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.

I must admit the 'OMG Superman doesnt kill!' comments are a tad ott. With the best of intentions sometimes the lesser evil is to kill someone and in the case of that situation with Zod I don't see what choice old Supes had.

Perhaps if he'd killed him earlier even more humans might have been saved. It's one thing to go out of your way not to kill, but refusing to do it regrdless of circumstance is daft.

Besides the Christopher Reeve Superman killed Zod. Just becuase we didnt see him 'die' doest mean he didnt do it. Superman rendered him moral and then chucked him down a chasm. How exactly is he supposed to have survived that?

That can be excused because of Superman II's close adherence to the source material -- Kryptonian finger beams, expanding "S" entanglement gadgets, Super-Forgetful Kisses, etc.

I know, I know..."director's cuts."

It's getting a little out of hand...

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Sb4sL-gRnlg/UhgA-VSm-5I/AAAAAAAAGGI/YySxzyFpa8E/w800-h800/photo.jpg

This sums up entirely how I feel about him.

http://uproxx.com/gammasquad/2014/09/did-you-catch-this-man-of-steel-easter-egg-that-totally-reveals-aquaman-for-batman-v-superman/


..hmm.. plausible enough.

Possibly.

 reds8n wrote:
http://uproxx.com/gammasquad/2014/09/did-you-catch-this-man-of-steel-easter-egg-that-totally-reveals-aquaman-for-batman-v-superman/


..hmm.. plausible enough.

Possibly.

So, the next Superman movie will feature Batman, Wonderwoman, Aquaman, and... oh yeah, Superman. So DC is making the Justice League movie and just calling it "Superman 2"? Is that the game? It's clear DC learned nothing from the pre-reboot Batman movies, where an excess number of super characters (heroes or villains) detracted from the film. Remember Batman? It was Batman and the Joker. It was a good movie. Remember Batman 2? It was Batman, Catwoman, and the Penguin (and Christopher Walken). It was a less-good movie. Remember Batman the Third? Batman, Robin, Two-Face, and The Riddler? Extra less-good movie. Remember Plan Batman From Outer Space? Batman, Robin, Batgirl, Bane, Poison Ivy, and Mister Freeze? Way much less-gooder movie.

I see no reason why the knee-jerk inclusion of the entire Justice League (with no thought to plot or characterization) in Superman 2 Electric Boogaloo will work out any differently than it did with the Batman series.

Or the Spiderman series.

SM 1: Spiderman and Goblin.
SM 2: Spiderman, Hobgoblin, Dok Ock.
SM 3: Spiderman, Hobgoblin, Venom, Sandman.


Also, you can't forget that the villain has to be present too, so so far its Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Lex. And were there not rumors of Green Lantern and Cyborg being present as well?

squidhills wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
http://uproxx.com/gammasquad/2014/09/did-you-catch-this-man-of-steel-easter-egg-that-totally-reveals-aquaman-for-batman-v-superman/


..hmm.. plausible enough.

Possibly.

So, the next Superman movie will feature Batman, Wonderwoman, Aquaman, and... oh yeah, Superman. So DC is making the Justice League movie and just calling it "Superman 2"? Is that the game? It's clear DC learned nothing from the pre-reboot Batman movies, where an excess number of super characters (heroes or villains) detracted from the film. Remember Batman? It was Batman and the Joker. It was a good movie. Remember Batman 2? It was Batman, Catwoman, and the Penguin (and Christopher Walken). It was a less-good movie. Remember Batman the Third? Batman, Robin, Two-Face, and The Riddler? Extra less-good movie. Remember Plan Batman From Outer Space? Batman, Robin, Batgirl, Bane, Poison Ivy, and Mister Freeze? Way much less-gooder movie.

I see no reason why the knee-jerk inclusion of the entire Justice League (with no thought to plot or characterization) in Superman 2 Electric Boogaloo will work out any differently than it did with the Batman series.

Counterpoints.

The movie isn't called Man of Steel 2, is it?
Did the Avengers have problems with "an excess number of super characters"?
Does Marvel seem even a little gunshy about including even more characters in Avengers 2?
Were the 4 Batman movies you mentioned the same in all other respects except for the number of super characters?
Have you read the script to know that the inclusion of other characters in BvS has "no thought to plot or characterization?"
Do you think that it might make some difference that an Oscar-winning writer wrote the script?
Can you confirm that the characters other than Bats and Supes will get anything more than cameos -- especially Aquaman and Victor Stone, who may not even be Cyborg in BvS?
Are you aware that the rumors point to a solo Man of Steel sequel down the road?

Besides, Aquaman was in the first movie when he send his fishies to keep Supes company!

 gorgon wrote:

Did the Avengers have problems with "an excess number of super characters"?

