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.

Weren't most of the people he killed, nameless henchmen in a vision of a possible future and to punctuate how grim things had become? Other than that there were the two guys on the .50 cals, the guy with the Flamethrower and probably some dudes in the car chase.

Seem like valid reasons to kill to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw WB deliberately went dark because of how bad Green Lantern was received. They want less humor and more of a serious tone. It's not just Snyder. Suicide Squad will be the same way.

 gorgon wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
This is one of the most pathetic movies I have ever seen. I am pretty sure it was directed by a committee of accountants. Batman is a moron who uses guns to kill people without pause or remorse. Wonder Woman is an after thought in every possible sense. Superman is the only sympathetic character but his greatest foe is the script itself, which overpowers him again and again until it finally kills him and then hounds him in the grave. I have never before walked out of a theater with such a strong sense of the basic contempt in which a studio can hold the movie-going public.

Did we see the same movie? I would love to see what you expected to happen. Like in detail.

Batman killing without pause or remorse? This isnt the Batman of the 1950s. Batman has been getting darker and darker since the late 80s. The idea that a 'hero' only using his fists, is always going to find himself not having to resort to lethal methods at some point while facing guys with G36s and other assault rifles is just as looney as the idea of someone going up against guys with G36s with just his fists. This Batman is scarred from losing he friends to guys he was trying to defeat without killing. I think its reasonable for him to set that restriction aside from time to time, after all, these guys are trying to kill him.

Its like hearing Superman murdered Zod. Absolutely ridiculous. Zod was hell bent on killing everyone on earth, and gave Superman no choice in killing him. If anything, Superman is guilty of not killing him sooner.

Well, some folks just don't like an overly dark and disturbed Batman. I think the conclusion intended to show a Batman who got his groove back. But this Batman -- clearly TDKR-inspired, but also maybe a step beyond that -- was fairly batgak crazy for the majority of the film, and darn near a villain, which doesn't reflect what we see in current comics.

Stepping back, I think finding the right tone/characterization for the DC characters is a little trickier than the characters in the Marvel-made films, which were more of a blank slate to the general audience. Heck, the Marvel movie characters are now informing the comic versions, something you especially see with Iron Man. I simply don't remember Tony Stark being as happy-go-lucky or wisecracky in the past as he's been post-RDJ.

Meanwhile, in both comments and reviews for both MoS and BvS, Christopher Reeve tends to come up again and again. It's a narrow, single rendition of the character across its extensive history (similar to the BvS Batman), but clearly people like a Superman talks corny, acts the fool as Clark Kent, and wears a big grin a lot. *shrug* Personally that wouldn't play well with me, since I feel like we moved past that Silver/Bronze Age version a long time ago in the comics.

It was probably always going to be harder to suit everyone with the DC characters, but it's fair to say that the WB folks definitely rolled the dice with some of their choices. I have no issues with their handling of Superman to date, but if the Injustice-type scenario that Bruce's vision and Flash seem to be warning us about sees any real fruition in future films...I think that would be a big misstep. I feel like the end of BvS moved us past Superman as a controversial figure or villain, and they should probably tread lightly there going forward in the DCEU.

The Christopher Reeve Superman tapped into what made Superman so ingrained into popular culture in the first place: he was a super hero not because of his powers but because of his outlook. The movie was a bit heavy with the Christ metaphors, but it absolutely nailed that Superman was supposed to show people how good they could be, that he was an example to everyone. To be like Superman did not mean to fly, but to see the capacity for good in everyone. Snyder's Superman leaves that element out, although it looks like he is getting there the hard way. There are lots of superheroes who can punch planets out of their orbits, but only Superman was known for the absolute goodness of his actions...even if that wasn't strictly true in the material. The idea of Superman was more important than the man himself.

Batman saw every person as a potential criminal; Superman saw every criminal as a person. At least, that's the stereotype.

Just got back from seeing it...

Best comic book movie ever, except possibly The Dark Knight (that particular decision requires a directors cut of BvS and a back-to-back viewing to call that one... ). I don't know what the critics that slammed it were watching, but it wasn't the movie I just saw.

