Honestly after Man of Steel, and certain comments from the director, my faith is about zero. That's before I watch the trailer and the sinking feeling that "No one learned anything from Spider-Man 3 or Amazing Spider-Man 2" yet again sinks in.
Awesome timing, just after I finished playing Batman Arkham Knight.
There's a good still from the trailer.
The question is, are they going to be going for a Jason Todd death, in keeping with the upsurge in the awareness of him through eg, Under the Red Hood.
Or are they going to be keeping with the Dark Knight Returns style of the rest of the Batman inspiration, in which case, it'll be Dick Greyson.
Thinking about it more, this film could lend a lot more context/reason to the 'departure's' from Superman's character in MoS. I gather a lot of people didn't like the huge levels of destruction in his fight with Zod on the basis that it's not a very Superman thing to do*, but seeing as it now appears to be both the trigger for Batman's return to the cowl and the genesis of the more self-aware, conscious and 'heroic' Superman it makes a lot more sense. I've always said that the destruction of Metropolis and killing of Zod were part of a setup to develop the Superman we know, and it looks like that might be borne out here
I also think we're in for a very different Batman here. Robin dead, along with who know who else (Gordon? Oracle? Catwoman? '20 years in Gotham, and who's left?') and the fact Superman has turned up to be something he can't hope to compete with means lots more anger, bitterness, even a sadistic side (branding criminals with batarangs? That's new!) coming to the fore. From the start I've backed Batman just because he's Batman, but I can see him being very unlikeable, very much the anti-hero, and as such, Superman definitely has the chance to become the true hero he's supposed to be.
*(although how one is supposed to avoid such things when fighting an enemy with no qualms about smashing anything in sight I don't know)
Hulksmash wrote: Trailer looks good when it doesn't have Wonder Woman in it. I really, really don't like her in the role. Otherwise it looks at least interesting.
I'm with you in that. Trailer looked decent until Gadot showed up. She looks like a terrible Wonder Woman.
Mostly I'm uncertain what her purpose in the movie is except to be there. The Batman Vs Superman bit seems straightforward, and clear as a narrative just from the trailer alone. Why is Wonder Woman or long hair mcnerdy for that matter, in the movie?
Plot bloat is already looking like its going to make the whole thing a mess.
LordofHats wrote: Mostly I'm uncertain what her purpose in the movie is except to be there. The Batman Vs Superman bit seems straightforward, and clear as a narrative just from the trailer alone. Why is Wonder Woman or long hair mcnerdy for that matter, in the movie?
Plot bloat is already looking like its going to make the whole thing a mess.
According to script leaks:
Spoiler:
Diana has a working relationship with Bruce- they're both aware of each other's multiple identities and she's the CEO of some kind of green energy corporation of some such. They team up every now and again during both their day jobs and their vigilante stuff.
Think Mr and Mrs. Incredible before they got married.
Compel wrote: I could see Lex and Batman starting off on the same side, until his plan unfolds and you have a Batman / Superman team up to end the film.
No idea how Wonder Woman could fit into it (I don't precisely mind her in those scenes though to be honest), but yeah, seems a bit cramped.
On the subject of Wonder Woman, have you all seen this before?
I'm not going to lie when I say I think Ben Affleck makes a better Bruce Wayne than Christian Bale, and I will see this on the opening day with my wife.
I'm very worried that this film will have a third act where the three of them come together to fight another "origin movie throwaway villain", and in this instance it'll be Doomsday, which is a waste of that character.
AegisGrimm wrote: I'm not going to lie when I say I think Ben Affleck makes a better Bruce Wayne than Christian Bale, and I will see this on the opening day with my wife.
At the very least his voice will be better. Holy crap Bale had a terrible voice for batman.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm very worried that this film will have a third act where the three of them come together to fight another "origin movie throwaway villain", and in this instance it'll be Doomsday, which is a waste of that character.
That is my only worry, that this will end up being Batman vs Superman in the same way that Avengers is 'Iron Man vs Thor', ie. One set piece fight then an everyone's-friends teamup. I'd much rather see the titular fight take centre stage for the whole film, and simply set up Luthor and Doomsday to be the Big Bads in JL1 (in Avengers terms, DD as Loki, LL as Thanos).
I have faith they'll stick to their guns, though; to much is riding on this to half-arse it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm very worried that this film will have a third act where the three of them come together to fight another "origin movie throwaway villain", and in this instance it'll be Doomsday, which is a waste of that character.
That is my only worry, that this will end up being Batman vs Superman in the same way that Avengers is 'Iron Man vs Thor', ie. One set piece fight then an everyone's-friends teamup. I'd much rather see the titular fight take centre stage for the whole film, and simply set up Luthor and Doomsday to be the Big Bads in JL1 (in Avengers terms, DD as Loki, LL as Thanos).
I have faith they'll stick to their guns, though; to much is riding on this to half-arse it.
I hope you're right. Do we know for sure Doomsday is in this movie?
It's just a short film by Rileah Vanderbilt (of Team Unicorn fame). I think it was just done for an acting reel / discussion point about the viability of a modern Wonder Woman / because they wanted to.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm very worried that this film will have a third act where the three of them come together to fight another "origin movie throwaway villain", and in this instance it'll be Doomsday, which is a waste of that character.
That is my only worry, that this will end up being Batman vs Superman in the same way that Avengers is 'Iron Man vs Thor', ie. One set piece fight then an everyone's-friends teamup. I'd much rather see the titular fight take centre stage for the whole film, and simply set up Luthor and Doomsday to be the Big Bads in JL1 (in Avengers terms, DD as Loki, LL as Thanos).
I have faith they'll stick to their guns, though; to much is riding on this to half-arse it.
Doesn't Lex get some sort of super power armour in some incarnations - maybe thats Kyrptonian tech and will be part of the plot - seems to be some pic sof salvaging of alien tech?
re the plot - Except Avengers is cleverer than that.
Thor fights Iron Man and nothing is resolved and in fact is the opposite - it helps build tension between the potential team members - same with the later interactions and the Thor/Hulk fight - as per Loki's intent. Its only when there is a death of someone known to main cast that any kind of team begins to build.
I am hoping there might be a bit of wit and humour in the film but it does not look like that is the case :( hope still lingers however.......
Yeah, Lex does have a suit that uses all kinds of alien tech, but I doubt we'll see that in this film. At a guess, they'll set it up here, but save the actual reveal for either Superman 2 or JL1.
I was just using Avengers as an example, not direct comparison. Whatever happens with teaming up (or not), imagine the rivalry/enmity between Bat and Supes will continue long after the film itself.
Paradigm wrote: Yeah, Lex does have a suit that uses all kinds of alien tech, but I doubt we'll see that in this film. At a guess, they'll set it up here, but save the actual reveal for either Superman 2 or JL1.
I was just using Avengers as an example, not direct comparison. Whatever happens with teaming up (or not), imagine the rivalry/enmity between Bat and Supes will continue long after the film itself.
Well unless they go another well travelled route and its just sexual tension....................
LordofHats wrote: Why is...long hair mcnerdy for that matter, in the movie?
Yeah, why would Lex Luthor, the nemesis of Superman and most likely the mastermind behind all this, be in the movie?
What I'm getting at is a concern that the plot will be overstuffed and distracted (like Spider-Man 3, Amazing Spider-Man 2). The Batman vs Superman concept is strong enough to stand completely on its own as a cool idea for a movie, but now they're throwing in Wonder Woman, long haired Luthor, setting up for a Justice League film, weird Superman cultists, and who knows what else. Just the trailer feels bloated and overworked to me, so I can't help but feel the movie will be even worse.
Off the top of my head, MoS ran just short of two and a half hours, and I can easily see this being closer to 3. (Bear in mind TDKR is almost that long, so while it's a different franchise WB don't seem to have a problem with longer superhero films).
LordofHats wrote: What I'm getting at is a concern that the plot will be overstuffed and distracted (like Spider-Man 3, Amazing Spider-Man 2).
I was just messing with you and I think that is a valid concern. Still, even if it was just Superman and Batman I'm pretty sure Lex Luthor would still be in it in some capacity. In action I still have doubts as to Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, though she could play a mean female Skeletor. I think the need to try and create a franchise ala Marvel may compromise the film and make it bloated and unwieldy but I hope not. Only time will tell I suppose.
Compel wrote: There's other leaks shown that has the gravestone of "Richard John Greyson" too.
So, looks like no Jason Todd, and no Nightwing possible.
That seems like a short sighted choice to me...
A gravestone doesn't necessarily mean the character is dead...
Right now, comics-wise, Dick Grayson faked his own death to join the spy agency "Spyral". That's the whole point of the currently ongoing series called "Grayson".
Compel wrote: There's other leaks shown that has the gravestone of "Richard John Greyson" too.
So, looks like no Jason Todd, and no Nightwing possible.
That seems like a short sighted choice to me...
A gravestone doesn't necessarily mean the character is dead...
Right now, comics-wise, Dick Grayson faked his own death to join the spy agency "Spyral". That's the whole point of the currently ongoing series called "Grayson".
Not much of a choice in the matter when the Crime Syndicate unmasked him in front of the world. Batman and Robin/Nightwing made a LOT of enemies. He either had to fake it or it would become real. I know there's been talk the DC comics are rebooting again...I was really looking forward to a Batman/Luthor grudging teamup through Luthor blackmailing Batman with identity knowledge. Following Forever Evil, Luthor decided to turn over a new leaf (while still being an arrogant sod). I'd like to see that continue.
Meh. DC should've went the other direction and did a Kingdom Come movie. Show us the world with too many super heroes and how it ends, screw this origin story stuff.
Compel wrote: I could see Lex and Batman starting off on the same side, until his plan unfolds and you have a Batman / Superman team up to end the film.
My bet/sense is that Lex gets chummy with Bruce (aware of his identity?), even as he manipulates him into fighting Supes. Who else would be behind the "Superman" stormtroopers? And maybe the clipping about his family, graffiti on Robin's costume, etc. Could Lex even be teaming with Joker already? That might provide motivation for the formation of the JL.
It seems pretty clear that Bruce is in a bad state. I believe that's Wayne Manor in ruins, which probably is symbolic of his mental state after Robin's death. Clark, on the other hand, seems to have his gak together and is busy saving people all over and being the hero even as the world still isn't sure what to make of him post-battle of Metropolis. To me, this is headed toward Supes ultimately re-energizing and re-inspiring Bats, with Bats becoming the mentor that Supes lacks.
Personally, I expect this movie to start very dark, but end brighter as the title suggests.
Regarding Doomsday, I think he's a fine secondary baddie if you need a Marvel-style tin can villain to knock over. Doomsday is just a wrecking machine...it doesn't talk, scheme, or have any real motivation other than destruction. There's no reason to save it to be a main villain in some other film. It's a fairly terrible character, honestly.
Regarding Doomsday, I think he's a fine secondary baddie if you need a Marvel-style tin can villain to knock over. Doomsday is just a wrecking machine...it doesn't talk, scheme, or have any real motivation other than destruction. There's no reason to save it to be a main villain in some other film. It's a fairly terrible character, honestly.
Agreed 1000%!
I too that IF Doomsday ever gets introduced he gets jettisoned in the same movie - he's about as one dimension a villain as they come!
Alpharius wrote: Zombie Zod as the Big Bad that all 3 (4?) heroes band together to fight in Act 3?
That sounds even worse tham Doomsday.
Compel wrote: That seems like a short sighted choice to me...
Very.
Why give yourself fewer options like that? If it was Jason Todd that doesn't mean you have to bring in Nightwing, but it means that the door isn't shut.
Regarding Robin/Nightwing, there is currently a line action Teen Titans series in the works (standalone, not part of the DCCU or Arrowverse) which will have Nightwing Nightwing as the lead. So they could be killing him off here so as to prevent confusion with that series...
Then again, they are going to have two Flashes running around, so who knows?
Paradigm wrote: Regarding Robin/Nightwing, there is currently a line action Teen Titans series in the works (standalone, not part of the DCCU or Arrowverse) which will have Nightwing Nightwing as the lead. So they could be killing him off here so as to prevent confusion with that series...
Then again, they are going to have two Flashes running around, so who knows?
But why? What is the point of that- just to confuse viewers?
I'm assuming it has something to do with different writers.
Paradigm wrote: Regarding Robin/Nightwing, there is currently a line action Teen Titans series in the works (standalone, not part of the DCCU or Arrowverse) which will have Nightwing Nightwing as the lead. So they could be killing him off here so as to prevent confusion with that series...
Then again, they are going to have two Flashes running around, so who knows?
But why? What is the point of that- just to confuse viewers?
I'm assuming it has something to do with different writers.
The DCMU writers want to cast actors who are "in", as opposed to the DCTVU writers who cast actors who suit the roles.
Alpharius wrote: Zombie Zod as the Big Bad that all 3 (4?) heroes band together to fight in Act 3?
That sounds even worse tham Doomsday.
It could be the same thing. Or perhaps Ahtman is on the right track.
Compel wrote: That seems like a short sighted choice to me...
Very.
Why give yourself fewer options like that? If it was Jason Todd that doesn't mean you have to bring in Nightwing, but it means that the door isn't shut.
I think so it's more emotionally meaningful and less confusing to non-comics geeks. "Robin is dead" vs. "Robin-no-not-Dick-Grayson-Robin-but-Jason-Todd-Robin-whom-you've-undoubtedly-never-heard-of".
Ahtman wrote: Zombie Zod sounds like a proto-Bizzaro.
That's actually a really interesting idea. Zod's skin did look awfully white there. A clue, perhaps? And Bizarro would also be a fine secondary villain.
I watched most of the panel presentation from Comic-Con. I thought it was interesting that they're establishing Gotham and Metropolis as being in close proximity. That's not exactly against canon -- or at least certain canon -- as both can be seen as facets of NYC. But in this case they're sister cities...the one more modern and wealthy, and the other more dilapidated and downtrodden. I think the comparison was to San Francisco vs. Oakland, although obviously an exaggerated version of that. Affleck's story about bumping into Christian Bale in the Batman aisle of a costume store was also pretty funny.
Anyway, I think this looks really good so far. And it doesn't look as much like a Nolan movie as MoS did. While some of the themes may be realistic and grounded, both the look of the trailer and some of the elements we see feel more "comic book." Supes' suit is much brighter than it was in MoS.
And I think Gadot looks good. But then I've said from the beginning that the real question about Gadot is with her acting chops and not her look. Tall and lean -- the beach volleyball player build -- is a much more realistic athletic build for a woman than the bodybuilder look IMO.
But Gadot doesn't look athletic. She looks like a supermodel pretending to be athletic. I'm willing to wait and see the final movie to decide but saying she is great based on 2 seconds of film isn't very convincing.
Well, I only said she looks good, not great. I think the uniform works and that she looks good as Diana Prince. We'll just have to wait for the fight scenes.
It's a hard role to cast. She's not just an athlete or common Amazon warrior, but a goddess. Gina Carano is a pretty lady and looks athletic, but she doesn't have 'goddess' looks. And her acting is every bit as questionable as Gadot's. At times, Jaime Alexander looks like she walked right off the pages of the Azzarello/Chiang run, but she turned the role down due to other commitments, IIRC. And again...chops?
So regarding your Bizarro theory, we don't know who Callan Mulvey is playing yet, do we?
That said she looks nothing like a professional beach volleyball player in build. Ahtman has it right. She looks like a model trying to be athletic. Compare her to Emily Blunt (also a very slim lady) in Edge of Tomorrow.
Sinful Hero wrote: Seems like a throw-away comment that is starting to get picked up and blown out of proportion. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
To be fair you don't have to do a lot of work to 'blow up' someone comparing a fan convention to genocide. Either he doesn't know what genocide really is, what a convention is, or both but it is still a silly thing to do. I'm still going to see the film, mind you. Eisenberg puts his head up his own ass in interviews somewhat frequently so this isn't some departure; he might be a fine person but terrible at interviews which is one of the main things about the job.
