Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To be fair, they left hints and a mini episode, that amounted to...

The Mandarin is rather annoyed that Killian was going round saying he's The Mandarin.

It's telling that they released it long after the complaints.

Also, while people are ranting about the Superman portrayed in MoS, what are your thoughts on the portrayal of the Mandarin in IM3?

Not sure - its an interesting one - I really enjoyed all of the Iron Man films - but am still in two minds about the Mandarin aspect, it was certainly interesting as I knew very little about the comic character except where he popped up in Xmen stuff I used to read.

they left hints and a mini episode, that amounted to... The Mandarin is rather annoyed that Killian was going round saying he's The Mandarin.

Is that Agents of Shield? Not seen that?

 -Shrike- wrote:
Also, while people are ranting about the Superman portrayed in MoS, what are your thoughts on the portrayal of the Mandarin in IM3?

Terrible on both uses of the character.

Trying to pull a switcheroo and use Killian as the Mandarin? Flat out terrible. He had none of the screen prescence that Ben Kingsley did, who stole the movie. Though I'm just not a fan of Guy Pearce, so I didn't enjoy him as a villain at all.

However, using a one shot to give a wink to fans saying 'he's totally still out there'? If you're going to pull something that big with such a huge character, at least stick with your descision. He's never going to feature in a film again (especially with the scuttlebutt about Tony Stark not getting any more solo movies), so it was an empty gesture to fans of the character who will never get to see the 'real' portrayal of the character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

they left hints and a mini episode, that amounted to... The Mandarin is rather annoyed that Killian was going round saying he's The Mandarin.

Is that Agents of Shield? Not seen that?

It was the 'Marvel One Shot' on the Thor 2 DVD called 'Hail to the King'.

I'm hoping that The Mandarin proper will feature in Agents series 2 if there's no more Iron Man films. Probably in vain, but oh well.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

they left hints and a mini episode, that amounted to... The Mandarin is rather annoyed that Killian was going round saying he's The Mandarin.

Is that Agents of Shield? Not seen that?

It was the 'Marvel One Shot' on the Thor 2 DVD called 'Hail to the King'.

That doesn't state that a real Mandarin was mad at Killian, but at Trevor (Ben Kinsley).

Ah. - I hadn't seen the one-shot myself.

 -Shrike- wrote:

Also, while people are ranting about the Superman portrayed in MoS, what are your thoughts on the portrayal of the Mandarin in IM3?

After getting pissed off about how he was an actor "playing a role" and essentially ruining the character on the surface.... I went back and thought about it. Personally, after more thought, I think that it was a brilliant ploy, ESPECIALLY given the Mandarin's character. The supernatural/alien tech aspect of him doesn't quite fit into the IM franchise (though it does better in the Avengers line), so I think that having the Mandarin be an "actor" opens him up to cause more havoc in follow on movies, because I think that Ben Kingsley being an actor playing the Mandarin is a perfect ploy to show the real genius of the Mandarin.

I find Nolan and Snyder to fall into the same category as Tarantino; you either enjoy the entire catalog or dislike almost all of it. There are of course exceptions, but I've found it to ring true. Not all directors are for everyone.

In terms of this film, I'll continue to look forward to it. I've haven't seen a superhero film I actively disliked since Green Lantern and Ghost Rider. I guess I take everything as an adaptation, and each has its own merits.

Then again, I'm likely younger than most here, having known Batman as grittier than Keaton ever was. I also think Jack doesn't compare favorably to Heath, though both interpretations fit the films they are in very well.

I would still prefer to watch the West Batman movie over the Keaton or Bale ones. Have at me.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I would still prefer to watch the West Batman movie over the Keaton or Bale ones. Have at me.

I quite enjoy all three, just for different reasons.

I don't really care for the West era, but I don't begrudge others for liking it, plus, you know Julie Newmar and Eartha Kitt. I like both the Keaton and Bale films as well, for varying reasons.

"Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice"

 d-usa wrote:
Batman is a dark, bitter, angry, tragic person. The only "fun" Batman has is when he wears the mask of Bruce Wayne, and most of that fun is fake.

d-usa gets it. I don't know what it is exactly, but this is Batman.

