, and DC might well have made the judgement that their Superman will be mainly seen in conjunction with other characters, rather than alone with his own friends.
Spoiler:
I'm still sad that we will not really see Clark Kent any more. I mean, I don't know Superman that much - always more of a Green Lantern and Batman chap myself, as far as DC goes - but I like the basic idea, and it seems like an important dichotomy to build on when displaying his personality. One of the main lackings in BvS is arguably how little time Superman gets on screen.
Potentially a big waste of that character...but then to be fair, they're going to be juggling a fethton of characters in the DCEU. They probably won't have the screen time to build that relationship anyway.
I was going to disagree with you, but then I stopped and thought about how many compelling supporting characters Marvel has managed to maintain in its films. Even major love interests like Jane Foster and Pepper Potts have struggled for sufficient screen time, especially in the team-up movies, and DC might well have made the judgement that their Superman will be mainly seen in conjunction with other characters, rather than alone with his own friends.
Spoiler:
I'm still sad that we will not really see Clark Kent any more. I mean, I don't know Superman that much - always more of a Green Lantern and Batman chap myself, as far as DC goes - but I like the basic idea, and it seems like an important dichotomy to build on when displaying his personality. One of the main lackings in BvS is arguably how little time Superman gets on screen.
Trust me, as a long-time Cap fan, I didn't like them wasting Sharon Carter in Winter Soldier even as he flirted with Widow all film. Sharon is his Lois Lane. Meanwhile, Civil War has umpteen existing heroes, universe stuff to build, and a new hero to introduce, so it's unlikely there'll be any room in that one to actually explore that relationship. Most won't care, but I think it's kind of a shame and a waste.
Ultimately these characters probably are much better off in old-style solo films that aren't about universe-building, easter eggs, team-ups, etc.
Your point about Clark is a great one, and one I've been meaning to bring up.
Spoiler:
When Doomsday killed him in the comics, they only declared Clark missing, albeit presumed dead. Very different thing than him being in a box for all Smallville to see. I like him being buried as Clark and the Superman casket being empty (I've always preferred the modern idea that Clark is his true self and Superman is the "mask").
But yeah...it's really hard to see how Clark can be Clark again after he returns. From stuff I've read, I get the impression that JL will pick up right after BvS and be at least in part about Bruce going around and assembling the team, and that Clark may not be "back" at first. So there's undoubtedly a plan of some kind in place, and who knows what that involves. Guess we'll see.
The romance is in there for the women, not the guys. I don't think most guys give a crap.
But the studios have realized that in order to increase ticket sales, you have to make these movies appealing to both sexes. The guys like the fight scenes, the women, tend to sit up when there is a little romance going on.
Friendships and romance show that these characters are capable of having normal, human relationships. This is important for an alien god like Superman because it grounds him. But it helps round out even the less powerful characters like Batman or Captain America. It's through their relationships that we get to know and learn more about them.
It's actually kinda funny that the MCEU has turned Tony Stark into a staunch monogamist, and Steve Rogers into a guy who can't get the girl.
Well, sort of, but I can assure you that Hollywood knows that in order to attract both men and women to go to the same movie (especially those dating or married), that have to incorporate elements that both sexes generally prefer. Men gravitate towards action, women towards emotion.
Part of the cheesy romance nonsense incorporated into the LOTR movies is just for that. 99% of guys can do without the staring into each other's eyes crap, but, as you are probably aware, there arent a lot of women lining up to watch movies with dragons, wizards, and mass combat. But seed it with some romance, and now the girl will go along and watch it with her guy. Doubles ticket sales, and now the bag of popcorn and drink become larges. Win-Win for everyone.
That's why you have studios swinging so far over and creating such atrocities like Pearl Harbor. You just cant do many 100% war movies anymore without incorporating some emotional pull for the ladies.
Scenario 1:
Woman: "What are you doing?"
Me: "Playing a wargame"
Woman: "Dork."
Scenario 2:
Woman: "What are you doing?"
Me: "Playing Fast Times at Istvaan III. This chic cheated on her husband with this younger guy, and the husband is pissed and invaded with his army of Space Marines. The wife doesnt know the younger guy has another girlfirend, and even her husband has a mistress, who is also banging the younger guy."
Woman: "wow. . ."
Then I go into a 45min discussion about logistics, space travel through the warp, the various weapons and technology, threatening alien species, tanks, drop ships, etc, and watch those eyes glaze over.
And then, there's Game of Thrones which covers both bases. When there's boring expository talky stuff, they're kind enough to have "sexy" women as scenery to keep they guys paying attention to the TV. When there's nice action, it's always tied to some personal political drama.
Exactly. Game of Thrones does it better than anyone. It's like a soap opera (for the women) with lots of nudity (for the guys) and the excitement of violence (for the guys) with the emotional loss of the deaths (for the women).
It wasn't the first, but Games of Thrones did perfect having a show for both sexes. My ex was more into it than I was (I was always complaining about the unrealistic sizes of the armies for the size and economics for the areas we were seeing lol). But she was sucked in on who was banging who and how her favorite characters navigated the BS.
The same could be said for Walking Dead. I would be fine with a whole hour of zombie slashing, but my gf focuses on the hints of flirtation and relationship building.
And what do you know? Both are a couple of the most popular shows on TV. So everyone has taken notice, and is mimicking.
gorgon wrote: Kind of a tangent, but power vs. powerlessness was an important theme in the film. Both Bruce and Lex are enormously powerful people by any normal definition, yet both developed the "fever" that Alfred talked about in the face of Clark's power. Of course, Lex's fever was a selfish thing -- I'm brilliant and rich, and it's not fair that I'm so powerless compared to that. Bruce's fever was obviously more of external concern -- humanity is powerless and at risk because of that. Still, both men turned cruel as Alfred stated.
I don’t know if it’s a tangent but it’s a good point That speech to me felt to me very much like a continuation of the structure of Nolan’s Batman franchise – where one character will outright state the theme of the movie, and then each major character will represent a different answer to it. It was, I think, a really good question to, and in many places it was very well explored. The early scenes of Bruce Wayne shown from the ground, able to help only a few amidst the carnage of the fight against the Kryptonians, that was great.
But I don’t think the theme was satisfactorily explored. Lex’s motivation of selfish ego has to be assumed, in the script there’s no real motivation for his actions. And there was so much other stuff happening the theme didn’t quite get the focus it deserved. Not really a complaint, just an acknowledgement that things didn’t quite come together as they should have.
EDIT And I really have to get around to watching the deleted scenes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote: Anyway, the point was that Snyder and company do have some cover and precedent for placing the two cities in proximity across a body of water. While I understand the narrative reasons why Smallville -- and maybe some other works too -- seemed to move Metropolis to the Midwest, both Metropolis and Gotham are traditionally Northeastern cities. They're both fictional versions of NYC created by NYC-based comics creators. I think we see a similar real-life situation with NYC and Newark, NJ.
From the Batman comics I've read, and while it wasn't a lot it was also more than a few, I always got more of a Chicago vibe from Gotham. And that's what Nolan used in his movies... well in TDK it was Chicago, TDKR was more of NY, with the blocked off bridges. Is there anything in the comics to give the Chicago theory any kind of substance?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KTG17 wrote: The romance is in there for the women, not the guys. I don't think most guys give a crap.
But the studios have realized that in order to increase ticket sales, you have to make these movies appealing to both sexes. The guys like the fight scenes, the women, tend to sit up when there is a little romance going on.
Its a formula, and one thats going to stay. :/
I feel like you're posting from 1973 or something. Quite the technological marvel.
Anyhow, not even the worst of the worst of the old studio numpties thinks in the terms you've described above. That kind of crap; "throw in a romance for the ladies and we'll double our demographics!"... that stuff disappeared in the 90s.
KTG17 wrote: I was always complaining about the unrealistic sizes of the armies for the size and economics for the areas we were seeing lol
I don't think there's really a single sci-fi / fantasy / supers / magic thing that gets economies right. And "armies" are more like what you'd expect among Italian fiefdoms than anything else.
I feel like you're posting from 1973 or something. Quite the technological marvel.
Anyhow, not even the worst of the worst of the old studio numpties thinks in the terms you've described above. That kind of crap; "throw in a romance for the ladies and we'll double our demographics!"... that stuff disappeared in the 90s.
Lol what? Have you ever met a woman before? You can't tell when movies are written to encompass as much of an audience as possible?
There is no question that there is a whole slew of movies made with women in mind (aka chic flicks), just as you have movies that are geared towards guys (action movies), just as you have movies geared towards teens, African Americans, mature audiences, and so on. So if you want as many of those groups as possible to watch a movie, you have to entice them with something that appeals to them.
Your stereotypical summer blockbuster will have: lots of action, some humor, easy story to follow, and some element of romance. That's a formula.
Inserting an African American, a woman, and a Hispanic as the main characters for Star Wars - A Force Awakens for example was not accidental, it was strategic. If you believe otherwise you are clueless.
KTG17 wrote: I was always complaining about the unrealistic sizes of the armies for the size and economics for the areas we were seeing lol
I don't think there's really a single sci-fi / fantasy / supers / magic thing that gets economies right. And "armies" are more like what you'd expect among Italian fiefdoms than anything else.
Yeah I figured, it's just when Rob Stark or someone said, 'with his 30,000 troops and our 40,000 troops we'll win!!' That's when I rolled my eyes.
Don't want to sound like I am knocking GoT too much, it's well done. But I even criticize Walking Dead all the time too. Like after all these years still finding food, cars still running, or even forgetting that there are only about 5,000 people in the US who know how to run a nuclear power plant, and when those guys are more interested in eating people, there's going to be a lot of problems. But even still I can't wait for Sundays.
From the Batman comics I've read, and while it wasn't a lot it was also more than a few, I always got more of a Chicago vibe from Gotham. And that's what Nolan used in his movies... well in TDK it was Chicago, TDKR was more of NY, with the blocked off bridges. Is there anything in the comics to give the Chicago theory any kind of substance?
Gotham is an Eastern seaboard city, while Chicago has a number of the stylistic elements it's on a lake and Gotham is always depicted as being next to the ocean. The buildings and gargoyles usually resemble old New York from the Empire State period. Also Wayne Mansion & Estate is very at home with east coast buildings, we don't tend to have too many estates around Chicago.
I could see Chicago being some of the inspiration but I think overall New York is the more direct source and Gotham was depicted as being a neighboring city just to the south and had lapsed into decay. (almost sounds like Philly in some ways)
KTG17 wrote: Lol what? Have you ever met a woman before? You can't tell when movies are written to encompass as much of an audience as possible?
Yes, films are written to meet specific demographics, and are often re-written to expand appeal to other demographics. You’re not wrong about that. You’re just wrong in how crudely you understand how it actually works, there is so much more to it than ‘guys like action’, and ‘girls like romance’.
The nature of the romance, the appeal of the actors involved, and most importantly what that romance says about each character is really important. And once you understand those factors you start to understand how a different romance might appeal to different characters. A story where a main character meets a girl, she falls for him, and then he rescues her in the last act is much more likely to play better with male viewers than female viewers, for obvious reasons.
Understand that, and you start to understand how, shockingly, even media primarily for boys has romantic plots through them. The audience for DC and Marvel comics are overwhelmingly male, even today, and yet the stories through them often read awfully close to Days of Our Lives. There are significant differences, of course, romantic stories written for men are typically challenged or disrupted by outside events (catastrophes, attacks by third parties), while romances for woman are typically challenged by the choices of the characters themselves (cheating etc).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
paulson games wrote: Gotham is an Eastern seaboard city, while Chicago has a number of the stylistic elements it's on a lake and Gotham is always depicted as being next to the ocean. The buildings and gargoyles usually resemble old New York from the Empire State period. Also Wayne Mansion & Estate is very at home with east coast buildings, we don't tend to have too many estates around Chicago.
I could see Chicago being some of the inspiration but I think overall New York is the more direct source and Gotham was depicted as being a neighboring city just to the south and had lapsed into decay. (almost sounds like Philly in some ways)
Hmmm, you type that out and it becomes so obvious and I don't know why I thought otherwise.
Trust me, as a long-time Cap fan, I didn't like them wasting Sharon Carter in Winter Soldier even as he flirted with Widow all film. Sharon is his Lois Lane. Meanwhile, Civil War has umpteen existing heroes, universe stuff to build, and a new hero to introduce, so it's unlikely there'll be any room in that one to actually explore that relationship. Most won't care, but I think it's kind of a shame and a waste.
Ultimately these characters probably are much better off in old-style solo films that aren't about universe-building, easter eggs, team-ups, etc.
Your point about Clark is a great one, and one I've been meaning to bring up.
Spoiler:
When Doomsday killed him in the comics, they only declared Clark missing, albeit presumed dead. Very different thing than him being in a box for all Smallville to see. I like him being buried as Clark and the Superman casket being empty (I've always preferred the modern idea that Clark is his true self and Superman is the "mask").
But yeah...it's really hard to see how Clark can be Clark again after he returns. From stuff I've read, I get the impression that JL will pick up right after BvS and be at least in part about Bruce going around and assembling the team, and that Clark may not be "back" at first. So there's undoubtedly a plan of some kind in place, and who knows what that involves. Guess we'll see.
Sharon Carter is Agent 13, right? She is in Civil War, so you might have a chance, but then half of Hollywood is in Civil War... And I suspect that her role, if they lean towards that angle, might be to act as the bridge that calms things down at the end. IDK; I've only ever read Chris Claremont X-Men (and 1 tpb of FF) from Marvel, so I've got a really limited understanding of how the different things played out in the comics. Trying to get into comics is a fairly mind-boggling affair, what with the decades of stories for essentially limitless numbers of characters!
As for Justice League:
Spoiler:
I suspect that 'bringing superman back to life' might be one of the main plot points of JL. I mean, I can't imagine that they intend to just have him get out of the coffin five minutes after Lois Lane dropped the dirt on it, and be like, "Hey, I heard that you were forming a League of some kind?" with a wink. Since I heard that Synder has said JL will be a lighter movie than BvS (you can only go up!), as part of the news that Suicide Squad is getting reshoots for more funny, they might decide to lean heavily on Superman as the symbol of hope idea; the heroes get crushed by whatever it is they fight (Darkseid? It would seem early to use him, but the whole of BvS was like a trailer for him, so...) and then they have to go and get Zombie Jesus/Superman.
On a side note, I was going to link Cinema Blend for that article, but then its website made my laptop freeze with the sheer weight of its ads. So screw those guys.
Bats and WW leave this film with at least a start in tracking down Cyborg, Aquaman and Flash, and over the next couple of in-universe years, begin hunting them down and approaching them to join the team... Aquaman will probably decline, Flash will put his name down straight away and Cyborg could go either way depending on how they want to play him (on one hand, he's often very much a team player, on the other he is initially very resentful about his loss of humanity, doesn't really see himself as a superhero)... Darkseid's invasion will begin, pulling these heroes together, but it won't be enough, and they'll get flattened. Enter the newly resurrected Superman, the League comes together, kicks Darkseid back to Apokalips and leaves him rather pissed off (setting up part 2), then we get an Avengers style ending where they all go their separate ways and pledge to get the band back together if and when another threat like this shows up.
Apart from that, I hope and expect the film will basically be just a transcription of the first volume of the N52 Justice League run or the Justice League: War animated movie, which basically consists of Batman instigates, runs into other team members (GL in the comics, but I doubt we'll see him until later on), punches Superman a bit (done that, so we can skip it here), aliens show up, Avengers Assemble, big fight with DS, everyone lives happily ever after until the next massive alien invasion...
Myself and the wife watched JL:War and JL:Throne of Atlantis this week, both really fun. I also own the comic book that JL:War is based on. My favourite bit is easily the banter between Batman and Green Lantern, absolutely brilliant!
Loved Wonder Woman - she owned the film everytime she was on - sad it was so little - didn't even get the WWI clip in the final film :(
Batman was good - for me the character reached his on screen pinacle in Tm Burtons first film and this was also very good - aging, world weary, full of rage and uncompromising - good stuff - nice to see the chain guns back as well
Superman was fine - even the Lois element was less awkward than in MOS. Good stuff.
and then we have Lex - oh god he was as awful as the trailers suggested - for me the single thing that ruined the film. A whiny, jumpy, Joker wannabee - - just terrible
We both thought the pacing was bad, the music apart from the final fight unhelpful, and it was amusing how they kept pointing out everytime there was a fight after the first one that - "oh everyone's gone home, or its unihabited."
All in all it was enjoybale but as usual these days overlong.......Its a comic film so the very very many gaping plot holes are not that important - but the ship accepting Luther because he had some kyrptonian skin taped to his fingertips was pretty awful.........
Oh and what the hell was going on with the wierd time travel dream with the green guy?
Oh and we had the trailer for Suicide Squad - which looks awesome.
I think the guy who poked his head through the portal and said "too soon?" was The Flash. I'm assuming it's more setup for future films, otherwise it was a bit out of place. Not a dream, I think, because I don't think Bruce already knew about Lois Lane - or at least, not that she was important to Superman.
It was Flash, but they made it seem like it was a dream, what with the waking afterward and all. Having Flash travel in time to a dream doesn't make sense but it is how it is shown.
It seemed like a dream - until he "woke" with information he couldn't have known about. An old trope, but still a goodie.
It also occurs to me that the flaschback at the beginning to Bruce's parents' deaths and funeral wasn't so much to tell people how Batman began - I imagine most people know that by now, same with the Hulk and Spiderman - but rather as foreshadowing to the scene where he's about to stab Superman. That's the important flashback, and the opening scene is only to establish how it should look in this movie.
AndrewGPaul wrote: It seemed like a dream - until he "woke" with information he couldn't have known about. An old trope, but still a goodie.
It also occurs to me that the flaschback at the beginning to Bruce's parents' deaths and funeral wasn't so much to tell people how Batman began - I imagine most people know that by now, same with the Hulk and Spiderman - but rather as foreshadowing to the scene where he's about to stab Superman. That's the important flashback, and the opening scene is only to establish how it should look in this movie.
Indeed. That, and to set up the fact that this Batman is clearly, genuinely insane; these visions aren't coming out of nowhere, he's obviously battling these hallucinations and nightmares and such constantly, and they definitely seem psycological in nature. Bats has always been a bit nuts, but I like the fact they're openly suggesting that here. Fits with the Batman that's seen it all, done it all, and come out the other side a complete wreck.
As for the Flash scene, it is the one part of the movie I wouldn't mind seeing removed... it makes sense from a narrative standpoint (if Flash does arrive too soon, then obviously everything he says is going to be irrelevant at the time) but as a viewer, it does feel very out of place and doesn't connect to anything in the rest of the film. It's the kind of thing that happens a lot in comics, you'll get one or two panels that seem entirely unconnected until half a dozen issues or more later on, then suddenly makes sense, but I'm not sure it makes the translation to a film that well, not least because we'll be waiting 18 months for the payoff rather than 6.
ah right - I thought it was a bit of incoherent plot device in the film but ok.
Hopefully any sequal will re-write/recast Lex as he was simply awful - pity Lois didn't shove him off the helipad when he was capering and rambling like a deranged clown - I was hoping for a minute Batman was going to execute him in prison but no luck there..........
I thought that the Lex's aide was going to be intersting but nope..............just killed her off after being efficent ....
Guess the WW1 Wonder Woman bit is in the inevitable extended edition? Hopefully with more from her and I really hope she gets a proper film.
believe the photo is the link between the films, her one being set , mainly, in/around WWI.
That said IIRC they're saying she's something like 5000 years old so might be a bit of ground to cover.
One supposes she perhaps met Alexander the Great, so was in the know about the sword...
... she might even be personally acquainted with Zeus and/or Prometheus, which would certainly have given her a different perspective with regards to Lex's speech.
... she might even be personally acquainted with Zeus and/or Prometheus, which would certainly have given her a different perspective with regards to Lex's speech.
I think Lex was fine as a proto-Lex, in the same way that Clark in MoS was a proto-Superman. From now on, Supes will be the symbol of hope he is 'meant' to be, and Lex will become ever more obsessed with bringing him down. I imagined the wackiness will go as he 'toughens up' (mentally rather than physically) and begins his serious vendetta against Clark. There's also the hint of insanity in his final scene, his mind having been opened to a whole universe of horrors, but once he's out of jail I expect we'll see a proper Luthor, probably by the end of JL.
... she might even be personally acquainted with Zeus and/or Prometheus, which would certainly have given her a different perspective with regards to Lex's speech.
Zeus, aka "Dad" :p
Yeah, I loved that look on her face when Lex was going on about Zeus.. disdain with a healthy dose of 'I wish I could rip your head off right now!'
Can't wait for the WW film, they got her so right in this that I can only see it being epic. I know it's mostly WW1-set so far as we know, but I really hope we get to see some mythical stuff early on.
Paradigm wrote: As for the Flash scene, it is the one part of the movie I wouldn't mind seeing removed... it makes sense from a narrative standpoint (if Flash does arrive too soon, then obviously everything he says is going to be irrelevant at the time) but as a viewer, it does feel very out of place and doesn't connect to anything in the rest of the film. It's the kind of thing that happens a lot in comics, you'll get one or two panels that seem entirely unconnected until half a dozen issues or more later on, then suddenly makes sense, but I'm not sure it makes the translation to a film that well, not least because we'll be waiting 18 months for the payoff rather than 6.
Yeah, it was how it impacted the pacing that bothered me as much as anything. It felt like it was at a time when the film was just starting to pick up momentum, and all those plot strands were beginning to come together, and then we had this 5 minute sequence that just stopped momentum flat.