Totally different situation. Barring Hawkeye, the rest had all had at least one movie to establish those characters, how they act, who they are, and what they can do. It's why Avengers works so well: the characters are all there and complete from the start, so it can go forward from the very beginning.

While I'm not saying BvS will have trouble fitting everyone in, and I imagine most will just have cameos at first, I'm not sure you can really compare it to then unique way Avengers works in this regard. It remains to be seen how Avengers 2 will cope fitting in Quicksilver, Witch, Vision and Ultron in with no prior introduction.

 gorgon wrote:


Counterpoints.

The movie isn't called Man of Steel 2, is it?
Did the Avengers have problems with "an excess number of super characters"?
Does Marvel seem even a little gunshy about including even more characters in Avengers 2?
Were the 4 Batman movies you mentioned the same in all other respects except for the number of super characters?
Have you read the script to know that the inclusion of other characters in BvS has "no thought to plot or characterization?"
Do you think that it might make some difference that an Oscar-winning writer wrote the script?
Can you confirm that the characters other than Bats and Supes will get anything more than cameos -- especially Aquaman and Victor Stone, who may not even be Cyborg in BvS?
Are you aware that the rumors point to a solo Man of Steel sequel down the road?

Counter-counterpoints: Avengers worked because it wasn't an origin story for 5 characters. It was a continuation of the story of 5 characters we'd already been introduced to. Superman v The Mangaer From Fashionable Male will have to be origin stories for Batman, Wonder Woman, and now Aquaman, as well as the villain (presumably Lex). Origin stories bog movies down and the more you have to include, the slower and more bloated your movie becomes (Batman 4, case in point). Even the Spiderman movies didn't escape this, with Spiderman 3 trying to cram too much onto intself with Venom and Sandman, on top of the second Green Goblin.

The first 2 Batman movies had the same creative minds behind tham, and the latter 2 had the same creative minds. The only consistent things accross all four were a declining level of quality, and an increase in the number of villains/heroes. So it is entirely possible that another DC movie with a different creative team than Batmans 1-2, and 3-4 will have lots of characters and be good. But earlier trends seem to indicate that this is an unlikely outcome.

Have I read the script? Nope. But given the fact that scripts that include lots of characters as well as give a lot of thought to plot and characterization are in the extreme minority in Hollywood (not just in DC superhero movies)... well, see the above bit about past trends indicating potential outcomes.

As for Oscar winners doing stuff... Ridley Scott won an Oscar for a really good movie, once. He also made Prometheus. Just because you can achieve greatness does not mean you can't also achieve garbage.

TL;DR I'll believe DC can make a really good super hero movie when they actually make a really good superhero movie that isn't the first Nolan Batman.

X Men 2 is IMO the best X movie and has a huge cast

 Mr Morden wrote:
X Men 2 is IMO the best X movie and has a huge cast

Its also not a DC superhero movie. DC is the one with the crap track record. Apart from Fantastic Four movies, and Ang Lee's Giant Green Thing film, Marvel does better overall.

Meh, First Class was honestly the best in my highly subjective opinion.

squidhills wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
X Men 2 is IMO the best X movie and has a huge cast

Its also not a DC superhero movie. DC is the one with the crap track record. Apart from Fantastic Four movies, and Ang Lee's Giant Green Thing film, Marvel does better overall.

Oh completely agree I only real like and rate one DC superhero movie (The first Michael Keaton Batman) - I was just saying that a good director and tream can work with a big cast

 Paradigm wrote:


Totally different situation. Barring Hawkeye, the rest had all had at least one movie to establish those characters, how they act, who they are, and what they can do. It's why Avengers works so well: the characters are all there and complete from the start, so it can go forward from the very beginning.

Wrong. Hawkeye was in Thor 1.... He was perched up "guarding" the hammer, and even asked Colson if he could engage. Granted that's about all I can recall, and doesn't do much to really establish him as a Marvel character, but he at least had a bit of face time prior to Avengers. I think it gave you enough that people either outright knew it was Hawkeye, or they were wondering enough about it, that when he showed up in Avengers, they weren't surprised to see him.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:


Totally different situation. Barring Hawkeye, the rest had all had at least one movie to establish those characters, how they act, who they are, and what they can do. It's why Avengers works so well: the characters are all there and complete from the start, so it can go forward from the very beginning.

Wrong. Hawkeye was in Thor 1.... He was perched up "guarding" the hammer, and even asked Colson if he could engage. Granted that's about all I can recall, and doesn't do much to really establish him as a Marvel character, but he at least had a bit of face time prior to Avengers. I think it gave you enough that people either outright knew it was Hawkeye, or they were wondering enough about it, that when he showed up in Avengers, they weren't surprised to see him.

In other words, the cameo established the character.