New news:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/showbiz/movies/batmobile-zack-snyder-batman-v-superman/index.html?c=showbiz

The new Batmobile...

I like it. Not as cool as the Tumbler from TDK trilogy, but looks the business. Do the guns hint at a more brutal and less morally-richteous Batman?

Depends on what the guns fire, it might just be rubber bullets of some other form of non lethal round.

Didn’t the Burton Batmobile and Batwing both have machine guns on them as well? Not that they actually killed anyone. I think the Batmobile guns where just used to perforate a straight line in the door to Axis chemicals and the Batwing guns completely failed to kill The Joker, not for lack of trying though.

Mind you seeing as in the Snyderverse Superman has already violated his own no killing rule, I suppose there is no reason that Batman shouldn’t abandon his principles as well.

 d-usa wrote:


And Ben is at least giving a halfway decent angry-batman face...

Please use orkmoticons when using sarcasm.

I immediately recognized Affleck in that picture. He is using that same slack jawed expression that has been his goto expression since Mall Rats.

It is a bad acting habit he picked up early and has never fixed. It was tolerable when he was a young novice but actors are supposed to get better over time.

In that shot, he looks like a bored actor waiting for the cue for his next line.

Ouze wrote:I reiterate my opinion that I think Ben Affleck might be a really good Batman, especially the tired, world-weary version. I am cautiously optimistic.

Optimism = Hope

Hope is the first step on the path of disappointment.

gunslingerpro wrote:
In terms of the Superman 'I will never kill thing', what's the alternative in this film? The banishment zone? Freezing him?

It was a plausible, human solution. No unneeded or over-done 'lock up' scene.

No, this was a case of having him kill just for the sake of having Superman kill. It was lazy writing in that it did not examine the most obvious solution.

"What is that solution?", you might ask.
Simple, Supermans hand is on Zods forehead for the neck snap. Now instead of snapping neck he just slides his hand down.

This forces eyelids closed= Zod hurts/blinds himself or at least shuts down heat vision.

Also, not like it will hurt Supermans hand from what we see earlier in the film.

This is a case of where he kills just because the writer/director wanted to crap all over the superman ideal.

We really do live in backward bizzaro times. This director an DC give us a Batman who won't let Joker fall ( opposite of original character concept) and a Superman that kills just because it is easier (Also exact opposite of Supermans origins)*.

*Note- I said Superman, not the original non-super powered Uberman that was abandoned for obvious political reasons.



In case you guys hadn't guessed yet, I "will not" be watching this movie.
Also will not be watching Gal Gadot ruin Wonder Woman nor will I support another Superman movie from this current team.

Later,
ff

I've warmed to Afleck over the years, I think that his acting has improved and he's proven himself to be a very capable director.

No, this was a case of having him kill just for the sake of having Superman kill. It was lazy writing in that it did not examine the most obvious solution.

"What is that solution?", you might ask.
Simple, Supermans hand is on Zods forehead for the neck snap. Now instead of snapping neck he just slides his hand down.

This forces eyelids closed= Zod hurts/blinds himself or at least shuts down heat vision.

Also, not like it will hurt Supermans hand from what we see earlier in the film.

This is a case of where he kills just because the writer/director wanted to crap all over the superman ideal.

We really do live in backward bizzaro times. This director an DC give us a Batman who won't let Joker fall ( opposite of original character concept) and a Superman that kills just because it is easier (Also exact opposite of Supermans origins)*.

There is almost nothing in this statement that is actually true. Well done.

 LuciusAR wrote:
I've warmed to Afleck over the years, I think that his acting has improved and he's proven himself to be a very capable director.

I agree.

I am treading carefully with Ben Afflop's presence in the Batman vs Superman movie. His comic book hero potential has been tarnished by DareDevil (some of that flick was... ok-ish the rest was garbage)
IMHO Henry Cavill totally nails the Superman look- even has elements of Christopher Reeves in there.