In a comic, like any written medium, you have a lot more leeway with pacing. There's more scope for subplots and random bits that will become relevant later on. In a film not so much.
1) It still made $52M this weekend and was #1 for the week
2) US gross is at $261M, Worldwide gross is at $421M for a total of $683M
3) You seem very eager to dance on this movie's grave
This movie isn't perfect, but it is pretty good and I think it does what it set out to do, so...
1) It still made $52M this weekend and was #1 for the week 2) US gross is at $261M, Worldwide gross is at $421M for a total of $683M 3) You seem very eager to dance on this movie's grave
This movie isn't perfect, but it is pretty good and I think it does what it set out to do, so...
Why so schadenfreude?
-Public reports are that it Needs to make $800mm to break even. -I'm just reporting what Hollywood is saying. This doesn't even take into account the real bucks of toys and other royalties. -Not at all. I was strongly looking forward to it. Unlike many I loved MoS and Synder's direction of it. I'll still rent it when it comes out and make like it like I discovered 300. (edit; movie timing is such that I wouldn't be able to see it until mid April anyway...)
My notation about Suicide Squad, is because thats the other big comic movie the daughter and I have been planning to see for months (after Deadpool).
Unfortunately I can't find a link (at least right now) but I read an article about 6 months ago that said 4x movie production budget is the true "break even" target (ie the point at which enough profit is made to be job well done).
I saw that article about SS, and it seemed a little...hyperbolic?...like most of the reporting surrounding the DC films. Reshoots aren't uncommon, and *even if* the studio wanted some scenes tweaked for tone, that decision was probably made well before the release of BvS.
I saw BvS again this weekend. Interestingly, my wife liked it less than MoS (which she really liked). Frazz, I have a suspicion you may be in that category too, but we'll see.
Anyway, I felt like the second viewing really confirmed the strengths and weaknesses of the film for me. And maybe the simple answer regarding why people are split on the movie is because the strengths and weaknesses are so pronounced.
The film has story problems...it just does. It could be that the 3-hour version will give the story more room to breathe and fix some of this. It was interesting that they mentioned the 3-hour director's cut even before the film hit theaters. Still, I don't expect that the director's cut will actually change opinions even if it's a superior cut. People are dug in.
I think the dialogue was actually very tight and good IMO. I don't know that there was a wasted line in the film, and there were exchanges that I appreciated much more having seen the film already. The visuals are amazing, and I was able to watch and appreciate them more the second time also (I caught more of the easter eggs this time). The cast was also really strong. I simply don't understand criticism of the actors in this, with the exception of Mr. Eisenberg.
I didn't hate his performance or the decisions made to go with Lex as a young tech wunderkind...but I wish he would have stuck more with that "insanity just under the surface" thing he had going on in the early parts of the film, like in his exchanges with Holly Hunter and the Jolly Rancher scene. People complained about his goofiness in the trailers, but I thought his goofy-but-controlled scenes were stronger. The manic stuff in the later parts of the film was less effective IMO.
The theater I was in was only half-full, so I expected that there'd be some box office fall-off. Then again, that multiplex still had it running almost every half-hour, so a good number of people still saw the film. BvS shouldn't have much competition again next week, so we can probably expect another solid weekend. I tend to think it'll end up making what it needs to.
Frazzled wrote: Movie results are bad: the film dropped over 70% week to week.
Movie studio is reportedly going back to re-edit Suicide Squad, in attempt to make it less serious.
Everybody should have expected week 2 to crater, not being boosted by presales to the true believers. I don't think it dropped as much as Fantastic 4 and Wolverine, but it's close... Which probably has some studio execs panicking that they're not going to get the $1B that they wanted. Not that they should worry about losing money - they should cover all of the costs to break even.
Everybody also should have expected them to redo Suicide Squad after seeing how well Deadpool did. I understand that they're rushing into reshoots based on how badly BvS was received (and now is doing at the box office).
gorgon wrote: I saw that article about SS, and it seemed a little...hyperbolic?...like most of the reporting surrounding the DC films. Reshoots aren't uncommon, and *even if* the studio wanted some scenes tweaked for tone, that decision was probably made well before the release of BvS.
The theater I was in was only half-full, so I expected that there'd be some box office fall-off. Then again, that multiplex still had it running almost every half-hour, so a good number of people still saw the film. BvS shouldn't have much competition again next week, so we can probably expect another solid weekend. I tend to think it'll end up making what it needs to.
The SS reshoots were decided when Deadpool started breaking box office records. While not uncommon, it's never a good sign, as it means that the studio has lost confidence in the original director's work, and has started meddling. SS should have been a fine niche product, and the more the studio inserts themselves, the worse the product gets. Just look at BvS and how much corporate stuff was inserted into the movie, replacing content that would have told a the far cleaner Superman : Doomsday story underneath the Batman and Justice League bits that were added on by corporate.
It's April, so theaters don't have much of anything else to show. Not much new stuff, nothing big, so theaters should be relatively empty, leading up to Civil War in May. Where theaters had been hoping for a really strong Batman movie to fill seats, it's not so much right now.
I watched the Screen Junkies 58-minute discussion on this earlier today, while aggressively procrastinating on actual work, and there heard the interesting snippet that the screenings for the pre-release version were really positive; this pre-release version is apparently the 3-hour version that they are releasing this summer. Despite these good screenings, WB (or Synder?) decided to edit the film by another 30 minutes, to make the theatrical release, which was not so well received.
I wonder what would have happened if they just left it alone?
Frazzled wrote: If they ran SS like dark comedy like Deadpool, it would be awesome.
Suicide Squad is a natural fit for DC's "dark and gritty" look, and gallows humor is also a natural fit. Especially with Harley & Joker and the other Batman bits folded in.
What I'm concerned with is DC knee-jerk reactively deciding they need slapstick and 4th-wall breaking stuff. Edgar Wright stuff. Rather than the natural comedy that fits the team and the genre.
It would be an absolute travesty if SS becomes the light, bright Batman '66 movie while this latest Meet the Superfriends debacle stays mired in Nolanesque Batman. I really want SS to be a great movie, and had hoped it was small enough to have flown under the radar. Now, I'm scared DC is trying to make SS into some sort of tentpole that it never should have been.
From what I heard, SS had the black without the humor. The "funny" trailer is said to have contained every joke or light-hearted moment in the entire movie. (Trying to capture the Deadpool momentum?) The audience reaction to the trailer was more positive than WB expected, and they were left with a popular trailer promising a movie they wouldn't deliver, so they had to scramble to reshoot a lot more humor and quirkiness into the movie.
Frankly, I don't care how accurate a dark and gritty SS movie would have been; I'm just sick of the post-Nolan joylessness. I'd rather watch a dozen Ant-Mans than another bleak Snyderman film.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The SS reshoots were decided when Deadpool started breaking box office records. While not uncommon, it's never a good sign, as it means that the studio has lost confidence in the original director's work, and has started meddling.
There's no evidence that this has anything to do anything other than Suicide Squad. Everything isn't about Marvel or Marvel character films. Suicide Squad isn't going to be Deadpool anyway, not unless they reshoot the entire film with a different director and script. Ayer isn't that kind of filmmaker. Besides, as Faraci's article on birth.movies.death even states:
The enormous positive response to the trailer led to Warner Bros requesting reshoots that would alter the tone of the film, bringing in some more of the lightness to which audiences responded.
Hearing that WB is aware that they need to inject some fun into these movies - and that's what I'm hearing is happening here, not that they're inserting jokes left and right but that they're beefing up fun character moments and interactions
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charles Rampant wrote: I watched the Screen Junkies 58-minute discussion on this earlier today, while aggressively procrastinating on actual work, and there heard the interesting snippet that the screenings for the pre-release version were really positive; this pre-release version is apparently the 3-hour version that they are releasing this summer. Despite these good screenings, WB (or Synder?) decided to edit the film by another 30 minutes, to make the theatrical release, which was not so well received.
I wonder what would have happened if they just left it alone?
A bunch of irritated theater owners, I imagine. They don't want 3 hour films.
And again, I doubt it would have changed much. Folks were lined up to bash this one (note that's not the same thing as saying everyone who was negative is merely bashing). The deleted scene suggests that certain things will be explored/explained more (just that scene improves the bit about the painting), but that they might also require a deeper dive into DC lore, etc.
Had they made a big, dumb, crowd-pleasing, Marvel-style Golden Retriever of a film, that might have made a difference. Or not. Sometimes the winds just blow a certain way. You see this happen in music, TV, etc. where something doesn't find its audience during its initial release and later finds one. I'll never understand how Age of Ultron wasn't panned more by critics, other than that Marvel got some kind of mulligan based on the success of the first film. I'll take Doomsday's CGI over loosey-goosey Ultron with James Spader's unaltered voice, and take the "YouTube" heroes segment over Thor in the cave as an inserted universe-building moment that has nothing to do with that film. *shrug*
Baragash wrote: Unfortunately I can't find a link (at least right now) but I read an article about 6 months ago that said 4x movie production budget is the true "break even" target (ie the point at which enough profit is made to be job well done).
That probably isn't just box office but everything else, merchandising, tie-ins, all that stuff. Even then it's a completely arbitrary number, different films have completely different business models.
You know what I think the actual story of Batman v Superman is? That they made this movie, it got swamped with negative press before release, got pretty bad reviews, and is overlong and kind of messy, and it is still going to take in something north of $700m. That tells you something about how strong a brand Batman and Superman have.
If I was at WB I'd be getting rather excited about how strong box office and merchandising might become if they make one of these films that gets positive press, good reviews and is actually really good.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Which probably has some studio execs panicking that they're not going to get the $1B that they wanted.
Jesus here it is again - pick a number that you decided that the studio 'wanted', and then judge performance against that. It is the silliest way to judge financial performance I can imagine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: What I'm concerned with is DC knee-jerk reactively deciding they need slapstick and 4th-wall breaking stuff. Edgar Wright stuff. Rather than the natural comedy that fits the team and the genre.
You're just making things up. There is nothing in WB's treatment of DC properties that shows them wanting to follow Marvel in that way - they've actually looked to differentiate themselves, go dark and serious as heavily as Marvel have gone light and comedic.
The most obvious, and simplest explanation, is that the film as it currently stands isn't what the studio wanted. It's got David Ayer writing and directing, and that guy's work, Training Day, Fury etc makes Snyder look light and breezy. That explains the studio putting out the trailer focusing on the comedy and crazy stuff, checking that their understanding of the material is closer to what fans want than Ayer's. And when that was confirmed, well it's back to re-shoot.
But nothing in any of that says 'oh people liked Deadpool and he makes goofy jokes and breaks the fourth wall so let's do that'. You've invented that in your own head.
Also, you called BvS a debacle. It's going to gross upwards of $700m. You're just not being very sensible about any of this.
Oh...so one of the little things I missed the first time but noticed the second time around involves the "Knightmare" sequence.
After Bruce "wakes" following Flash's message, there are papers blowing around the Batcave. So it's not strictly a dream, as if we didn't know that already.
Oddly, I never noticed that - it was the otherwise- secret information he passed on that clued me in.
The whole future sequence could have been a dream until then. Actually, now that I think about it, it could still be - IIRC, Bruce woke up, then future Flash appeared.
gorgon wrote: Oh...so one of the little things I missed the first time but noticed the second time around involves the "Knightmare" sequence.
After Bruce "wakes" following Flash's message, there are papers blowing around the Batcave. So it's not strictly a dream, as if we didn't know that already.
So what the hell is it?!! A vison sent from the Gods - given Wonderwoman presence - who knows
It was portrayed as neither one thing or another and just turned out to be a plot device as bad as Thors dream in the otherwise excellent Avengers 2 - why is not made clear what the hell is going on when studios are trying to get non comic fans to watch their films? Yeah make stuff interesting, make it complex, but don;t just throw wierd stuff in without any kind of internal reference.
Actually, now that I think about it, it could still be - IIRC, Bruce woke up, then future Flash appeared
I thought he woke up in the batcave after seeing the guy in the portal?
For me the main problem with the film sems to be that they got a title and theme - "Batman and Superman have a fight" and tried to build everything around that one element - and it simply does not work very well - there is lots of crowbaring various plot elements in to get that fight - which is well done but there is so much more they could have done - in a tighter film
Every horribly cringeworthy scene with Lex could have been another Wonder woman scene for instance
A Joker style villian, - hell the Joker would have worked much better - scheming and plotting to get the two good guys to fight. - Lex is poorly used and portrayed - its embaressing to watch.
I liked the Lois / Superman story - I feel that Marvel do "people" so so much better but in this film with those two and Batman, Alfred, at lest they tried!
As usual cut another half an hour out of the film and it would have been better.
Mostly this film made me want to see a Wonderwoman film! Oh and Suicide Squad - DC finally realised that black comedy is great.
gorgon wrote: Oh...so one of the little things I missed the first time but noticed the second time around involves the "Knightmare" sequence.
After Bruce "wakes" following Flash's message, there are papers blowing around the Batcave. So it's not strictly a dream, as if we didn't know that already.
So what the hell is it?!! A vison sent from the Gods - given Wonderwoman presence - who knows
It was portrayed as neither one thing or another and just turned out to be a plot device as bad as Thors dream in the otherwise excellent Avengers 2 - why is not made clear what the hell is going on when studios are trying to get non comic fans to watch their films? Yeah make stuff interesting, make it complex, but don;t just throw wierd stuff in without any kind of internal reference.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on Avengers 2, but yes, Snyder has a habit of catering to more diehard comics fans over general audiences. He's said that this film was the closest thing he'll ever have to directing a Dark Knight Returns movie, and he certainly worked in a lot of elements from TDKR. But that story wouldn't necessarily be a crowd-pleaser for everyone.
It's probably fair to say that BvS is a little too "inside baseball," to use an American term. That's undoubtedly why they cut the Steppenwolf scene, even though it connects to and makes more sense of the story element involving the painting. And that's why I'm guessing that the 3-hour version won't be any more crowd-pleasing to non-comics fans...it probably digs even deeper, although it's possible that the story will flow better and the diehards will like it even more.
The placement of the Knightmare sequence was odd in some respects. But then they have to create the threat and thereby a motivation to form the JL. It would make more sense at the end of the film, probably. Marvel would have put it in some kind of after-credits thing (supposedly we might get 3(!) of those in Civil War...which is dumb). But during the movie proper, you have the big fight and the death to work around. Can't interrupt those.
Like I think I said in my original comments, this wasn't an easy film to make considering all the stuff it had to do. Now, should the Knightmare sequence and Flash message have been quite that cryptic? Maybe not. It may pay off handsomely down the road, but as the first official DCEU film, maybe you worry more about keeping general audiences focused on THIS film.
As for what it is, my best guess is that it's a message of sorts from the New Gods to the guy most capable of organizing the troops and a defense against what's coming.
Saw it today, I thought characters needed more development, and there were themes I found interesting. The whole argument over the power of superman and the need for protection from him. It was a shame to me the court room scene amounted to just an explosion, because I really wanted to hear both sides speak. Superman never got to have a platform to speak to humanity and be questioned. I would have liked more development if big ideas instead of the huge monster fight scene which felt a bit tacked on after the buildup to the Superman-Batman fight.
gorgon wrote: Oh...so one of the little things I missed the first time but noticed the second time around involves the "Knightmare" sequence.
After Bruce "wakes" following Flash's message, there are papers blowing around the Batcave. So it's not strictly a dream, as if we didn't know that already.
So what the hell is it?!! A vison sent from the Gods - given Wonderwoman presence - who knows
It was portrayed as neither one thing or another and just turned out to be a plot device as bad as Thors dream in the otherwise excellent Avengers 2 - why is not made clear what the hell is going on when studios are trying to get non comic fans to watch their films? Yeah make stuff interesting, make it complex, but don;t just throw wierd stuff in without any kind of internal reference.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on Avengers 2, but yes, Snyder has a habit of catering to more diehard comics fans over general audiences. He's said that this film was the closest thing he'll ever have to directing a Dark Knight Returns movie, and he certainly worked in a lot of elements from TDKR. But that story wouldn't necessarily be a crowd-pleaser for everyone.
It's probably fair to say that BvS is a little too "inside baseball," to use an American term. That's undoubtedly why they cut the Steppenwolf scene, even though it connects to and makes more sense of the story element involving the painting. And that's why I'm guessing that the 3-hour version won't be any more crowd-pleasing to non-comics fans...it probably digs even deeper, although it's possible that the story will flow better and the diehards will like it even more.
The placement of the Knightmare sequence was odd in some respects. But then they have to create the threat and thereby a motivation to form the JL. It would make more sense at the end of the film, probably. Marvel would have put it in some kind of after-credits thing (supposedly we might get 3(!) of those in Civil War...which is dumb). But during the movie proper, you have the big fight and the death to work around. Can't interrupt those.
Like I think I said in my original comments, this wasn't an easy film to make considering all the stuff it had to do. Now, should the Knightmare sequence and Flash message have been quite that cryptic? Maybe not. It may pay off handsomely down the road, but as the first official DCEU film, maybe you worry more about keeping general audiences focused on THIS film.
As for what it is, my best guess is that it's a message of sorts from the New Gods to the guy most capable of organizing the troops and a defense against what's coming.
Hmm maybe - i still don’t think they had a clear idea of what they were making beyond the title / theme. I like some of Synders work - I loved Sucker Punch for instance and enjoyed the varied and often very dark elements within it.
Is the Steppenwolf scene the Wonder Woman in WW1 - weird choice to cut when they left other stuff in - I also agree that a great opportunity was missed with the courtroom - it could have been an internal and external debate on Superman – but I think was not that ambitious
- instead it was just another Loopy Lex moment........
Agree that a post credits scene would have worked far better for the dream/vision/whatever from a story telling - and that’s what I feel Marvel do better, by and large..........
Re "what they had to do"?
re-introduce Batman - this was well done - perhaps a little drawn out considering they did not bother to do the same with Superman but,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.He elements of the darker batman introuduced on screen by Burton and which Nolan continued (even if I didn't like them - most did).
Establish the impact of the fight with Zod on the world - done (well sorta - see below) the initial sequence with Bruce racing through the streets was a million times better than the tedious fight of Man of Steel - really good stuff.
Introduce Wonder Woman - not enough of her for me - the WW1 should have stayed in - what they did was good but limited. They did however establish her as a great character that people want to see more of - so kudos
Establish there are other powered individuals – done.
Lex - Swing and an almighty miss = Loopy Lex drags the film down and takes up an awful lot of screen time with his antics that are simply, in my opinion not needed.
If Doomsday had arisen merely as a result of his meddling in the middle of a Bat/Sups confrontation, I think it would have been much better - instead we had the nonsense with Kryptionian ship giving full access despite scanning him because he had selotaped the bits of skin onto his own fingers etc etc
Also it’s interesting that the DC films are much more US focussed – as are the hero’s – again maybe why the WW1 bit was cut – its not in the US. The enquiry into Superman is not a UN matter – but US senators only – Marvel goes for the global story and impact?
I'm sorry if it has already come up, but if this Batman uses guns and has no regard for the lives of scum, how is the Joker still alive for Suicide Squad? Are they retconning him to be bullet proof? The big moral dilemma in most of the best Joker comics (including DKR, which Snyder claims to love) is whether or not Batman should kill the Joker. If this movie has solved that problem, how is he still walking around with his face intact? Maybe they're going to also completely alter the Joker to make him a superhuman badass who can survive against the Batman.
Also, Batman is now a proper Republican. Rich, gun nut with a judgemental attitude and a simplistic idea about justice.
Da Boss wrote: I'm sorry if it has already come up, but if this Batman uses guns and has no regard for the lives of scum, how is the Joker still alive for Suicide Squad? Are they retconning him to be bullet proof? The big moral dilemma in most of the best Joker comics (including DKR, which Snyder claims to love) is whether or not Batman should kill the Joker. If this movie has solved that problem, how is he still walking around with his face intact? Maybe they're going to also completely alter the Joker to make him a superhuman badass who can survive against the Batman.
Also, Batman is now a proper Republican. Rich, gun nut with a judgemental attitude and a simplistic idea about justice.
Wasn't that always Batman (and quite a few other Hero's?)
Apparently Iron Man never kills either in the comics - so I am told - not the same in the films.............(and much likely when you had throwing heavy military armament around)
Batman in the newer films uses guns - they were extensively used in the Burton film - he had chain guns the same as he does in the latest version.
Do we know when Suicide Squad is set - could be before Bat V Sups so he might have killed the Joker?
Da Boss wrote: I'm sorry if it has already come up, but if this Batman uses guns and has no regard for the lives of scum, how is the Joker still alive for Suicide Squad? Are they retconning him to be bullet proof? The big moral dilemma in most of the best Joker comics (including DKR, which Snyder claims to love) is whether or not Batman should kill the Joker. If this movie has solved that problem, how is he still walking around with his face intact? Maybe they're going to also completely alter the Joker to make him a superhuman badass who can survive against the Batman.
Also, Batman is now a proper Republican. Rich, gun nut with a judgemental attitude and a simplistic idea about justice.
Wasn't that always Batman (and quite a few other Hero's?)
Apparently Iron Man never kills either in the comics - so I am told - not the same in the films.............(and much likely when you had throwing heavy military armament around)
Batman in the newer films uses guns - they were extensively used in the Burton film - he had chain guns the same as he does in the latest version.
Do we know when Suicide Squad is set - could be before Bat V Sups so he might have killed the Joker?
The Burton film was also (in my view) wrong to have batman use guns. I mean if he's going to use guns SOMETIMES, why not just use them all the time? Most of his schtick is based on the avoidance of firearms and killing. No need for batarangs if you can just blow someone away!