"It is like being screamed at by thousands of people. I don't know what the experience is throughout history, probably some kind of genocide. I can't think of anything that's equivalent."
He definitely shouldn't have compared it to 'genocide' but whatever - I guess he doesn't like publicity tours!
"It is like being screamed at by thousands of people. I don't know what the experience is throughout history, probably some kind of genocide. I can't think of anything that's equivalent."
He definitely shouldn't have compared it to 'genocide' but whatever - I guess he doesn't like publicity tours!
He isn't the worst person ever or any hyperbole like that, but it was incredibly short sighted (or perhaps...privileged?) to compare a convention to genocide. How good must you have things when you think the two are even remotely comparable?
insaniak wrote: I suspect people are putting far more weight on a light hearted throwaway comment than it really deserves.
He also equated himself to a victim because someone wanted to interview him. Sounds like he'd love a large dose of obscurity. Hope he finds that monkey's paw.
Or maybe he just needs more of what Wil Wheaton loved about conventions, the fansex.
"It is like being screamed at by thousands of people. I don't know what the experience is throughout history, probably some kind of genocide. I can't think of anything that's equivalent."
He definitely shouldn't have compared it to 'genocide' but whatever - I guess he doesn't like publicity tours!
He isn't the worst person ever or any hyperbole like that, but it was incredibly short sighted (or perhaps...privileged?) to compare a convention to genocide. How good must you have things when you think the two are even remotely comparable?
How good must someone have it to compare a crappy day at work to murder? "This is torture"/"that was murder" is an extremely common phrase, despite homicide occurring somewhere around the globe every 60 seconds and being a super serious problem.
Hyperbole and nonequivalent metaphors are a standard part of the English language. Never understood why throwaway comments like this trigger people.
It wasn't a throwaway comment it was said in an interview, and he didn't use a colloquialism either. Pretending it is either seems fairly disingenuous or at least looking for excuses. If you want to outrage go the current Planned Parenthood thread. That should suit your desire to be morally outraged at something. Let's be honest: if it were really that much of a nothing then why comment on it? I don't really think that much of it but this is a discussion site so here you go. At least I'm not making excuses about how silly it is.
The 'celebrity says something inane that can be interpreted in such a way as to be offensive if we ignore the fact that it was a throwaway comment in an on-the-spot interview' discussion could probably be better held somewhere other than this thread.
Batman kicking Superman's shiny blue butt in glorious technicolour is what this thread is about.
Is it me or does Ben Affleck (whom I can't stand when not acting) look like a better Batman than Christian Bale?
Frazzled bet on movie plot:
Luther does something to Superman to "possess him" Big fight with Bats and WW to save Bats but snaps out of it and they righteously put the hurt on Luther.
I dunno. I'm not sure I'll ever see a version of Batman (character or setting) that I like more than The Dark Knight trilogy, but I do think Batfleck has potential. Especially if they take a slightly different approach, a Batman that's been worn down after years and years and actually has a rather twisted view of the world thanks to his experiences it could be very interesting.
insaniak wrote: Batman kicking Superman's shiny blue butt in glorious technicolour is what this thread is about.
You just glossed over two of the big problems with this movie. One, if people are salivating for Superman to get beaten up in another stupid pointless hero fight there is something seriously wrong, either with your handling of the character or with them. Two, there will be no technicolour here. Snyder does not do colour, only muddy crap that looks like they fethed up a conversion to 3d.
It was a pretty dumb thing to say. I guess he isn't great at speaking off-the-cuff.
I'm still excited for the movie and it looks like Aflek can pull off Batman. I agree with Paradigm that Bale was excellent at it, despite being hard to work with, apparently.
Frazzled wrote: Is it me or does Ben Affleck (whom I can't stand when not acting) look like a better Batman than Christian Bale?
Frazzled bet on movie plot:
Luther does something to Superman to "possess him" Big fight with Bats and WW to save Bats but snaps out of it and they righteously put the hurt on Luther.
"Better" is subjective for a whole host of reasons, the first of which is that Batman/Bruce Wayne is a very malleable character that's been interpreted somewhat differently at different times. I think that large parts of the Bale Batman -- the counterterrorism rage tank Batman -- were dictated by the story and scripts, and not by choices made by the actor.
This suit is certainly closer to the modern comics. But this Bruce appears to be a bit of mess upstairs like the Bale Batman, although for different reasons. I'd like to see a little more Dark Knight *Detective* out of this Batman, but then there might not be much room for it in this story. Maybe we'll see it in the Batman solo film. Or in JL, since he'll need something to do while the gods get their work done.
I disagree about the plot...too cheap and easy. Terrio's a better writer than that.
gorgon's bet -- Luthor is playing puppetmaster with an emotionally damaged Bruce/Bats and a Clark/Supes who's still finding his way. The drone seen in the last trailer shooting up stuff -- Luthor. The criminal branded with the bat symbol -- Luthor. The Superman 'stormtroopers' -- Luthor. And probably a lot more we haven't seen. (Note that both guys look really angry in the rooftop rain shot in the last trailer.) All with the intent of making each think that the other guy needs to be put down.
insaniak wrote: Batman kicking Superman's shiny blue butt in glorious technicolour is what this thread is about.
You just glossed over two of the big problems with this movie. One, if people are salivating for Superman to get beaten up in another stupid pointless hero fight there is something seriously wrong, either with your handling of the character or with them. Two, there will be no technicolour here. Snyder does not do colour, only muddy crap that looks like they fethed up a conversion to 3d.
Actually, I think the Superman sequences in the trailer look reasonably bright, and his uniform looks brighter to me. The yellow in the symbol is definitely brighter, at least.
The Gotham sequences are going to be dark because it's Gotham.
Frazzled wrote: Is it me or does Ben Affleck (whom I can't stand when not acting) look like a better Batman than Christian Bale?
Frazzled bet on movie plot: Luther does something to Superman to "possess him" Big fight with Bats and WW to save Bats but snaps out of it and they righteously put the hurt on Luther.
In Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, the POTUS asks Superman to deal with Bats, because he's making his administration look bad with all the gratuitous violence he deals out to criminals in Gotham.
At this point, vigilantes are illegal because all the heroes made a deal to cease their activities (with exception to Green Arrow and Bats). Supes is the only one who's allowed to operate and answers to the President but it's kept under wraps by the government.
Easy E wrote: I'm a bit tired of 9/11 imagery in films.
However, on the other hand how else are you supposed to do superhero fights on the power scale of Zod/Supes when they are in a city?
You do the city fight like in Avengers - make it cool and interesting - not just rubbing each other along the side of buildings until it becomes more than tedious. Use characters and dialogue instead of just effects...
Sooo Wonder Woman - do we know who / what she is and who she got her powers in this universe? Foolishly I am hoping for a bit or interplay between her and one or more heroes - Without Nolan we might have a chance of an actual female character in the film.
Easy E wrote: I'm a bit tired of 9/11 imagery in films.
However, on the other hand how else are you supposed to do superhero fights on the power scale of Zod/Supes when they are in a city?
You do the city fight like in Avengers - make it cool and interesting - not just rubbing each other along the side of buildings until it becomes more than tedious. Use characters and dialogue instead of just effects...
Sooo Wonder Woman - do we know who / what she is and who she got her powers in this universe? Foolishly I am hoping for a bit or interplay between her and one or more heroes - Without Nolan we might have a chance of an actual female character in the film.
The Avengers haven't fought anyone nearly as tough as Zod, though. It's either weaker Ultrons or Chitaurii grunts; I bet when they go head to head with Thanos more than a few scyscrapers might come down. Unless they manage to take it outside... atmosphere!
That said, there's not a one-on-one fight in the MCU that is as awesome as Superman vs Zod, in my opinion. Thor and Loki in Asgard comes close, but not quite.
Easy E wrote: However, on the other hand how else are you supposed to do superhero fights on the power scale of Zod/Supes when they are in a city?
You don't. Sometimes it will be unavoidable, but whenever it's an option Superman should make the effort to "take it outside". The worst example of this was in one of the animated movies where Superman and Bizarro were fighting over which of them gets to protect the city and neither of them thought it might be a good idea to settle their fight next to the city instead of in it.
Frazzled wrote: Sounds like Watchmen or something. Interesting.
It's pretty heavy handed honestly, there's a smugness to Miller's work that spoils repeated readings IMO.
If they stick closely to the book then the fight won't go more than 15 or so feet from one particular street light, so no worries about city flattening battles...
This movie is going to be meh at best feels like they have no build up and the last superman was horrible (admit it) they need a batman solo movie and kinda of develop characters with either movies or TV shows the characters in this movie have such a rich background of fluff and to just cram about 5 or 6 characters into a two hour (more like hour and a half movie) sucks. I don't know I just hate the "Lets beat avengers and throw all our characters in one movie with gak tons of exposition!"
My personal opinion though so before we crucify me really think about it...
Honestly not much, but plot armor makes more than a difference though. Really they shouldn't be in each others comics as one is essentially a crime noir series and the other is sci-fi adventurism but popularity makes strange bedfellows. People like Batman so the writers invent all sorts of total crap to make it work, and I say this as a Batman fan. This is guy who fought Darkseid in melee and won because he is so popular.
Honestly not much, but plot armor makes more than a difference though. Really they shouldn't be in each others comics as one is essentially a crime noir series and the other is sci-fi adventurism but popularity makes strange bedfellows. People like Batman so the writers invent all sorts of total crap to make it work, and I say this as a Batman fan. This is guy who fought Darkseid in melee and won because he is so popular.
Yea that's what I thought the movie would be like. Plot armour to the core. I guess we will find out soon enough.
But how is batman Vs Superman even a fight? Surely Superman will simply kill him with a single punch. What can batman do to Superman?
The most likely possibility is that the armour shown in the trailor incorporates Kryptonite.
Although it might be nice if they came up with a clever alternative for the movie.
The idea's been floating around in the comics for some time now that Batman keeps files on every other Justice League member, with plans to be implemented on the off-chance that he might have to take them down one day. He's nothing if not resourceful.
I see. Without sounding silly but couldn't Super Man ignore all that and just hiff rocks at him from space (if he didn't care about people anymore)?
See while I think maybe it can be possible for Batman to win, even with the reasons above it feels like Bat Man can only win if Superman chooses not to use winning methods.
But how is batman Vs Superman even a fight? Surely Superman will simply kill him with a single punch. What can batman do to Superman?
Comic book characters can use real world popularity to ascend in power levels Dragonball Z style.
I think you can narrow it down even further than that. It's not just Batman's popularity in general, it's Batman's popularity among people who want to write a Batman vs. Superman fight that matters.
Swastakowey wrote: I see. Without sounding silly but couldn't Super Man ignore all that and just hiff rocks at him from space (if he didn't care about people anymore)?
See while I think maybe it can be possible for Batman to win, even with the reasons above it feels like Bat Man can only win if Superman chooses not to use winning methods.
It also comes down to Batman being willing to cheat.
If you've never read it, I would suggest the "Hush" story arc for Batman. It has a good look into why/how Batman would win in a fight with Superman, as Superman comes under Poison Ivy's influence.
If you're less interested in reading the comic books, you should also check out the DC Animated Original Movies, The Dark Knight Returns (Parts I and II).
The Dark Knight Returns looks to be a *major* inspiration for the film.
And The Dark Knight Returns (Ninja'd by Compel!!! - Go watch those movies, they're great!). I mean, any fight between something less than Darkseid/Doomsday level bad guys, or actual omnipotent beings, Superman wins. It's academic.
But in TDKR there is a fight between Batman and Superman, and Batman holds his own for quite a while... because he has an armoured suit (very similar to the one in this film), and is using every trick in the book ("cheating", as Kan put it), and Supes is seriously drained from taking a Soviet Nuke to the face not long ago, a Nuke that caused a nuclear winter, stopping the sun's rays from healing him properly.
And even then Bats still only comes out on top because Green Arrow hits Superman with a dust-cloud of kryptonite.
Basically what I'm saying is that it can be done, but it requires a whole lot of extra conditions for it to work.
And as far as Batman taking out the Justice League, that was the plot of Justice League: Doom. Has a wonderful ending. The entire JL wants to banish Batman for having plans to take them out, and they ask him to apologise. Batman flatout refuses and just says "Nope. And I'd do it again. You people are too dangerous to go unchecked!" and when confronted with the "How can you be so arrogant? What about keeping you in check?" question his reply is "The Justice League is there to keep me in check.".
Basically Batman is a complete badass in that film.
My guess is the armor we see Batman wearing in the movie is customized version of the Kryptonian armor that Zod drops in Man of Steel. Bruce Wayne has the money and the connections to get ahold of it.
Ahtman wrote: My guess is the armor we see Batman wearing in the movie is customized version of the Kryptonian armor that Zod drops in Man of Steel. Bruce Wayne has the money and the connections to get ahold of it.
Didn't Zod shed the armor at a construction site belonging to a certain someone's company?
Which could point towards the "he is nlaying one or both of them against each other" theory.
Honestly not much, but plot armor makes more than a difference though. Really they shouldn't be in each others comics as one is essentially a crime noir series and the other is sci-fi adventurism but popularity makes strange bedfellows. People like Batman so the writers invent all sorts of total crap to make it work, and I say this as a Batman fan. This is guy who fought Darkseid in melee and won because he is so popular.
Don't get me wrong, I think batman is a pretty cool character but that side of him always just annoyed the crap out of me. Be a great human fighter, sure. Be a great detective, why not it's completely reasonable. Have awesome tech because of unlimited funds OK. Win in a one on one with something like Darkseid? Uhm, no. No. No. No. Never ever, no matter how long he has to plan. No.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And The Dark Knight Returns (Ninja'd by Compel!!! - Go watch those movies, they're great!).
It's not great.
The worst part of the movie is the Joker's last scene in the movie and the events surrounding it, but the whole thing has a strong Bat-Fascist vibe to it.
Compel wrote: That was the plotline for Justice League: Doom I believe.
Bad guys get access to Batman's secret files, ends up taking everyone down, except The Flash.
Because The Flash was the one person Batman nominated to be the backup plan of Batman's backup plan...
Cyborg, actually. Flash got a bomb inserted into his wrist.
And Kryptonite (and Wonder Woman) have been his strategies to deal with Supes in the past. Might be where she fits in in this version too.
Actually, in the New 52, Bats revealed to Supes that his only plan for taking WW down was Supes himself. She has no real weaknesses, you just have to be strong enough to stop her. That had something to do with his initial disapproval of Supes' and WW's relationship.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: My guess is the armor we see Batman wearing in the movie is customized version of the Kryptonian armor that Zod drops in Man of Steel. Bruce Wayne has the money and the connections to get ahold of it.
Maybe, but also Snyder said in the panel that the purpose of the armor is to buy time, not actually win the fight. Which might point to it simply being Wayne tech? Also, two possibilities there regarding 'buying time' IMO -- he's waiting for some kind of cavalry to arrive (Diana?), or there's more going on with that fight than it seems.
Here's a line from Snyder about how Batman will fare: “He’s going to get pummeled like a piñata.”
Honestly not much, but plot armor makes more than a difference though. Really they shouldn't be in each others comics as one is essentially a crime noir series and the other is sci-fi adventurism but popularity makes strange bedfellows. People like Batman so the writers invent all sorts of total crap to make it work, and I say this as a Batman fan. This is guy who fought Darkseid in melee and won because he is so popular.
Huh. I actually don't remember that one. I remember him shooting a weak Darkseid with a radion bullet. I DO remember Green Arrow and the Atom (!) killing Darkseid in that JLA story by Morrison.
Captain America has done a lot of stuff like that on the Marvel side too.