I'll write up a more thorough review later on, but for now, I'll just say that if anyone's on the fence, go and see it now! There's a load for comic fans to get their teeth into, plenty of awesome action even if you've never read a Batman or Superman comic, fantastic visuals and score, and generally an awesome movie.

Claiming that BvS is superior to comic book movies like Watchmen is just...wow. Have you /seen/ another superhero movie? D:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Christopher Reeve Superman tapped into what made Superman so ingrained into popular culture in the first place: he was a super hero not because of his powers but because of his outlook. The movie was a bit heavy with the Christ metaphors, but it absolutely nailed that Superman was supposed to show people how good they could be, that he was an example to everyone. To be like Superman did not mean to fly, but to see the capacity for good in everyone. Snyder's Superman leaves that element out, although it looks like he is getting there the hard way. There are lots of superheroes who can punch planets out of their orbits, but only Superman was known for the absolute goodness of his actions...even if that wasn't strictly true in the material. The idea of Superman was more important than the man himself.

Batman saw every person as a potential criminal; Superman saw every criminal as a person. At least, that's the stereotype.

Two points in response.

1) Most of the criticism that I've seen of the BvS Superman (let's table MoS for now) isn't about him not striving to help or set an example, and in fact he's shown saving plenty of people worldwide without prejudice and more or less dies twice during the film trying to save humanity. Instead, much of the criticism is focused around him being too "morose." Ergo...it must be about the fly-by grins and "good vibrations" cornball stuff for some people.

2) People are simply divided on Superman. Some want him to be a perfect paragon. Others find that boring and want him to be more relatable. To make him relatable means making him more like us, which is...imperfect. Call it SuperChrist vs. Superdude. I'm not a big fan of reducing things to binary arguments, but perfection is a binary concept, and I don't think people firmly in one camp or another will ever be satisfied with the other thing.

I also disagree with your Batman/Superman contrast. To me, the difference is that Batman is more focused on individual people. He fights local gangsters and saves people from muggings. This is very fitting for a hero borne out of the deaths of just two particular people. Superman's focus tends to be larger-scale or even global. He saves individuals too, but tends to spend more time stopping erupting volcanos and deflecting asteroids. This flows naturally from his "birth" out of the deaths of an entire civilization.

I think Watchmen and 300 are the only Zack Snyder films I actually enjoyed lol.

I just saw this spoiler review summary thing and it is funny as hell to read.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/batman-v-superman-spoiler-faq-of-justice-1767720335

I strongly dislike the sudden objection to characterizing Snyder's BvS as a "DC Murderverse", because it has been this way from the beginning. Burton's Batman straight up murders goons without a shred of remorse. And it's hysterical. That's exactly what Batman *should* be doing in the movies. Stone cold murdering bad guys. For funsies. Like the Punisher. Because he is literally batgak insane and belongs in Arkham Asylum, not running amok on the streets. At least Button got that. And so does Snyder.

I do like how Snyder worked really hard to tell DC "feth you" in no uncertain terms. He did a fantastic job of checking each of the boxes that DC dictated he had to do. And telling them to all feth themselves as he did it.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Claiming that BvS is superior to comic book movies like Watchmen is just...wow. Have you /seen/ another superhero movie? D:

Watchmen is one of the few I haven't actually seen, but other than that, I've watched and enjoyed most of the ones made in the last decade or so. Pretty much all the Batman films (and dislike all except the Nolan ones really, the Burton ones do nothing for me), everything Marvel has done (90% of which I'm a huge fan of, only IM2&3 and Hulk I dislike), not to mention the various TV series in recent years that I've watched almost all of... hell, I even liked Green Lantern!

Frankly, BvS beat the hell out of all of them in scope, scale, look, weight, depth, cast, script... aside from the first 30 minutes which were maybe overcrowded and mixed, I can't fault any aspect of it. I loved it from start to finish.

All just an opinion of course, but yes, I do know what I'm talking about!

For the record, my top 5:

1) BvS
2) The Dark Knight
3) Avengers Assemble
4) The Winter Solider
5) Man of Steel

BvS was leaps and bounds better than Watchmen, which was terrible. It was also better than MoS by a landslide. It was not better than the first Avengers movie, X-men 2, Iron Man, CA: Winter Soldier, or the super recent Deadpool movie. ALL of those were better. Subjective opinions and all that, and while I disagree with the rating BvS received, I fully agree that it's rating should be lower than those I just listed. But not by the amount it was.