Batman not killing is a pretty consistent and core part of a the character, with only a few exceptions over 80 years.
It will be difficult for them to build their cinematic universe if the Bat vs. Supes opener was actually the last movie too. One would have thought they'd like to keep an antagonist like the Joker around.
It's almost like the aversion to killing served a purpose beyond moralising in a serial medium.
It will be difficult for them to build their cinematic universe if the Bat vs. Supes opener was actually the last movie too. One would have thought they'd like to keep an antagonist like the Joker around.
Why - the Joker died in the same movie they introduced him in both Burton's and Nolans Batman films?
Both are apparently in the new Suicide Squad movie but we don't know the timeframe for it - well I don't (anyone?) - anyway people dying and coming back is standard comic fare.........its virtually unheard of for anyone to actually die.
re Bats and guns - depends on the version - apparently pre-code used guns and he used them in films - even modern law enforcement will use lethal force if they have to.......it might be a gun - it might not............
The new version of the Bat is, it seems, somewhat broken and weary - living on his rage - it may be that he changes and renouces lethal force as a characeter development?
To be fair, Batman still hasn't gone out of his way to kill people; he's killed people/let them die in pursuit of a much more important goal as far as he's concerned (when facing off with gods, he loses sight of the value of ordinary men's lives)...
Spoiler:
He couldn't afford to pull his punches while going after the Kyrptonite or saving Martha Kent, there was no time to waste. But there's a big difference between not holding back/active avoiding deaths and just blowing away anyone he can.
There's also the argument that Batman needs The Joker as much as Joker needs Batman... if you take that as present, it makes sense....
Alternatively, the Joker is just good enough to not die, he's a pretty slippery bastard at the best of times....
Paradigm wrote: To be fair, Batman still hasn't gone out of his way to kill people; he's killed people/let them die in pursuit of a much more important goal as far as he's concerned (when facing off with gods, he loses sight of the value of ordinary men's lives)...
Spoiler:
He couldn't afford to pull his punches while going after the Kyrptonite or saving Martha Kent, there was no time to waste. But there's a big difference between not holding back/active avoiding deaths and just blowing away anyone he can.
There's also the argument that Batman needs The Joker as much as Joker needs Batman... if you take that as present, it makes sense....
Alternatively, the Joker is just good enough to not die, he's a pretty slippery bastard at the best of times....
well re the killing mooks - ke could have just follwoed the tracker and stole it later? (as in fact he does do) I got the impression he needed to let the rage out - often............
I think that's pretty weak, sorry Para. The number of times the "Should I kill the Joker?" dilemma has played out, to do it any justice... I can't see it working.
A batman who is okay with killing would not keep any joker worth his evil, poisonous salt alive. The guy is like the antichrist of the DCU. It's arguable it's morally indefensible that no-one has killed him yet, he's that bad.
To me, the explanation is that the people making this movie did not really understand what makes a character like Batman work.
Batman has only just started killing, and hasn't run into the Joker since making that switch. After all, the branding as a 'death sentence' wouldn't be as controversial if Batman already routinely murdered people.
I reckon there are easily half a dozen interpretations for the change, of varying degrees of validity, though I doubt we'll get it confirmed one way or another, and I actually wouldn't be surprised given the ending of BvS if Bats reverts to a more traditional version in future films.
Since none of the killing is plot relevant, perhaps there'll be a fan edit where it gets cut out and then I might be able to watch this movie (without paying for it) without my blood pressure spiking like crazy.
[quote=Mr Morden 655982 8567132 33b4df0e481c469309456f6975ea609c.jpegFor me the main problem with the film sems to be that they got a title and theme - "Batman and Superman have a fight" and tried to build everything around that one element - and it simply does not work very well - there is lots of crowbaring various plot elements in to get that fight - which is well done but there is so much more they could have done - in a tighter film
For me, the very title and premise are the problem. "let's make Batman and Superman fight!" is a ridiculous idea, and the film suffered from the contortions required to make it happen. They should have called it "Batman & Superman", and had the early antagonism; I thought that worked, with Bruce and Clark disagreeing with the other's alter-ego, but then having Lex pop up and twirl a metaphorical moustache, it got silly. He really should have gone the whole hog and chained Martha Kent to a railway line.
Paradigm wrote: To be fair, Batman still hasn't gone out of his way to kill people;
That is completely untrue. Go watch Burton's Batman again. He literally explodes a goon into a red mist.
Best Batman kill, ever.
Totally deliberate and cold-blooded murder there.
Also one of the many reasons why I reckon the 80s/90s Batman films are mainly crap, and a terrible representation of the character. Batman killing in BvS can be rationalised by the world around him, what he's been through, where in his career he is, the tone of the setting as a whole; in those, he just kills/gets people killed with no explanation, reason or justification, he's just a cold-blooded murderer.
Honestly, I find those Burton ones are bad films period, but even worse Batman films, they seem to disregard the source material completely and take no more from the comics than 'there's a guy who dresses like a Bat who fights a guy who dresses like a clown'...
And to clarify, my original comment was stricly about the BvS Batman's behaviour, rather than the character in all his many iterations.
If we combine some Dark Knight Returns, Killing Joke and Red Hood...
We could imagine a situation where, we have a no-kill Batman, until Robin is killed by the Joker.We then have Batman pummeling Joker (I'm remember a line from something about Joker commenting '6 months in a bodycast') but doesn't kill the Joker.
Batman then retires and doesn't start again until after Man Of Steel. However, in the time between Man Of Steel and BVS he doesn't encounter any major villains. If anything, Bats entire focus on what he's Batmanning about is the kryptonite, any heroic other stuff is just coincidence.
Cause that's the thing, Batman doesn't care about anything else anymore. He doesn't go out of his way to kill the various mooks, he just literally does have no interest whether they lived out died as a result of his actions.
All that matters, indeed he says this, the only thing that matters in his entire life if taking down Superman. Joker crime sprees? Irrelevant. Maybe that's the link to the Suicide Squad?
Of course by the end of the film...
Spoiler:
Batman does start carrying again. Supplements sacrifice has made him find his faith again. And the Batman we see at the end of the film is a lot closer to the 'normal' Batman. Hence why he ultimately doesn't brand Lex.
Batman is, and always has been, a criminally insane person with a murderous streak. Deliberate inaction to cause people's death is essentially similar to putting the dynamite in the goon's pants before shoving him down the stairs. There isn't even a hair to split.
If you're OK with Batman's kill count in BvS, you should be applauding him red misting that goon. ____
Compel wrote: All that matters, indeed he says this, the only thing that matters in his entire life if taking down Superman.
Batman is, and always has been, a criminally insane person with a murderous streak. Deliberate inaction to cause people's death is essentially similar to putting the dynamite in the goon's pants before shoving him down the stairs. There isn't even a hair to split.
If you're OK with Batman's kill count in BvS, you should be applauding him red misting that goon.
I see a huge difference there, between a regular old crimefighting Batman breaking his one rule for a simple street thug just because he can (completely out of character for pretty much any comic version, even Miller's) and a Batman that is so utterly obsessed with bringing down an enemy he sees as a threat to humanity's very existence killing because as far as he's concerned, he absolutely cannot let anything get between him and his goal of saving the planet (not typical Batman, but in this situation not entirely implausible... and what's more, barely justifiable from an outside perspective, which makes it all the more interesting to watch this version of Batman and how this new world is challenging everything he stood for).
Nope. The Batman movies regularly have villains who intend to murder entire cities. Same as Superman did. No difference.
Consider Batman Begins - Ras is using a microwave bomb strong enough to boil all of the water in the underground pipes. Newsflash, people are mostly water. Microwaves are blocked by metal and pipes. It needs to be a thermonuclear type detonation to be powerful enough to boil the water through layers of earth and metal. That means the device will instantly vaporize all of the people in Gotham - the drug in the water supply would affect those survivors downwind of Gotham. At a minimum, people will have massive burns from the radiation as their surface skin is fried off by the reflecting microwaves.
Or are you saying that the World's Best Detective doesn't understand how microwaves work?
Pretty sure there were solid rumours a while back that the first new Batman movie was going to be a Red Hood one, which I agree would be awesome. It's certainly one of my top 4 or 5 Batman comics I'd love to see in live action (the others being Night of Owls, Hush, Death of the Family, and maybe Knightfall, though Dark Knight Rises does that reasonably well).
Still think the Joker-Robin theory is rubbish, the 'evidence' is tenuous at best and more to the point, it would totally waste and ruin the character, I reckon.
Da Boss wrote: I'm sorry if it has already come up, but if this Batman uses guns and has no regard for the lives of scum, how is the Joker still alive for Suicide Squad? Are they retconning him to be bullet proof?
There's a difference between killing and murder. This Batman is clearly happier to use lethal force, but there's nothing saying he's willing to murder. What's really weird is the closest any movie Batman came to actual murder was Nolan's, in Batman Begins, when Batman elects to leave Ra's al Ghul to die.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: The Burton film was also (in my view) wrong to have batman use guns. I mean if he's going to use guns SOMETIMES, why not just use them all the time?
Nolan's Batman also had guns stuck on vehicles.
Most of his schtick is based on the avoidance of firearms and killing. No need for batarangs if you can just blow someone away!
No film version of Batman ever just walks in to a fight with a gun, though. This current Batman uses a gun to launch a tracker, while other Batman versions might have used a scratch built device or thrown it or something. And of course, this Batman is happy to use a gun being wielded by a villain to shoot that villain's friends.
The latter doesn't bother me at all, to be honest. Again its the distinction between killing and murder, and it recognises the basic reality that if one guy walks in to a fight with dozens of bad guys then he really shouldn't be pulling his punches.
Using the gun to launch the tracker was rubbish though, it just looked wrong.
I think the bomb in the pants was simply Tim Burton being Tim Burton...it really had nothing to do with Batman or his history of walking the line of killing vs not killing....it was a *comedic gag* meant for some dark humor. To the casual movie goes they wouldn't know about Batman's history of never killing....and I honestly doubt that Burton concerned himself with that detail because the opportunity for a dark comedic moment rose and he took it (I doubt he even knew about the no killing policy).
I haven't read much of the comics since Bane...so I can't coment beyond what's happened much after that.
However....
Up until Burton's Batman gag death...I don't recall Batman ever killing anyone.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Or are you saying that the World's Best Detective doesn't understand how microwaves work?
No, everyone just knows that movie run on some junk science, including the people in that movie. No-one said 'but won't that kill all the people'. Batman didn't say that either, he knew his universe ran on junk science, and that understanding turned out to be correct when they turned on the ray gun and all the people were fine.
Nolan's version used them.
Burton's version used them.
I think there is a difference between using them on someone...and using them to disable vehicles, enter buildings, etc.
Which is why the dream sequence Batman in BvS going uber Rambo and obliterating those guys in the desert mirrors so well with the ahole, dictator, and godlike Superman that Batman feared would happen.
TheMeanDM wrote: I think the bomb in the pants was simply Tim Burton being Tim Burton...it really had nothing to do with Batman or his history of walking the line of killing vs not killing....it was a *comedic gag* meant for some dark humor.
Batman also threw a dude down the tower in the first Batman movie. It wasn't comic, it was just disposing of a goon in what was clearly a lethal way. He's also killed people in the comics, in his very first solo comic, back in 1940, he hangs a dude from his batplane. It was only with the comics code that Batman stopped killing in the first place.
That said, it's fair to argue that just because a Batman story breaks a rule it doesn't make it okay for future Batman's to break rules. Schumacher's batnipples does not make it okay for future batnipples I get that, and understand everyone, including me, has a perfect Batman inside their heads, which doesn't necessarily align to every single instance in which he's been shown.
So I think the more useful conversation is about what everyone's own version of Batman will and won't do. I wouldn't be okay with Batman as a murderer - choosing to let a helpless Ra's al Ghul die bothered more more than the use of lethal force in the new movie. But I am okay with a Batman who doesn't pull his punches as an absolute rule, who is willing to use lethal force when the situation justifies it. I think interpretation keeps with my version of Batman, and requires less plot contrivances, where bad guys are always near enough and non-threatening enough that non-lethal attacks can be used.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: I think there is a difference between using them on someone...and using them to disable vehicles, enter buildings, etc.
Sure, and part of that is a writer's contrivance. The idea that Batman can fire cannons attached to a motorbike and always hit the car in just the right place that the car is disabled, but never accidentally kill any of the goons in the car is a contrivance. Or that he can shoot through a wall and there's never anybody on the other side who's about to have a really bad day.
I think a lot of people are happy with the idea that of course he can do that, he's fething Batman, but I don't think that's the only way the character can be. An interpretation that I think is at least as equally interesting is a Batman who won't murder, but who accepts sometimes bad guys die when you go about fighting them lethal weapons.
I would have preferred if they'd done it more in line with Miller's Dark Knight Returns, I think the build up in there was significantly better as there was years of tension and disagreement built up between the two rather than blind anger at meeting. In DKR they are more like brothers that have a deep divide on how they view justice at it's core, they know each other very well which makes it far more heated and intense sort of like having a scenario with brothers opposing each other in the civil war.
In DKR Batman uses plenty of lethal force which is sort of the point to illustrate where his inner darkness has grown to, he's dedicated years trying to keeping his last shred humanity alive by not killing despite living in a world that would be better off if the villains were simply erased. Because he refuses to kill he sees other people suffer time after time, and he's haunted by Robin's death after he allowed the Joker to live after the millionth time. He is conflicted because no matter what he does it's ineffectual, the criminals always just return to their ways and it's an endless cycle of pain and death of innocents. He's one man standing against the tide and he knows he's losing.
When he fights the much younger and more physically able gang members he realizes he can't afford to pull punches anymore as he puts himself at risk himself more than he ever did and it's a losing battle. He uses military weaponry to turn Gotham into a literal warzone, the batmobile is replaced by the bat-tank and he uses it against a lot of gang members, machine guns & tank rounds he adopts the attitude of "if you stand against me well then feth you it was your choice to risk death". He doesn't intend to murder them but he returns their level of violence in equal measure (and then some)
When he finally kills the Joker it's a very deliberate act because he simply can't allow him to harm others anymore. Decades of fighting him and hundreds of death it's caused have proven over and over that the Joker is beyond reform and there's only one way to end it. It's not a casual choice it's very premeditated and it's an act of deliberate murder and not simple fall out resulting from a fight.
It's also quite fitting that Batman stages his own death as in a way he does die when he makes that choice to kill Joker. Alfred dies and Wayne manor burns down which were what served as symbols of his moral compass. Without that he becomes consumed with the Bat demon spirit and becomes something much darker. (plus has the gak crazy sons of the bat behind him)
There were parts of the film that I liked but the dream sequence was terrible and did nothing for the story. Yes it hints at future films involving the league and Darkseid but it really messed with the pacing of the film and there was no explanation or resolution for that scene so it's jarring and highly confusing. I only have a very vague passing knowledge of that stuff so I couldn't make any connection to what the heck was going on in that sequence and as a result I was scratching my head for the rest of the movie wondering how or where it'd fit in, which it never does. It felt like they'd gotten the reels out of order or a scene from a completely different movie got spliced in on accident. Proper foreshadowing should be completed within the film, or go the route like Marvel does with having their "to be continued" tie in sequence at the very end of the film.
The Bat armor was pretty awesome, although I would have liked to see it sucking power from the whole city grid in order to fight Superman as it's a good way to show just what level of force is needed to deal with Superman. Having him blasted in the face with mega tons of energy just to get a nose bleed was a great panel.
TheMeanDM wrote: I think the bomb in the pants was simply Tim Burton being Tim Burton...it really had nothing to do with Batman or his history of walking the line of killing vs not killing....it was a *comedic gag* meant for some dark humor. To the casual movie goes they wouldn't know about Batman's history of never killing....and I honestly doubt that Burton concerned himself with that detail because the opportunity for a dark comedic moment rose and he took it (I doubt he even knew about the no killing policy).
Up until Burton's Batman gag death...I don't recall Batman ever killing anyone.
Burton's Batman kills people for fun? OK.
Prior to Burton's Batman, mainstream comics were pretty much pure crap. Holy Camp!, the only Batman we saw was Adam West hamming it up with his underage male lover.
For what it's worth, in Dark Knight Returns, Batman doesn't kill the Joker, he just very, very nearly killed him. Ultimately the Joker breaks his own neck to frame Batman as the killer.
Yes, exactly. The point is that even when everything has gone to hell as much as it has, and even with Bats almost off his rocker with the stress, fatigue and rage, he still can't kill the Joker.
When I read it, I found it an extremely powerful sequence, made all the moreso by the Joker's last spiteful act of self destruction to spit in his eye.
Sebster: I can see your POV, but I prefer my batman to be the hero that clings to his morals even when they don't make sense. Who does not compromise his code no matter what. I think that is actually a flaw that batman has, and it's an interesting one when explored by a competent writer. Sometimes killing people makes sense. Supes did that with the supervillains who were too powerful to let live. He didn't like it, but he knew he had to do it. That's an interesting difference to me.
Anyhow. I'm obviously pissing into the wind with this argument.
On another level, as someone who is interested in having a variety of heroes for kids to look at, I am disappointed by the only anti-gun action hero I can think of becoming trigger happy. This is definitely a more personal thing, but I also dropped Doctor Who immediately when Matt Smith started waving a gun around/being okay with River Song doing it.
Da Boss wrote: I think that's pretty weak, sorry Para. The number of times the "Should I kill the Joker?" dilemma has played out, to do it any justice... I can't see it working.
A batman who is okay with killing would not keep any joker worth his evil, poisonous salt alive. The guy is like the antichrist of the DCU. It's arguable it's morally indefensible that no-one has killed him yet, he's that bad.
To me, the explanation is that the people making this movie did not really understand what makes a character like Batman work.
Just playing devil's advocate, remember Bruce's words to Alfred about the stakes. The Joker is a gangster that can be neutralized by some concrete walls and metal bars, and so that's all the farther Bruce needs to go with him. Meanwhile, if some mooks are effectively putting planetary survival at risk by standing between him and what he needs, then he'll do whatever's necessary, including more extreme measures.
Da Boss wrote: Sebster: I can see your POV, but I prefer my batman to be the hero that clings to his morals even when they don't make sense. Who does not compromise his code no matter what. I think that is actually a flaw that batman has, and it's an interesting one when explored by a competent writer. Sometimes killing people makes sense. Supes did that with the supervillains who were too powerful to let live. He didn't like it, but he knew he had to do it. That's an interesting difference to me.
Anyhow. I'm obviously pissing into the wind with this argument.
Not pissing in to the wind at all. I think it's a really interesting conversation, not just in to Batman but in to how we each follow all these characters that are shared by storytellers, across different mediums.
And for what's worth, Batman as the guy with these absolute morals, on guns and and killing, makes great sense given his origin, and can be used to drive some really interesting Batman stories. But I'm also happy to see Batman taken another way.
I loved it. In the context of it as a "world setup" for Justice League, I felt like the whole "Meta Human Dossiers" was a great little way for us to see what was coming and show off the actors without things being too crazy stretched out.
Loved The Flash's time travel and his "Am I too soon? Has it happened yet?". His 'battle armor' was a bit of an interesting take, as he had a normal costume underneath as well. Wonder where they're going with that?
Can't really think of too much to say negatively beyond the pacing that others have mentioned.
I absolutely adored the score during the fight scenes. It was great hearing a distinctive 'sound' for each hero, and I really thought that the music really got perfect once it was all three of them fighting Doomsday.
Speaking of, Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman? Friggin' nailed it. That moment where she gets clobbered by Doomsday and just shakes it off with a grin that seems to say "Finally! A good fight!" just made me that much more excited for next June!
So per Jai Courtney, the reshoots for SS are more about action. Regarding humor, he said something about there being plenty of that in there already, and that we shouldn't believe everything we read.
In other (possibly SS-related?) news, WB has moved WW up a couple weeks, and added slots for DC films in 2018 and 2019. Let the guessing begin about those. I think the lead contenders are Affleck's Batman film, Suicide Squad 2, and Lobo.
I've been reading the early Batman stories reprinted in the 'Chronicles' paperbacks, and Batman's attitude towards killing is fairly casual. It shows how much the character has changed from that into the 60s camp, then the 80s grit, and to a more moderate character today.
In these early issues he's killed villains by kicking them in the neck and breaking it, or in the case of the man-monsters (transformed victims of Hugo Strange) hangs one by the neck from his bat-plane until they die and than says 'he's probably better off this way'. More often the villains die just as a result of his fighting them, but he rarely shows remorse. Batman dodged a villain who falls in acid and dies, to which Baman says that it's 'a fitting end for his kind'. In a more recent strip, a man becomes a Jekyll and Hyde villain after a bang on the head. While in a confused state between being good and bad personalities, Batman punches him down a flight of stairs and breaks his neck, but charitably Batman describes him as 'the only time I was sorry to see a criminal die'. In Joker's second appearance, he's recovering from his near fatal stab wound from the first story, upon reading in the newspaper that he's still alive (no bat-computer yet) Batman decides that he will abduct the Joker from hospital while still in a weakened state to take him to a brain surgeon for an operation to turn him into 'a valuable citizen' again.
That was a long time ago, though. It is probably safe to say that relatively few Batman fans base their enjoyment of him upon the very earliest comic strips...
Given the relative importance of movies, it is probably safe to say that Burton's Batman looms far larger than any comic arc ever published. Every Batman movie since then has been trying to turn Burton's "grit" to 11, and now Batman (v Supes) makes Supes dark & gritty. The DC Murderverse has heroes killing people left and right, because that's how Burton did it, and that's how it makes money. It only took a dozen films from Marvel, where responsibility mattered, for people to see Supes and finally ask "WTF?"