Frazzled wrote: Sounds like Watchmen or something. Interesting.
It's pretty heavy handed honestly, there's a smugness to Miller's work that spoils repeated readings IMO.
That, and being able to see the seeds of the preoccupations and quirks that would eventually eat Frank Miller's work whole. Culminating in (shudder) Holy Terror....
I stopped reading Miller that much after The Dark Knight Returns and Year One so I'm still pretty happy with those. I haven't heard anything really all that good about the rest and the further you get from those it seems the worse I hear.
Saw the trailer and it gave me a little hope. I just still dislike what they chose for the characterisation of Kents and Superman. Superman was always suppose to be about "nurture" and how good American values shaped him. I see no hope or idealism in this superman. The directors love Jesus/Angel imaginary but have not made the character worthy of it yet. I see nothing inspiring about him. It feels like the world has every reason not to trust him.
Batman looks appropriate, though. Affleck may pull this off.
AdeptSister wrote: The directors love Jesus/Angel imaginary but have not made the character worthy of it yet. I see nothing inspiring about him.
It is almost like he is a neophyte who is just learning how to be Superman. Wait. That is exactly what he was. He wasn't even Superman for 24 hours yet in MoS.
AdeptSister wrote: It feels like the world has every reason not to trust him.
Gosh, do you think that could be a plot point? How dare they make people learn to respect him instead of respecting him right off the bat!
You are confusing "nurture" with "what I want out of Superman".
Sure, what people want out of Superman varies.
I see no hope or idealism in this superman.
Then you weren't paying close enough attention.
About as much hope as batman got in the Christian Bale series, IMO. There should not be grounds for an argument that Batman's story has more hope in it than Superman. Most of this impression is, IMO, colored by the Man of Steel debacle
AdeptSister wrote: The directors love Jesus/Angel imaginary but have not made the character worthy of it yet. I see nothing inspiring about him.
It is almost like he is a neophyte who is just learning how to be Superman. Wait. That is exactly what he was. He wasn't even Superman for 24 hours yet in MoS.
Now this is where I agree completely with the good sister adept. "Superman" (really Clark Kent) has had his whole life to decide what his values are.
AdeptSister wrote: It feels like the world has every reason not to trust him.
Gosh, do you think that could be a plot point? How dare they make people learn to respect him instead of respecting him right off the bat!
That's a nice, friendly, conversational tone you've got there. Just because some people like a different portrayal of Superman doesn't mean they're wrong.
...You know that people can disagree politely, right? While you don't have to, it usually makes a dialog easier.
The arguement for Man of Steel that I keep hearing is "wait, he is still learning to be a hero." Why is the fact that the writer decided that Superman needs to learn how to be a good person alright? Superman is suppose to be a good person at the start. His parents raised him right.
In Man of Steel his father does not believe in the goodness of man. He fears humanity. He chastised Superman when he saved lives. Heck, he allowed himself to die rather than allow his son to do something heroic. What type of teaching is that? That is not the Jonathan Kent from the comic.
Lets talk about the Superman from the film. What did the scene about him destroying the bar jerk's truck established? Other than he being petty? Was that a reasonable response?
Also, during all the fights he never tried to draw the battle away from civilian areas. Millions died. Heck, he was the cause of all the destruction as he drew Zod here in the first place. This artistic decision changes the motivation of Superman: He is not a hero because he is a good man, he is a hero because he feels guilt. Superman, IMHO, should be about hope, not guilt.
And the constant Angel/Jesus visuals. And he is 33! Jeepers! We get it.
You are conflating Johnathan and Martha Kent being living avatars of virtue with that of being flesh and blood humans. The movie made them the latter, which in no way kept them from being good, it just meant they worried about their son just as much as raising him right. I thought it was an nice way of doing it. Most parents aren't perfect and try to raise their kids the best they can while also worrying about them. This was no different. Again your argument essentially breaks down to believing in one specific idea of what and who these people should be when there is no specific version.
Also movies didn't create the Superman as religious allegory thing either. If you aren't even aware of that you might not know the character as well as you think you do.
AdeptSister wrote: It feels like the world has every reason not to trust him.
Gosh, do you think that could be a plot point? How dare they make people learn to respect him instead of respecting him right off the bat!
Unfortunately, I think the Marvel films -- while entertaining -- have coached people that comic book films should make you turn your brain off for 2 hours. MoS -- and BvS from the look of things -- is asking people to turn their brain ON just 10% and think about what it would really be like if beings like these existed. *I* think it's an interesting question and something worth exploring, whether or not someone agrees with the execution.
It's fascinating to me how the DC and Marvel films play opposite to the way people usually view their comic books. Usually people think of DC as owning the 4-color, kid-friendly, "comic-booky" smash-em-ups, while Marvel books are a little more grounded, aimed at slightly older audiences (I'd say adolescents rather than adults) and have heroes with real problems.
So why is your argument that the movie decided to make the Kents "flesh and blood" more valid than the decision to keep them true to how the comics and cartoons have portrayed them? You have your view that the Kents were fine in this version. I disagree based on what has been portrayed in most of their other appearances.
And come on, we all know the history of Superman and how he has changed over time. But you don't think that the film had the subtlety of a brick with the jesus references?
AdeptSister wrote: It feels like the world has every reason not to trust him.
Gosh, do you think that could be a plot point? How dare they make people learn to respect him instead of respecting him right off the bat!
Unfortunately, I think the Marvel films -- while entertaining -- have coached people that comic book films should make you turn your brain off for 2 hours. MoS -- and BvS from the look of things -- is asking people to turn their brain ON just 10% and think about what it would really be like if beings like these existed. *I* think it's an interesting question and something worth exploring, whether or not someone agrees with the execution.
It's fascinating to me how the DC and Marvel films play opposite to the way people usually view their comic books. Usually people think of DC as owning the 4-color, kid-friendly, "comic-booky" smash-em-ups, while Marvel books are a little more grounded, aimed at slightly older audiences (I'd say adolescents rather than adults) and have heroes with real problems.
While agree that there is a different take on "superheroes" between the two movie universes, I do not agree that one "takes more brain power". I would say Captain America: The Winter Soldier explored more than Man of Steel. Gritty /= mature and nuance
AdeptSister wrote: ...You know that people can disagree politely, right? While you don't have to, it usually makes a dialog easier.
The arguement for Man of Steel that I keep hearing is "wait, he is still learning to be a hero." Why is the fact that the writer decided that Superman needs to learn how to be a good person alright? Superman is suppose to be a good person at the start. His parents raised him right.
In Man of Steel his father does not believe in the goodness of man. He fears humanity. He chastised Superman when he saved lives. Heck, he allowed himself to die rather than allow his son to do something heroic. What type of teaching is that? That is not the Jonathan Kent from the comic.
Do you have kids?
I do, and I can tell you this -- if I had a child like Clark, my wife and I would be absolutely terrified that people would come some day and take him away to perform experiments on him. Why wouldn't anyone? What could you do? Do you really think that the laws and rules apply to an alien and a first contact situation, especially when the alien has godlike abilities? J & M's fears and protective behavior on this point are *VERY* realistic, whether you find that "inspiring" or not.
Really...what would you do? What would you tell your SON to do? Would it really be like the old Silver Age Jon and Martha? "Here son, your mom is going to knit you a brightly-colored outfit out of these blankets so that you can publicly display your alien nature and abilities that could wipe out our civilization if you have so much as a tantrum. I'm sure the government and public will embrace and fully trust you so long as you do some nice things."
There was nothing related to real-world human nature in in any of that.
Me? I'd say pretty much what Jonathan did. "There'll be a time as an adult when you get to decide what to do with those abilities. Until then, you conceal that gak. And you learn not to retaliate when people give you gak. You get upset, you bury it deep inside. It sucks and it's not fair, but the world can't afford to have you lash out even once, and bad things will happen to you and all of us if you do."
Cripes, people actually complain about Clark's mannerisms in MoS. The guy *IS* tremendously repressed -- that's the POINT! Realistically, he'd have to be!
I guess it's ultimately just different strokes for different folks. Personally, I think you can do a lot with these character beyond just brain candy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdeptSister wrote: So why is your argument that the movie decided to make the Kents "flesh and blood" more valid than the decision to keep them true to how the comics and cartoons have portrayed them? You have your view that the Kents were fine in this version. I disagree based on what has been portrayed in most of their other appearances.
And come on, we all know the history of Superman and how he has changed over time. But you don't think that the film had the subtlety of a brick with the jesus references?
I guess you hated Superman '78, because it was all over that one too. Jor-El sending his son...his only son...to Earth to teach the way. "Lois...come forth." Okay, he didn't say that, but he did resurrect her, huh?
The savior angle has been there for a very long time. Best route IMO is work hard to avoid it, or just embrace that sucker and roll with it. They chose the latter. *shrug*
While agree that there is a different take on "superheroes" between the two movie universes, I do not agree that one "takes more brain power". I would say Captain America: The Winter Soldier explored more than Man of Steel. Gritty /= mature and nuance
LOL. What 'nuance' was there in Winter Soldier? Name one thing that was a real dilemma or made you think.
gorgon wrote: Unfortunately, I think the Marvel films -- while entertaining -- have coached people that comic book films should make you turn your brain off for 2 hours. MoS -- and BvS from the look of things -- is asking people to turn their brain ON just 10% and think about what it would really be like if beings like these existed.
No, it isn't. Man of Steel isn't "what it would really be like," it's "what the worst sort of Batman fanboy thinks it would really be like." Young Clark Kent saves a bus full of schoolchildren and the way Snyder directs the following scene you'd think they caught him masturbating. If that's not incompetence, it's at least pushing a misanthropic worldview where personal heroism like saving dozens of children from drowning is something to be ashamed of, for fear the big bad government will come and piss in your Weeties for no good reason.
For Winter Soldier, the major theme was about finding a balance between security and personal freedom. While Captain America remained true, Fury was originally fine with violating America‘s ideals for security. SHIELD tore itself apart. While Hydra pushed an agenda, good people allowed it to come to fruition. Its a constant part in the Age of Ultron as well: How far should we go for security? For peace? Heck, this will come to a head in Civil War.
Captain America came off more of a hero than Superman. That seems wrong. Why is being "heroic" less realistic? I think that portrayal is not accurate to how superman should be.
One of the great things about the idea of Batman versus Superman is how they are different aspects: fear versus hope. Superman in Man of Steel is not hope.
Yeah, Gorgon, I have no qualms at all saying I wouldn't coach my boy to watch people die, knowing that he could save them as easy as taking out the trash.
THAT would mess up someone's life.
Oh, and what about the "let me die son. There is no possible way to save me without showing your powers (a normal human had a chance to save Pa Kent given the amount of time they spent soul gazing into each other's eyes as A SON ALLOWED HIS FATHER TO DIE!)
The Kents are more messed up in MoS than lots of supervillians in other movies.
gorgon wrote: Unfortunately, I think the Marvel films -- while entertaining -- have coached people that comic book films should make you turn your brain off for 2 hours. MoS -- and BvS from the look of things -- is asking people to turn their brain ON just 10% and think about what it would really be like if beings like these existed.
No, it isn't. Man of Steel isn't "what it would really be like," it's "what the worst sort of Batman fanboy thinks it would really be like." Young Clark Kent saves a bus full of schoolchildren and the way Snyder directs the following scene you'd think they caught him masturbating. If that's not incompetence, it's at least pushing a misanthropic worldview where personal heroism like saving dozens of children from drowning is something to be ashamed of, for fear the big bad government will come and piss in your Weeties for no good reason.
The fanboyism comes from the critics who are to unable let go of their personal views of a character long enough to see that character explored a little differently.
Marvel panders well to fanboys. Their stuff is mostly in line with comics, and certainly safe. It's safe above all else. It doesn't step on any toes or force anyone to think. Hell, they've even whitewashed stuff from the comics like Tony Stark's alcoholism.
Note Jonathan's words in that scene. "I don't know. Maybe." He's conflicted, and that's what drives him to show Clark the ship at that moment -- to show Clark what his existence means to the world.
Again, if that's me talking to my kid, I'm happy that he saved the kids, but absolutely terrified that he showed his alien nature publicly.
I must say I find it quite funny that people don't like the idea of a young Clark Kent hiding his powers for fear of persecution, but no one bats an eyelid when the X-men universe is founded on the same idea.
In a world where no one has seen superheroes or anything like them yet, Clark would be met with as much hostility as Xavier/Magneto get in First Class when mutantkind is first revealed. In other words, lots of distrust, hatred and guns pointed in his general direction.
Like the X-men, yes he could deal with that without breaking a sweat, but in doing so would prove them right.
With that in mind, the choice makes perfect sense.
gorgon wrote: Note Jonathan's words in that scene. "I don't know. Maybe." He's conflicted, and that's what drives him to show Clark the ship at that moment -- to show Clark what his existence means to the world.
Again, if that's me talking to my kid, I'm happy that he saved the kids, but absolutely terrified that he showed his alien nature publicly.
If it was me talking to my kid, I'd go for something more along the lines of "You just saved a bus full of people? I'm proud of you, son! Let's all go out for icecream!"
Paradigm wrote: I must say I find it quite funny that people don't like the idea of a young Clark Kent hiding his powers for fear of persecution, but no one bats an eyelid when the X-men universe is founded on the same idea.
In a world where no one has seen superheroes or anything like them yet, Clark would be met with as much hostility as Xavier/Magneto get in First Class when mutantkind is first revealed. In other words, lots of distrust, hatred and guns pointed in his general direction.
Like the X-men, yes he could deal with that without breaking a sweat, but in doing so would prove them right.
With that in mind, the choice makes perfect sense.
Which is why they exists in different worlds. Forcing the idea of Superman into that world would not work thematically, like in MoS. Would the concept of X-men work in Superman's world? No, a world where X-men were not hated and feared would change the entire concept of X-Men.
Also, during all the fights he never tried to draw the battle away from civilian areas. Millions died. Heck, he was the cause of all the destruction as he drew Zod here in the first place.
I don't think they ever established a 'death toll' in MoS, but I don't think it was...millions?
I guess you *could* argue that Zod and Company came to Earth because Clark was there, but...that seems a fairly slender reed to lean upon if you're making the case that it was all "Superman's Fault".
And calling it "fanboyish" to wish for the core part of the character to be the same as the source is pretty insulting. This was not about "having an interesting take on the character" in was about shoehorning him into the Nolanverse.
This a quote captures my feeling about Superman:
"Superman’s morality isn’t divine or innate, either. It’s not something that he was born with, and it’s not something that sets him apart from humanity. Morally speaking, anyone can be as Good as Superman; the only advantage he has is that he was brought up by a couple of really nice farmers. He’s an aspirational figure rather than a redemptive one, who shows us that we all have the ability to use our talents for good, we just have to choose to do so."
AdeptSister wrote: For Winter Soldier, the major theme was about finding a balance between security and personal freedom. While Captain America remained true, Fury was originally fine with violating America‘s ideals for security. SHIELD tore itself apart. While Hydra pushed an agenda, good people allowed it to come to fruition. Its a constant part in the Age of Ultron as well: How far should we go for security? For peace? Heck, this will come to a head in Civil War.
LOL. Of course, questions about security, trust in our government, etc. are general topics that have been done countless times before in film and TV, and MUCH more effectively and thoughtfully in a superhero film by The Dark Knight.
So fine...there's a grown-up theme in there. But where was the nuance? Where was the thoughtfulness? Remember the ferry scene in TDK, and the message that perhaps it's US and not our institutions or heroes who get to define and decide our security by not allowing ourselves to act out of fear? Where was the equivalent of THAT in Winter Soldier?
Just keeping it real, it was a fun action film, but after "learning" that a government that snoops around too much can be "bad", it's pretty much a straight-line, 4-color comic book. Not a 'nuanced' film.