Ugh. Meh? I gotta say I've not really felt any of the movies they've put out based on DC heroes. Man of Steel was kind of interesting stylistically, but it felt entirely devoid of substance. Engaging in the moment but ultimately unfulfilling and forgettable. With the exception of the Joker in the dark night and I guess bane's voice (and really only his voice), in rises the batman movies were a snooze fest for me in their best moments, eye-rolling stupid in their worst.

I'm still waiting to really like one of them. I mean I don't have anything against the characters & concepts they're using. I totally dug the DCAU both as a kid and the stuff that came out a bit later.

 Ahtman wrote:

No, this was a case of having him kill just for the sake of having Superman kill. It was lazy writing in that it did not examine the most obvious solution.

"What is that solution?", you might ask.
Simple, Supermans hand is on Zods forehead for the neck snap. Now instead of snapping neck he just slides his hand down.

This forces eyelids closed= Zod hurts/blinds himself or at least shuts down heat vision.

Also, not like it will hurt Supermans hand from what we see earlier in the film.

This is a case of where he kills just because the writer/director wanted to crap all over the superman ideal.

We really do live in backward bizzaro times. This director an DC give us a Batman who won't let Joker fall ( opposite of original character concept) and a Superman that kills just because it is easier (Also exact opposite of Supermans origins)*.

There is almost nothing in this statement that is actually true. Well done.

Your casual and highly incorrect dismissal of my points leads me to wonder if you have actually seen the movie or more importantly ever read any of the old Superman back story.

Well done.

I suggest that you watch the lazily written man of steel (again?). Or you could try to point out the things in my post that you contend are not factual.

Later,
ff

The Batmobile looks good...other shots I've seen make it look more like a mashup of the Nolan and Burton Batmobiles, IMO.

 Ahtman wrote:

We really do live in backward bizzaro times. This director an DC give us a Batman who won't let Joker fall ( opposite of original character concept) and a Superman that kills just because it is easier (Also exact opposite of Supermans origins)*.

There is almost nothing in this statement that is actually true. Well done.

Well, he's not talking about the Golden Age Superman, because he killed people. And not the post-Crisis Superman, because he killed Zod. The New 52 Superman...probably not, just because he's a little more rough-and-tumble and whatever-it-takes. He more-or-less left someone to die in Superman Unchained.

He's talking about the Silver & Bronze Age Superman...the ORIGINAL and ONLY. Um.

 gorgon wrote:


Well, he's not talking about the Golden Age Superman, because he killed people. And not the post-Crisis Superman, because he killed Zod. The New 52 Superman...probably not, just because he's a little more rough-and-tumble and whatever-it-takes. He more-or-less left someone to die in Superman Unchained.

He's talking about the Silver & Bronze Age Superman...the ORIGINAL and ONLY. Um.

Ah, no. I love how people take one incident that happened in an alternate dimension as some form of proof that GA supes casually killed without remorse.

In Golden Age he only kills once and feels bad about the decision afterward. Yes, it was an execution killing rather than the heat of battle but it was clear from how it was written that this was an exception to the norm.

Now you might point to times where he threatened to kill or the time he let a criminal cause his own death while trying to kill supes. There was and is a difference between threats and actual killing.

Same could be said for the guy that used poison gas on superman while he himself had no gas mask. The story had it that the gas was so deadly that the villain was dead as soon as he broke the vial. So supes just standing there watching him die does not constitute a kill.

However, This is all horribly off-topic from the upcoming Batfleck turkey that this thread is about.

Later,
ff

 focusedfire wrote:
In Golden Age he only kills once and feels bad about the decision afterward. Yes, it was an execution killing rather than the heat of battle but it was clear from how it was written that this was an exception to the norm.

You realize that is what happened in Man of Steel right? Only it wasn't an execution, it was in the heat of battle. How you can excuse one while pretending the other is radically different is baffling.

 focusedfire wrote:


In Golden Age he only kills once and feels bad about the decision afterward. Yes, it was an execution killing rather than the heat of battle but it was clear from how it was written that this was an exception to the norm.

Err.. No.