Sure, I get that, but if you look at comics revenue vs movie revenue, it's getting to be that comics are a labor of love, a self-funding development project that feeds movie production down the line.
But what I find interesting about them is that aside from TV soaps, they're one of the few media where the serial is the standard.
Serial media has some unique properties (and weaknesses) that make it fascinating to follow. And it gives the characters deep roots and a wealth of material for adaptation.
At this stage, DC could probably scrap the comics though and stick with stuff like cartoons and movies. The comics have been pretty poor for a long time.
It's not my favourite batman story though - that is still Knightfall.
But I was initially cautiously optimistic about this movie, given that I liked 300 and Watchmen and felt that the issues with MoS were script rather than director related.
The Clone Wars is arguably the best serial I've seen in quite a while - it really elevates the Star Wars standard.
DC knows they have problems with the comics, hence the repeated "reboot" of their comics and continuity. NO clue who's running the show there, but I have no confidence that they know WTF they're doing.
Also, Knightfall - that's Jean Paul Valley, right? Azrael is a way better Batman than Bruce ever was.
Crazier, more batgak insane, more driven. I don't like his blue suit, tho.
Yep that's Knightfall part 2. I liked the original Knightfall the best because it was so simple in premise but made for such an awesome story. Someone busts open Arkham, literally, with a rocket launcher. All of Batman's enemies get out at once and he's got to take them all down in a short time, getting more and more tired and worn down til the very end, when he has to take on the mastermind and loses.
Very similar to Dark Knight Rises, but better executed due to having more space to tell the story properly.
DC knows they have problems with the comics, hence the repeated "reboot" of their comics and continuity. NO clue who's running the show there, but I have no confidence that they know WTF they're doing.
.
Honestly, DC's comics have been pretty much fine and stable since the New 52 reboot in 2011, with even big events like Trinity War and Forever Evil not shaking things up too much. it's Marvel that have the problem with unfollowable crossovers, convoluted plots and persistent resets and reboots. DC have been better in both quality and consistency than ever before, I reckon, while Marvel have gone completely off the rails. Can't speak for the commercial success of either, but as a reader I've been very pleased with DC's output while almost giving up on new Marvel stuff.
I was never much of a comics reader (not until I got Marvel Unlimited last month).
However, from watching the DC Animated films and reading various wikipedia articles, it seems like the comics doubled down on the grim dark grim darkness with the New 52. - I might be wrong though.
But things like, Mr Freeze now being effectively a stalker of a cryogenically frozen Nora. Talia al Ghul no longer being about the shades of grey femme fatale torn between two worlds, but instead focused on out-eviling daddy. - Or at least, according to the recent animated films anyhow. Didn't she literally date-rape drug Bruce in an arc? Was that sort of thing, really necessary?
My main hope for the DC films is that Bats and Supes are going to, by the time their next main films come out, will be guided out of this grimdarkness. - What's the phrase, a character/comic reconstruction, as opposed to the Watchmen/DKR style deconstruction. That's my main hope.
In the meantime, I still have my own customised 'perfect' Batman arc of:
Batman: The Animated Series (Not the New adventures) to Assault on Arkham to Justice League to Batman: Arkham Asylum > Batman: Under the Red Hood > Batman Arkham City > Batman Arkham Knight
Arkham Knight's 'Season of Infamy' DLC had the best ending to Mr Freeze's storyarc I could have hoped for and a very intriguing situation for the League of Assassins.
As for the comics industry, I'm pretty sure I heard that, just going by the comics alone, no merchandising or licensing etc, their actual revenue for the whole industry is about $12 million dollars or some very, very small value such as that.
DC knows they have problems with the comics, hence the repeated "reboot" of their comics and continuity. NO clue who's running the show there, but I have no confidence that they know WTF they're doing.
.
Honestly, DC's comics have been pretty much fine and stable since the New 52 reboot in 2011, with even big events like Trinity War and Forever Evil not shaking things up too much. it's Marvel that have the problem with unfollowable crossovers, convoluted plots and persistent resets and reboots. DC have been better in both quality and consistency than ever before, I reckon, while Marvel have gone completely off the rails. Can't speak for the commercial success of either, but as a reader I've been very pleased with DC's output while almost giving up on new Marvel stuff.
I think that if you had said that pre-Convergence -- and not in reference to the Superman books -- I'd have been on board for the most part. In particular, two of the three 'trinity' characters had *legendary* runs in the New 52 -- Snyder on Batman, and Azzarello on WW. Superman is a notable exception here, but I'll get to that later. And I think there were a lot of other strong books. Other stuff like Multiversity was sublime.
But I feel like quite a few books have floundered, some due to creative team changes, and others due to poor stewardship. And now just a year after Convergence we have another "tweak" in Rebirth. In which they're apparently either offing the New 52 Superman or completely depowering him to be Clark Kent full-time, while the pre-Crisis universe Superman -- now quietly living in the New 52 universe -- will take over as Superman full-time.
That right there is a fething mess. Maybe it's a temporary thing. You'd think they wouldn't keep Clark and Supes separate for long. But the buzz seems to be that they're doing this because of some readers carping about the New 52 Superman and the loss of red underwear. So back to the '90s we go!
What DC doesn't seem to realize is that the only issue with the New 52 Superman was that they had umpteen different writers taking him in umpteen different directions. Nearly lost in among all the jumbled and bad stuff, they've also done some of the best, freshest Superman stuff they've done in years. But they've clearly never had a good plan for the character in the New 52, or at least they've never stuck with it. It's so bad that Dan Jurgens of all people seems to be taking a lead role in the Superman books after Rebirth. Not drawing...writing. But hey, Jurgens was great in the '90s, right? Right? This is what "no plan or ideas" looks like.
Then you have stuff like the Darkseid War. They had been building up to Darkseid's reappearance ever since the JL beat him back at the beginning of the New 52, and the payoff has been one of the strangest, most drawn-out, momentum-less events ever. I could rant about it, but don't have the energy.
I don't agree with John very often, but I too am wondering who's in charge of DC at the moment. It's disappointing just because, like you, I'm also down on Marvel right now. At least the red underwear isn't coming back. Yet.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Given the relative importance of movies, it is probably safe to say that Burton's Batman looms far larger than any comic arc ever published. Every Batman movie since then has been trying to turn Burton's "grit" to 11, and now Batman (v Supes) makes Supes dark & gritty. The DC Murderverse has heroes killing people left and right, because that's how Burton did it, and that's how it makes money. It only took a dozen films from Marvel, where responsibility mattered, for people to see Supes and finally ask "WTF?"
Agreed in terms of popular media - Burton rewrote Batman - everything since then has built on that - as he built on the comics such as DKR.
Marvel's issues are entirely due to letting their movies wag the comics.
The problem is that it gets the creative flow backward. In the time that an Iron Man or Avengers movie gets made, there are a minimum of 25x as many comic published. For Cap & Thor? 50x, For Guardians? 100x. The comics drive the movies, because there is so much comics content, the movies practically write themselves if you have someone in charge, curating the comics into movie-suitable content. It's a ton of content to mine through, but there are real diamonds in there.
Without that massive creation of comics material at the base, the pyramid for movies isn't as strong. Sure, Marvel does great right now, and still sits on a mountain of content, but eventually, they will suffer as they choke the flow.
Look what happened to Disney when they ran out of fairy tales to animate...
JohnHwangDD wrote: Given the relative importance of movies, it is probably safe to say that Burton's Batman looms far larger than any comic arc ever published. Every Batman movie since then has been trying to turn Burton's "grit" to 11, and now Batman (v Supes) makes Supes dark & gritty. The DC Murderverse has heroes killing people left and right, because that's how Burton did it, and that's how it makes money. It only took a dozen films from Marvel, where responsibility mattered, for people to see Supes and finally ask "WTF?"
Agreed in terms of popular media - Burton rewrote Batman - everything since then has built on that - as he built on the comics such as DKR.
OTOH, maybe, DC has been building their Murderverse this way, because we've been watching the buildup to Justice Lords...
I'm not very knowledgeable about current Marvel comics - I'm still mired in reading Claremont's X-Men run from the late 80s - but I hear that the crazy thing about them right now is just what is popular. To paraphrase someone I know about it, "If you told me a decade ago that X-Men would be down to one comic a month, that Fantastic Four would have none, and that Captain America and Guardians of the Galaxy would be really big deals, I'd have thought you were nuts." I also hear that the comics are definitely feeding off of the films at this point - with Robert Downey Jr. totally influencing how the Iron Man character is portrayed.
Charles Rampant wrote: I'm not very knowledgeable about current Marvel comics - I'm still mired in reading Claremont's X-Men run from the late 80s - but I hear that the crazy thing about them right now is just what is popular. To paraphrase someone I know about it, "If you told me a decade ago that X-Men would be down to one comic a month, that Fantastic Four would have none, and that Captain America and Guardians of the Galaxy would be really big deals, I'd have thought you were nuts." I also hear that the comics are definitely feeding off of the films at this point - with Robert Downey Jr. totally influencing how the Iron Man character is portrayed.
Give the people what they want + strike whilst the iron is hot.
Makes sense that they're pushing the things that are popular in the movies.
Iron Man, while an important character in the Avengers, wasn't popular. Until RDjr got into the suit. The comics have adapted his mannerisms and attitude, and he is very much Iron Man. Or at least Iron Man is very much him. He basically played himself in the movie, and has been the "cool" version of Tony Stark. So the comics fully adapted to his character.
X-men and FF have fewer comics because of the war with Fox. They can't fully kill off the characters, at least X-men, because of how well loved they are, but they're seriously getting limited.
Interestingly, the Iron Man v Captain America : Civil War critical stuff is coming out, because people like it and it's not embargoed.
I suspect Marvel is getting the IvC reviews stuff out now in order to further kill BvS sales among those who were considering seeing it this weekend. They want people to hold their superhero dollars until IvC:CW comes out.
From how positive the IvC reviews are, I wouldn't be surprised to see IvC:CW pull IM3 money ($1.2B), where BvS stalls at a $800M breakeven.
Iron Man vs. Cpt. America simply is the far better matchup. Superman is boring af and the most bland character among all superheroes. He is overpowered to a ridiculous degree and cannot be beaten unless heavily written to it which then leaves impassable plot holes.
The whole Civil War is an actually interesting event with /characters/ instead of bland clichees. RDJr alone can make this movie a success and even Cpt. America, as boring as he is as a superhero, at least has a story you can root for and fits nicely to the overall story arc.
Sadly, we will not be getting an actual civil war movie as there are too few heroes in the movie, but it will likely be awesome. What the wife and me wished for was a Civil War mini series with a huge Civil War movie at the end. Every important hero could be put in the spotlight each episode with other tying in nicely and boom, then there's the movie which people could not wait for with epic battles and such. Damn it!
I saw movie today. I can't say it was bad. It was exactly what I expected, so I wasn't disappointed I guess.
Big problem: I thought there were scenes that seemed to be agonizingly drawn out. How many times are they going to show a shell casing slowly ejected from a pistol? Man! There was a lot of chin music in this movie. I went with my 10 yr old son and he was bored 75% of the time, playing more with the recliner then watching the movie.
I must have liked the fight scenes because they went too fast.
I wasn't disappointed with the acting, or special effects. Its just the fact that the whole movie (even music) seened to be 30 min too long.
It had some really cool parts. I couldnt shake the feeling it seemed like one of those Youtube videos where someone connects all the cutscenes from a video game into one take.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Those were fanboys lauding BvS, not impartial critics.
I would not call film critics in any way impartial - if anything they are more likely to be biased than your average guy in the street,............or paid by the studios as can be seen from the reviews of the Star wars Prequals.
Its just the fact that the whole movie (even music) seened to be 30 min too long -
Thats often true these days IMO - they seem to haev trouble editing films to a reasonable length - even given they will release various versions on the DVD.
SickSix wrote: Trying to avoid the spoilers, have a simple question: Is this movie worth paying to see in theaters?
Personally, I thought so.
Absolutely. First, as the movie really is very enjoyable, I think, and secondly as the visuals and sound alone definitely deserve the biggest screen and loudest speakers possible. Just don't go in expecting a fast-paced, happy Marvel movie, have an open mind and I imagine you'll enjoy it.
Hulksmash wrote: It's worth seeing in theatres. Granted when you walk out and think is where things fall apart.
In a nutshell. It's a Snyder movie. Turn off your brain, enjoy the outstanding visuals and awesome music, have a really good time in cinema. Don't start thinking about what you have just seen, though, script, dialogues and pacing are utterly terrible. In regards to script, however, I can't really blame 'em. I mean, if you gotta shoehorn someone...
Spoiler:
...into defeating Superman, then you have to create more (plot) holes than you can count in the Warp.
In all honesty - that's all we expect from a movie. Visuals and sound. If you want interesting characters, a good story and development, then you should absolutely watch a series. A movie just cannot do any character justice if it only has less than 60 minutes to portray a character (<60 as fight scenes, explosions etc. don't really tell you a lot about the character).
It's like dating someone. A movie is a one night stand. You have a night of hot, intense sex with a good-looking woman and feel awesome and entertained. A series is you meeting a woman you want more from than just her body; you want to stick with that person for a while, make her a part of your life, get to know about her, spend time with her, go on more than one date, get involved. What a great analogy. Haha. Sigh.
tl;dr: Movies for eyes and ears, series for brains.
tl;dr (YouTube generation): Movie = dtf, Series = gf material
Sigvatr wrote: Superman is boring af and the most bland character among all superheroes.
Every time I read something like that it still comes across as ill-thought out and poorly considered. I'm not even a big Superman fan either. If you don't like him, and apparently don't know him that well, just say that instead of repeating ridiculous falsehoods. There is nothing wrong with disliking characters, but blatant crap isn't necessary.
Your very poor language left aside, I am unable to spot any actual argument as to why he isn't supposed to be bland / boring. Superman is and has always been the same. He is written to be overpowered beyond belief, to the point that him being defeated has to be written by including actually immortal enemies like Doomsday who would easily take care of all other "lesser" heroes besides Superman. He always is the good boy, has not done anything wrong, is a literal god on earth and becomes /even more powerful/ in the comic series. We're talking stuff like turning back time and lifting Infinity. Lifting. Infinity.
You just can't root for a character who's that stupidly powerful. Batman is a normal...ish human you an root for. Daredevil is. The Flash...kind of...is. Arrow is. Deadpool.....well, is kinda special despite being extremely overpowered. Superman is just that, super. Always being super is just that: super boring.
So you don't have anything so you'll be snide and pedantic. This is shocking and unexpected. Such a thing is unheard of on the internet.
Sigvatr wrote: I am unable to spot any actual argument as to why he isn't supposed to be bland / boring.
And nothing you say here says anything that doesn't support that you have little knowledge of the character, as stated earlier. I'm sure it isn't the intent but you come across as the guy who has a strong opinion but doesn't know much on the subject they have a strong opinion about. I'm not saying he is the bestest ever or anything close to that. I'm not even saying he is good, but claiming he is the blandest super hero ever is really an incredibly stupid thing to state.
So basically, what you're complaining about (in a very inappropriate manner) is that I am not bringing up enough arguments to the table yet when I ask the very same of you, you refuse to do so. That's...telling. Well, if you just want someone to yell at / to vent, here I am, I can take it.
Weekend Box Office is coming in, and it's kind of an amusing "good news / bad news" situation.
Good news?
1. BvS didn't drop as much as it did last weekend.
2. BvS has $783M total revenue (US + non-US combined)
Bad news?
1. BvS got beat by Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss"
2. CA:CW is pre-screening to nice press, no embargo needed.
3. BvS is looking to be a breakeven proposition, finishing around $850M, maybe $900M with luck.
sebster wrote: That only exists as bad news to people who are on the DC side of a stupid Marvel vs DC thing.
So... Warner Brothers?
sebster wrote: Age of Ultron's third week it came third, behind Pitch Perfect 2 and Max Max Fury Road. Don't think anyone commented on that at the time.
I'm sure someone did.
Age of Ultron had a 40% drop from Friday-to-Sunday on its opening weekend while Dawn of Justice had a 58% drop over that same period, which is a record. That is far more telling that what it is losing to after almost a month in the theater; the movie just doesn't have any real staying power. However, AoU also had considerably more competition in Mad Max and Pitch Perfect 2 in its second week compared to DoJ, which really only has a Melissa McCarthy vehicle to compete with in its third week and nothing to compete with in its second week (except God's Not Dead 2, which come on... really?).
sebster wrote: That only exists as bad news to people who are on the DC side of a stupid Marvel vs DC thing.
So... Warner Brothers?
sebster wrote: Age of Ultron's third week it came third, behind Pitch Perfect 2 and Max Max Fury Road. Don't think anyone commented on that at the time.
I'm sure someone did.
Age of Ultron had a 40% drop from Friday-to-Sunday on its opening weekend while Dawn of Justice had a 58% drop over that same period, which is a record. That is far more telling that what it is losing to after almost a month in the theater; the movie just doesn't have any real staying power. However, AoU also had considerably more competition in Mad Max and Pitch Perfect 2 in its second week compared to DoJ, which really only has a Melissa McCarthy vehicle to compete with in its third week and nothing to compete with in its second week (except God's Not Dead 2, which come on... really?).
JohnHwangDD wrote: 3. BvS is looking to be a breakeven proposition, finishing around $850M, maybe $900M with luck.
They're predicting $278 million profit for WB once everything's tallied. Disappointing, certainly, but no one should be feeling bad for WB. If anything, it's encouraging regarding how much money they'll make if they can produce one of these things that becomes a bonafide smash hit.
sebster wrote: Age of Ultron's third week it came third, behind Pitch Perfect 2 and Max Max Fury Road. Don't think anyone commented on that at the time.
There's a really good question starting to develop about why that might be.
There's no question that there's been a ton of negative reporting on this film for months and months, and some of it was obviously irresponsible and erroneous (those dumb and obviously unfounded rumors that WB has a "no jokes" policy is a prize example). Certain outlets -- and IGN is one of them -- have been negative cheerleading BvS for quite a while. And no one should think that Disney is above playing very, very dirty.
But I don't see a conspiracy. Now, there are some people and especially some critics who just have it in for Snyder. They were lying in wait on this one, and that's just a fact. And then there are some critics who just don't like comic books films of any variety. Others somewhat fit in the previous category, but can hold their noses so long as it's an irreverent romp, because "everyone knows" comic book films can't be serious business. Also, some Marvel fans feel that they have to be critical and troll everywhere they can out of some loyalty to team red or whatever.
And then some people and critics just didn't like the film for whatever personal reason, and the film itself gave them opportunities why they could feel that way. *shrug*
Add it all up, and it's a lot of negativity, not all of it deserved. It has to be troubling for WB that they can't seem to "win" in the press and public even before their films are even released, while Marvel just seems to get the benefit of the doubt even when it produces seriously mediocre work. I mean, I've seen articles starting to crank up negativity on the WW movie, and we're more than a year out for that one. But it's also the kind of thing that can turn quickly. Human beings are fickle. If SS and WW are reasonably well-received, we may feel very differently heading into JL.
Take an exalt, goron, that's basically the post I've tried to write several times in the last few days and haven't as it kept turning into something of a rant!
JohnHwangDD wrote: 3. BvS is looking to be a breakeven proposition, finishing around $850M, maybe $900M with luck.
They're predicting $278 million profit for WB once everything's tallied. Disappointing, certainly, but no one should be feeling bad for WB. If anything, it's encouraging regarding how much money they'll make if they can produce one of these things that becomes a bonafide smash hit.
sebster wrote: Age of Ultron's third week it came third, behind Pitch Perfect 2 and Max Max Fury Road. Don't think anyone commented on that at the time.
There's a really good question starting to develop about why that might be.
There's no question that there's been a ton of negative reporting on this film for months and months, and some of it was obviously irresponsible and erroneous (those dumb and obviously unfounded rumors that WB has a "no jokes" policy is a prize example). Certain outlets -- and IGN is one of them -- have been negative cheerleading BvS for quite a while. And no one should think that Disney is above playing very, very dirty.
But I don't see a conspiracy. Now, there are some people and especially some critics who just have it in for Snyder. They were lying in wait on this one, and that's just a fact. And then there are some critics who just don't like comic books films of any variety. Others somewhat fit in the previous category, but can hold their noses so long as it's an irreverent romp, because "everyone knows" comic book films can't be serious business. Also, some Marvel fans feel that they have to be critical and troll everywhere they can out of some loyalty to team red or whatever.
And then some people and critics just didn't like the film for whatever personal reason, and the film itself gave them opportunities why they could feel that way. *shrug*
Add it all up, and it's a lot of negativity, not all of it deserved. It has to be troubling for WB that they can't seem to "win" in the press and public even before their films are even released, while Marvel just seems to get the benefit of the doubt even when it produces seriously mediocre work. I mean, I've seen articles starting to crank up negativity on the WW movie, and we're more than a year out for that one. But it's also the kind of thing that can turn quickly. Human beings are fickle. If SS and WW are reasonably well-received, we may feel very differently heading into JL.
I agree with some of this - however I think that there has been a lot of good reaction to the new Suicide Squad movie trailer - which is a stunning piece of work - beautifully choreographed with the music love it!
On the other hand - the BvS film did seem to have major flaws that many agree with - the plot (or lack of it beyond lets get the protagonists to have a fight), the pacing and the Lex Luthor character / casting. Some people do think that all this can be swept under the rug because of some nebulous Ambition that the film is supposed to have had ....... I can't think of a Marvel film with those issues and I think the same can be said for the two recent Fox (X-men) movies.