Scrabb wrote: Yeah, Gorgon, I have no qualms at all saying I wouldn't coach my boy to watch people die, knowing that he could save them as easy as taking out the trash.
THAT would mess up someone's life.
Sure. Of course, Jonathan never really said that or acted that way, if you avoid watching the film through a red haze of hate.
AdeptSister wrote: For Winter Soldier, the major theme was about finding a balance between security and personal freedom. While Captain America remained true, Fury was originally fine with violating America‘s ideals for security. SHIELD tore itself apart. While Hydra pushed an agenda, good people allowed it to come to fruition. Its a constant part in the Age of Ultron as well: How far should we go for security? For peace? Heck, this will come to a head in Civil War.
LOL. Of course, questions about security, trust in our government, etc. are general topics that have been done countless times before in film and TV, and MUCH more effectively and thoughtfully in a superhero film by The Dark Knight.
So fine...there's a grown-up theme in there. But where was the nuance? Where was the thoughtfulness? Remember the ferry scene in TDK, and the message that perhaps it's US and not our institutions or heroes who get to define and decide our security by not allowing ourselves to act out of fear? Where was the equivalent of THAT in Winter Soldier?
Just keeping it real, it was a fun action film, but after "learning" that a government that snoops around too much can be "bad", it's pretty much a straight-line, 4-color comic book. Not a 'nuanced' film.
Humans are humans, though, and regardless of the setting, reacting like they do to the emergence of an unchecked being that can wipe them out makes perfect sense; people aren't going to just accept it just because it's a Superman universe rather than an X-men one. It would be unrealistic, really, for any other reaction.
And as for changing the tone, that's not really an issue so long as it's done well. Look at Batman; it's evolved from the bright, colourful Kid-friendly Adam West ones, via the varying 80/90s ones to the Dark Knight to this, which looks like it'll be even darker.
AdeptSister wrote: And calling it "fanboyish" to wish for the core part of the character to be the same as the source is pretty insulting. This was not about "having an interesting take on the character" in was about shoehorning him into the Nolanverse.
Well, in the comics he killed Zod and other criminals, so you're disrespecting the source material to want it otherwise.
Relax your grip on YOUR idea of the character a little, and you'll see that it's all fine. Really.
Paradigm wrote: In a world where no one has seen superheroes or anything like them yet, Clark would be met with as much hostility as Xavier/Magneto get in First Class when mutantkind is first revealed.
Actually, Xavier was met with less hostility once he proved that there really were mutants and that his knowledge of US military secrets wasn't because he was a spy.
I‘m not arguing that that Humanity reaction was bad. I was arguing the specific teachings and actions of the Kents were a large change from the source material.
You are right that tone can change. Batman '66 is just as valid as Nolan Batman. I just I was wishing for a hopeful Superman.
AdeptSister wrote: Zod actually says that the activation of the Kryptonian ship lead them to Earth.
I still don't think that means you can 'blame' Superman for the actions of Zod and his henchmen.
To clarify, Zod would most likely never arrived at Earth if Superman did not activate the ship. His action accidentally draws Zod. Of course it is Zod's fault for their actions, but Superman accidentally led them to Earth.
Why the writer decided to make that choice, I have little idea.
AdeptSister wrote: And calling it "fanboyish" to wish for the core part of the character to be the same as the source is pretty insulting. This was not about "having an interesting take on the character" in was about shoehorning him into the Nolanverse.
Well, in the comics he killed Zod and other criminals, so you're disrespecting the source material to want it otherwise.
Relax your grip on YOUR idea of the character a little, and you'll see that it's all fine. Really.
Remind we when I complained about him killing Zod?
AdeptSister wrote: For Winter Soldier, the major theme was about finding a balance between security and personal freedom. While Captain America remained true, Fury was originally fine with violating America‘s ideals for security. SHIELD tore itself apart. While Hydra pushed an agenda, good people allowed it to come to fruition. Its a constant part in the Age of Ultron as well: How far should we go for security? For peace? Heck, this will come to a head in Civil War.
LOL. Of course, questions about security, trust in our government, etc. are general topics that have been done countless times before in film and TV, and MUCH more effectively and thoughtfully in a superhero film by The Dark Knight.
So fine...there's a grown-up theme in there. But where was the nuance? Where was the thoughtfulness? Remember the ferry scene in TDK, and the message that perhaps it's US and not our institutions or heroes who get to define and decide our security by not allowing ourselves to act out of fear? Where was the equivalent of THAT in Winter Soldier?
Just keeping it real, it was a fun action film, but after "learning" that a government that snoops around too much can be "bad", it's pretty much a straight-line, 4-color comic book. Not a 'nuanced' film.
You originally said MoS was nuanced. How so?
For starters -- in all the reactions we've talked about, from Jonathan and Martha to the government and the public. MoS is a superhero movie and not an extremely complex or deep film, but just by the filmmakers asking the question "what would it be like if this character and mythos existed in the real world," they're working at a slightly different level than with Superman '78 or any of the Marvel films. It would have been very easy to just roll with plain ol' Ma and Pa Kent, who encourage their son to do good deeds without a single care that an alien god's presence on our planet might be problematic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to extend an olive branch here...
FWIW, I had "source material" objections to Winter Soldier. I accept that it's the MCCU Cap and not comics Cap. I just wish the Black Widow material would have been given to Sharon Carter (played by a stronger actress). For me, that would have made for a more classic Cap film.
So I do get that it's disappointing when a film doesn't interface with the source material in all the ways you want. But ultimately it's still a Cap film, and I still enjoyed it for what it was.
AdeptSister wrote: Also, during all the fights he never tried to draw the battle away from civilian areas. Millions died.
Looking back, I don't think it was actually the intent to have a huge inferred death toll, I think it was just bad scriptwriting. They wanted Big Epic Action Scenes, but didn't make any effort to give an in-universe reason why all this flashy cinematic destruction wasn't incurring a huge civilian death toll. Because bear in mind that at no point does anyone in-universe actually act like thousands have died.
1: Apocalyptic landscape where amidst the ravaged ruins of Metropolis (but with no deaths on-screen, so that's okay), we get a romantic moment and a corny joke.
2: Huge epic Bay-esque super-battle where buildings are getting torn apart, but almost nobody dies or is threatened with death on screen (apart from the woman Perry saves). Also note that this part of the city seems entirely unaware that another district of the city has been entirely flattened.
3: Oh no! Zod is about to kill three random civilians. This cannot be tolerated, and he must be stopped because never mind the thousands that logically would have died because of him up till now, these people MATTER!
4: Everything's cool now. Life in Metropolis has somehow returned to normal despite the city suffering about twenty 9/11's, and Superman seems to not be the least bit fussed about killing a man when he could be flirting with a cute female soldier.
Ahtman wrote: I stopped reading Miller that much after The Dark Knight Returns and Year One so I'm still pretty happy with those. I haven't heard anything really all that good about the rest and the further you get from those it seems the worse I hear.
If you haven't already, I'd highly recommend reading Daredevil: Born Again.That's simply a masterpiece.
I'd also recommend All-Star Batman And Robin, not because it's good, but because it's Miller rebooting the Batman & Robin origins, and it's a morbidly fascinating and utterly hilarious train wreck. Every issue, you will gawp in stunned wonder at just how stupid, juvenile and 'oh my god, he actually thought that was cool' it can get.
I understand where you are coming from. Superman, Batman, and Spiderman were my favorite general characters. I was so hopeful for Man of Steel. But for the reasons mentioned, I was really disappointed. You are right, directors change the visons we might hold in our minds. And it still is a Superman movie. But I could not reconcile with the movie's vision of Superman. The world felt more appropriate for Batman.
But I am glad that we can have two different views. I hope that the new movie will be enjoyable.
I think his parents were both super nice folks with a great sense of morality and it was their teachings and influence that makes Superman who he is. Man of Steel really isn't any different than any other source material regarding that issue.
The only difference is that MoS also had a dad going "Nnot everyone is awesome, some people are jerks, and others will simply be scared because you will change the way we view everything and you should know that so that you can make the right decision for you in the future. I love you and I am proud, but I am also scared about your future."
Scrabb wrote: Yeah, Gorgon, I have no qualms at all saying I wouldn't coach my boy to watch people die, knowing that he could save them as easy as taking out the trash.
THAT would mess up someone's life.
Sure. Of course, Jonathan never really said that or acted that way, if you avoid watching the film through a red haze of hate.
I'm glad you liked Man of Steel. it wasn't my cup of tea.
Looks like batman is going to be good at meddling but only able to annoy/distract Superman using billions of dollars worth of tech. Which is about right honestly.
(although I'm still not wrapping my head around not liking tea. Have you ever tried Chai with milk and sugar? It's basically hot chocolate for adults)
d-usa wrote: I think his parents were both super nice folks with a great sense of morality and it was their teachings and influence that makes Superman who he is. Man of Steel really isn't any different than any other source material regarding that issue.
Indeed the biggest change was to the Kyroptonian parents - where they went lets have a wierd suoper awesome Solider-Scientist guy who ignores all the rules of the society and makes space dragons to ride on.............hmmm - I figure all the other Kryptonians all left on their massive space ships and left his widow to watch the planet blow up alone......
The stuuf on Earth was significantly better than the realyl dire Krytonian stuff but sub Marvel/Smallville fare.
Obviously, I think the entire fight with Bat and Supes is going to be tempered by Superman holding back and trying to convince Bruce that he's not a bad guy. There will be a ton of "I don't want to hurt/kill you!" moments. It's going to be the frustration of knowing he wants to be a good guy, but while this bat-gak crazy mofo in a bat suit just keeps attacking him. And he's not supposed to take him out, because Batmans "supposed" to be a good guy to, and killing him would make Superman the exact bad guy Batman is claiming he is.
But then third combatant shows up- the actual bad guy- and then they team up. Pretty formulaic.
I always thought the entire devastation in the battle in man of Steel was about Superman being the victim of Zod's anger and willingness to cause chaos, no matter how many good hits he got in against him, because Clark was so inexperienced. Clark just lashed out and got lucky.
Imagine us knowing we are invulnerable but repressing that for our entire lives out of fear of being found out, and then suddenly getting attacked by a bear. You'd probably spend all by the end of that confrontation acting like any other squishy human until the fact that you can't lose finally got beat into you and you get the guts to act like you are invulnerable.
I'm still wondering what Lex's purpose in this will be. I mean, what will his motivation be for being the villain? He's already "top o' the world" with LexCorp. Why be against Superman? Why even care about Superman? Something has to happen early in the film to make Lex into Superman's enemy. My first guess is that Superman will somehow stop one of Lex's plans (maybe Lex sabotages a competitor in some way and Superman saves the day, we do see a rocket blowing up in the trailer with Supes saving the command module), so that makes Lex see Superman as an obstacle. Another possibility is that LexCorp gets some of the recovered Kryptonian tech to research, and Lex may actually ask Superman for his help in understanding it. Of course, Superman, being raised on Earth, can't help because he doesn't understand the tech, but Lex might not believe that and may think Superman is "trying to keep humanity down," which will also make Lex want to get rid of Superman, since nobody should be superior to Lex Luthor.
I wonder if Lex knows that Bruce Wayne is Batman? That could also lead in to how he may set the two of them up to fight each other (since Bruce Wayne's company is also a competitor to LexCorp). I suspect Wonder Woman's role may be to break up the fight to show them the real enemy.
I don't know if it needs to be anything so petty for Lex to be a villain. I've got to admit that I'm not the most knowledgeable person about comics but I've always thought the best way to make Lex Luthor be a genuine real threat to Superman is one thing.
Make Lex Luthor right. from a certain point of view
Superman Returns was a kinda terrible film and Lex Luthor was pretty much a joke in it. Yet somehow, in someway, this bit of awesomeness creeped into the film.
In my 'ideal' film, Lex Luthor opposes Superman not because Lex is a criminal / villain etc. Lex opposes Superman because of a fundamentally opposing world view that can not have Superman in it.
Batman VS Superman can perhaps have a situation where Batman starts off by sharing this worldview with Lex but ultimately is swayed and convinced to Superman's side.
In terms of the Superman facist army scenes in what appears to be a desert: anybody else thinking it's a flash forward dream that Bruce will have, causing him to decide that Superman must be stopped?
Not going to lie, I also got a lot of Red Son vibes from it (which is a very good thing).
Yeah, I'm beginning to think that Red Son might be a major influence on BvS too. Note that Red Son also had Luthor enact a certain plan that was...imperfect? Then consider puzzling shots from the trailers like the soldier kneeling before Superman, and Superman kneeling before Luthor.
Also, Snyder revealed that Batman's mech suit is more for self-preservation than anything else. So why is he just trying to buy time if he wants to take Superman down?
Right now I think that while this film may give us a little of what the title and trailers suggest, the plot -- including that fight on the rooftop -- may not be quite what it seems.
Red Son is my favorite Superman story, so I hope there is some influence from that. I really hope they go with the idea that Lex Luthor is Superman's enemy for all the right reasons.
Anyway, the new trailer has me convinced to see it just for Affleck. His portrayal of Bruce Wayne looks like it will be very intense.
On a related note, he totally captures what I call "disapproving parent face". For example, my son has spent months getting over his fear of electric hand dryers, but then a week ago some guy came into the restroom, saw my son eyeing the hand dryer with barely-mastered fear, and decided it would be funny to set it off and start screaming as if it were eating his hand, causing tears and nightmares for days. My expression:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Red Son is my favorite Superman story, so I hope there is some influence from that. I really hope they go with the idea that Lex Luthor is Superman's enemy for all the right reasons.
Anyway, the new trailer has me convinced to see it just for Affleck. His portrayal of Bruce Wayne looks like it will be very intense.
On a related note, he totally captures what I call "disapproving parent face". For example, my son has spent months getting over his fear of electric hand dryers, but then a week ago some guy came into the restroom, saw my son eyeing the hand dryer with barely-mastered fear, and decided it would be funny to set it off and start screaming as if it were eating his hand, causing tears and nightmares for days. My expression:
Sometimes its important to set a good example for your kids like disemboweling the jerk who scared them. DId I say too much?
Yea that look is cool. It captures serious "I'm coming for you."
Never really got the Affleck hate. Beyond a handful of rubbish films (everyone does rubbish films), he's done some good stuff, particularly in recent years.
He's a good fit for the role, just as Cavill is a good Superman (2nd best after Reeve IMHO). Just hope the film does them justice and isn't just another destruction fest.
I'm with you on not getting the Affleck hate. He's the Star in the movie The Town which I absolutely love. So he's at least ok in my book. Also I think he's got a good Bruce Wayne look
While recounting how he got stuck in a porta potty on the "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" set, Michael Shannon -- who played Zod in "Man of Steel" -- incidentally revealed to Vulture that his character would undergo a physical change.
"I was in my costume, and I couldn't use my fingers because in the sequel I have flippers instead of hands," he recalled. "So I had these wax flippers on my fingers, and I couldn't open the door, and I could hear Zack [Snyder, the director] being like, 'Where's Shannon? Where the feth is he?' and the whole crew was standing around. I was like, knocking on the door with my flippers, 'Let me out of here!'" He was later rescued by "the craft-service guy, who doesn't have the best craft service... He was actually paying attention to what was going on. He came over and he opened the door for me. Otherwise, I would have gotten fired."
At the end of "Man of Steel," Superman killed Zod in a very controversial and polarizing move. Trailers for "Batman v Superman" have revealed that Zod's body, which is in Lex Luthor's possession, will be a plot point during the followup film. The idea that he will have flippers hints that Zod's body will undergo a physical change, giving credence to the rumor he may become Doomsday in this film or in "Justice League."
Heroic Hollywood are reporting on another scoop for the film, this time the fact that Wonder Woman will allegedly have a major role in the film’s climactic fight scene... against DC Comics villain Doomsday. The fight will see Diana lop one of Doomsday’s hands off with her sword, only for the monstrous being to grow a “bone sword” out of the stump before engaging in combat once again. As ever, pinch of salt and all that.