Veritable swathes of Japanese soldiers, pilots, navy personnel , 5th columnists ( and to a lesser extent Italians and Nazis) were dealt with in lethal fashion.

This is a case of where he kills just because the writer/director wanted to crap all over the superman ideal.

I disagree entirely.

The point of the scene was that he did have no other option.

Zod was never going to stop, there's no prison that could hold him, the phantom zone is now inaccessible, if it's not those people stood there it'll be someone else later on.


He wasn't exactly overjoyed at having to do so, and they've said his actions will have repercussions to be followed up on in the sequel(s).

Yeah, I don't really get the "Man of Murder" criticisms. He killed Zod... so what?

Ahtman wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:
In Golden Age he only kills once and feels bad about the decision afterward. Yes, it was an execution killing rather than the heat of battle but it was clear from how it was written that this was an exception to the norm.

You realize that is what happened in Man of Steel right? Only it wasn't an execution, it was in the heat of battle. How you can excuse one while pretending the other is radically different is baffling.

There are several key differences.

1)Happened in another dimension. And we all know the rule...."What happens in Bizzaro World stays in Bizzaro World.
All joking aside, it has been a long accepted practice that what happens in an alternate dimension/reality is some how seperate from the base story. That the writers feel that they have the latitude to have the characters step out of their established norms.

2)It was an exception to the norm. They didn't start off with Supes just casually killing and then showing little to no remorse. This is even more notable when you consider his earliest uberman incarnation. That the writers over the years worked to distance supes from that concept.
In MoS he decides to kill when there are other options and this is a part of our(the audiences) introduction to this version. Having him kill and then show no regret was a clear statement that this superman has nothing in common with prior versions.

3) The emotional abuse that the Kevin Costner version of Jonathan Kent heaps on young Clark sets the stage for an emotionally unhealthy older Clark/supes.
Now this is probably done to set up the Batman vs Supes battle but it definitely breaks from prior incarnations.

Again, my basic point is that even in GA Supes killing was out of the norm. Man of Steel made a point of establishing this as a very normal thing for this version of Supes.


Look, we've clogged the thread up enough. Lets just leave this at s difference of perspective/point of view.

reds8n wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:


In Golden Age he only kills once and feels bad about the decision afterward. Yes, it was an execution killing rather than the heat of battle but it was clear from how it was written that this was an exception to the norm.

Err.. No.

Veritable swathes of Japanese soldiers, pilots, navy personnel , 5th columnists ( and to a lesser extent Italians and Nazis) were dealt with in lethal fashion.

This is a case of where he kills just because the writer/director wanted to crap all over the superman ideal.

I disagree entirely.

The point of the scene was that he did have no other option.

Zod was never going to stop, there's no prison that could hold him, the phantom zone is now inaccessible, if it's not those people stood there it'll be someone else later on.


He wasn't exactly overjoyed at having to do so, and they've said his actions will have repercussions to be followed up on in the sequel(s).

As to Supes killing the Nazis and "Japs". Don't think it was ever depicted. The planes destroyed always showed parachutes and as far as infantry and tanks went....I remember him opening up tanks and removing obstacles but that he left the actual killing to the GI's.

Could have missed something though. If you could point me to issues were supes kills that would be helpful. Just remember that implied deaths does not equal a depicted kill.


As to that end of fight scene in Man of Steel.....I feel that this is just setting this version of Supes up to play the baddie in Bats vs Supes.

As I said before, would rather not clog thread up more with this off-topic topic

Lets just leave it to differing perspectives.

Later,
ff

It's mainly in the Fleisher ( sp?) cartoons.

He blows up tanks, trucks -- and a reasonable chunk of Tokyo too really -- and no one gets out.

In the radio plays he shows a similar lack of restraint , at one point he bombards a Japanese .. battalion..? .. force with rocks and then goes in and finishes them off, telling Jimmy " It was nothing more than they deserved."

In general he did loads of things like

http://s62.photobucket.com/user/azathorael/media-full/Superman/Ultrahumanite04.jpg.html

where the survival ( or not) of the people he's engaging isn't really something that mattered.

But indeed, let's leave this now.