I don't recall Marvel producing anything mediocre recently, although I avoided Deadpool like the plague but even that seems to be well received............
If they can recreate the greatness of those (criminally) few scenes with Wonder Woman in in her own movie - it should be awesome. Hopefully Lex will not appear.......
I REALLY don't like the character in the comcs - and thats a understatement - I didn't like the film trailers so I thought why go to a film i dont like the central character or what I have seen of the film.......
“Batman v Superman,” one of the most expensive films ever made, is on pace to produce a $278 million profit for Warner Bros. once home video, TV and merchandise proceeds are tallied
Way to move the goalposts there.
This entire time I've been talking about movie Box Office, and for that, BvS will be lucky to break even when we count movie production and marketing costs -- the standard measure of movie profitability. BvS is setting record for biggest week-over-week drops, and that is not good for any studio.
It goes on to say:
“They were probably hoping for box-office numbers similar to ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron,’
AoU pulled $1.4B world-wide, on an essentially similar production & marketing budget. Marvel Studios netted a solid $300M+ profit, before toys and video and so forth get added on..
Also, that article was written before Bats & Supes got their asses handed to them by Melissa McCarthy. The Boss is a "junk movie" with worse ratings and far narrower appeal. But it was made for pennies, and so is pretty much guaranteed to turn a tidy profit for the studio from box office receipts alone. Again, the video and TV and DVD/Blu-Ray sales and it becomes even more profitable. ____
To respond to your other comments:
I fully expected BvS to be a gakshow ever since I heard who would be on creative team, and what DC was trying to do with it with the tagline "Dawn of Justice". DC fulfilled my every negative expectation and then some. Snyder can do a great Batman film, but he's a terrible match for Superman, dragging Supes down to Bats level. Which is why BvS is nominally a "Superman" film, with Batman getting top billing. And then the business of accelerating to Justice League requires a certain touch, and that just isn't Snyder's forte. OTOH, pull Superman and Wonder woman out of BvS and let Snyder direct a Arkham Asylum movie series, starting with Scarecrow, and it would be fan-fething-tastic in every possible way, because Arkham has the inherent grit and insanity that works perfectly with his visuals and storytelling style. But the definitive aspirational hero? Superman? No.
Also, Marvel has made roughly a dozen movies and they've done a consistently good job, with Avengers, TWS, and GotG being really standout films. I enjoyed them all. At some point, yeah, Marvel will produce another Hulk, but that hasn't happened yet.
Finally, I expect Suicide Squad to be a really good movie. I'm really looking forward to it.
This entire time I've been talking about movie Box Office, and for that, BvS will be lucky to break even when we count movie production and marketing costs -- the standard measure of movie profitability.
The only point -- and it remains -- is that this endeavor will still make money for WB. Why does the accounting method or box office horse race mean so much to YOU? No one else seems to be harping on it.
There was a documentary about film and one thing that was talked about was how box office receipts didn't get reported until the 70s (I think mid to late) and that was when the trend of using money as a determining factor for the public started being a thing. Before then it wasn't much of an issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Thats same statement was applied against me, too.
The only thing people ever accused you of was being old. And crochety. And cranky. And maybe constipated.
This entire time I've been talking about movie Box Office, and for that, BvS will be lucky to break even when we count movie production and marketing costs -- the standard measure of movie profitability.
The only point -- and it remains -- is that this endeavor will still make money for WB. Why does the accounting method or box office horse race mean so much to YOU? No one else seems to be harping on it.
If you're a fan of this movie, it should mean more to you. Box Office is almost always the determining factor of a movie's success, at least as far as the studios care. Pacific Rim made more profit in theaters and it didn't get a sequel. Another underperforming DC movie, and WB may scrap the whole Murderverse. Merchandising may be where the real money is made...but as Star Wars can attest, you don't need to make a movie every decade to sell toys. If you have to tout tchotchke sales to make your movie look like a success, then it isn't one.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Heck, if DVD sales mattered, there would be a Dredd 2.
While Dredd was OK, I couldn't enjoy it because I saw the Raid first. I kept thinking how it was wierd that they would use Dredd for what appeared to be a shot-for-shot remake.
A Warner Bros junior executive bursts in to the office of his senior... 'Sir! I have terrible news! The other guys movies made mroe money than ours!'
The senior exec gives a steely stare. "Did our movie make enough money that I still have a job?"
"Yeah, its okay, it'll clear $800m"
"Then everything is fine."
And then the senior exec returns to snorting cocaine off the hooker.
Seriously, Marvel vs DC is for fanboys.
Age of Ultron had a 40% drop from Friday-to-Sunday on its opening weekend while Dawn of Justice had a 58% drop over that same period, which is a record.
And this is what is so fething tedious about all of this. 58% against 40%. One of those numbers is bigger than the other! That's an important consideration for all our astute business minds. None of us work in film but we're still going to have opinions!
That kind of sideline enthusiasm leads to people doing stupid things like trying to decide on the appeal of a blockbuster by talking about its third week takes. Age of Ultron took 450m in the US. By the time its third weekend was about to begin it had made three quarters of its total gross already. And in terms of studio return it was more than 90% of their total return, because the studio takes a much bigger cut of first and second week takes.
No-one at WB is staring at third week returns just hoping if it can clear $30m instead of $25m then this thing just might turn around. The story of BvS box office is a really good first week that made it look like maybe this thing will turn out really well despite the reviews and negative press, then a big second week dip that meant an overall okay result. Everything after that is noise.
A Warner Bros junior executive bursts in to the office of his senior... 'Sir! I have terrible news! The other guys movies made mroe money than ours!' The senior exec gives a steely stare. "Did our movie make enough money that I still have a job?" "Yeah, its okay, it'll clear $800m" "Then everything is fine."
And then the senior exec returns to snorting cocaine off the hooker.
Seriously, Marvel vs DC is for fanboys.
Yeah, I'm sure Warner Brothers is totally happy about maybe breaking even on the franchise they think is going to carry them for years to come while their biggest competitor is printing money hand over fist. The studio isn't going to sink and the franchise isn't going to be canceled.
And this is what is so fething tedious about all of this. 58% against 40%. One of those numbers is bigger than the other! That's an important consideration for all our astute business minds. None of us work in film but we're still going to have opinions!
Sure, Seb.
While we don't work in film but we all understand numbers (I would assume), and the numbers for BvS aren't as good compared to AoU. That is not an opinion and it has nothing to do with fanboys or whatever dumb gak you keep going on about, it's just raw numbers, which for whatever reason you seem to think that studios care nothing about.
That kind of sideline enthusiasm leads to people doing stupid things like trying to decide on the appeal of a blockbuster by talking about its third week takes. Age of Ultron took 450m in the US. By the time its third weekend was about to begin it had made three quarters of its total gross already. And in terms of studio return it was more than 90% of their total return, because the studio takes a much bigger cut of first and second week takes.
No-one at WB is staring at third week returns just hoping if it can clear $30m instead of $25m then this thing just might turn around. The story of BvS box office is a really good first week that made it look like maybe this thing will turn out really well despite the reviews and negative press, then a big second week dip that meant an overall okay result. Everything after that is noise.
Despite the fact that you mention that none of us work in film, you seem pretty certain that WB is following how much money their franchise-starting film is or is going to clear.
Things that are true about BvS:
Biggest opening weekend drop for a superhero movie (58% over three days)
69% drop in earnings in its second week (more than anyone expected)
On its 13th day in theaters, the film took in $2.8 million. It has not matched pace with Ant-Man ($3 million), Man of Steel ($4 million), or Burton's Batman ($4.36 million) at that stage of their theater life
Again, none of that has anything to do with fanboys. The film probably won't break $1 billion worldwide and that is a bad thing for Warner Brothers because hitting $800 million and only breaking even isn't how any studio wants their big name franchise to start out.
Now, is any of this information going to grind their DC franchise building to halt? No, of course not and it damn well shouldn't.
gorgon wrote: There's no question that there's been a ton of negative reporting on this film for months and months, and some of it was obviously irresponsible and erroneous (those dumb and obviously unfounded rumors that WB has a "no jokes" policy is a prize example). Certain outlets -- and IGN is one of them -- have been negative cheerleading BvS for quite a while. And no one should think that Disney is above playing very, very dirty.
But I don't see a conspiracy. Now, there are some people and especially some critics who just have it in for Snyder. They were lying in wait on this one, and that's just a fact. And then there are some critics who just don't like comic books films of any variety. Others somewhat fit in the previous category, but can hold their noses so long as it's an irreverent romp, because "everyone knows" comic book films can't be serious business. Also, some Marvel fans feel that they have to be critical and troll everywhere they can out of some loyalty to team red or whatever.
Yeah, I'm definitely not saying there's a conspiracy or anything like that. It is a build up of factors.
I think with the critics it is a combination of things. First and most simply the film is far from perfect. Then on top of that you add Snyder's history, and especially the disappointment with MoS. And on top of that you add a raised bar because the Nolan movies were proper, serious movies. Perhaps the more telling contrast should be to The Dark Knight Rises, which collected 87% on Rotten Tomatoes despite being really crappy. Meanwhile the Marvel stuff gets a pass as being lighter fare, which is kind of patronising to the large and ambitious world building project that Marvel pioneered, really.
But that doesn't really bug me, because film critics have been getting comic book movies wrong since I was a kid. What's bugged me is the people who really want BvS to fail. Part of it is a very boring continuation of the Marvel vs DC thing, but the other part is just a good old fashioned dogpile. It's just kind of a weird dogpile, because they're trying to come down hard on a movie that actually did okay. But lots of people on the internet who love talking about movies as a business were sure this was going to be a disaster, and they've since been working hard to convince themselves they weren't wrong. Witness the bizarre moving goalposts - "okay so it's made $800m, but I think the studio wanted it to make $1b, so it didn't work haha!". Watch the comparisons to nothing - "another film made more money, therefore this film (and by logical extension every film that isn't Avatar) is a failure". Watch people suddenly learn about % weekly change, and start talking about that while ignoring the actual gross.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: This entire time I've been talking about movie Box Office, and for that, BvS will be lucky to break even when we count movie production and marketing costs -- the standard measure of movie profitability.
In 1996, maybe. You appear to have missed two decades of changes in the film industry. For a quick guide, go look at Cars, with a $400m worldwide box office, and compare to Up, with $700m worldwide. Cars has two sequels, Up does not. This is because toy sales really, really matter.
BvS is setting record for biggest week-over-week drops, and that is not good for any studio.
I'll walk you through this once, and then I ask you to please fething stop with that. If a film makes $1b on its opening week, and $100m on its second week, then it has a 90% drop in box office. That would be the worst week to week drop in film history. By your metric. It would be a disastrous failure. But step back from that figure, and you'd see the film had grossed $1.1b, putting it among the most profitable films of all time.
Starting to understand it now? Weekend drop is a measure of staying power, and that's all. It's an interesting thing to studios and cinemas who are planning theatre strategies, but as a measure of a film's performance its entirely meaningless, because we already have the number that actually matters, the box office gross.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: [Yeah, I'm sure Warner Brothers is totally happy about maybe breaking even on the franchise they think is going to carry them for years to come while their biggest competitor is printing money hand over fist. The studio isn't going to sink and the franchise isn't going to be canceled.
Oh I'm sure they want to make more money. And if they were making lots of money I'm sure they'd want to be making even more than that. But the basic logic is 'more money', not 'as much as Marvel' or anything stupid like that. Marvel making more than DC is an issue for fanboys. Studios just want maximum profits.
While we don't work in film but we all understand numbers (I would assume), and the numbers for BvS aren't as good compared to AoU.
I don't think many people understand numbers at all. If they did they'd understand that weekend drops are meaningless to a film's performance. If they understood numbers they'd understand the only comparison that matters is $1.4b against $800m
And then if they understood business they'd realise that the comparison is meaningless. What matters to BvS is whether it makes money, and how much it makes. Not whether it makes as much money as the rival that its fans are invested in 'beating'.
Despite the fact that you mention that none of us work in film, you seem pretty certain that WB is following how much money their franchise-starting film is or is going to clear.
I'm not sure if you aren't following, or just messed up that sentence. Yes, very obviously WB is following their takes. Every company has people dedicated to tracking sales returns. But the story of BvS has already been told - with big budget, big hype movies the money is made in the first couple of weeks, or it isn't made.
Biggest opening weekend drop for a superhero movie (58% over three days)
69% drop in earnings in its second week (more than anyone expected)
On its 13th day in theaters, the film took in $2.8 million. It has not matched pace with Ant-Man ($3 million), Man of Steel ($4 million), or Burton's Batman ($4.36 million) at that stage of their theater life
Okay, I though this was stupid when it was weekend drops. Now you're talking about how well the film did on its second Thursday. Holy gak do you not understand at all how fething ridiculous it is to start picking out bizarro stats like this?
Again, none of that has anything to do with fanboys. The film probably won't break $1 billion worldwide and that is a bad thing for Warner Brothers because hitting $800 million and only breaking even isn't how any studio wants their big name franchise to start out.
The first Iron Man grossed $600m. So you couldn't be more wrong with that standard, really.
This isn't to say I'm confident that the DC thing will work. I'm not one to make guesses, but DC is marching in to a market that's been saturated with comic book movies for a decade. I'm also unconvinced that Marvel's success is due to their worldbuilding or serial storytelling, but is instead largely due to good old fashioned star power, which the DC franchise largely lacks.
But that question will be answered in the next few years, as the DC movies roll out. And it will be answered with basic numbers, gross against production cost. Weekend drops, comparisons to other movies, they are all pointless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: If you're a fan of this movie, it should mean more to you. Box Office is almost always the determining factor of a movie's success, at least as far as the studios care. Pacific Rim made more profit in theaters and it didn't get a sequel. Another underperforming DC movie, and WB may scrap the whole Murderverse. Merchandising may be where the real money is made...but as Star Wars can attest, you don't need to make a movie every decade to sell toys. If you have to tout tchotchke sales to make your movie look like a success, then it isn't one.
Star Wars always sells, but it's a question of how much, and the simple fact is you sell loads more when there's a movie on the screens that summer.
Later episodes of Star Trek Voyager and I think almost all of Enterprise were made at a loss. The production for each episode was more than what the networks were buying episodes for. But this was still okay, because having Star Trek on tv meant on-going merchandising sales.
This isn't to say WB would be okay with losing a third of the money they sunk in to any of their films, of course. But it should tell you how the business actually operates. And it'd likely tell you that if the current franchise doesn't work, what's most likely is that they won't abandon the project, but just start again with a more Marvel tone.
You think staying power doesn't matter? It is a direct measure of how much the audience was left wanting more.
Your 1 billion opening hypothetical is also hilarious. If a movie had that kind of drop off it would be a disaster for any long term plans the studio had based on the property for sure. A drop off that extreme basically tells you that the audience was tricked into seeing the movie by hype or false advertising. Sure, it made a billion dollars, but it also killed your studio's reputation.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You added more later, so I'll respond.
A high drop off and poor audience reaction almost certainly affect the success of the merchandising. Disney could have made all the Lone Ranger merchandise in the world, but the audience reaction to that film pretty much sealed its doom.
I hadn't heard that Voy and Ent were kept afloat based on merchandising. That has to be some kind of miracle considering how inept the studio was at merchandising Star Trek TNG+. If ever there was a fandom begging the studio to take their money, it was Star Trek's.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: You think staying power doesn't matter? It is a direct measure of how much the audience was left wanting more.
That's an interpreted, guessed at conclusion. Other obvious factors like an overlarge week one audience cannibalizing week two need to be first considered, before you start writing narrative based on one stat.
And that kind of narrative writing is a simple waste of time, because there are real and direct measures of how much people actually liked a movie. Studios have exit polls, they have google search data and all kinds of stuff like that.
Your 1 billion opening hypothetical is also hilarious. If a movie had that kind of drop off it would be a disaster for any long term plans the studio had based on the property for sure.
No, look at the numbers. The film still took $100m in week two. The only reason that $100m is bad by the drop off metric is because week one set a massive base figure.
Do you understand now? The drop between week one and week two is a junky measure of performance, because it is driven equally by strong week one sales as by weak week 2 sales. If you want to measure week 2 box office then you just fething take the week 2 sales figure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: A high drop off and poor audience reaction almost certainly affect the success of the merchandising.
The studios have actual merchandising numbers for that, though. If BvS merchandising sales are high, then second week box office drop off means nothing. Similarly, if BvS merchandising sales are crappy, then it wouldn't have mattered if BvS had an okay second week drop off.
Disney could have made all the Lone Ranger merchandise in the world, but the audience reaction to that film pretty much sealed its doom.
Disney first realised they were on to a disaster with John Carter when they took their stuff to toy merchants and none of them wanted to touch it.
I hadn't heard that Voy and Ent were kept afloat based on merchandising. That has to be some kind of miracle considering how inept the studio was at merchandising Star Trek TNG+.
Most of the merchanside sold was still TOS, TNG and DS9. I'm not sure why having Voyager on tv helps sell schematics of Enterprise C, but that's how it works.
If ever there was a fandom begging the studio to take their money, it was Star Trek's.
Purely anecdotal, but the money spent by my Star Trek friends left the Star Wars fans for dead. Don't know why.
Seb, what I was saying is that despite your claim that "none of us work in the film industry" so we don't really know what's going on at Warner Brothers, you seem pretty certain that you know exactly what is going on there and everything else is just "noise" or fanboy opinions.
But not yours, of course. Only you really understand numbers and are not in any way biased so we just need to all take your word for it and temper our fanboy outrage.
All I know is that every regular business that I've worked for would not be satisfied with merely breaking even on the money they spent, but rather want to drive a solid profit, the bigger the better.
My understanding is that Hollywood studios are of a similar mind, to spend money to make money. I sorely doubt that they spend 100s of millions of dollars at tremendous risk merely to break even, when they could simply sit on that money at zero risk and end up at the same place they started.
The rule of thumb is that you want a box office 4x your production budget. If DC spent $250M on production (and they did), then they were expecting a $1B global gross. And that doesn't look like it's happening.
As for people's jobs, in many fields, people do get fired for failing to make adequate sales or sufficient profits.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Seb, what I was saying is that despite your claim that "none of us work in the film industry" so we don't really know what's going on at Warner Brothers, you seem pretty certain that you know exactly what is going on there and everything else is just "noise" or fanboy opinions.
You're not even reading. Sorry if you've got offended or angry or something, but clearly you're not actually reading my posts, just getting bothered.
I never said you were noise, or you were a fanboy. I don't know you from a bar of soap.
I said there was some fanboy nonsense in people trying to compare to Marvel, because there is. Whether it beats Marvel or not doesn't determine whether the movie makes money.
And I said many of the stats being used are noise, because they are. Weekend drops are meaningless when determining profitability, when we have the actual total gross figures for the movie right there.
And finally, yes, I don't work in a studio. That means I have no finely tuned insight in to whether this movie will be finally profitable. But that doesn't mean I'm incapable of seeing junk arguments. Similarly, I bet neither of us can give detailed discussion of the quality of the Space-X rocket, or give a meaningful prediction as to whether it will change space flight. But if someone said Space-X needs more rockets on it because more rockets make things go faster, we'd both know that that person didn't know what they were talking about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: All I know is that every regular business that I've worked for would not be satisfied with merely breaking even on the money they spent, but rather want to drive a solid profit, the bigger the better.
Of course they want to exceed what was spent, the question is how much they have to exceed it by to breakeven. That's never been questioned, it's been an accepted part of every single post on the film's financial performance. Raising it now is bizarre.
I sorely doubt that they spend 100s of millions of dollars at tremendous risk merely to break even, when they could simply sit on that money at zero risk and end up at the same place they started.
Sort of. There's the old model, in which 6/10 movies lose money, including a bunch that never even get released. 3/10 break even, or make a little bit of money. 1/10 make money, and make so much money they pay for all the others. This means a movie merely making its money back isn't disastrous. Of course the studio wants a movie to be one of those massive hits, they want every movie they make to be one of those mega hits, but the reality is that you accept breakeven results will happen while chasing massive payoffs.
That model changes somewhat when you get to really big productions. The chances of a complete miss drop massively (but don't disappear - The Lone Ranger for instance). But on the other end of the scale the chances for a crazy payday come down as well, Iron Man 3 making a billion was a sweet payoff, but because it was a much bigger production it had nothing like the profitability of Paranormal Activity.
The rule of thumb is that you want a box office 4x your production budget. If DC spent $250M on production (and they did), then they were expecting a $1B global gross.
That's not a rule of thumb, because it makes zero sense to exclude advertising and look purely at beating a multiple of production costs. Advertising varies wildly from film to film, a 150m movie with a 50m advertising budget needs to make a lot less money than a 250m movie with a 200m advertising budget. With BvS it was a 250m for production, plus 150m for advertising, for 400m total costs... which is what led to the 800m benchmark for break even.
And to complicate things even more you have to remember that a lot of that 250m budget is actually an estimated figure, because a lot of it is actually an estimate of future payments. A lot of the talent involved in front of and behind the camera would have been receiving a fair portion of their remuneration as 'points on gross', ie a % of the films final box office take. The cost of that is estimated by the studio based on its expected box office take - if they thought they'd be getting 1b then maybe points on gross would cost them 100m once everything was paid out. With what is almost certainly a much lower than forecast final box office, the real, final cost of production actually lowers. This can't be enough to turn an average return in to a good one, but it does change the maths on where break even is. And that makes it just one more factor we know little about for this movie, making our speculation even less grounded in reality.
Is it just me or could Wonder Woman have beaten the big bad by herself? Batman is there purely to provide the Mcguffin and Superman is excess to requirements in his own film.