... wondering if the "flippers" will then be CGIed into bone claws/blades/whatever ?
Heroic Hollywood are reporting on another scoop for the film, this time the fact that Wonder Woman will allegedly have a major role in the film’s climactic fight scene... against DC Comics villain Doomsday. The fight will see Diana lop one of Doomsday’s hands off with her sword, only for the monstrous being to grow a “bone sword” out of the stump before engaging in combat once again. As ever, pinch of salt and all that.
... wondering if the "flippers" will then be CGIed into bone claws/blades/whatever ?
Yeah, that sounds about right, actually. Doesn't sound like there will be many surprises in this film, if we assume Lex turns Zod into Doomsday.
Yeaaaaaah. Either he does a lot of drugs or he's now in CYA mode.
He also said this in that interview (didn't see it mentioned in this particular article):
"Maybe they should add it, I don't know! Maybe in Part 3 Doomsday will have flipper hands. I mean, look, nothing would make me happier than to work with [director] Zack [Snyder] again. He's hysterical and he's a lot of fun to work with."
Maybe I'm just all twisted around at this point, but I found it funny that he name-dropped Doomsday. So did he goof again and let something slip? Or was that an intentional misdirection?
Compel wrote: I don't know if it needs to be anything so petty for Lex to be a villain.
I think that originally (a few cosmic reboots ago), Lex's reason for hating Superman was for causing his baldness.
On reflection, I actually hope that's what BvS goes with, just to make it a bit less srsbsnss.
You've seen the trailer though right?
This is srsly srsbsnss.
Also, the director (I think?) has already said that funny/snark is Marvel's territory - they're going full Nolan here.
I think WB is 100% right to do it differently. Hell, even Marvel doesn't do the Marvel thing well most of the time. They've done 12 films, and what, 4 of them are genuine keepers? And one of those 4 -- Cap 2 -- doesn't try to be "glib-erific."
Introducing Batfleck is obviously a large part of what BvS is about, and that's going to influence the tone of the film. I don't expect the JL films to be light-hearted either, but I think we'll see some lighter films in the DCCU. David Ayer recently said that there'll be a lot more humor in Suicide Squad than people expect. Although I expect a good chunk of that humor to trend dark, instead of dance-offs and such.
Can't think which of them is not a keeper apart from Cap A 1 which was average as was Guardians of the Galaxy. Thor 1 and 1, Avengers 1and 2, Iron Man , Cap 2, were truely great Superhero films - plot, style, lfilm ength and humour all combing for a great cinema experience.
Of course Agents of Shield was a massive swing and a miss - Unlike Agent Carter....
I wanted to like to the new Superman film and once we have got past the luaghably bad Krypton sequances it was not bad - till we came to god awful and dull final fight - especially when it is compared to the slickness and style of the end of Avengers and Thor 2 - propoer Superhero fights.
I hope that the new film is not another Nolanesque - ie overlong and effects driven, disaster - Wonder Woman looks interesting and the bits with Batman look cool but Luthor looks awful - I hope there is more to him than they have shown so far. It just seems like the people who make DC films don't want to actually make superhero films ?
EDIT: It would be awesome if they made Luthor a nuanced bad guy. AKA some of the themes of that article, that he goes "bad" because he views Superman as part of an oppressive government or something similar.
So Lex ISNT banging everybody else's girlfriend like Bruce does? In the DC world...if you have a sister, mother, girlfriend or wife...Batman has already nailed her and Alfred gave her a ride home. Batman doesn't do taxi fare.
I tend to focus on the important segments of fortune magazine.
Understatement of the week! He looked as if Bruce had just punched his mum, driven the Batmobile over his dog and swapped the Bat-signal's cover to one that projects 'Superman is an ass' across the skies of Gotham...
AduroT wrote: Superman did Not look like a good guy there...
Nope - could be acting, brainwashed, cloned or just decided that he should be in charge - lots of possibilities............... or that he is now the US governments enforcer...........
I live in hope that one day we'll get a decent Batman movie in which he doesn't reveal or have his secret identity blown and/or doesn't decide to quit because he's fallen in love/lost someone.
reds8n wrote: I live in hope that one day we'll get a decent Batman movie in which he doesn't reveal or have his secret identity blown and/or doesn't decide to quit because he's fallen in love/lost someone.
One day...
Or one done so well you can't even tell Bruce Wayne is Batman! To be honest, though, Superman knowing Batman's identity is pretty much required and makes perfect sense (he could probably have worked it out without unmasking him), and it doesn't necessarily mean he'll be outed to the world.
If you're after Batman stories different from the live action films, though, I highly recommend the more recent DC Animated ones. Some do suffer from a lack of Kevin Conroy as Batman (Jason O'Mara is decent, but Conroy is Batman in the same way Hamill is The Joker), but the Son of Batman and Batman vs Robin are both very good, Under The Red Hood and Assault On Arkham are amazing (and the more inspiration the upcoming Suicide Squad movie takes from the latter, the better if you ask me. It's everything a Suicide Squad film should be).
reds8n wrote: I live in hope that one day we'll get a decent Batman movie in which he doesn't reveal or have his secret identity blown and/or doesn't decide to quit because he's fallen in love/lost someone.
AduroT wrote: Superman did Not look like a good guy there...
Nope - could be acting, brainwashed, cloned or just decided that he should be in charge - lots of possibilities............... or that he is now the US governments enforcer...........
Government enforcer I'd expect the guards to salute him. They Kneeled to him.
Also, for a good Superman "unmasking" Batman, you gotta go back to the old school animated movie where they meet. It was so perfect.
reds8n wrote: I live in hope that one day we'll get a decent Batman movie in which he doesn't reveal or have his secret identity blown and/or doesn't decide to quit because he's fallen in love/lost someone.
The one in which, having spent years training and getting ready he then decides to tell Vicki Vale that he's Batman, tries to gun down the Joker with assault rifle machine guns , and then tells the Joker who he is as well, even though he'd then decided he wasn't going to kill him.
reds8n wrote: I live in hope that one day we'll get a decent Batman movie in which he doesn't reveal or have his secret identity blown and/or doesn't decide to quit because he's fallen in love/lost someone.
The one in which, having spent years training and getting ready he then decides to tell Vicki Vale that he's Batman, tries to gun down the Joker with assault rifle machine guns , and then tells the Joker who he is as well, even though he'd then decided he wasn't going to kill him.
.. yeah.
Actually Alfred told her.
No he tried to gun down the Joker with a full fledged strafing run. He wasn't trying to get out of the business. he was trying to "take care" of business. I don't remember him telling the Joker who he was.
We need a science guy to clarify this, but wouldn't his x-ray vision only have some verisimilitude as a passive thing -- if his eyes was able to see/receive radiation being emitted and/or passing through everything all the time?
If his eyes projected high frequency radiation like x-rays, he'd need film or some kind of receiver (X-ray Receiver Man?) sitting on the other side of the object he wants to see into.
At least I think that's how it would have to work.
reds8n wrote: I live in hope that one day we'll get a decent Batman movie in which he doesn't reveal or have his secret identity blown and/or doesn't decide to quit because he's fallen in love/lost someone.
The one in which, having spent years training and getting ready he then decides to tell Vicki Vale that he's Batman, tries to gun down the Joker with assault rifle machine guns , and then tells the Joker who he is as well, even though he'd then decided he wasn't going to kill him.
.. yeah.
Actually Alfred told her.
No he tried to gun down the Joker with a full fledged strafing run. He wasn't trying to get out of the business. he was trying to "take care" of business.
I don't remember him telling the Joker who he was.
Yep - Alfred def told her and showed into the secret cave - machine guns and full strafing run..........
Now that was a proper Batman film - awesome - not like the recent crap - it had a style, fun, a plot and good acting............best Bruce wayne by a long way - you can tell he is damaged and not a stupidly Mary Sue Joker..
IIRC he told him when the Joker did the whole - "you made me when you dropped into the chemicals" and Batman responds with "you made me first" and reveals he is Bruce Wayne - not sure he was intending for the Joker to live at that point tbh
reds8n wrote: I live in hope that one day we'll get a decent Batman movie in which he doesn't reveal or have his secret identity blown and/or doesn't decide to quit because he's fallen in love/lost someone.
Mr Morden wrote: Yep - Alfred def told her and showed into the secret cave - machine guns and full strafing run..........
Now that was a proper Batman film - awesome - not like the recent crap - it had a style, fun, a plot and good acting............best Bruce wayne by a long way - you can tell he is damaged and not a stupidly Mary Sue Joker..
IIRC he told him when the Joker did the whole - "you made me when you dropped into the chemicals" and Batman responds with "you made me first" and reveals he is Bruce Wayne - not sure he was intending for the Joker to live at that point tbh
Tim Burton needs to be given tons of credit for showing that superhero movies could work again after the Superman series petered out. Hell, just look at how his Batsuit influenced the Nolan films 20 years later. And he got the general public (those not familiar with the comics...more on that later) to stop viewing the character as an utter joke as presented in the TV series. It's no small feat.
HOWEVER, that film also brought us a fairly weird mix of brightly-colored camp and a murderous Batman (dropping bombs into factories, firing machine guns at the Joker, etc.) with no aversion to gunplay. It really ran counter to what the character has traditionally been about.
I get that some feel the Nolan Batman was too dark and damaged. But it should be pointed out that his Batman had a clearly defined code -- no killing, no guns -- that reflected the comic roots. And if it completely ignored the detective aspect of the character...well, so did Burton's. Nolan also brought us a Jim Gordon as a real character, and not someone who shows up with cops in tow to make arrests after Batman's done. Nolan's Alfred was also far more three-dimensional and real.
YOU may like camp, but Batman hasn't been an overly campy character in the comics for decades, and there are some reasons why Burton's Batman wasn't "proper." Again, beyond the fact that you apparently think Batman is properly camp.
Mr Morden wrote: Yep - Alfred def told her and showed into the secret cave - machine guns and full strafing run..........
Now that was a proper Batman film - awesome - not like the recent crap - it had a style, fun, a plot and good acting............best Bruce wayne by a long way - you can tell he is damaged and not a stupidly Mary Sue Joker..
IIRC he told him when the Joker did the whole - "you made me when you dropped into the chemicals" and Batman responds with "you made me first" and reveals he is Bruce Wayne - not sure he was intending for the Joker to live at that point tbh
Tim Burton needs to be given tons of credit for showing that superhero movies could work again after the Superman series petered out. Hell, just look at how his Batsuit influenced the Nolan films 20 years later. And he got the general public (those not familiar with the comics...more on that later) to stop viewing the character as an utter joke as presented in the TV series. It's no small feat.
HOWEVER, that film also brought us a fairly weird mix of brightly-colored camp and a murderous Batman (dropping bombs into factories, firing machine guns at the Joker, etc.) with no aversion to gunplay. It really ran counter to what the character has traditionally been about.
I get that some feel the Nolan Batman was too dark and damaged. But it should be pointed out that his Batman had a clearly defined code -- no killing, no guns -- that reflected the comic roots. And if it completely ignored the detective aspect of the character...well, so did Burton's. Nolan also brought us a Jim Gordon as a real character, and not someone who shows up with cops in tow to make arrests after Batman's done. Nolan's Alfred was also far more three-dimensional and real.
YOU may like camp, but Batman hasn't been an overly campy character in the comics for decades, and there are some reasons why Burton's Batman wasn't "proper." Again, beyond the fact that you apparently think Batman is properly camp.
Way to put words in my mouth - I never said it was camp - the 60's series is camp - I however agree that Burton rewrote the Batman films - Nolan just copied the style and forgot or could not comprehend the human element.
Nolans Batman films are not "dark" - they are merely heartless voids devoid of humour and usually any form of decent plot or character development - (especially women)- just a increasingly dull series of flashy setpieces vaguely joined together by badly written plot holes. But then that describes every film he has ever made.
OT - I thought the new Superman trailer looked interestingly a bit like the Superme Power Series with their altenative Superman?
As much as I like Sir Michael Caine, the Burton Alfred was perfect and, the scenes involving him in even Batman And Robin were the only good parts of that film.
For what it's worth, I believe there is a "Batman '66" comic series out now for those that do like that version of Batman. Just as there's a "Wonder Woman '77" series out now too.
Mr Morden wrote: Nolans Batman films are not "dark" - they are merely heartless voids devoid of humour and usually any form of decent plot or character development - (especially women)- just a increasingly dull series of flashy setpieces vaguely joined together by badly written plot holes. But then that describes every film he has ever made.
That's only YOUR opinion, and an extreme minority one at that.
Mr Morden wrote: Nolans Batman films are not "dark" - they are merely heartless voids devoid of humour and usually any form of decent plot or character development - (especially women)- just a increasingly dull series of flashy setpieces vaguely joined together by badly written plot holes. But then that describes every film he has ever made.
That's only YOUR opinion, and an extreme minority one at that.
So what - my opion is not valid???
Lots of people believe lots of things - gues the majority is always right -huh?
gorgon wrote: I'm very confident that it's a dream sequence and that airing it is a little bit of JJ Abrams-style misdirection.
I hope so - but it could also be some sort of Red Kryptonite/Lex Luthor Mind Control plot too, maybe trying to really get everyone to 'turn on' Superman/The Alien Among Us?
I still believe this batman is not Bruce wayne and is Deathstroke and will line up the nolandverse to be a cohesive DC universe which will find us smack dab into the 5th and 6th movie in a series before we even realize it. There have been too many other leaks which makes the Batman= Deathstroke and suicide squad Joker = Robin from Dark Night Rises.
Everything in these trailers continues to confirm this and not disprove it at all.
Robin as Joker I can sort of believe, although I do think it'd be a little stupid (but does leave room for a more 'traditional' Joker further down the line, so I could live with it). But I really, really don't get the Batman=Slade Wilson thing at all.
Paradigm wrote: Robin as Joker I can sort of believe, although I do think it'd be a little stupid (but does leave room for a more 'traditional' Joker further down the line, so I could live with it). But I really, really don't get the Batman=Slade Wilson thing at all.
Spoiler:
Because when superman killed the crap out of people in Man of Steel, his family was killed. And his ties to Ra's Al Ghul which is the major focus of the Nolandverse is how he would have Batman's identity. Notice how the wayne mansion is destroyed when it was 'left' to Robin'? All the Joker 'your family is dead' stuff... basically Deathstroke became Batman to combat killer metahumans like Superman, and Robin became Joker when faced with his inability to actually change things. It also wraps up the heith ledger joker who would have been alive in this series... to a point.
It fits the misdirection and instantly legitimizes suicide squad.
If anything it is a better story than a half-reboot and an actor swap.
I still believe this batman is not Bruce wayne and is Deathstroke and will line up the nolandverse to be a cohesive DC universe which will find us smack dab into the 5th and 6th movie in a series before we even realize it. There have been too many other leaks which makes the Batman= Deathstroke and suicide squad Joker = Robin from Dark Night Rises.
Everything in these trailers continues to confirm this and not disprove it at all.
And you really can't be taking anything in that article seriously, can you? Talk about vapor and clickbait material. Most of it doesn't even make sense. Looking at the "S"s in the background of Teen Titans Go episodes is looney bin territory.
I still believe this batman is not Bruce wayne and is Deathstroke and will line up the nolandverse to be a cohesive DC universe which will find us smack dab into the 5th and 6th movie in a series before we even realize it. There have been too many other leaks which makes the Batman= Deathstroke and suicide squad Joker = Robin from Dark Night Rises.
Everything in these trailers continues to confirm this and not disprove it at all.
And you really can't be taking anything in that article seriously, can you? Talk about vapor and clickbait material. Most of it doesn't even make sense. Looking at the "S"s in the background of Teen Titans Go episodes is looney bin territory.