So folks, let's assume that's roughly the treatment that Aquaman and Cyborg will get in BvS. Black Widow also didn't have her own movie, but she had a small role in Iron Man. Let's assume that Wonder Woman will get that level of treatment in BvS. Supes got his own film already. While Batman is sharing BvS, we've seen him on the big screen umpteen times and don't need another origin movie to reintroduce him. Audiences get Batman. Look at how the new Batmobile is almost a perfect mashup of the Nolan and Burton versions.

Green Lantern is in a similar situation to the Hulk character. It'll probably be recast just like Bana => Norton => Ruffalo. But moviegoing audiences have already been introduced to the space cop with the ring. Flash will have his own TV series, so audiences should be good there too. These characters don't all need solo films to make sense in JL. And let's forget about superheroes for a minute. How many stinkin' good ensemble films has Hollywood produced over the years? Superhero characters are just characters.

Frankly, Iron Man 2 and 3, Cap 1, Thor 1 and 2, and the Incredible Hulk have shown that Marvel is completely capable of producing mediocre, forgettable fare too. I'm not sure why the Marvel fanboys need to chime in and dump all over every thread about a DC character on film.

 gorgon wrote:

Frankly, Iron Man 2 and 3, Cap 1, Thor 1 and 2, and the Incredible Hulk have shown that Marvel is completely capable of producing mediocre, forgettable fare too. I'm not sure why the Marvel fanboys need to chime in and dump all over every thread about a DC character on film.

While they may be mediocre, I believe that they have demonstrated themselves to generally be a better brand of mediocre than the DC offerings... I mean, aside from Christopher Reeves Superman, has a single one been either remotely good, or even one that Supes' fans say "well, they fethed that one up, I'm done with Superman movies" (a buddy of mine is a HUUUUUGE Superman fan, and said that after the last reboot... but ended up watching MoS, and said it again.... I'm sure he'll probably say the same about BvS)


Yes, there are some Marvel movies that we simply like to ignore or deny even exist (Daredevil, Hulk, Elektra??) but, IMO, IM 1/2 were pretty damn good films, 3 was "OK", Cap 1 was a "necessary evil" as far as "dull intro film" type of plot goes. I actually liked Thor 1 a lot, and while 2 was a slight step back, that quality was very VERY slight to me.... But then, we are talking an art form, and as so much art goes, it's quite subjective.

The Thor films are generally rather positively received at large. Tom Hiddleston as Loki is immensely popular.

From what I can see, iron man 2 and 3 are generally seen as less popular, with the Hulk solo film(s) seen as Marvels worst effort in that universe.

 Compel wrote:
The Thor films are generally rather positively received at large. Tom Hiddleston as Loki is immensely popular.

From what I can see, iron man 2 and 3 are generally seen as less popular, with the Hulk solo film(s) seen as Marvels worst effort in that universe.

The only ones I wouldn't watch at the drop of a hat are IM2/3 and maybe hulk. IM1,Thor 2, Cap 2 and Avengers are all 10/10 films in my opinion, and Cap/Thor 1 are easily 9. Guardians of the Galaxy goes up to 11!

Agree with paradigm 100%! Good numbers for that list.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Compel wrote:
The Thor films are generally rather positively received at large. Tom Hiddleston as Loki is immensely popular.

From what I can see, iron man 2 and 3 are generally seen as less popular, with the Hulk solo film(s) seen as Marvels worst effort in that universe.

The only ones I wouldn't watch at the drop of a hat are IM2/3 and maybe hulk. IM1,Thor 2, Cap 2 and Avengers are all 10/10 films in my opinion, and Cap/Thor 1 are easily 9. Guardians of the Galaxy goes up to 11!

Agreed. Except I would watch Ed Nortons Hulk at the drop of a hat too. I quite enjoyed that one. IM2/3 are pretty much the only ones I'm meh about. GotG in particular is awesome. I haven't seen a movie in theatres more than once in a decade. I saw it 3 times.

On topic though MoS was pretty bad. I couldn't sit through it again after the first watching. I'm hoping for better but if they cram all these people in poorly it isn't going to go well. Hopefully it's more nods or brief encounters that establish other super beings exist and not a team up type movie outside of the Bat and Supes.

 Hulksmash wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

 Compel wrote:
The Thor films are generally rather positively received at large. Tom Hiddleston as Loki is immensely popular.

From what I can see, iron man 2 and 3 are generally seen as less popular, with the Hulk solo film(s) seen as Marvels worst effort in that universe.

The only ones I wouldn't watch at the drop of a hat are IM2/3 and maybe hulk. IM1,Thor 2, Cap 2 and Avengers are all 10/10 films in my opinion, and Cap/Thor 1 are easily 9. Guardians of the Galaxy goes up to 11!

Agreed. Except I would watch Ed Nortons Hulk at the drop of a hat too. I quite enjoyed that one. IM2/3 are pretty much the only ones I'm meh about. GotG in particular is awesome. I haven't seen a movie in theatres more than once in a decade. I saw it 3 times.