The Mcguffin weapon was even a perfect themeatic weapon for a hoplite-ish (hop-lite ) lady. On that note I wonder if the superhero minis game has a hop-lite Wonder Woman mini, with or without a Mcguffin weapon.
Ahtman wrote: There was a documentary about film and one thing that was talked about was how box office receipts didn't get reported until the 70s (I think mid to late) and that was when the trend of using money as a determining factor for the public started being a thing. Before then it wasn't much of an issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Thats same statement was applied against me, too.
The only thing people ever accused you of was being old. And crochety. And cranky. And maybe constipated.
The new Snickers Bars have "Cranky" on them. I finally found my candy bar.
George Spiggott wrote: Is it just me or could Wonder Woman have beaten the big bad by herself? Batman is there purely to provide the Mcguffin and Superman is excess to requirements in his own film.
The Mcguffin weapon was even a perfect themeatic weapon for a hoplite-ish (hop-lite ) lady. On that note I wonder if the superhero minis game has a hop-lite Wonder Woman mini, with or without a Mcguffin weapon.
I don't think so, at least as it was presented in the film. Remember that they weren't just trying to take DD down...they were also trying to occupy and contain Doomsday on the island so that Metropolis wasn't wrecked again. One leap and DD is in the city and ready to make the destruction in Man of Steel look tame, with that shockwave thing it had. And DD seemed to be too much for either Supes or WW to contain on their own. Both of them spent a lot of that fight getting knocked around. And Diana was only barely able to hold DD in place with the lasso.
George Spiggott wrote: Is it just me or could Wonder Woman have beaten the big bad by herself? Batman is there purely to provide the Mcguffin and Superman is excess to requirements in his own film.
The Mcguffin weapon was even a perfect themeatic weapon for a hoplite-ish (hop-lite ) lady. On that note I wonder if the superhero minis game has a hop-lite Wonder Woman mini, with or without a Mcguffin weapon.
She definately kicked serious ass and enjoyed doing it
I agree...Lex was...a little too spastic for my taste. I mean he wasn't terrible...and the obsessed with taking down superman necause he wasn't a "man" was very clear....but he was a little too....spastic...like I said.
TheMeanDM wrote: I agree...Lex was...a little too spastic for my taste. I mean he wasn't terrible...and the obsessed with taking down superman necause he wasn't a "man" was very clear....but he was a little too....spastic...like I said.
I think in a better movie the Lex we were given could have worked well. A large part of the issue is that in amongst a whole bunch of stony faced serious people we had a Lex Luthor just going nuts with the crazy talk and behavioural ticks.
If they'd shown Lex as descending in to madness rather than starting there it probably could have worked better. Especially if it was tied to Lex seeing Darkseid and all the rest early in the movie. Running that theme would fix a lot of the structural issues, I think - just bring Lex's entry in to the ship in to first third of the movie - perhaps instead of scamming entry in to the NY ship, he might access the ship lost in the Pacific. Don't show Darkseid or Steppenwolf, just show their impact on Lex's mind, show him increasingly erratic, and now obsessed with building devices that can kill 'gods'. Have the eccentricities and ticks start to come out as he plans goes from 'we need weapons' to 'lets see if these weapons can kill Superman'.
I know that'd be adding more plot to a movie that's already got way too much plot, but I think the above could actually streamline a lot of the other material. You can pull out large parts of the government cozying up to Lex, strip that back to just Holly Hunter's two key scenes - with Lex in his house and at the senate hearing. You could also drop the white portuguese thing - instead of hunting that Batman could be hunting Lex from the very beginning.
Since box office does seem to be a big topic of conversation about this film, here's a solid article from Forbes about how Marvel didn't have to deal with the same box office expectations as WB.
I had forgotten how "little" some of the early MCU movies made. Some key points:
Iron Man was the one that started this interconnected universe madness. The Robert Downey Jr. smash hit, which was the first Marvel Comics movie produced by Marvel, earned $318 million domestic in the summer of 2008, but “only” $585m worldwide. The big game-changer, the film that kickstarted the MCU and eventually set all of Hollywood on a path towards interconnected universes made less that summer than Mama Mia! and Hancock.
Thor opened the summer (give-or-take whether Fast Five and its $523 million global gross counts as the kick-off movie), but Captain America: The First Avenger helped close out the season. Joe Johnston’s World War II adventure is still the best MCU movie ever, and it was the one that made me finally believe in this interconnected universe madness. Everyone was so relieved that a film with the word “America” in the title could make more overseas than it did in the U.S. that they were all-too-willing to look at the film’s $374m worldwide gross (on a $140m budget) as an unqualified success.
And now Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is being viewed as a disappointment because it will only make $850-$900 million worldwide. Now, you can make the case that Warner Bros. brought this on themselves by basically going all-in first with their would-be Justice League before doing the legwork of the smaller films. But, we should acknowledge that Man of Steel was that “smaller film” and that, with the understanding that Superman has never been as big of a cinematic superstar as we all like to pretend he is, that $668m worldwide gross was a pretty solid foundation.
Will we all be cheering if Suicide Squad “only” earns $375 million worldwide this summer? Will a Wonder Woman that makes $450m worldwide next year be seen as a big hit? One of the core differences between MCU and the DCEU was that the former came about when the would-be bar for success was much lower. Of course, the same applies to Batman Begins, which was considered a clean hit at $371m on a $150m budget back in 2005. It’s a good thing, too, since otherwise we may never have gotten The Dark Knight.
Because a $371 million worldwide gross for The First Avenger was considered just fine in 2011, a $714m worldwide gross for The Winter Soldier was considered remarkable in 2014. Because Thor was considered a triumph at $449m in 2011, Thor: The Dark World was an unmitigated win at $642m in 2013. But because Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice came about in a post-Avengers era where $1 billion worldwide was all-but-expected for the would-be big superhero franchises, it finds itself on the defensive with “just” $800m worldwide.
Those returns and global box office numbers need to be in context of the production and marketing budgets.
The game-changer was Disney taking notice of the early Marvel franchise building and going "all in" on marketing the Avengers for an incredible $1.5M global total. Over $1B, people sit up and take notice.
What really sets Disney and Marvel apart is the follow-on experimenting to see what they can do with Television on ABC, what they can do with the very obscure Guardians of the Galaxy, the patently silly Ant-Man, along with low-powered Jessica Jones. That kind of curiosity is something that DC flat out lacks as DC keeps trying to copy success, without understanding why the success occurred.
So we look at BvS. Had BvS been a $140M movie, their $800M gross would have been an unqualified success. But that's not what happened. With a $250M budget that exceeds every Marvel Studios film bar Avengers 2, and almost certain not to break the $1B bar. You just don't spend that kind of money on production and marketing if you're expecting a smaller total return.
Don't people do family gak like find the eggs and visit grandma on Easter Sunday?
Just a thought.
No, not really.
Believe it, or not, the US is not a christian nation. There are a lot of people who couldn't care less about easter. This is also the reason movies get released on christmas day.
On a fun side note, apparently Ben did such a great job as batman, he's going to write, star in, and direct the next batman movie
Don't people do family gak like find the eggs and visit grandma on Easter Sunday?
Just a thought.
No, not really.
Believe it, or not, the US is not a christian nation. There are a lot of people who couldn't care less about easter. This is also the reason movies get released on christmas day.
On a fun side note, apparently Ben did such a great job as batman, he's going to write, star in, and direct the next batman movie
Ok - for me the various problems with the film were noting to do with him...............in fact he was great. Has he directed or wrtten before?
TheMeanDM wrote: I agree...Lex was...a little too spastic for my taste. I mean he wasn't terrible...and the obsessed with taking down superman necause he wasn't a "man" was very clear....but he was a little too....spastic...like I said.
I think in a better movie the Lex we were given could have worked well. A large part of the issue is that in amongst a whole bunch of stony faced serious people we had a Lex Luthor just going nuts with the crazy talk and behavioural ticks.
If they'd shown Lex as descending in to madness rather than starting there it probably could have worked better. Especially if it was tied to Lex seeing Darkseid and all the rest early in the movie. Running that theme would fix a lot of the structural issues, I think - just bring Lex's entry in to the ship in to first third of the movie - perhaps instead of scamming entry in to the NY ship, he might access the ship lost in the Pacific. Don't show Darkseid or Steppenwolf, just show their impact on Lex's mind, show him increasingly erratic, and now obsessed with building devices that can kill 'gods'. Have the eccentricities and ticks start to come out as he plans goes from 'we need weapons' to 'lets see if these weapons can kill Superman'.
I know that'd be adding more plot to a movie that's already got way too much plot, but I think the above could actually streamline a lot of the other material. You can pull out large parts of the government cozying up to Lex, strip that back to just Holly Hunter's two key scenes - with Lex in his house and at the senate hearing. You could also drop the white portuguese thing - instead of hunting that Batman could be hunting Lex from the very beginning.
Hmm a Cthulhu Mythos descent into insanity might have been fun........that might have been what they were trying for (and failed)
Or make him a decent character rather than a Joker wannabe which is what he came across in this film - a cut rate loser version of the Joker.
Don't people do family gak like find the eggs and visit grandma on Easter Sunday?
Just a thought.
No, not really.
Believe it, or not, the US is not a christian nation. There are a lot of people who couldn't care less about easter. This is also the reason movies get released on christmas day.
On a fun side note, apparently Ben did such a great job as batman, he's going to write, star in, and direct the next batman movie
Ok - for me the various problems with the film were noting to do with him...............in fact he was great. Has he directed or wrtten before?
Well he directed: I Killed My Lesbian Wife, Hung Her on a Meathook, and Now I Have a Three Picture Deal at Disney (Short)
I never heard of it, but love the title
he wrote and directed 'gone baby gone'
so he has written and directed some stuff, but so far IMO nothing amazing has come from it.
Ok - for me the various problems with the film were noting to do with him...............in fact he was great. Has he directed or wrtten before?
He directed the 3 time Oscar winning film, Argo - Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing.
- He both acted in, and directed the film.
His other big recent film was "Gone Girl" but I think his main involvement with that was just acting.
Still, it's a far cry from his 'Daredevil' and 'Gigli' days.
Not their RDJ, but he is their Batman, they're not going to cast someone else as the same character in a film set in the same universe. There's no reason to, and no need to.
The wife and I watched it today. I half liked it and half didn't. Loved Batman. Superman seemed bland. Wonder woman was awesome. Lex didn't feel like Lex. Movie felt really dragged out at times.
Question though....
Spoiler:
Who was the guy in red during Batman's dream? I'm guessing that was Flash? But I'm not sure it was.
KingCracker wrote: The wife and I watched it today. I half liked it and half didn't. Loved Batman. Superman seemed bland. Wonder woman was awesome. Lex didn't feel like Lex. Movie felt really dragged out at times.
Question though....
Spoiler:
Who was the guy in red during Batman's dream? I'm guessing that was Flash? But I'm not sure it was.
Watch the papers right after the Flash's appearance.
There were a lot of little things I caught the second time, and I'm sure there are lots left. For an Easter egg, check out the column that passes close to the camera when Bruce is hauling Clark and about to throw him down the stairwell. Dunno how I missed that in the first viewing.
They made a sequel? I honestly think at this point that the only thing worse than the endless string of Step it Up films and rip offs is a Christian film industry willing to put out "panderings" no matter how horrible they are on the big screen and I'm a believer XD
Box office numbers are out:
1. $104M - Jungle Book
2. $20.2M - Barbershop 2
3. $10.2M - the Boss (-57%)
4. $9.0M - BvS (-61%)
5. $8.2M - Zootopia
BvS is still losing to, and dropping faster than, the Boss. Zootopia is going to break $900M globally, so it's a 6X blockbuster success for Disney, something that BvS won't likely do.
Ok - for me the various problems with the film were noting to do with him...............in fact he was great. Has he directed or wrtten before?
He directed the 3 time Oscar winning film, Argo - Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing.
- He both acted in, and directed the film.
His other big recent film was "Gone Girl" but I think his main involvement with that was just acting.
Still, it's a far cry from his 'Daredevil' and 'Gigli' days.
Ok - for me the various problems with the film were noting to do with him...............in fact he was great. Has he directed or wrtten before?
He directed the 3 time Oscar winning film, Argo - Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing.
- He both acted in, and directed the film.
His other big recent film was "Gone Girl" but I think his main involvement with that was just acting.
Still, it's a far cry from his 'Daredevil' and 'Gigli' days.
He also did The Town, which is righteously epic.
Thanks good to know - not seen any of those apart from Argo which was pretty good
JohnHwangDD wrote: Box office numbers are out:
1. $104M - Jungle Book
2. $20.2M - Barbershop 2
3. $10.2M - the Boss (-57%)
4. $9.0M - BvS (-61%)
5. $8.2M - Zootopia
BvS is still losing to, and dropping faster than, the Boss. Zootopia is going to break $900M globally, so it's a 6X blockbuster success for Disney, something that BvS won't likely do.
Zootopia is already financially successful (and critically acclaimed too, if Wikipedia is to be believed). It's sad that BvS just wasn't what it could have been.
Maybe I should watch Zootopia. I forgot it was out as I spent my Easter break catching up with mates across the UK but I thoroughly enjoyed Inside Out and it's said to be on par with that movie in terms of quality - and I do like animated films. Personally I feel more quality goes into them.
But yeah, sad times for BvS. Maybe watch the home release version that has the extra 30 minutes that will tie up the plot holes it has.
Saw it yesterday. I guess I'm becoming jaded, but my overall impression of the movie is 'meh.'
Lex Luthor was like a whiney little wimp, not the confident, calculating character I've seen in comics and stuff. He seems like he would have been better as the Riddler.
The one thing I found VERY annoying with this movie was the constant chatter from TVs reporting on events in the movie, with carefully placed cameos from real life media celebrities. It made it feel a little too real, and not like a fantasy movie that I could watch to get a break from 24/7 mass media. I get that they are trying to make the consequences for god-like superpowers more 'real' feeling, but it was annoying to see Nancy Grace in a movie. It's going to make the movie terribly dated, too.
I thought I'd hate Ben Affleck as Batman, but he wasn't too bad. I think the character is getting a little worn out, though. How many actors have portrayed Batman now?
They could have shown him developing his new suit, too. Like, all of a sudden he just has fancy new powered armor? An R&D sequence of him prepping to fight superman more than just beating an old tire with a sledgehammer would have been welcome.
It seems like they were trying to establish a lot of threads all at once. One minute Batman is ready to stab Supes in the face, the next he's friending him on Facebook because his mommy is named Martha too.
Cave_Dweller wrote: The one thing I found VERY annoying with this movie was the constant chatter from TVs reporting on events in the movie, with carefully placed cameos from real life media celebrities. It made it feel a little too real, and not like a fantasy movie that I could watch to get a break from 24/7 mass media. I get that they are trying to make the consequences for god-like superpowers more 'real' feeling, but it was annoying to see Nancy Grace in a movie. It's going to make the movie terribly dated, too.
That was a nod to The Dark Knight Returns, which was a heavy influence on the film.
They could have shown him developing his new suit, too. Like, all of a sudden he just has fancy new powered armor? An R&D sequence of him prepping to fight superman more than just beating an old tire with a sledgehammer would have been welcome.
There were multiple shots of he and Alfred refining the kryptonite and his weaponry.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Box office numbers are out:
1. $104M - Jungle Book
2. $20.2M - Barbershop 2
3. $10.2M - the Boss (-57%)
4. $9.0M - BvS (-61%)
5. $8.2M - Zootopia
BvS is still losing to, and dropping faster than, the Boss. Zootopia is going to break $900M globally, so it's a 6X blockbuster success for Disney, something that BvS won't likely do.
And now we're back to this again. You're posting the domestic fourth week return, which is a number that is very important to people who are gak at business.
Here's the number that matters, 829m. That's the total worldwide take. That's the only number that matters.
If you really, really can't figure this out, just do an experiment with me. Pretend that BvS held up amazingly in its fourth week in the US, pretend it kept almost all of its third week take and posted 21m. That'd put it in 2nd place for the week. That'd make BvS a great story by the measure you are using. But it would change the total gross from 829m to 841m, or 1.4% more than what it actually took. Do you get it now?
The best parts were when my good lady quoted either Deadpool or MST3K. ('Superhero landing! That's got to be hard on the knees!')
As for the studio not noticing how fast the ticket sales bottomed out... that assumes that the studio has idiots in charge of tracking. This is something that studios do pay attention to.
I do not think that Warner Bros. have idiots in charge of tracking - and if they do... well, I hope they aren't surprised at the results when the next Snyderman bombs on them.
The Auld Grump - my good lady says that Deadpool is a romantic comedy, and I'm not about to argue with her. She's smaller than I am, but she fights dirty.
JohnHwangDD wrote: It's cute that someone doesn't get that he's been ignored and won't get a response out of me.
It's so boring that you will continue to do something very silly, and just try and hide from anyone who points out that what you're doing is silly. If you can't even mount a case to defend it, why keep doing it?
JohnHwangDD wrote: It's cute that someone doesn't get that he's been ignored and won't get a response out of me.
It's so boring that you will continue to do something very silly, and just try and hide from anyone who points out that what you're doing is silly. If you can't even mount a case to defend it, why keep doing it?
Jeez get a room you two, at least change your avatars to something Batman/Superman so you're vaguely on topic yeah?
I'm hoping that suicide squad is better than this one. In fact I'm hoping the rest of the DC movies are this just felt..... bleh? I really want to like it but I just can't. But I do think the Batman movie will be good because of ben Afflecks work on the town, man that was a good movie
KingCracker wrote: Jeez get a room you two, at least change your avatars to something Batman/Superman so you're vaguely on topic yeah?
Apologies. Probably my two bugbears are terrible business/economic analysis, and the kind of passive aggressiveness people do when they know they’ve been called on their nonsense but don’t defend it or even recognise the criticism, but just keep doing it anyway.
But I agree that I hope Suicide Squad and the rest of the movies will improve from what we’ve gotten so far. I’ve got hope because Suicide Squad looks a lot of fun, but I’ve got doubts because it’s hard to put a finger on exactly what went wrong with MoS and BvS. I mean the individual failings are easy to identify, but it’s hard to pick out exactly what’s wrong with the mindset or approach that led to those failings. Is it as simple as Snyder not being up to scratch?
George Spiggott wrote: Is it just me or could Wonder Woman have beaten the big bad by herself?
Yes. The minute she displayed the ability to cut off his limbs and general superior fighting ability, it really would only be a matter of time before she'd manage to decapitate him or cut him in half; a giant crystal growing where his skull and brain used to be wouldn't help him much.
There were a lot of contrived aspects to that fight, frankly.
George Spiggott wrote: Is it just me or could Wonder Woman have beaten the big bad by herself?
Yes. The minute she displayed the ability to cut off his limbs and general superior fighting ability, it really would only be a matter of time before she'd manage to decapitate him or cut him in half; a giant crystal growing where his skull and brain used to be wouldn't help him much.
There were a lot of contrived aspects to that fight, frankly.
Yeah she was Kicking serious ass and taking the hits - I guess that they were worried she was too cool and so kept her role small................spend more time on Loony Lex
sebster wrote: But I agree that I hope Suicide Squad and the rest of the movies will improve from what we’ve gotten so far. I’ve got hope because Suicide Squad looks a lot of fun, but I’ve got doubts because it’s hard to put a finger on exactly what went wrong with MoS and BvS. I mean the individual failings are easy to identify, but it’s hard to pick out exactly what’s wrong with the mindset or approach that led to those failings. Is it as simple as Snyder not being up to scratch?
A common complaint I see/hear about him is that "he doesn't understand these characters!" Setting aside the inherent problems with a statement like that, I think the problem is the opposite -- sometimes he geeks out a little *too* much, delves too deep, and doesn't necessarily think through how it will go over with general audiences.
In MoS, I get the neck snap, what that moment means in the film, and that he's killed Zod in the comics. But it's jarring, especially to fans who think the Reeve films are the ultimate version of the character and can't put it in the same context that I can. I'll go to my grave saying MoS truly isn't a dark film, not in terms of its visuals nor its story, but I think that one scene is the lens through which some folks view it.
On the BvS side, Snyder's said that it's the closest thing he'll ever have to directing a TDKR movie, and you can see elements of that story all over the film. But as great as TDKR is/was, it's a very dark, not-crowdpleasing story with an extreme version of Batman. Again, it's jarring, especially while Marvel's kicking out film after film of four-color bubblegum pop. And it's admittedly disappointing that it's too intense of a film for my 8 year old.
Remember that the DCEU has a filmmaker-driven approach that won't have the sameness of the MCU. I think SS will be a crowdpleaser, and WW has a chance to be also if in a different way, so the DCEU should still have a little momentum going into JL. Snyder and Terrio just have to execute. IMO, his challenge with JL isn't to emulate Marvel's tone, but to put a more crowdpleasing film together.
George Spiggott wrote: Is it just me or could Wonder Woman have beaten the big bad by herself?
Yes. The minute she displayed the ability to cut off his limbs and general superior fighting ability, it really would only be a matter of time before she'd manage to decapitate him or cut him in half; a giant crystal growing where his skull and brain used to be wouldn't help him much.
There were a lot of contrived aspects to that fight, frankly.
Yeah she was Kicking serious ass and taking the hits - I guess that they were worried she was too cool and so kept her role small................spend more time on Loony Lex
This Doomsday was an energy absorber that was getting stronger with each landed blow. Note the glow where each strike lands. The longer that fight goes, the more dangerous that shockwave ability would become, and it was clear that if it went off in Metropolis it would have put the MoS damage to shame. They were only fighting Doomsday to occupy it and keep it from leaping into the city before they could use the kryptonite.