Well the Teen titans Go easter eggs are not quite looney bin territory as they have been doing it for years, but Deathstroke Batman isn't actually a bad or non-cannon concept.
The audience of 90% of the films income: "What's a Deathstroke? Is he a robot like Arnold Schwarzenegger?"
A Robin/Joker switch, they could get away with, but if it was, they'd almost certainly do it with Dick Greyson, not Jason Todd or Tim Drake (that was complicated enough in "Return of the Joker" and there were many years worth of tv show before that).
In saying that, I would like it to be a Jason Todd switch. He is more in the public consciousness in recent years. In saying that, you're still talking about only maybe 40% of the films income having heard the name "Jason Todd."
nkelsch wrote: but Deathstroke Batman isn't actually a bad or non-cannon concept.
For a one-off comic run, with the proper setup and a limited audience that's familiar with the material, it could work. For a mass-market film, it;s just an utterly stupid idea, and one that has basically no grounding in any kind of reality. I get what people are saying, what I just can't comprehend is why they're saying or thinking it. Every piece of evidence used to say Batman is Slade could be equally used to 'prove' that Clark Kent or hell, Peter Parker are Batman in this film. Or even, shock horror, Bruce Wayne!
Pulling a switch like that can work in films. But you look at what Marvel are doing; they're clearly gearing up for switching to Bucky Barnes as Captain America (someone whose name is much less well known to non-comic readers than Batman's) and by the time they make the change, he'll have been in at least 3 if not 4 films, depending on whether they put him in the next Avengers film or not. Just saying 'this guy you all know is now this guy you've never heard of' just makes no sense.
Compel wrote: The audience of 90% of the films income: "What's a Deathstroke? Is he a robot like Arnold Schwarzenegger?"
A Robin/Joker switch, they could get away with, but if it was, they'd almost certainly do it with Dick Greyson, not Jason Todd or Tim Drake (that was complicated enough in "Return of the Joker" and there were many years worth of tv show before that).
In saying that, I would like it to be a Jason Todd switch. He is more in the public consciousness in recent years. In saying that, you're still talking about only maybe 40% of the films income having heard the name "Jason Todd."
And ultimately, it's all about the money.
This all is based upon if they are extending or ditching the Nolandverse or not where Dick, Jason and Tim literally don't exist. I guarantee a lot more movie-going public know who Robin John Blake is over Jason Todd or Tim Drake especially with convenient flashbacks to recent successful movies.
They have gone out of their way to avoid confirming Bruce Wayne and have avoided totally disavowing the Nolandverse when it would be so easy to do.
Makes a huge difference if this is a sequel to Man of Steel with a fresh batman vs a 5th movie in the nolandverse which sets up a 6th movie suicide squad in the Nolandverse and the current planned movie line up is predicated on that.
Sladebatman and Robin Joker both fit and are supported by the source material... Batman having a family and living a happy life as Bruce Wayne only to have them killed due to superman doesn't.
I think the 'killed my family' thing is more likely going to be clever editing to misdirect people that way and spur these sorts of discussions amongst the 'hardcore.'
I think the most likely scenario is going to be Occam's Razor, I'm afraid.
Joker is the Joker. He killed Dick Greyson. Batman retired as a result. He finds a note from someone about how Superman was responsible for their family's death in Metropolis. With urging from fellow businessman Lex Luthor, he decides to get back into the suit. Big fight.
Oh look, turns out Lex was the villain after all. Everyone teams up to take on Lex. End of film.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: How is ruining Batman and the Joker for 99% of the audience better than a half-reboot and an actor swap?
That's just it -- there's NO POINT to twisting the audience around into that many circles. Batman isn't Batman, the Joker isn't the Joker, Alfred isn't Alfred...so why would anyone care about the movie? Is Lois actually Lois? She's a redhead in Man of Steel and BvS...but Lois isn't a redhead. This can't be an accident.
You know who is a redhead, right? Jimmy Olsen. WHO NEVER APPEARED IN MAN OF STEEL. The only possible explanation for this is that "Lois" is actually Jimmy after gender reassignment surgery.
Spoiler:
Note how she dresses throughout the film -- nothing overly feminine, right? Always collared shirts, sweaters and vests. But Lois wears dresses, as this image shows. Her wardrobe was a clue, right there for us all along.
Spoiler:
And what did she have with her in the Arctic scenes? That's right...a CAMERA. Just like Jimmy Olsen.
So why was this angle inserted into the film? Because WB is very friendly to the transgendered. Katelyn Jenner gave her first talk show interview on Ellen. Want to guess the studio? That's right...Ellen is filmed at the WB studios in Burbank.
MIND...BLOWN.
See how easy this nonsense is? These theories are about nothing other than obsessed fans crazed for continuity with the Nolan films and unwilling to accept that *roles have been recast*. Yes, the Joker is full of tats now. Cripes, we need Gene Hackman to stand up and say "This is your Joker."
I have heard the actor that played Zod in MoS saying his role in this is a bit like russel crow's, in that its an AI\interactive recording, so i wonder if Superman is feeling guilty about Killing Zod a while ago, and has been 'talking' to zod's AI and its twisting his mind into believing he is better than humans.
We've already seen a toy of the "desert Batman," and it's been titled "Knightmare Batman." Take that for what you will.
Again, I think it's almost certainly a dream or vision. But it might not be Bruce's. It could be Diana's vision of an Injustice-type future. I think it's interesting to note that the building on the left in this shot looks like it could be a temple.
Spoiler:
And of course, these scenes almost certainly take place in this set:
Spoiler:
So are we looking at a vision of Diana's about possible future events taking place on a ruined Paradise Island?
I tried to read that article. I consider my mind blown. And not in a good way. Didn't have enough booze in my system to handle the level of insanity shown.
Honestly, Jar Jar Binks as a major Sith Lord makes more sense than the straws grasped at in the article. I'm a big fan of Deathstroke. And Batman. And I've never heard of this arc. I could see them doing it as an elseworld's animated movie. Would be awesome there. But not on the big screen. That's doomed to failure.
Par for the course with trailers these days. Star Wars has been a nice change of pace.
Both true, but to me it tells me enough.
1. As plot filler it starts with the intro. Intros and origins can always be relied upon to take up half of a superhero film and is relatively 'cheap' to script.
2. A brat Lex Luthor just doesn't seem to cut it with me. And Batman is unrecognisable in the wrong way.
3. Queue the lame reasons for Batman and Superman to fight.
All in all, I am staying away out of indifference. Probably will get around to watching it on satellite TV in a few years time if nothing better is on, but I wont have much anticipation waiting.
Looks great to me. I was hoping there would be a Bruce/Clark scene where they just argue about their alter-egos. Dooms-Zod-day looks all right to me, maybe the face is a little off but other than that he's fine. Luthor should be great, I'm actually getting a 'what if Tony Star were actually 100% loony?'vibe from him, which is different but I can definitely see it working.
AegisGrimm wrote: I'm not going to lie when I say I think Ben Affleck makes a better Bruce Wayne than Christian Bale, and I will see this on the opening day with my wife.
Personal preference here but I can't stand Ben Aflect I think he is a terrible terrible actor. I love the trailer and was gutted to Ben appear. Still looking forward to the film and the concept looks cool but I know my deep loathing of Mr affects acting skills will ruin it a little for me.
Good spot! And gives me hope too, that we'll see Darkseid at some point. I had been wondering if Marvel building up to Thanos would put DC off Darkseid as they are really very similar, but I do think that he'd still make an excellent villain to bring the Justice League together (as he does in the N52 JL run) and I think they could handle him differently enough that casual moviegoers would be able to tell them apart. And if I recall, JL1 is actually in 2017, a year before Infinity War, so they could beat Marvel to the punch if they wanted to.
I'm hoping for DS in the first JL film, while Luthor becomes the Big Bad of the whole series in the same way Marvel have set up Thanos.
reds8n wrote: ..about the 2M mark ... the flying things...
those look like Parademons right ?
.. so maybe that whole "knightmare" sequence is a vision/similar of a possible future.
Where supes/someone is working for Darkseid ?
Yep...I do believe those are paradaemons. IMO, it's probably a vision granted by the gods to Diana about a possible future should they fail to band together to stop big D. In the vision Supes has either been twisted, or is a clone like the Brutaal character from the Earth-2 series.
It seems as though the Amazons will play a role not unlike the Asgardians in the MCU -- namely, a bridge to the less grounded, more cosmic stuff. Which makes sense.
It was funny to see message board comments this morning saying that the movie looks too jokey. Although those were undoubtedly from teenage Marvel fanboys complaining that it looked too grim just a few days ago.
Oh, and good to see that Jimmy...erm, I mean "Lois" is in the film. Even as it appears clearer and clearer that BvS is what it says on the can, I'm sure that guy will find a way to "uncover" that Luthor is actually the Toyman and that Doomsday is Saturn Girl.
I kind of feel like while yes it certainly does seem to show off a lot of the plot, it was actually kind of necessary to offset some of the rumors that have been flying around.
Additionally the DC films(and the TV shows as well!) have been pretty open about their stuff. The cast of "Suicide Squad" reputedly were going out of their way to interact with fans during their downtime while filming.
I found this trailer disappointing. The first trailer was far better. This one just felt like too much stuff, not very well edited together. Also the 'is she with you?' line is terrible. Sad, as I have been really looking forward to this film since I rewatched MoS and found myself liking it much more with a second viewing.
Ben Affleck looks like he will make a good Bruce Wayne, but I'm not sure about his Batman, yet.
Kanluwen wrote: I kind of feel like while yes it certainly does seem to show off a lot of the plot, it was actually kind of necessary to offset some of the rumors that have been flying around.
Additionally the DC films(and the TV shows as well!) have been pretty open about their stuff. The cast of "Suicide Squad" reputedly were going out of their way to interact with fans during their downtime while filming.
I think the reveals -- and the fact that this trailer doesn't seem to match the others in tone -- were carefully considered choices. This one seems intended to show us that the film isn't all grimness and brooding by teasing us with the action sequences, and illustrating that there will be a little humor in the film at times. And yes, they revealed Doomsday. However, it's clear that it (he?) is a very disposable villain, and that there may be a whole 'nuther level of bad guy above Lex waiting in the background.
Plus, had they only shown Doomsday in silhouette or something, you'd have confused fanboys typing "ROTFL!!1! so lex luther creatd darkside?! snider ur an idiot" on message boards everywhere.
I get the Affleck hate, but I don't share it. It seems like he's been typecast since Mallrats as a spoiled douche, so Bruce Wayne should be a role he's comfortable with. I also think he has more range than Bale, so I expect his Batman to be at least as good...unless the writing is as bad as that trailer makes it look.
The plot looks paint by numbers at this point, and I'm getting a Fant4stic vibe that the writers or the director were not entirely onboard with the source material. I hope the movie is good, but as of now, my expectations are very low. Doomsday in particular looks half-assed in every vector of his execution, from backstory through visual design and on into sound mixing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To me, Doomsday is being treated how comic book movies always treated iconic villains before the Marvel movies hit it big, like a generic villain cooked up by the screenwriter and then dressed in a well-known character's metaphorical clothes. Expect Dr. Doom levels of phoning it in.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To me, Doomsday is being treated how comic book movies always treated iconic villains before the Marvel movies hit it big, like a generic villain cooked up by the screenwriter and then dressed in a well-known character's metaphorical clothes. Expect Dr. Doom levels of phoning it in.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: To me, Doomsday is being treated how comic book movies always treated iconic villains before the Marvel movies hit it big, like a generic villain cooked up by the screenwriter and then dressed in a well-known character's metaphorical clothes. Expect Dr. Doom levels of phoning it in.
If I'm understanding you properly, I don't think I'd agree. And I also don't think I'd be holding up the MCU's treatment of villains as something to emulate. They've been one 2-dimensional tin can after another to get knocked over by our heroes.
Doomsday will be a tin can in this one too, but he's not the main villain for the film or the ultimate villain for the DCCU. He/it is really just filling the role of hired muscle for the main villain. Granted, that doesn't really fit the character's appearance in the comics as a lead baddie, but then that storyline was awfully thin just because there's nothing to the character beyond growls and smashing. Personally, I have no objection to Snyder and Terrio positioning Doomsday as a disposable villain. I think he works better there.
Not everyone may agree, but I think the DCCU's approach to villains looks more promising than what we've seen in the MCU, just because we're getting a film to set up their world so early in the series.
It could be a sonic cannon or something... Or seeing as he's presumably planning on using it on Superman and later Doomsday, it's hardly going to kill anyone.
The closest I will accept to Batman using a gun is the grappling "gun" he had, or an elseworld's Batman, like in Flashpoint. This thing barely looks different from a real rifle.
I think that line is a little wink at the characters' respective relationships with Diana in other mediums.
"Is she with you?" Because Bruce and Di were interested/involved in the JL cartoon, and maybe in the books at some point also?
"No, I thought she was with you." Because Clark and Di have been romantically involved since early in the New 52.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
timetowaste85 wrote: When he uses the heavy weaponry in non-lethal ways, but doesn't promote the use of the tool that killed his parents? Absolutely.
But that weapon doesn't look like a submachine gun. The caliber looks much too large, hence my guess of some kind of netgun, grenade launcher, etc.
Besides, how do you use machine guns and rockets in "non-lethal ways" other than just not firing them at stuff it can kill? I present to you...Doomsday. And note that in The Dark Knight Returns -- a heavy influence on this version of Batman -- he even used firearms, just with rubber bullets.
While it is far from common, thanks mainly to the CC, Batman has used guns and gun-like things in the comics going back to the beginning. In The Dark Knight Returns he used what looked like a rifle but it fired a line across buildings.
We have received word from someone who actually worked on the movie that this "review" is false. As mentioned above, it's up to you whether you believe the above review or not.
But , of course, they're perhaps no more reliable.
...TBH what he says sounds -- for me anyway -- too good to be true.
A lot of needless worry and hate towards this movie I can only assume all the Marvel people have something to do with the fact that marvel movies get a free pass in general audiences but DC have to match up to Citizen Kane or be demoted as horrendous. That whole destruction argument thrown against man of steel when super hero movies have been destroying things for many many many years without complaint just shows it was a cheap tactic by the Marvel fanbase to make a none issue man of steels biggest issue.
Age of ultron was horrendous yet we still hear about man of steel "but muh destruction" years later
timetowaste85 wrote: The closest I will accept to Batman using a gun is the grappling "gun" he had, or an elseworld's Batman, like in Flashpoint. This thing barely looks different from a real rifle.
Poor argument. Few superheros in the MCU have ever caused destruction on the scale that Superman did nor had such casual disregard for it. The Avengers were specifically shown attempting to evacuate citizens during the climactic battle in the Avengers, for example, and even then the destruction of NYC is/was a major plot-point in ensuing media.
Man of Steel Supes had an almost psychotic disregard for collateral damage. I actually don't mind, personally. I've always found Superman's boy-scout morality to be rather dull. His Man of Murder persona in the film was pretty refreshing.
Hes one guy, new superman never fought before. Avengers have all been seasoned before meeting up, had a whole team to deal with problems and is pretty much a film making trick that all those aliens barely killed or caused the same level of destruction. Yet man of steel gets it in the neck for been more realistic on the scale of destruction. Had avengers been less saturday morning cartoon the reality of their alien invasion which happened to be the most none leathal peaceful alien invasion ive ever seen would have been 10X man of steels destruction.
Man of steel pulls from 911 style reality, look at the death and destruction caused by two planes, suddenly aliens and their doom weapon shows up and within minutes causes more destruction. Is it somehow the films fault for showing the reality that superman simple doesn't have time or numbers to stop that level of destruction right away.