On topic though MoS was pretty bad. I couldn't sit through it again after the first watching. I'm hoping for better but if they cram all these people in poorly it isn't going to go well. Hopefully it's more nods or brief encounters that establish other super beings exist and not a team up type movie outside of the Bat and Supes.

I'm the opposite. I loved the Ang Lee Hulk, IM2 (I like both bad guys in that) and MofS . Cap1 bored me so much the wife fell asleep and I went to surf the web. Thor I and II were warm barf to me but the wife liked the pretty boy. New Hulk was pedestrian. We're agreed though IM3 was just bad.

I don't know what to think about the new movie. I'll just wait and see the previews and reviews.

I don't understand all the hate for IM3. It was far and away a superior movie to IM2. I get why the hardcore IM nerds didn't like it when they discovered that the film makers wanted to avoid the whole cheap "yellow peril" aspect of The Mandarin (and also that they wanted to be able to sell the movie to China... news flash, kids: you will not see a major Hollywood movie with a Chinese villain for at least the next 20 years. Sorry!) but I thought the fact that the villain was the villain because of actions Tony Stark took in the past was a great thing. The villain had a motive *and* was a credible threat (something nobody in IM 2 managed to be) and Tony learns that he is an a-hole, despite being a hero.

squidhills wrote:
I don't understand all the hate for IM3. It was far and away a superior movie to IM2. I get why the hardcore IM nerds didn't like it when they discovered that the film makers wanted to avoid the whole cheap "yellow peril" aspect of The Mandarin (and also that they wanted to be able to sell the movie to China... news flash, kids: you will not see a major Hollywood movie with a Chinese villain for at least the next 20 years. Sorry!) but I thought the fact that the villain was the villain because of actions Tony Stark took in the past was a great thing. The villain had a motive *and* was a credible threat (something nobody in IM 2 managed to be) and Tony learns that he is an a-hole, despite being a hero.

I think the biggest issue that many (including me) had with IM3, was in the way in which the Mandarin was handled... He should never have been "simply an actor" playing the part of a terrorist organization leader. Granted, misdirection and the sort of actions that "The Mandarin" in the movie took would be along the lines of how the "real" Mandarin would do things, but that the writers made the guy a fake really irked many fans, especially since the Mandarin has been one of IM's longest and biggest foes, and they really cheapened him (well, at least they did until the One Shot came out where we find out "someone" wants to meet Trevor because he's been using "their" name)

squidhills wrote:
I don't understand all the hate for IM3. It was far and away a superior movie to IM2. I get why the hardcore IM nerds didn't like it when they discovered that the film makers wanted to avoid the whole cheap "yellow peril" aspect of The Mandarin (and also that they wanted to be able to sell the movie to China... news flash, kids: you will not see a major Hollywood movie with a Chinese villain for at least the next 20 years. Sorry!) but I thought the fact that the villain was the villain because of actions Tony Stark took in the past was a great thing. The villain had a motive *and* was a credible threat (something nobody in IM 2 managed to be) and Tony learns that he is an a-hole, despite being a hero.

Er...no. I'm not a hardcore comic fan-your attempted insult is as lame as it is incorrect.
I didn't like IM3 because it was...boring. The bad guy was a dork. The good guy just kind of goofed off through most of the film.
Ben's performance was the one bright spot in the film.

Didn't the Dark Knight have a Chinese villain?

Frankly, Iron Man 2 and 3, Cap 1, Thor 1 and 2, and the Incredible Hulk have shown that Marvel is completely capable of producing mediocre, forgettable fare too. I'm not sure why the Marvel fanboys need to chime in and dump all over every thread about a DC character on film.

DC did that themselves with the terrible recent Batman films which threw away character development (look at the lauugable bad relationship between Batman and his so called girlf firend and compare it to the well crafted and believable one with Tony Stark and Pepper), a sense of the actual meaning of the charcter in favour of "Dark imgery" over susbtance and a series of set peices that the plot (such as it was) had to try and bridge - and failed.

I loved the Tim Burton first Batman film in direct contrast..................

I loved the older Superman films and found the new one again very disapointing - the Krypton bits in particular was just soooo bad.

Marvel currently makes films with heart, charcters, plot and a sense of enjoyment whilst maintaing dark aspects - DC makes films that are dark and have no heart or soul - just imagery.

IMO of course....

 d-usa wrote:
Didn't the Dark Knight have a Chinese villain?

Liam Neeson is Chinese?

squidhills wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Didn't the Dark Knight have a Chinese villain?

Liam Neeson is Chinese?

Liam Neeson is in 2 out of the 3 Batman movies.

You managed to make a joke about the one movie that doesn't include him.

Congratulations