And having seen it twice now, I don't think there's anything in that fight that suggests she was winning. She got knocked around quite a bit, and could only barely hold DD with the lasso at the fight's conclusion.
gorgon wrote: A common complaint I see/hear about him is that "he doesn't understand these characters!" Setting aside the inherent problems with a statement like that, I think the problem is the opposite -- sometimes he geeks out a little *too* much, delves too deep, and doesn't necessarily think through how it will go over with general audiences.
Yeah, I don’t see how anyone can walk out of BvS thinking Snyder is anything but a hardcore comic geek. I agree he goes too far the other way – the dream sequence gave DC fans parademons and hints at a strange Darkseid/Superman alliance, but people unfamiliar with the comics were just watching some really random stuff.
I think most of the time when comic fans complain that a character isn't well understood, what they really mean is that the character as displayed is different from their personally preferred version of the character.
In MoS, I get the neck snap, what that moment means in the film, and that he's killed Zod in the comics. But it's jarring, especially to fans who think the Reeve films are the ultimate version of the character and can't put it in the same context that I can. I'll go to my grave saying MoS truly isn't a dark film, not in terms of its visuals nor its story, but I think that one scene is the lens through which some folks view it.
I was really surprised to find out that was the bit that bothered people. Compared to the space dragon and Lois Lane running around shooting Kryptonians with the help of space ghost Russel Crowe, I though the neck snap was well grounded, and one of the few moments in that film that had meaning.
Remember that the DCEU has a filmmaker-driven approach that won't have the sameness of the MCU. I think SS will be a crowdpleaser, and WW has a chance to be also if in a different way, so the DCEU should still have a little momentum going into JL. Snyder and Terrio just have to execute. IMO, his challenge with JL isn't to emulate Marvel's tone, but to put a more crowdpleasing film together.
I think DC’s was right to take a different tone to Marvel – you’re coming in late to the game you have to be doing something different. And I think there’s plenty of scope for a satisfying, crowdpleasing film to be a dark and serious film – The Dark Knight was the box office standard for comic books for a long time, and is probably still the most liked comic book movie. It really comes down to execution – I think BvS disappointed not because it was dark, but because of the execution. The pacing was way off, and the basic conflict between Superman and Batman was poorly explained and explored.
gorgon wrote: A common complaint I see/hear about him is that "he doesn't understand these characters!" Setting aside the inherent problems with a statement like that, I think the problem is the opposite -- sometimes he geeks out a little *too* much, delves too deep, and doesn't necessarily think through how it will go over with general audiences.
Yeah, I don’t see how anyone can walk out of BvS thinking Snyder is anything but a hardcore comic geek. I agree he goes too far the other way – the dream sequence gave DC fans parademons and hints at a strange Darkseid/Superman alliance, but people unfamiliar with the comics were just watching some really random stuff.
I think most of the time when comic fans complain that a character isn't well understood, what they really mean is that the character as displayed is different from their personally preferred version of the character.
In MoS, I get the neck snap, what that moment means in the film, and that he's killed Zod in the comics. But it's jarring, especially to fans who think the Reeve films are the ultimate version of the character and can't put it in the same context that I can. I'll go to my grave saying MoS truly isn't a dark film, not in terms of its visuals nor its story, but I think that one scene is the lens through which some folks view it.
I was really surprised to find out that was the bit that bothered people. Compared to the space dragon and Lois Lane running around shooting Kryptonians with the help of space ghost Russel Crowe, I though the neck snap was well grounded, and one of the few moments in that film that had meaning.
Remember that the DCEU has a filmmaker-driven approach that won't have the sameness of the MCU. I think SS will be a crowdpleaser, and WW has a chance to be also if in a different way, so the DCEU should still have a little momentum going into JL. Snyder and Terrio just have to execute. IMO, his challenge with JL isn't to emulate Marvel's tone, but to put a more crowdpleasing film together.
I think DC’s was right to take a different tone to Marvel – you’re coming in late to the game you have to be doing something different. And I think there’s plenty of scope for a satisfying, crowdpleasing film to be a dark and serious film – The Dark Knight was the box office standard for comic books for a long time, and is probably still the most liked comic book movie. It really comes down to execution – I think BvS disappointed not because it was dark, but because of the execution. The pacing was way off, and the basic conflict between Superman and Batman was poorly explained and explored.
Exalted. I agree with everything that was said here.
There are some good points there, but that author also I think delves a bit too much into their own inner hate for what DC has become
I think the biggest flaw I see with DC and their films is that they're honestly trying too much to replicate Marvel's marketing strategy when they haven't even figured out how to make a good adaptation of their source material. It's like trying to run before you can walk. I guess the author kind of hints at that when he says the need a soft ball, but I'm not sure that's really the issue; DC just doesn't know how to have any fun. That has nothing to do with the character's it tries to lead with. It's not a problem with Batman or Superman. It's a problem with how DC makes movies.
Man of Steel took itself too seriously for its own good, and it didn't play around with the more human side of Super Man's character (Clark Kent). Likewise, BvS takes itself far too seriously I think. It doesn't engage at all its own goofiness, nor does it have any real charm. It's a long series of spectacle scenes that demand we take them seriously, and it all just feels so empty.
Marvel's method of creating genre films with Super Heroes is proven and effective. Imagine; a film about an alien on Earth. He knows he doesn't belong, he knows this isn't his home, but he has no where else to go. Don't look at it as a super hero film. It's a film about living. About how strange the world can be and how alien. Sure the character is an alien but that's not the point. He's just an outside eye watching us and all the silly things we do while trying to find some way to fit in. Really that's what we're all doing isn't it? The film starts with him clumsily navigating day to day life inter spaced with a rising threat that only he can stop. He decides "I totally belong here" and accepts the goofiness as a worthy part of humanity and life.
No. Not superman. I'm talking about Martin Manhunter here, who I'll remind Zack Snyder derided years ago as a stupid character on the most base and dumb logic I've ever seen. I think that mentality is everything wrong with DC's film attempts, and with Snyder. They refuse to accept the goofiness of being a comic book franchise, and in that the Cracked article I think is dead on.
Cracked has a few good points, mostly stating the obvious. Not everything should be a Batman movie, all Batman, all the time. Especially when so many DC supers are so inherently silly. And rushing things did nobody any favors.
But Suicide Squad should be good, even if BvS was bad.
Also, Martian Manhunter is awesome. I would pay to see him. Even the New 52 version.
ETA - Goyer is fething tool. He's almost certainly a large part of the reason that both MoS and BvS sucked. Feth that guy, because he's fething killing DC's movies in the writing.
LordofHats wrote: I think the biggest flaw I see with DC and their films is that they're honestly trying too much to replicate Marvel's marketing strategy when they haven't even figured out how to make a good adaptation of their source material. It's like trying to run before you can walk. I guess the author kind of hints at that when he says the need a soft ball, but I'm not sure that's really the issue; DC just doesn't know how to have any fun. That has nothing to do with the character's it tries to lead with. It's not a problem with Batman or Superman. It's a problem with how DC makes movies.
I’m not sure that’s completely fair. Nolan’s Batman trilogy wasn’t in this universe, but it was still WB, and Nolan is an executive producer on the new films. And in that trilogy there were two good movies, and two movies that broke $1 billion in worldwide box office – though not the same two in each group It is a decent track record, though.
And that Batman trilogy was pretty dark. There were bits of humour here and there, but for the most part they were pretty grim and pretty serious affairs. So I think when you look at that trilogy, which achieved a pretty rare triple feat of pleasing critics and fans and also make a lot of bank, I think it becomes clear that it isn’t the new franchise's approach that’s the problem, but the execution of it.
Man of Steel took itself too seriously for its own good, and it didn't play around with the more human side of Super Man's character (Clark Kent). Likewise, BvS takes itself far too seriously I think. It doesn't engage at all its own goofiness, nor does it have any real charm. It's a long series of spectacle scenes that demand we take them seriously, and it all just feels so empty.
I think you’re completely right – there was much too little Clark Kent in MoS. And not only was there too little Clark Kent, but most of it was Superboy stuff, all played out in flashbacks to show why he was so reluctant to use his powers. There was very little of Clark in Metropolis, which robbed the film of much of the humanity it needed.
No. Not superman. I'm talking about Martin Manhunter here, who I'll remind Zack Snyder derided years ago as a stupid character on the most base and dumb logic I've ever seen. I think that mentality is everything wrong with DC's film attempts, and with Snyder. They refuse to accept the goofiness of being a comic book franchise, and in that the Cracked article I think is dead on.
I think using fantastical elements to explore serious matters is a pretty tried and tested kind of storytelling. And just because the comics were goofy for large portions of their very long runs, that doesn’t mean the films have to be.
But I do think there's an argument for the characters to be having more fun, not necessarily jokes but just a smile or a look of excitement. Driving fantastical supercars and flying through the sky is meant to be fun
That article seemed fairly poor. Conflating all the Marvel films together, from Blade to FF to Captain America, and treating them as a single corpus, seems rather daft.
@LordofHats: I fundamentally disagree about the 'inability to adapt the source material' claim. Affleck has easily been the most faithful Batman yet (finally, one that does some damn detective work!), Cavill's Superman is pretty dead on for the N52 version, and I don't see what's wrong with his Clark either. Wonder Woman hit all the right notes as well, so really, I don't think there's a problem there at all.
As for 'taking itself seriously', that's exactly the point of BvS. Marvel's movies are fun, but in most cases, you don't stop to think about the consequences of having a literal god running round under no one's control, or one man having technology to take on an entire army It's touched on in the odd throwaway line, whereas BvS is centred on that whole, massive issue; when someone shows up who could literally destroy the entire planet in an afternoon if he wanted to, that has to be taken seriously, in-universe, so it makes sense to take it seriously from the audience perspective as well. It might not be what portions of the audience who went in expecting Avengers: The One With Batman, but to say it doesn't make sense or isn't faithful to the source material is not right, I don't think.
If DC can keep doing these movies that have a load more weight to them than Marvel's fun, colourful productions then that's great, gets some variety in the subject (I won't say genre as it's not) of comic book movies. You want a silver-age style fun adventure? See an MCU film. You want a character-driven, small scale story? Most of the X-men stuff. Looking for something that will make you think, have more gravity to it and not necessarily be a happy movie? DC. I'd much rather that than have DC just make MCU films with DC characters.
That Martian Manhunter plot would be great, but in asking questions about humanity, being something more than 'I'm an alien so I have powers so I'm a superhero', it's no different to BvS or MoS; it would have that same kind of depth and weight to it. MM would fit perfectly into this style DC are developing (though I wouldn't want to see him dropped from Supergirl to make an appearance, he's been done amazingly in that).
Paradigm wrote: Marvel's movies are fun, but in most cases, you don't stop to think about the consequences of having a literal god running round under no one's control, or one man having technology to take on an entire army It's touched on in the odd throwaway line,
whereas BvS is centred on that whole, massive issue; when someone shows up who could literally destroy the entire planet in an afternoon if he wanted to, that has to be taken seriously, in-universe, so it makes sense to take it seriously from the audience perspective as well.
Actually, Marvel has been pretty consistent "save the cheerleader, save the world". That is probably the one running theme in just about every Marvel Studios movie, and Marvel consistently shows that the "hero" part is that they put their lives on the line to do so. Hawkeye making the point to Scarlet Witch in AoU; Starlord to the team in GotG. And so on. It's not a throwaway when Marvel makes a point to includes it in every single film.
Civil War covers the governance issue at length - originally in the comics, coming soon to a theatre near you. From all reviews, Civil War tackles the issue far more deftly and cleanly than BvS did. Marvel has also been looking at responsibility / governance in AoS, every week. AoU specifically address Tony's desire to be prepared when (not if) "someone shows up who could literally destroy the entire planet," and the Ultron Initiative was very serious.
Oh yeah... X-men are small scale? Did we not watch the same X-men movie where the X-men were working to stave off a mass mutation bomb? Where every non-mutant was marked for death via Xavier / Cerebro? And now Apocalypse is literally coming? Huh?
By " something that will make you think, have more gravity to it " I'm assuming you're talking about Green Lantern and Batman Forever, right?
Paradigm wrote: Affleck has easily been the most faithful Batman yet (finally, one that does some damn detective work!)
The body count alone in BvS discounts this statement. Even at his most gritty in the comic books, (The Dark Knight Returns for example) he has a much higher value on human life. He uses Rubber Bullets on the Mutant Gang and doesn't kill any cops. He does have some murderous moments(like to save a young child and finally ending The Joker), but otherwise, his murderous spree in BvS is a little over the top to me. Definitely not a faithful Batman to me.
Paradigm wrote: Affleck has easily been the most faithful Batman yet (finally, one that does some damn detective work!)
The body count alone in BvS discounts this statement. Even at his most gritty in the comic books, (The Dark Knight Returns for example) he has a much higher value on human life. He uses Rubber Bullets on the Mutant Gang and doesn't kill any cops. He does have some murderous moments(like to save a young child and finally ending The Joker), but otherwise, his murderous spree in BvS is a little over the top to me. Definitely not a faithful Batman to me.
As I told Paradigm:
That is completely untrue. Go watch Burton's Batman again. He literally explodes a goon into a red mist.
Best Batman kill, ever.
Totally deliberate and cold-blooded murder there.
Let's be very clear - Batman deliberately attached a BOMB with 3 sticks dynamite to a living person, and pushed that person into a confined space when exploded. 3 sticks of dynamite. Directly attached to a person. In a concrete box. And Batman smiled.
I saw that in a previous post, but that's not what we're talking about. He has been known to kill, but not to the escalation presented in BvS. And the point I'm arguing is that it was said that Affleck's version of Batman is the most faithful on screen yet, to which I'm saying is not accurate based on the high number of dead people there are in the movie from Batman's hand.
Please point me to one of his comic book iterations where there are so many deaths by his hands specifically in a single story arc.
Paradigm wrote: Affleck has easily been the most faithful Batman yet (finally, one that does some damn detective work!)
The body count alone in BvS discounts this statement. Even at his most gritty in the comic books, (The Dark Knight Returns for example) he has a much higher value on human life. He uses Rubber Bullets on the Mutant Gang and doesn't kill any cops. He does have some murderous moments(like to save a young child and finally ending The Joker), but otherwise, his murderous spree in BvS is a little over the top to me. Definitely not a faithful Batman to me.
Murder does seem to be omnipresent through Batman's movie history, the difference in BvS is that you can justify it in the context of the narrative; he's trying to bring down a god, the lives of mere men stop mattering at that point, that's why he'll do whatever he has to to achieve that end. In many ways that's the whole point of Batman's arc in this film, his hatred, his obsession, his anger and frustration lead him to cross the lines he swore never to, before ultimately realising just how far he's fallen and thus swearing to be a better man in the future. 'I failed him in life.... I will not fail him in death.' That's what that line is about.
Compare that to the Burton movies where he's just killing people willy nilly without that context, or the Dark Knight where The World's Greatest Detective lets Alfred do most of the detectiving...
Ultimately, then, it comes down to Adam West (no killing, occasionally does detective work, but is terrible) or Batfleck (gets the character, acts out of character but that's delierate and if not justifiable then at least explanable)... Besides, I'd take Affleck's body count over West's bat-dancing any day!
Which brings me back to the idea that BvS is a lot more nuanced than Marvel's touching on the same subjects. I fully expect Civil War to boil down to Cap=good, Iron Man=bad (as well it should, it is a Cap movie and I'd be disappointed if that doesn't come through, which early reviews seem to be saying it does), with BvS you see the destruction of Metropolis, you see Supes slam a guy through a wall at the speed of sound in the desert scene, and you start to come around to Batman's way of looking at it; Superman is dangerous, and needs to be taken down.. but wait a minute, Batman just straight up murdered a load of guys because they got in the way of his vendetta, why am I rooting for this guy? But then you have the courthouse scene where Supes completely fails to save lives because he wasn't doing his 'job' properly, and you're back on team Batman.. until the next time Batman does something despicable, so on and so forth.
At the end of the film, you're left wondering why you were ever rooting for MurderBat when Supes sacrificed himself in the most heroic way possible and saved the world, but throughout the film the argument is never that simple. I don't expect anything like that in Civil War, which is absolutely fine! If Marvel and DC are constantly doing the same thing, it'd be far easier to get bored, when they take such drastically different but in my eyes equally enjoyable approaches, it's great!
I guess I'm just not explaining myself well. I am commenting that this screen version of Batman is not faithful AT ALL which was the initial comment I was addressing.
Nolan's Batman was the closest there has been in my view.
According to the reviews, it's Cap = Good, Tony = Good -- for different meanings of "Good". Which is the entire point of Civil War - that good man can disagree over how things should be done in the pursuit of a worthy goal.
Also, as many ask, why didn't WW pick up the spear and us it? She's actually trained in use of spears, and she's obviously strong enough and tough enough... Seems kinda dumb to "die" unnecessarily.
@Mdlbuildr: Oh no, I totally get what you are saying, personally I just think Affleck's version gets more right than wrong and seems more like the Batman I know from the comics. if nothing else in tone, feel and general attitude, if not in the specifics of how many bodies he drops.
The lack of doing any real detective work in the DK trilogy is what puts BaleBat below him, though in everything else I agree he's spot on.
Also, as many ask, why didn't WW pick up the spear and us it? She's actually trained in use of spears, and she's obviously strong enough and tough enough... Seems kinda dumb to "die" unnecessarily.
Except this is Superman. He's not going to put anyone else in danger, even if they're superhuman, even if that means sacrificing himself. WW might have had a chance, but she was barely holding her own against Doomsday, and at that particular point holding him in place with the Lasso anyway. Taking the spear, going straight for Doomsday despite knowing he's almost certainly going to die is the most Superman thing this Superman has done to date (not to mention one of the most tragic and painful scenes in history, actually hit me harder than watching Han die).
Also, as many ask, why didn't WW pick up the spear and us it? She's actually trained in use of spears, and she's obviously strong enough and tough enough... Seems kinda dumb to "die" unnecessarily.
This. Makes no sense that Supes had to be the bearer of the spear.
I'm kinda on Paradigm's side of the fence. - Though I do headcanon a lot of the 'kills' away as "he wasn't aiming for them drectly, they got out in time."
Also, if you want to be technical, The Dark Knight trilogy had exactly one out of 3 films where he didnt kill someone...
Also, if you want to be technical, The Dark Knight trilogy had exactly one out of 3 films where he didnt kill someone...
Who did he kill in the DK Trilogy?
He let Rha's die (he left the train before it derailed). He didn't kill The Joker or Two Face (he fell to his death as Batman was saving Gordon's son) and he didn't kill Bane (Catwoman shot him) or Talia (she drove a truck into a wall iirc).
Looking for something that will make you think, have more gravity to it and not necessarily be a happy movie? DC. I'd much rather that than have DC just make MCU films with DC characters.
Hmm not really, want a bit of depth, Marvel or Fox have it - there is I feel more story and especially character development in the Avengers, Iron Man etc than in Man of steel, B vS . Nolan's batman. Marvel films tend to be about people, Dcs – not so much. Fox equally so, they are about people not effects.
People seldom change or evolve in DC films, they seldom have relationships that matter and have the least convincing couples - Nolan is especially poor at this (and female characters in general) - guess that’s why he prefers action and spectacle over actual story telling.
Bats vs sups had potential – the “angry” batman was good, Superman worked for me- needed more with him and Lois but not too bad, Wonder Woman stole the show – guess that’s why she is hardly in it. But they failed on the plot, the actual reasons why people were fighting or plotting – especially the dismal Loopy Lex who was obviously desperate to be the Joker but didn’t have the style. Like Justin hammer to Tony Stark, he was a poor wanabee imitation.
Suicide again has great potential – it appears to be about the squad, the people, not just Nolanesque special effects. If it is it will be great.
Also, as many ask, why didn't WW pick up the spear and us it? She's actually trained in use of spears, and she's obviously strong enough and tough enough... Seems kinda dumb to "die" unnecessarily.
Also, if you want to be technical, The Dark Knight trilogy had exactly one out of 3 films where he didnt kill someone...
Who did he kill in the DK Trilogy?
He let Rha's die (he left the train before it derailed). He didn't kill The Joker or Two Face (he fell to his death as Batman was saving Gordon's son) and he didn't kill Bane (Catwoman shot him) or Talia (she drove a truck into a wall iirc).
Ra's isn't on him, that's fair enough. Neither's Bane or Joker. However, I'd say he definitely killed Two-face, he pitched him off a roof to save Gordon's son, and even if he didn't kill Talia (again fair enough), he definitely killed several drivers/gunners in that final chase sequence. Again, in character, as there was literally no alternative if he didn't want Gotham to get nuked
Also, if you want to be technical, The Dark Knight trilogy had exactly one out of 3 films where he didnt kill someone...
Who did he kill in the DK Trilogy?
He let Rha's die (he left the train before it derailed). He didn't kill The Joker or Two Face (he fell to his death as Batman was saving Gordon's son) and he didn't kill Bane (Catwoman shot him) or Talia (she drove a truck into a wall iirc).
Ra's isn't on him, that's fair enough. Neither's Bane or Joker. However, I'd say he definitely killed Two-face, he pitched him off a roof to save Gordon's son, and even if he didn't kill Talia (again fair enough), he definitely killed several drivers/gunners in that final chase sequence. Again, in character, as there was literally no alternative if he didn't want Gotham to get nuked
Hmm not really, want a bit of depth, Marvel or Fox have it - there is I feel more story and especially character development in the Avengers, Iron Man etc than in Man of steel, B vS . Nolan's batman. Marvel films tend to be about people, Dcs – not so much. Fox equally so, they are about people not effects.
