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.

So, um....BATMAN IS HOLDING A fething GUN AT THE END?! feth you Snyder!

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.

You'll accept heavy weaponry on the Bat-vehicles, but not some kind of sonic blaster or even net gun in his hands? Okay then.

When he uses the heavy weaponry in non-lethal ways, but doesn't promote the use of the tool that killed his parents? Absolutely.

Parademons aren't people.

 Charles Rampant wrote:
Also the 'is she with you?' line is terrible.

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.

Clearly it shoots Kryptonite.

The gun that Batman is holding is the same as the "S" thugs were wielding; a G36.

The voice over by Lex suggest a pretty non-lethal Batman.

Exit: "if man won't kill god, the devil will"

I'm just waiting for batman to pull out the kryptonite knuckle dusters.

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.

..so a person popped up on Reddit claiming to have seen a test screen of this film :

mahoosive spoilers yeah ?!

possibly.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DC_Cinematic/comments/3ytdgv/saw_bvs_last_night_in_la/#spoiler

overall he's very happy with it.


Other sites have claimed later that this is false

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=17426

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.

But if it is ....

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.

When nobody cared about that ^

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.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
... I can only assume all the Marvel people have something to do with...

Hold up...

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.

*In the MCU, that is...

 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.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

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...

I like that comic book...enthusiasts...are arguing over which publisher's movies show more destruction.


Godzilla was in Marvel comics. What Godzilla does to Tokyo would be considered..unnatural.

 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.

 Breotan wrote:

 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

First TV spot:

and of course DC established that Superman is just there to defend the USA not the rest of the world

..hmm .. disagree entirely.

 Breotan wrote:

 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.

 Mr Morden wrote:

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.

 Mr Morden wrote:

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.

 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%.

 gorgon wrote:

 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.................