The only reason avengers gets away with it is because its written to be gotten away with even though its far less realistic. Man of steels only real crime was been more realistic than a cartoon. Supermans first outing, alone is what the seasoned avengers faced together and he gets flak for not doing as well as all of them and their plot armour for life saving? please. Supermans lack of time to save everyone, his confusion of his first outing and the scale of things he was up against and having everyone hate him for not doing it perfect? makes him far more human and real and likable than the cardboard avengers.
Not Marvel like, not enough puns, not enough cartoon, too realistic compared to marvel =/= bad movie
“I was surprised because that’s the thesis of Superman for me, that you can’t just have superheroes knock around and have there be no consequences.”
Affleck:
“One of the things I liked was Zack’s idea of showing accountability and the consequences of violence and seeing that there are real people in those buildings. And in fact, one of those buildings was Bruce Wayne’s building so he knew people who died in that Black Zero event.”
But hey the Avengers had like 5 minutes to warn a whole city so in bad story telling methods that means they had time to totally evacuate all the buildings so almost everyone was saved and because they don't want to be too cartoony and say everyone lived like the destruction didn't even matter they'll say people died off screen, somewhere else where the aliens barely destroyed as well. Show it on screen in man of steel oh boy taboo.
and when an alien fleet invades a major city with very little warning far more people and destruction should have happened. The fact that it didn't is just on screen screen writing bull happening. Atleast man of steel was honest in its destructive reality. That when aliens suddenly invade and start destroying a city, people and property will die in the thousands before the hero can stop them first. As for when heroes are flying around hitting each other and trying to stop the bad guys the idea that the avengers can somehow avoid causing any damage accidentally themselves is also stupid. When a bad guy throws you through a building you're going through that building. You can't fight in a city with god like powers and not cause collateral damage. Especially when the people you're fightings only goal is to cause destruction and kill humans so you're not taking that fight from the city even if you tried and superman did try but in the end stopping the fight the quickest way was going to be the only way to avoid more destruction but he gets criticized for that as well.
Unless you're Marvel.
not to mention superman was again alone, inexperienced, flawed human in mentality at-least and had to face a group of God like beings intent on destroying humanity. Avengers had an army of less than stormtrooper aliens, weak fodder who can't aim posed little threat, cartoony again and Loki who has dad issues and whines/gets his ass kicked through the whole movie. Threat levels don't even match up a full avengers squad against that? and yet people criticize superman for not doing as well as them even though their situations don't even match up.
Its like sending a legion of stormtroopers to deal with a base of 20 rebels and sending a rookie Jedi to face 6 trained sith warriors and criticizing the Jedi who eventually wins for not doing it was well and gracefully as the full legion.
1. If you're saying the people at Marvel have something to do with the negative feelings towards Man of Steel/BvS, then you're stark raving mad. Marvel wants BvS to be a runaway success, because a big superhero film that blows away the box office makes everyone excited for the next big superhero film. Fox wants BvS to be a success for the same reasons. A rising tide lifts all ships.
2. If you're saying that Marvel fans are spreading negative feelings towards Man of Steel/BvS, then you're half right. Some people are so partisan that they have one or the other for no readily quantifiable reason. I'm not a DC fan, although I love Arrow, Flash and (most of) the Batman movies (and the Arkham games are amazing, and Batman in general is a really cool character). I am a Marvel fan, and know a lot about Marvel comics (despite never having read one), but if someone likes DC more then that's them. But there will be Marvel people crapping on BvS just because it's a DC film. That said, Man of Steel was a polarising film, and not just among comic fans. A lot of people have problems with the film ("Man of Murder", etc.), and whilst someone like me doesn't much care for those arguments people don't have to like the film.
There's a lot riding on this film. If it doesn't work, the DCCU collapses in on itself. People have the right to be worried/nervous.
But seriously, Clark had been superman for not even a day, and he had no choice but to kill Zod - where would they have kept him? Zod said he wouldn't stop killing people. He had no choice!
Los pollos hermanos wrote: Age of ultron was horrendous yet we still hear about man of steel "but muh destruction" years later.
Horrendous as in the destruction unleashed by Ultron was horrendous? Or horrendous as in you thought the movie was bad?
If it's the later, well, good for you. Are of Ultron wasn't as good as the first Avengers, and it was a prime example of why too much Whedon is always a bad thing (everyone spent the whole moving quipping - even Ultron) and it was a badly paced film. It certainly wasn't horrendous.
If it's the former, and you're saying that AoU gets a pass despite all the destruction but MoS' destruction always gets harped on, well the real-world* ramifications of what happened in Sokovia are addressed directly in the next film to come out - Civil War. The Sokovia Accords, standing in the Superhuman Registration Act from the comics, are the catalyst (or one of them at least - I think Bucky will be the other) for the whole plot line. The MCU is showing the consequences of the destruction in Age of Ultron.
And so will BvS. The fact that we're seeing the Clark/Zod fight from Bruce's perspective, and what the destruction drives Bruce to do (not to mention the senate hearings, and the protests and whatnot we see in the trailer) means that they are clearly dealing with the aftermath of Metropolis' near-destruction from MoS.
BlaxicanX wrote: Poor argument. Few superheros in the MCU have ever caused destruction on the scale that Superman did nor had such casual disregard for it. The Avengers were specifically shown attempting to evacuate citizens during the climactic battle in the Avengers, for example, and even then the destruction of NYC is/was a major plot-point in ensuing media.
Man of Steel Supes had an almost psychotic disregard for collateral damage. I actually don't mind, personally. I've always found Superman's boy-scout morality to be rather dull. His Man of Murder persona in the film was pretty refreshing.
Who cares? Doesn't Hulk destroy cities and crap? Didn't XMen damage a good portion of San Fran. Frankly which MC movie deals with an alien race in the process of destroying the planet? This argument is just stupid.
Hes one guy, new superman never fought before. Avengers have all been seasoned before meeting up, had a whole team to deal with problems and is pretty much a film making trick that all those aliens barely killed or caused the same level of destruction. Yet man of steel gets it in the neck for been more realistic on the scale of destruction. Had avengers been less saturday morning cartoon the reality of their alien invasion which happened to be the most none leathal peaceful alien invasion ive ever seen would have been 10X man of steels destruction.
Man of steel pulls from 911 style reality, look at the death and destruction caused by two planes, suddenly aliens and their doom weapon shows up and within minutes causes more destruction. Is it somehow the films fault for showing the reality that superman simple doesn't have time or numbers to stop that level of destruction right away.
The only reason avengers gets away with it is because its written to be gotten away with even though its far less realistic. Man of steels only real crime was been more realistic than a cartoon. Supermans first outing, alone is what the seasoned avengers faced together and he gets flak for not doing as well as all of them and their plot armour for life saving? please. Supermans lack of time to save everyone, his confusion of his first outing and the scale of things he was up against and having everyone hate him for not doing it perfect? makes him far more human and real and likable than the cardboard avengers.
Not Marvel like, not enough puns, not enough cartoon, too realistic compared to marvel =/= bad movie
Seriously someone is saying Man of Steel was somehow remotely realistic - thats so very hilarious - neither the marvel films or the DC films are in any way realsitic -news flash they are not meant to be - people can worship C Nolan as much as they want but he is no more realsitic in his filmaking than saturday morning cartoons.
I guess supermans dad being a super ninja scientist with a pet dragon was also realsitic given that 1) everyone was bred for a single role - except super ninja dad obviously, 2) he was apparently a loony who lived in a magic castle and made magic dragons to fly about on ..........
The issue I and others have with the destruction shown in MOS is that Superman simply appears not to give a damn about it or who is killed in his (hugely dull and overlong) fight with Zod - marvel actuall spend some time to show you peopel being terrified, running,dying, trying to flee or fight back Man of Steel just wants to smash up big buildings for the LOLS and effects.
If he had been trying (and failing) to save people I would have been much happier - because I always thought that that was a part of his chacracter - he wants to save others. he is not Wolverine or Batman - he is a civilian version of Cap America (or vice versa) - look at how Cap A acts in the films - he is all about saving people - look at Age of Ulton - the focus is not about killing the bad guy its about saving people - arguably the whole film is about that and the mistakes made in trying to do so
Marvel works for (and others) much better precisely because the humour makes the darker elements more effective - if everything is dark and depressing - then who cares but the idea is (and I think effectivly crafted) to make you enjoy people and care for them so the peril and pain they suffer is more effective.
Its like Only Fools and Horses- its a comedy-drama - most of the time its funny and light but now and again they have some real pathos moments - and they work better (IMO) because of the lighter elements.
If DC did more of this I think they would be making better films.
Now if Batman / Superman is going to look at the aftermath of the devestation wrouht as the new Cap A film is thats great, but I sincerely hope there is more of the "I thought she was with you" moments rather than simply two men looking glum and defiant for the whole film.
Man of steel pulls from 911 style reality, look at the death and destruction caused by two planes, suddenly aliens and their doom weapon shows up and within minutes causes more destruction. Is it somehow the films fault for showing the reality that superman simple doesn't have time or numbers to stop that level of destruction right away
This is the reality where Metropolis can be reduced to an apocalyptic wasteland, suffering about twenty 9/11's at once....but a few streets away, people are completely taken by surprise by the super-brawl? And where a couple of weeks later, life is apparently back to normal at the Daily Planet, and Supes is so shaken by the destruction he allowed to happen that he's hanging out taunting the military and flirting with the cute female soldier?
My reading of the Man of Steel climax is simply poor scriptwriting, rather than any conscious attempt to be Realistic--they wanted the big bangs and Bay-style destruction porn, but nobody in the film itself ever seems to react as if thousands of people are dying.
Elemental wrote: This is the reality where Metropolis can be reduced to an apocalyptic wasteland
You might want to watch it again as only a few square blocks were destroyed, which is really not that different than Avenger except it actually showed the aftermath of alien weapons. Lots of cars were destroyed, though, which should hurt the economy. It is akin to Central Park being destroyed; NYC would be annoyed but it wouldn't exactly be a 'wasteland' either. Now Escape From New York...
BlaxicanX wrote: Man of Steel Supes had an almost psychotic disregard for collateral damage.
You should rewatch that movie. Most of that damage was caused by Zod and his attempt to "terraform" Earth with that "gravity machine". Superman is responsible for some cosmetic damage only.
BlaxicanX wrote: Man of Steel Supes had an almost psychotic disregard for collateral damage.
You should rewatch that movie. Most of that damage was caused by Zod and his attempt to "terraform" Earth with that "gravity machine". Superman is responsible for some cosmetic damage only.
I don't think that the amount or even by whom or why the destruction was caused is actually important - Its how characters react adn deal with it. I don't recall Superman ever showing the slighest interst in actually saving anyone who might be caught up in that (sooo long and tiresome) fight - you know when they were toppling skyscrappers which may or may not have been full of people - not that the filmaker could be bothered to show you one why or another - it was all "hey look mum I can blow buildings again and again and again and agian...........
again the complete opposite in Avengers.
It might be that DC want Superman to be a "darker character" in a darker world - who knows but they certainly don't seem to want to make any of their charcters have a sense of humanity - and of course DC established that Superman is just there to defend the USA not the rest of the world
I dont care at all about Superman killed Zod - in fact IIRC the same thing was said about Tony Stark killing people in Iron Man - apparently he doesn't ever in the cmics (despite using massively powerful weapons - wierd comic logic) - Batman with a gun doesn;t phase me - the Michael Keaton one used rotary cannons and was for me the best incarnation ever of the character.........bar none
BlaxicanX wrote: Man of Steel Supes had an almost psychotic disregard for collateral damage.
You should rewatch that movie. Most of that damage was caused by Zod and his attempt to "terraform" Earth with that "gravity machine". Superman is responsible for some cosmetic damage only.
Actually, speaking of which.....why did he try to terraform Earth exactly? Any reason he couldn't have just gone to Mars, Venus or any number of alien planets to create New Krypton? Even if he cared nothing for the lives of humans, you'd think he'd have figured out hey, maybe I shouldn't risk getting on the bad side of the guy with the irreplacable knowledge I need to rebuild my world, and I definitely shouldn't try to bring him over to my side with nightmarish illusions of the world coated in a carpet of skulls.
Well, I know why. Because otherwise, Superman goes along with the entirely reasonable and sympathetic plan and there are no bombastic fight scenes.
It might be that DC want Superman to be a "darker character" in a darker world - who knows but they certainly don't seem to want to make any of their charcters have a sense of humanity - and of course DC established that Superman is just there to defend the USA not the rest of the world
My hunch (and it's only that) is that there's still a sense of embarrassment about making movies about guys in tights, like we saw in the majority of superhero adaptations pre X-Men. The Dark Knight trilogy and Man of Steel feel (again, to me) like they're constantly trying to distance themselves from accusations of silliness, often with clunky exposition on What This Means that feels more like film critics discussing the movie than characters acting naturally within the movie. No, this isn't about a guy in a red and blue costume who can fly and shoot lasers from his eyes, that's just a cover for a very very serious work on how humankind would react to powerful aliens amongst them! Oh, and the main character is Jesus or something.
None of that necessarily equates to a bad movie (I'll certainly be seeing this one if the initial buzz is good), and it works well enough for Batman, since he's always been able to cover crime dramas or studies of corruption and madness. But I'm not convinced it works for characters like Aquaman, Martian Manhunter and Wonder Woman, or that it worked for Superman. One thing that I think the X-Men, Spiderman or MCU franchises have done well is that they sell the audience on characters like Thor or Captain America by not shying away from the fact that yes, these characters are a bit conceptually goofy when you get down to it. But they don't waste time desperately disowning that inherent silliness to make those characters convincing and to tell compelling, dramatic and sometimes dark stories about them.
It might be that DC want Superman to be a "darker character" in a darker world - who knows but they certainly don't seem to want to make any of their charcters have a sense of humanity - and of course DC established that Superman is just there to defend the USA not the rest of the world
My hunch (and it's only that) is that there's still a sense of embarrassment about making movies about guys in tights, like we saw in the majority of superhero adaptations pre X-Men. The Dark Knight trilogy and Man of Steel feel (again, to me) like they're constantly trying to distance themselves from accusations of silliness, often with clunky exposition on What This Means that feels more like film critics discussing the movie than characters acting naturally within the movie. No, this isn't about a guy in a red and blue costume who can fly and shoot lasers from his eyes, that's just a cover for a very very serious work on how humankind would react to powerful aliens amongst them! Oh, and the main character is Jesus or something.
None of that necessarily equates to a bad movie (I'll certainly be seeing this one if the initial buzz is good), and it works well enough for Batman, since he's always been able to cover crime dramas or studies of corruption and madness. But I'm not convinced it works for characters like Aquaman, Martian Manhunter and Wonder Woman, or that it worked for Superman. One thing that I think the X-Men, Spiderman or MCU franchises have done well is that they sell the audience on characters like Thor or Captain America by not shying away from the fact that yes, these characters are a bit conceptually goofy when you get down to it. But they don't waste time desperately disowning that inherent silliness to make those characters convincing and to tell compelling, dramatic and sometimes dark stories about them.
Good points - I agree
I thought this little speech showed how MCU handles it: Clever, self aware, funny but with meaning......
Hey, look at me. It's your fault, it's everyone's fault, who cares. Are you up for this? Are you? Look, I just need to know cause the city is flying. Ok, look, the city is flying, we're fighting an army of robots, and I have a bow and arrow. None of this makes sense. But I'm going back out there cause it's my job. Ok, and I can't do my job and babysit. Doesn't matter what you did, or what you were. If you go out there, you fight and you fight to kill. Staying here, you're good. I'll send your brother to come find you. But if you step out that door, you are an Avenger. Alright,
.