People seldom change or evolve in DC films, they seldom have relationships that matter and have the least convincing couples - Nolan is especially poor at this (and female characters in general) - guess that’s why he prefers action and spectacle over actual story telling.
I disagree pretty much entirely with that, actually! Batman has a major character arc in BvS, of descent into madness and ultimate redemption. Clark goes from self-doubt to fully becoming the hero he always had the potential to be. Luthor goes from taking nothing seriously and seeing it all as a game to the emergence of his absolute hatred of Superman.
As for couples/relationships, those are consistently the most superfluous parts of the Marvel movies. You could cut Pepper and Jane from Iron Man and Thor and lose absolutely nothing of value, I reckon.
Hmm not really, want a bit of depth, Marvel or Fox have it - there is I feel more story and especially character development in the Avengers, Iron Man etc than in Man of steel, B vS . Nolan's batman. Marvel films tend to be about people, Dcs – not so much. Fox equally so, they are about people not effects.
People seldom change or evolve in DC films, they seldom have relationships that matter and have the least convincing couples - Nolan is especially poor at this (and female characters in general) - guess that’s why he prefers action and spectacle over actual story telling.
As for couples/relationships, those are consistently the most superfluous parts of the Marvel movies. You could cut Pepper and Jane from Iron Man and Thor and lose absolutely nothing of value, I reckon.
And thats why we don't like the same films..........The Tony / Pepper interplay is genius - again about people not special effects...............
It's not that I'm not interested in characters, it's just that I find them exceptionally boring characters! You'll notice I didn't mention Peggy Carter or Amazing Spiderman's Gwen Stacey, as they're actually interesting, well-written and well-acted characters. Personally, though, I find Pepper tolerable at first but worse as the films go on and Natalie Portman is just a terrible actress, or at the very least gives a thoroughly uninspired performance in both Thor films (and I'm so glad she's not in the third one).
Lois in MoS/BvS is a much more interesting character than either, I think. But this is probably off topic, so I'll leave the tangent there.
To be honest, I could probably see the argument for that in the Marvel films.
EG, I can't really recall what Pepper did in Iron Man 1. Arguably, Thor had better character moments with Selvig than Jane in Thor 1.
Sure, it doesn't work for every Marvel film - Peggy Carter I'd say would be essential for Cap 1. With Jane and Pepper having better roles in the sequels.
To be fair, neither MoS nor BvS are Nolan - both were written by Goyer, who apparently hates the fans. Unlike Snyder who is almost slavish in how he tries to bring iconic panels to life.
Paradigm wrote: Ra's isn't on him, that's fair enough. Neither's Bane or Joker. However, I'd say he definitely killed Two-face, he pitched him off a roof to save Gordon's son, and even if he didn't kill Talia (again fair enough), he definitely killed several drivers/gunners in that final chase sequence. Again, in character, as there was literally no alternative if he didn't want Gotham to get nuked
Ra’s death is totally on Batman. Choosing to leave Ra on the train as it was about to crash is no different to putting him on the train himself. Think about if that was an innocent – Batman would have saved him, taken him with him. Instead Batman chose to leave Ra there because he knew he was a bad dude. Batman passed judgement and sentenced the guy to death.
I don’t have a problem with a Batman that does that, it’s a reasonable and interesting interpretation of the character. But I hated that Batman Begins pretended that choosing not to save someone was somehow different to murder, and I’m surprised that a lot of people still make that argument today.
Man freely chooses to jump in shark infested waters with a large cut on his leg. Sharks start circling. You have access to both a gun and a rope. You don't have to kill the guy, but you also don't have to toss him the rope. Did you murder him? No. He put himself into that position of extreme danger. It's not your fault he made a life threatening decision. The gun could kill him, the rope could save him. Neither are a requirement for you to use. Choosing not to save someone who has made a very dangerous decision does not make you a murderer. Accomplice and assistant to suicide, maybe. But not a murderer.
Paradigm wrote: Except this is Superman. He's not going to put anyone else in danger, even if they're superhuman, even if that means sacrificing himself. WW might have had a chance, but she was barely holding her own against Doomsday, and at that particular point holding him in place with the Lasso anyway. Taking the spear, going straight for Doomsday despite knowing he's almost certainly going to die is the most Superman thing this Superman has done to date (not to mention one of the most tragic and painful scenes in history, actually hit me harder than watching Han die).
Right. He had the spear because he went to check on Lois. Diana had Doomsday momentarily immobilized, so he made his move to end it right there and not fool around with her trying to duel it to death. Because, again, time was of the essence. DD was growing stronger all the time, and as soon as it had an opening to make one leap into Metropolis, the city was going to die.
If the question is why was it written that way, it's because it's Superman and DD, and that story ends in death. And it'd be an awfully odd step toward JL and make a narrative with issues even more problematic if Diana shows up and just defeats the villain on her own. There are issues in the film, but this is the kind of stuff I file under "people looking for something to complain about."
Regarding the MCU, I think Tony has had quite a bit of character development...easily the most of any hero in that universe. Makes sense, since he's the best actor they have and the guy the whole thing was built on, really.
I don't think the MCU has done relationships particularly well, though. Since IM1, Tony and Pepper's relationship hasn't had much depth to it. Banter doesn't equal depth, although I often think that we have a generation of people who can't tell the difference. What would even be the #2 relationship in the MCU? Thor and Jane? Not much to that one either. They've turned Cap into a guy who can't get a date, even though he went through a series of steady girlfriends even after Sharon died. Obviously Marvel's formula works well for them, but exploring relationships in a deeper way isn't really part of the plan.
Tony and Pepper have chemistry - that's why the banter works - its something that is missing from many on screen couples and why IMO (and friends) it works so well - its like the whole Mr and Mrs Smith film - they worked brilliantly as a believable couple - in that case because they were.............
Other couples that work in MCU - Hawkeye and his wife, for a character that I did not see the point of before Avengers he is now one of my favourite. Hulk and Black Widow is bitter sweet in a doomed way, Happy with Thor / Jane even, but its not as good as Tony / Pepper.
Nolan simply does not do human relationships so they are always missing from his films, Lois and Clarke are pretty awkward in Man of Steel but getting better in Bat vs Sups. Can't recall a convincing human relationship in DCCU (or whatever its called) and they certainly don't explore them.
Batman is so dysfunctional he cant really have a relationship and this was explored in Burtons films - Michael Keaton was bang on in the first one with it.....the new Batman has in the words of awesome Martin Blank,
"No no no, I went the other road. You know... sports, sex, no real relationships with anyone"
MCU and Fox build their films around people most of the time - I always consider that was the point - they have a heart.
Paradigm wrote: Marvel's movies are fun, but in most cases, you don't stop to think about the consequences of having a literal god running round under no one's control, or one man having technology to take on an entire army It's touched on in the odd throwaway line
This is a major part of Civil War. Marvel aren't ignoring that. They're dealing with it head on.
Paradigm wrote: I fully expect Civil War to boil down to Cap=good, Iron Man=bad (as well it should, it is a Cap movie and I'd be disappointed if that doesn't come through, which early reviews seem to be saying it does)
Not entirely sure what reviews you're reading, as almost all of them say that you won't know which side to take, and that people going in firmly on one side are either being swayed to the other or coming out unsure.
Civil War the comics boiled down to Cap = Right and Tony = Moustache-twirling villain. The same is not true with the Civil War film.
Paradigm wrote: Marvel's movies are fun, but in most cases, you don't stop to think about the consequences of having a literal god running round under no one's control, or one man having technology to take on an entire army It's touched on in the odd throwaway line
This is a major part of Civil War. Marvel aren't ignoring that. They're dealing with it head on.
Indeed and in a more realistic manner - in the MCU we have Shield and other Government organisations formed and jockeying for position as supers arise. We have committee hearing with national governments and the UN - all sorts of consequences
Fox's X Men is all about what happens when you have people with powers in the world - from the reaction of the man in the street to the world powers
DC has what? A couple of senate hearings..........I wish people would not keep pretending that DC films are somehow so much deeper than other comic based films, despite all the evidence to the contrary - making something a bit darker does not mean deeper.
Paradigm wrote: Marvel's movies are fun, but in most cases, you don't stop to think about the consequences of having a literal god running round under no one's control, or one man having technology to take on an entire army It's touched on in the odd throwaway line
This is a major part of Civil War. Marvel aren't ignoring that. They're dealing with it head on.
Paradigm wrote: I fully expect Civil War to boil down to Cap=good, Iron Man=bad (as well it should, it is a Cap movie and I'd be disappointed if that doesn't come through, which early reviews seem to be saying it does)
Not entirely sure what reviews you're reading, as almost all of them say that you won't know which side to take, and that people going in firmly on one side are either being swayed to the other or coming out unsure.
Civil War the comics boiled down to Cap = Right and Tony = Moustache-twirling villain. The same is not true with the Civil War film.
Hence why I said 'in most cases'. Civil War obviously brings it all to a head, but it's taken a dozen movies to confront the issue, whereas DC are leading with it and setting the whole tone of their universe around it. I'm not saying one approach is inherently better than the other, just that DC's more 'serious' and 'grounded' direction is no bad thing and makes perfect sense.
I've only seen one or two CW reviews, and only briefly scanned them as I generally try to avoid reviews and spoilers... I'll be pleased, but very surprised, if it can achieve the same balance that BvS did.
Paradigm wrote: Marvel's movies are fun, but in most cases, you don't stop to think about the consequences of having a literal god running round under no one's control, or one man having technology to take on an entire army It's touched on in the odd throwaway line
This is a major part of Civil War. Marvel aren't ignoring that. They're dealing with it head on.
Indeed and in a more realistic manner - in the MCU we have Shield and other Government organisations formed and jockeying for position as supers arise. We have committee hearing with national governments and the UN - all sorts of consequences
Fox's X Men is all about what happens when you have people with powers in the world - from the reaction of the man in the street to the world powers
DC has what? A couple of senate hearings..........I wish people would not keep pretending that DC films are somehow so much deeper than other comic based films, despite all the evidence to the contrary - making something a bit darker does not mean deeper.
'Evidence' here meaning opinions. I could cite as many scenes in MoS and BvS to suggest they have more depth than Marvel's offerings as you could to suggest otherwise, most of the time we'd probably even be talking about the same scenes. There's no right or wrong here, and I'm not saying there is, but equally, that means I'm not 'pretending' DC make deeper films, I genuinely believe that to be the case.
I haven't seen MOS, but BVS has only the illusion of depth. Sure, the writer was groping blindly for deeper meaning, but like in Prometheus, failed to develop any of it. At best, BVS is Blair Witching the depth, hinting at it but never actually delivering.
'Evidence' here meaning opinions. I could cite as many scenes in MoS and BvS to suggest they have more depth than Marvel's offerings as you could to suggest otherwise, mos of the time we'd probably even be talking about the same scenes. There's no right or wrong here, and I'm not saying there is, but equally, that means I'm not 'pretending' DC make deeper films, I genuinely believe that to be the case
.
Having watched all these films - i am interested in what the actual reality of the this elusive "Deepness" of the DC films is - All three comic based film universes have great characters, massive battles and destruction, but I can't recall anything specific in the recent DC films that shows a special attention to any of the aspects you are looking at or are sure that DC specifcally address so much more than the others?
So in terms of the impact of powered indivduals on society - all of them want to use the modern world as their backdrop so they can't mess with it too much - but both Fox and Marvel have had the full blown reponses to the "threats", which the latter alos follows through more in Agents of Shield (now its actually grown up a bit)
DC - not so much - look at Bats vs Sups - we have a bit of concern in the Senate (as usual in DC they ignore the rest of the world) about Sups and what he can do - but its all vague and unfocussed. In contrast Marvel has the Shield / Hydra plotlines, Senate and UN investigations, the first Avengers film being an alterntive to the build a huge arsenel response. Fox has the Sentinals front and centre and the consequences to everyone of the varied response to mutants. We don't get any feeling as to what people believe about Batman in BvS at all - he is just that guy in Gotham.
What am I missing in the recent DC films that you are seeing?
'Evidence' here meaning opinions. I could cite as many scenes in MoS and BvS to suggest they have more depth than Marvel's offerings as you could to suggest otherwise, mos of the time we'd probably even be talking about the same scenes. There's no right or wrong here, and I'm not saying there is, but equally, that means I'm not 'pretending' DC make deeper films, I genuinely believe that to be the case
.
Having watched all these films - i am interested in what the actual reality of the this elusive "Deepness" of the DC films is - All three comic based film universes have great characters, massive battles and destruction, but I can't recall anything specific in the recent DC films that shows a special attention to any of the aspects you are looking at or are sure that DC specifcally address so much more than the others?
So in terms of the impact of powered indivduals on society - all of them want to use the modern world as their backdrop so they can't mess with it too much - but both Fox and Marvel have had the full blown reponses to the "threats", which the latter alos follows through more in Agents of Shield (now its actually grown up a bit)
DC - not so much - look at Bats vs Sups - we have a bit of concern in the Senate (as usual in DC they ignore the rest of the world) about Sups and what he can do - but its all vague and unfocussed. In contrast Marvel has the Shield / Hydra plotlines, Senate and UN investigations, the first Avengers film being an alterntive to the build a huge arsenel response. Fox has the Sentinals front and centre and the consequences to everyone of the varied response to mutants. We don't get any feeling as to what people believe about Batman in BvS at all - he is just that guy in Gotham.
What am I missing in the recent DC films that you are seeing?
One of the major things that sticks out to me is how much more time DC spends on its characters out of costume, you can see this a lot in the Dark Knight trilogy (Dark Knight has something like 20 minutes of actual Batman) and equally in BvS and MoS (in the latter, the first hour or so doesn't even have Clark as Superman at all). They seem to spend a lot more time setting up their arcs, their motivations, their internal struggles than Marvel's films do. Iron Man aside, all the MCU films are far more about the costumed persona than the character under that mask, and as I've said so many times before, there is nothing wrong with this whatsoever! The DC films have the characters themselves inform the actions of their costumed counterparts, Marvel reverse this and have the superheroic events influence their 'regular guy' alter-egos.
Case in point; Batman makes the decision to take on Superman because he sees, as Bruce Wayne, the damage that Supes does and has the potential to do. Conversely, Tony Stark build Ultron because of what has happened while he is Avenging as Iron Man.
To address your points about reactions, I think you're perhaps being a little unfair in comparing what Marvel has done with 8 years worth of movies and TV shows with what DC's current universe has had 2 films to deal with. 'A bit of concern in the Senate' is all they've had time for thus far, and even then, it is central to the narrative in a way that Marvel's references to it mostly haven't been. There will be more in future, of course; Suicide Squad will introduce ARGUS, basically DC's answer to SHIELD, and I'm sure the debate will continue in the wake of the destruction caused in BvS... it's pivotal to Luthor's character, and there's a whole load of other characters that can tie into this as well. Amanda Waller we're getting in Suicide Squad, but they could just as easily bring in someone like Maxwell Lord or Gordon Godfrey down the line to take it further. This theme isn't going to go away any time soon, it's a huge part of the setting this new universe is taking place in. Give it time.
'We don't get any feeling as to what people believe about Batman in BvS at all - he is just that guy in Gotham.'... apart from the way the cops at the start speak about him like some kind of terrifying legend, the press attention he gets/doesn't get, the fear over his new, more violent methods. It's all there, even if it's not centre stage, and it'll absolutely feature more in the upcoming Batman movie.
Finally, I'd mention the directing, writing and acting that contribute to this a lot. To take some examples from BvS, the scene with Bruce and Alfred in the ruins of Wayne Manor... it gives insight into the character very indirectly, it is a scene where 'nothing happens' but you can read into it a huge amount about Alfred, about Bruce, about their relationship, their motivations, their history. The same can be said for the scene in which Clark returns to Smallville to talk to Martha before the senate hearing... Little scenes like that that are slow, quiet, just a few minutes in a two and a half hour film, all add a great deal. Marvel's films do have those character moments, but not nearly so frequently or powerfully.
I don't expect any of this to change anyone's mind, just as no-one will change mine, I'm just trying to illustrate where I'm coming from here. You probably interpret all these things entirely differently, which it totally fair enough.
Mr Morden wrote: Tony and Pepper have chemistry - that's why the banter works - its something that is missing from many on screen couples.
This. RDJ and GP are just a delight to watch on screen together. IM is actually a far better character when he's with her in some way, than when he's without her. Even from afar:
The nuke scene works so amazingly because the instant before it happens, Marvel shrinks the scale down 1:1 to Tony and Pepper, with a call that doesn't go through... Just think about those 5 seconds, and what they do to the film, where they put the viewer right before the payoff... Pepper isn't some random person he's calling. We know exactly why he's calling, and we know exactly why Jarvis started the call. And the reason it works is because Marvel spent 4 hours on screen building up that relationship.
Now, where is that emotional, personal core in BvS? Or MoS? Or Nolan's work?
Oh, that's an easy one! The closest and most relevant comparison to be drawn here is between that scene and the moment at which Clark picks up the spear, turns to Lois and says 'I have to. This is my world'. The most tragic, heartbreaking and moving line the the whole film, you know exactly what comes next and you can only watch on in horror as he makes the ultimate sacrifice for the people and the planet he loves.
Stark's call is sad, Superman's sacrifice almost moved me to tears or had me yelling 'noooooooo!' at the cinema screen.
The fact he's coming back doesn't make his death any less tragic (if it does to you, why doesn't the fact Stark survives have the same effect on that scene?). And the line 'it's my world' is a callback to a line earlier in the film about how this isn't his world, which is why it's relevant. Besides, Bats and WW are both from Earth, so that doesn't really factor in to a line about Superman choosing to sacrifice himself for a world he has chosen as his home despite the hostility with which it has treated him.
Oh, and the hundreds of people outside the senate waving 'Go home, Superman' placards, the US military that do their utmost to treat him like a threat for most of MoS, the people who came to hate him the wake of the Metropolis incident. Wayne and Luthor were the high-profile cases, but there is plenty of anger and hostility towards him throughout the films. Acceptance, too, in some places, but more than enough ill treatment that his sacrifice is selfless when even his adoptive mother is telling him he doesn't owe Earth and humanity anything.
Mr Morden wrote: Tony and Pepper have chemistry - that's why the banter works - its something that is missing from many on screen couples and why IMO (and friends) it works so well - its like the whole Mr and Mrs Smith film - they worked brilliantly as a believable couple - in that case because they were.............
Other couples that work in MCU - Hawkeye and his wife, for a character that I did not see the point of before Avengers he is now one of my favourite. Hulk and Black Widow is bitter sweet in a doomed way, Happy with Thor / Jane even, but its not as good as Tony / Pepper.
Nolan simply does not do human relationships so they are always missing from his films, Lois and Clarke are pretty awkward in Man of Steel but getting better in Bat vs Sups. Can't recall a convincing human relationship in DCCU (or whatever its called) and they certainly don't explore them.
Look, I'm not coming at this point from a DC vs. Marvel perspective. We haven't seen enough of the DC films to know if they're really going to delve into the personal relationships of their heroes in anything other than a superficial way. They probably won't, other than *maybe* Clark and Lois. Steve Trevor obviously isn't even going to make it into the 21st century unless the gods somehow intervene. This Bruce is married to Gotham.
But if you think a few throwaway lines of banter per movie constitutes a thoughtful portrayal of a relationship or makes a relationship an important part of the movie, we'll just have to agree to disagree like we do on about 18,562 other things. I mean, Hawkeye and his wife? How is that actually developed beyond revealing that he *has* a wife and some short exchanges between the two of them? In comparison, the Rachel character and her relationship with Bruce are far more important in Nolan's TDK -- but again, note that isn't part of the DCEU before this turns into a DC vs. Marvel thing. Personally, I think this suggests that these "universe" films don't have much room for that stuff -- when the heroes aren't smashing, there's universe-building to do -- and that it'd likely receive a better, richer treatment in standalone films containing more room to breathe.
@John -- that scene doesn't even involve a conversation between the two of them. Call it a heartfelt moment, but it doesn't add or build or enrich our understanding of their relationship, or make it important to the story. You could go back make Pepper disappear from the MCU and it wouldn't miss a beat. Neither would Tony. Give Happy a little more screen time for when Tony needs to banter with someone and it'd be fine.
Steve Trevor will be in the modern day WW stuff and Justice League, the version in WW1 is apparently his grandfather, though still played by Chris Pine.
Mr Morden wrote: Tony and Pepper have chemistry - that's why the banter works
@John -- that scene doesn't even involve a conversation between the two of them.
Many good scenes don't require conversation, or for the actors to even be in the same air. The best scene in the new Star Wars movies has Anakin and Padme on different plants...
But it's not surprising that you don't understand chemistry. I bet you think that the couple in 50 Shades were good together.
Mr Morden wrote: Tony and Pepper have chemistry - that's why the banter works
@John -- that scene doesn't even involve a conversation between the two of them.
Many good scenes don't require conversation, or for the actors to even be in the same air. The best scene in the new Star Wars movies has Anakin and Padme on different plants...
But it's not surprising that you don't understand chemistry. I bet you think that the couple in 50 Shades were good together.
I'm not familiar with that work in any medium beyond that it's Twilight fan fiction. Apparently that's more your style than mine, so please feel free to explain the comment further. Is it that you were a fan who felt let down by the casting?
This is what "no plan or ideas" looks like.
) lady. On that note I wonder if the superhero minis game has a hop-lite Wonder Woman mini, with or without a Mcguffin weapon.