If you want to go by accuracy alone, DP would be the undeniable (except by nutjobs) winner of comic movies. Can't get much more accurate than having the actual creators be hands on during the entire process, where they only make a couple minor tweaks to avoid over-saturating the average moviegoers. But I digress. BvS was great. Just not as great as you're suggesting, Para.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

If you want to go by accuracy alone, DP would be the undeniable (except by nutjobs) winner of comic movies.

I would agree with this 100%, while acknowledging that without all those other comic book movies to build the genre, Dead Pool probably would have never worked. So much of what made Dead Pool great is dependent on all those other movies (good and bad) existing

We've relegated this must see to "maybe rental," based on the terrible word of mouth. Worse to worst we can fast forward what we don't like.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
BvS was leaps and bounds better than Watchmen, which was terrible.

I'd post an animated gif with someone's head comically violently exploding, but that would trigger the mods.

 Frazzled wrote:
We've relegated this must see to "maybe rental," based on the terrible word of mouth. Worse to worst we can fast forward what we don't like.

Director's Cut is 30 minutes (!!!) longer, so it's a win-win

 timetowaste85 wrote:
better than Watchmen, which was terrible.

Hold on there, Watchmen was great.

Except for the ending. That was truly terrible.

But everything building up to that? Great.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
better than Watchmen, which was terrible.

Hold on there, Watchmen was great.

Except for the ending. That was truly terrible.

But everything building up to that? Great.

Ugh. Other than the creepy kid who only wore trenchcoats and a Watchmen shirt, I never met a single person in real life who enjoyed it. It was the most depressing super hero movie ever created. Super heroes were supposed to teach about rising above the challenges. Not turning on each other and killing each other off because "times change". It was a foul abomination of a movie.

Wow I thought Watchmen was great too.

Until I saw the extended edition. Then I realized that the Extended was a masterpiece and the Theater version was just ok.

When I love the characters, I want more of them, so I have no problem with 3-4 hour long movies. Some movies arent long enough, like Blade Runner. I would have loved a 6 hour movie of that.

And I think the same will be with BvS. Whatever people are complaining about the editing and plot will prob be explained better as the movie was originally shot to be the 3 hour version, but then was edited down to 2:15. So in July I think most of us will think of the Extended edition as the definitive edition, like the extended is for Watchmen.

Or the Directors cut for Apocalypse Now. The Theater version was amazing. The extended, a masterpiece.

Remember they chop the movie down for the simpletons.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
better than Watchmen, which was terrible.

Hold on there, Watchmen was great.

Except for the ending. That was truly terrible.

But everything building up to that? Great.

Ugh. Other than the creepy kid who only wore trenchcoats and a Watchmen shirt, I never met a single person in real life who enjoyed it. It was the most depressing super hero movie ever created. Super heroes were supposed to teach about rising above the challenges. Not turning on each other and killing each other off because "times change". It was a foul abomination of a movie.

The comic also had the heroes killing each other, that wasnt something just created for the movie. Most people I know that didnt like the movie, dont like it for the changes that were made to the comic and certain of the actors, not because it was a dark universe.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Super heroes were supposed to teach about rising above the challenges. Not turning on each other and killing each other off because "times change". It was a foul abomination of a movie.

Lol wow. So because these super heros acted more like people, it was a gakky movie? Man, the world must be a frustrating place from your view in the tower, with all the random chaos going on down below.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
better than Watchmen, which was terrible.

Hold on there, Watchmen was great.

Except for the ending. That was truly terrible.

But everything building up to that? Great.

Ugh. Other than the creepy kid who only wore trenchcoats and a Watchmen shirt, I never met a single person in real life who enjoyed it. It was the most depressing super hero movie ever created. Super heroes were supposed to teach about rising above the challenges. Not turning on each other and killing each other off because "times change". It was a foul abomination of a movie.

The comic also had the heroes killing each other, that wasnt something just created for the movie. Most people I know that didnt like the movie, dont like it for the changes that were made to the comic and certain of the actors, not because it was a dark universe.