Again i think you are right - the directors of Batman and Superman are constantly fighting the source material to the final products detriment
Elemental wrote: My hunch (and it's only that) is that there's still a sense of embarrassment about making movies about guys in tights, like we saw in the majority of superhero adaptations pre X-Men. The Dark Knight trilogy and Man of Steel feel (again, to me) like they're constantly trying to distance themselves from accusations of silliness, often with clunky exposition on What This Means that feels more like film critics discussing the movie than characters acting naturally within the movie. No, this isn't about a guy in a red and blue costume who can fly and shoot lasers from his eyes, that's just a cover for a very very serious work on how humankind would react to powerful aliens amongst them! Oh, and the main character is Jesus or something.
So the recent wave of DC films try a little to be about something, while the Marvel films just embrace the dumb?
Elemental wrote: My hunch (and it's only that) is that there's still a sense of embarrassment about making movies about guys in tights, like we saw in the majority of superhero adaptations pre X-Men. The Dark Knight trilogy and Man of Steel feel (again, to me) like they're constantly trying to distance themselves from accusations of silliness, often with clunky exposition on What This Means that feels more like film critics discussing the movie than characters acting naturally within the movie. No, this isn't about a guy in a red and blue costume who can fly and shoot lasers from his eyes, that's just a cover for a very very serious work on how humankind would react to powerful aliens amongst them! Oh, and the main character is Jesus or something.
So the recent wave of DC films try a little to be about something, while the Marvel films just embrace the dumb?
I agree 100%.
No thats not what he said.....................read it again - it was quite insightful and not just a ill informed snarky remark.................
I think I'm going to have to disagree but I'm not eloquent enough to disagree sensibly.
That's not going to stop me from trying, especially since I'm not great about comic knowledge.
I think for the "modern age" anyhow, both Batman and Superman have tried to have a different tone to them than marvel comics. Though, television, at least, seems to prefer going for a more 'Silver Age' Superman with Lois&Clark, Smallville and Supergirl. Sadly, I haven't watched enough of Superman The Animated Series or Justice League to see just about where they sit.
Man of Steel seemed to be closer to the "Modern Age" - well, maybe not the Modern Age anymore. - This is where my comic knowledge breaks down. In any case, the 80's / 90's period.
So much of "Batman VS Superman" seems inspired by "The Dark Knight Returns" after all.
But honestly, with Superman, I think they need to try a 'big' something. I'm not entirely sure this is it, mind you (I kind of stopped watching trailers and tv spots for this film since before the last trailer came out - because people were saying 'well, that trailer just spoiled the whole movie').
Anyhow... I really don't think a traditional Superman plotline would work with modern audiences.
1) Perry tells Clark/Lois to write a story. Clark/Lois bicker.
2) They investigate story. They find out story relates to <Insert Villain A>
3) <Insert Villain A> overpowers and captures Lois (who does manage to take out a couple of thugs first). He incapacitates Clark/Superman using <Insert Villain A's superpower>
4) Clark angsts, seeks advice from <Trusted Figure>.
5) Clark figures out how to overcome <Insert Villain A's superpower>
6) Clark rescues Lois.
7) <Insert Villain A ends up in prison>
BlaxicanX wrote: Man of Steel Supes had an almost psychotic disregard for collateral damage.
You should rewatch that movie. Most of that damage was caused by Zod and his attempt to "terraform" Earth with that "gravity machine". Superman is responsible for some cosmetic damage only.
I don't think that the amount or even by whom or why the destruction was caused is actually important - Its how characters react adn deal with it. I don't recall Superman ever showing the slighest interst in actually saving anyone who might be caught up in that (sooo long and tiresome) fight - you know when they were toppling skyscrappers which may or may not have been full of people - not that the filmaker could be bothered to show you one why or another - it was all "hey look mum I can blow buildings again and again and again and agian...........
again the complete opposite in Avengers.
It might be that DC want Superman to be a "darker character" in a darker world - who knows but they certainly don't seem to want to make any of their charcters have a sense of humanity - and of course DC established that Superman is just there to defend the USA not the rest of the world
I dont care at all about Superman killed Zod - in fact IIRC the same thing was said about Tony Stark killing people in Iron Man - apparently he doesn't ever in the cmics (despite using massively powerful weapons - wierd comic logic) - Batman with a gun doesn;t phase me - the Michael Keaton one used rotary cannons and was for me the best incarnation ever of the character.........bar none
Kevin conroy is the best batman, bar none, Mark Hamil the best joker....
My ideal Superman setting/story would be something like a lighter then light, gooder then good Superman. I don't want to say the 'classic' image of Supes but at least the idealised image of him.
And then, put him into a darker, greyer, more realistic world.
Marlon Brando's classic line.
"They can be a great people, Kal-El; they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. "
That's what I want to see.
Sure, give him those dark, nasty, horrible choices. Have him struggle with them. But somehow, some way, he will find a way through them and he'll keep that light, that goodness while doing so.
And we,the audience, will learn something about ourselves while he did so.
I think... What I want is Superman crossed with Captain Picard...
Sure, give him those dark, nasty, horrible choices. Have him struggle with them. But somehow, some way, he will find a way through them and he'll keep that light, that goodness while doing so.
And we,the audience, will learn something about ourselves while he did so.
I think... What I want is Superman crossed with Captain Picard...
I like this idea. Superman is a bright, shiny, lawful-good paladin stuck in a morally complex world? That works, especially if he stays lawful good the whole time (his powers let him solve problems in ways normal people can't, which is why normal people do the morally questionable things to solve their problems... they don't have his powers). That could make for an interesting story, especially if the villain has powers himself (it's very difficult to make Lex Luthor a credible threat without buckets of kryptonite lying around) and uses the powers to take the easy way out. Maybe he's not really full-blown evil, he just does the morally questionable things that everyone else does. Except the villain has powers, so he doesn't need to take the easy way out. He just does, because he's selfish. THAT becomes the source of the conflict between Supes and the villain. I can see something like that working, I just don't know where you get a villain like that from Superman's rogues gallery. Most of his enemies are full-blown megalomaniacs, which wouldn't be subtle enough to work.
Compel wrote: My ideal Superman setting/story would be something like a lighter then light, gooder then good Superman. I don't want to say the 'classic' image of Supes but at least the idealised image of him.
.
This is probably what we'll end up with, maybe at the end of BvS but more likely once the Justice League has formed and the idea of heroes becomes accepted, and becomes a role that can be filled. However, there has to bea journey to that, it would have made no sense for someone like Clark in MoS (with a somewhat painful past, full of questions, unsure of himself and the world around him) to just put on the suit and become that.
The same goes for every character, at least in a 'first wave' of heroes. Even the ones that naturally lend themselves to being the archetypal superhero (The Flash, Superman, maybe Green Lantern as, after all, he is just a 'regular guy' without the Ring) need to become that over time, they can't just step into the light and instantly fulfil that role. The people aren't willing to trust them without proof, and they can't inspire people that aren't ready to be inspired.
So that's what we got in Man of Steel. It's Clark with no experience, no ideal to live up to apart from his own, no defined role other than winning. Eventually, he'll become the Superman we're familiar with (although hopefully more Modern Age than Silver Age), and that will be emphasised against the darker characters like Bats, and the ones like Cyborg and Wonder Woman who are too different to become heroes in quite the same way.
Yeah, that's my hope. I'm just uncertain mostly that they're able to pull it off.
I mostly enjoyed 'Man of Steel', to be honest and (sorry for retreading old ground) but my own, hypothetical Superman would have either found some other way to deal with Zod himself at the end, or, someone else would have taken the responsibility for killing Zod out of Supe's hands.
Throughout the character's history, Superman has rarely been faced with no-win situations. The writers simply didn't allow it, and provided solutions and escapes, usually in the form of fairly silly applications of his powers, a power up, or most rarely a new power.
As I've said many times before, the Silver Age (and probably Bronze Age) Superman would have dealt with the MoS situation by assembling a Phantom Zone projector at superspeed out of random pieces of stuff around the train station. I mean, I can see the Curt Swan rendering of that panel in my mind right now. Silly yes, but the priority was to keep the character's morality etc. intact first, and worry about logic or story second.
Perhaps the great all-time example took place not in the comics but in Superman: The Movie. He makes a decision about which nuke to stop, and there are consequences for that. But hold on! Superman makes a fairly silly application of his powers AND has a power up (because if he can fly fast enough to reverse time, he should have been fast enough to stop both nukes in the first place)! So nothing bad happens...there are no consequences because his power is just that unlimited.
The question becomes how well does that kind of writing play to modern audiences. The MoS reaction suggests that there are some who still want that from the character, and some that don't, and that's why there's such a difference of opinion about the movie. Personally, I found that scene in MoS to be a borderline brilliant confrontation of the old Superman situational trope, but then that's probably something that most in the audience aren't really going to get.
What I find incredibly lazy and frankly just plain dumb is the "that wasn't Superman" commentary regarding MoS. Superman has a long history and has been different things at different times. Hell, in one of the few and perhaps the most famous no-win situation Superman faced in the comics, he killed Zod and two other people. And less humanely, since he gave them a painful Kryptonite death instead of a quick neck snap. I guess that wasn't Superman either, except that it was.
IN CONCLUSION, I really don't know why every thread about a DC movie evolves (de-volves?) into this same tired exercise. I think we know where everyone stands on the matter, and clearly opinions aren't going to change.
Elemental wrote: My hunch (and it's only that) is that there's still a sense of embarrassment about making movies about guys in tights, like we saw in the majority of superhero adaptations pre X-Men. The Dark Knight trilogy and Man of Steel feel (again, to me) like they're constantly trying to distance themselves from accusations of silliness, often with clunky exposition on What This Means that feels more like film critics discussing the movie than characters acting naturally within the movie. No, this isn't about a guy in a red and blue costume who can fly and shoot lasers from his eyes, that's just a cover for a very very serious work on how humankind would react to powerful aliens amongst them! Oh, and the main character is Jesus or something.
So the recent wave of DC films try a little to be about something, while the Marvel films just embrace the dumb?
I agree 100%.
Excuse me a minute, just need to get some lotion for that epic burn. OK, sorted that out.
Pretty much all superhero concepts are "dumb", in the sense that they're implausible and wouldn't work unmodified in the real world. Even the Dark Knight movies have healthy doses of comic-book logic (how does the Joker put explosives wherever he needs them and have his instant army of madmen execute plans with military precision?) to enable cool action sequences. What I was saying was that if you go too gritty and down to earth, you lose the reasons that people started liking superheroes in the first place (before all the deconstructions and gritty revamps, which might be good, but still need that foundation of "You'll believe a man can fly!" to build on.)
To get away from a Marvel vs DC poop-throwing contest (because it's only possible to like one of them, of course), let's take the most recent Fantastic Four movie as an example of "gritty superheroes" or "darker = realistic = better" done badly. Show of hands, did anyone think it enhanced the movie or the characters to have Ben Grimm's catchphrase "It's clobbering time!" originate with an abusive family background? The Four barely work as a group and not at all as a family, Reed abandons the others for a big chunk of the movie rather than being a leader, Doom doesn't have his charisma....at that point, the drive for grittiness isn't making the film more relatable or plausible, it's just scribbling over the things that made the characters appealing in the first place. The drive to get away from the "goofy" origins and nature of the characters just led to a charmless mess.
Alternatively, you could see it more as, comicbook/superhero films are no longer a 'genre' like they used to be.
Instead they're a setting of which many different kinds of genres and stories can be told.
The Winter Soldier is an action/spy film. How much more ludicrous is that film compared to say, Eraser or True Lies?
Guardians of the Galaxy is a space opera. Heck, 'The Walking Dead' is one of the highest ranked tv series in the world and that's a graphic novel.
If DC wants their pictures to say something, that's fine. That goal is not 'betraying' their comic book origins. And whether they can pull it off isn't a result of being restricted by comic book origins.
It's usually because someone wearing a suit made a dumb call.
Yeah, it's all speculation how much is an intentional attempt to do something different than Marvel, and how much is the old (pre X-Men) lack of confidence that you can play superheroes straight. Hopefully it comes out, one way or the other, as a celebration of what makes the DC characters cool.
In this promo for The CW‘s upcoming DC Films Present: The Dawn of the Justice League special, DC Entertainment CCO Geoff Johns and Kevin Smith invite you watch a special about the upcoming DC Films and see a new Suicide Squad trailer.
DC Films Present: The Dawn of the Justice League airs Tuesday.
The teaser is at the link, but it's nothing but Johns and Smith plugging the show on Tuesday, no new footage.
Still new Suicide Squad trailer sometime Tuesday then.
You wonder if the Flash and Cyborg costumes are 100% finalized, since those two are slightly in the background and hazier compared to the other four.
Regarding GL, mum's been the word re: casting too. There have been rumors that GL may not appear right off the bat in JL Part 1. If Big D is the baddie, then maybe the GL Corps shows up once things turn cosmic? Also, it remains to be seen which GL might appear in JL. I suspect -- and there are rumors to this end -- that we'll see multiple GLs in the DCCU, which should head off protests that this or that GL was chosen due to ethnic background.
I do hope the GL film is based around the Corps rather than just the one Lantern, but I think I'll be disappointed if we get anyone other than Hal Jordan as the League's Lantern, he's just the coolest and has been a member of the team for most of its incarnations.
I do like the idea that, whoever it is, they're already off Lanterning in space, and they'll come back to a changed Earth where you've got nutters running around in bat costumes and aliens and superhumans are a known reality.
So:
-Flash in the cinematic universe has "access to parallel dimensions and all of time/space"
-Cyborg was considered to be a pivotal character for this cinematic universe with how "wired" the modern world is.
-The footage of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman in her film was fantastic. She kicked the crap out of some Nazis. -The Green Lantern film? The official title, with key art and all, is
"GREEN LANTERN CORPS". No more details than that.
The new "Suicide Squad" trailer was fantastic as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote: You wonder if the Flash and Cyborg costumes are 100% finalized, since those two are slightly in the background and hazier compared to the other four.
Flash's costume is finalized as of now. Cyborg's is not.
They joked that the reason the Flash was hazier is because of the fact that "he was coming back from a brisk jog". Cyborg was hazier/backgrounded because they did not have a hard deal with an actor at the time so it was essentially at the concept art stage.
That looks very promising indeed. It may be time for Cap to move on over as the world's coolest shield-toting Nazi-basher!
Interesting that they're going for a fully powered up Flash by the sound of it. I can see why (the TV version is still very much learning his powers, can hit maybe mach 2 or 3 at most rather than near light speed), but I do wonder how they're going to handle that on screen and in the script without making the rest of the League irrelevant.
Ouze wrote: Wonder Woman is probably the only part of Dawn of Whatever I'm interested in.
So far agreed - the Wonder Woman clips look really good - And her bit was the best bit in the Superman/Batman trailer!
Cap A 1 was one of the weakest Marvel films IMO so hoping for a really good WWII/superhero based film.
Is she likely to just fighting the Axis powers or is there a Wonder woman "villain" in that period - I know little about the character
From what I heard, it's going to be in two timelines; the World War stuff (whichever one it ends up being) and a modern day one that takes place before Dawn of Justice (which will apparently feature Batman or at least Bruce Wayne, explaining how they know each other in DoJ). There were rumours of Ares as the villain, and Sean Bean has been mentioned in connection to the role, though I don't know how reliable that was. Really, WW's two main villains are Cersi and Ares, so I'd bet we'll see at least one of those in some capacity, maybe both.
Cheetah could work, but I'd really rather see Ares. It would be interesting to see someone that powerful and dangerous but not inherently evil; as the God of War, it's just not in his interest to prevent conflict, but he's got no plans to take over the world or anything.
I do wonder if they'll take the Marvel-esque Gods=Aliens approach, or something more traditional, or just not go into any great detail about it.
I think the uniform works and that she looks good as Diana Prince. We'll just have to wait for the fight scenes.
Although those were undoubtedly from teenage Marvel fanboys complaining that it looked too grim just a few days ago.