In other words, blame Alan Moore -- a man singularly obsessed with bringing the age of the superhero to a close -- and not Zack Snyder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
We've relegated this must see to "maybe rental," based on the terrible word of mouth. Worse to worst we can fast forward what we don't like.

You may or may not enjoy the film, but the visuals are IMO worth the price of admission. Something to consider. I'd like to see it again in IMAX.

No offense, like, really, no offense, but to me, it just seems that you did not understand the movie. The entire movie was about what you just described - failing and fading superheroes. All of the Watchmen were what you described to the people - superheroes, saving people. Watchmen then goes a step beyond and looks at them after their prime time - what happened to the people behind the mask, to those with and without superpowers. Watchmen was about people with superpowers, not about supermans [sic]. It /wanted/ to be depressing, it was an adult movie. It wasn't about superheroes fighting each other, it was about people facing themselves and their past.

Superheroes aren't supposed to teach anything, by their very definition, they are people with outstanding powers. Simple movies have one-dimensional heroes such as Superman who shine glory and righteousness, good vs. evil, whereas more complex movies don't idealize superheroes, but take a more realistic look at them. Ozimandias turning against his fellow former co-heroes wasn't mindless killing, that's the crucial point - he did it to save billions of people and succeeded. Even Dr. Manhatten, one of the if not /the/ most powerful superhero that there is, had to yield to Ozimandia's intellect and planning. Now - if saving billions of people isn't superhero-y...what is?

So again, this isn't meant to imply that you are dumb or something, but Watchmen is a complex movie that is very, very different from simple movies like MoS, Elektra (hahahaha...sorry) etc. I understand that you, personally, did not like it because it didn't fit your super-idealized idea of a superhero, yet you can't fault the movie for it

KTG17 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Super heroes were supposed to teach about rising above the challenges. Not turning on each other and killing each other off because "times change". It was a foul abomination of a movie.

Lol wow. So because these super heros acted more like people, it was a gakky movie? Man, the world must be a frustrating place from your view in the tower, with all the random chaos going on down below.

Help me out. You're ragging on someone about ivory towers when you're talking about a FREAKING comic book? Seriously?

Lets just say there are many many people who have no problem with films but think Watchmen was...unwatchable. These are comic book movies made from comics who's target audience is inexperienced 14 year old boys. African Queen it aint.

Mmm African Queen. I miss my VHS of that. Childrenz, VHS was something called a tape. Your parents thought they were great.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

I strongly dislike the sudden objection to characterizing Snyder's BvS as a "DC Murderverse", because it has been this way from the beginning.

I will admit it's jarring to me to see Superman just outright paste a guy, even if he is holding Lois hostage (there's no way he survived being rammed through that wall at that speed, if he even survived impact with Superman at that speed). But one thing I do see as a possible future problem is if this version of Batman meets the Snyderverse Joker from Suicide Squad. The classic story ends with the Joker locked up (inevitably to escape again) and Batman's refusal to kill him. I can't see this Batman not just killing the Joker if they crossed paths- especially since it seems like they already have history.

The point of Watchmen as a story is to show how Superheroes would be flawed and weird in the real world.

I thought the movie adaptation was pretty good.

The comic is great for what it's trying to do, it does it really well. But I don't need every superhero to be like that, you know? I'm happy with Batman having his moral code and Superman representing all that's best about America and all that jazz. I was also fine with Batman being like the only major action protagonist who is anti-gun. I think considering the message these media send out to young kids is worthwhile (I would say that as a teacher I'm such a square).

That's not to say that liking BvS is badwrongfun. I am pretty sure I will hate it if I ever see it, but one of the cool things about comics is being able to have a lot of different takes on a character. It's the last home of the serial, and it gets a lot of stick for that, but it's pretty damn cool really.

 Sigvatr wrote:
No offense, like, really, no offense, but to me, it just seems that you did not understand the movie. The entire movie was about what you just described - failing and fading superheroes. All of the Watchmen were what you described to the people - superheroes, saving people. Watchmen then goes a step beyond and looks at them after their prime time - what happened to the people behind the mask, to those with and without superpowers. Watchmen was about people with superpowers, not about supermans [sic]. It /wanted/ to be depressing, it was an adult movie. It wasn't about superheroes fighting each other, it was about people facing themselves and their past.

Superheroes aren't supposed to teach anything, by their very definition, they are people with outstanding powers. Simple movies have one-dimensional heroes such as Superman who shine glory and righteousness, good vs. evil, whereas more complex movies don't idealize superheroes, but take a more realistic look at them. Ozimandias turning against his fellow former co-heroes wasn't mindless killing, that's the crucial point - he did it to save billions of people and succeeded. Even Dr. Manhatten, one of the if not /the/ most powerful superhero that there is, had to yield to Ozimandia's intellect and planning. Now - if saving billions of people isn't superhero-y...what is?

So again, this isn't meant to imply that you are dumb or something, but Watchmen is a complex movie that is very, very different from simple movies like MoS, Elektra (hahahaha...sorry) etc. I understand that you, personally, did not like it because it didn't fit your super-idealized idea of a superhero, yet you can't fault the movie for it

Well said.

 Frazzled wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Super heroes were supposed to teach about rising above the challenges. Not turning on each other and killing each other off because "times change". It was a foul abomination of a movie.

Lol wow. So because these super heros acted more like people, it was a gakky movie? Man, the world must be a frustrating place from your view in the tower, with all the random chaos going on down below.

Help me out. You're ragging on someone about ivory towers when you're talking about a FREAKING comic book? Seriously?

Lets just say there are many many people who have no problem with films but think Watchmen was...unwatchable. These are comic book movies made from comics who's target audience is inexperienced 14 year old boys.

Are we talking on the same website? This is a gaming site. One that heavily revolves around 40k. While you could argue 40k is for kids, its actually a very complex universe that can be appreciated by lots of ages. I highly doubt most of the novels written for 40k are being read by kids. The same for applies for comics. Many comics are not the 1950s version of Batman as you seem to think. Many deal with the darker and more realistic aspects of the humanity behind the superhero masks. Not really something a 14 year old would understand. Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, etc, sure, mostly for kids. The Dark Knight Returns, Arkham Asylum, The Watchmen, and others, not quite are.

Exploring the multi-layers of the mind is what makes these stories so interesting. You on the otherhand, seem to need to see things in absolutes. Keep in mind that some of these older characters were written at a time when values were a little different and things have changed a lot since then. If Superman was created today, who knows maybe the creater would have done something more complex like Spawn. The vast majority of people want to relate to characters in some way, and who the heck really can relate to Superman? You have to humanize him. And that makes him complex.

Same for Batman, and Wonder Woman too when her movie comes out. All these characters should be a little dark. The world is a F'ed up place.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I can't see this Batman not just killing the Joker if they crossed paths- especially since it seems like they already have history.

In The Dark Knight Returns, which heavily influenced BvS, Batman does kill the Joker. He kills Killer Croc in Arkham Asylum too. So Batman has been shown to kill before. Peeps just dont know it.

But that is one thing I do find interesting, everyone has their own ideas about what these characters should be and shouldnt. Like, I played with Star Wars figures growing up, and I loved playing with Boba Fett. When they showed him in Episode 2, I hated it. I saw myself under that helmet, and didnt need his origin. But some peeps do. And then they have this idea what Boba would or wouldnt do. I guess everyone is right in a way.

I'm pretty sure this version of Batman IS in the upcoming Suicide Squad movie!

He is. Its Affleck.

Not to be THAT comic book guy, but in DKR, Batman cripples the Joker and then the Joker kills himself to frame him.

And even the crippling is seen as a huge moral deal at that point - it's built up to through the entire encounter.

lol yeah its been awhile since I read it. But I have the frame of joker's dead face and the HA HA HAs all around it stuck in my head.

Nevertheless, he still crippled him! Sheesh. Might as well kill him. Or would that not be the superhero thing to do... hmmm?

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Hold on there, Watchmen was great.

Except for the ending. That was truly terrible.

But everything building up to that? Great.

Ugh. Other than the creepy kid who only wore trenchcoats and a Watchmen shirt, I never met a single person in real life who enjoyed it.

It was the most depressing super hero movie ever created. Super heroes were supposed to teach about rising above the challenges. Not turning on each other and killing each other off because "times change". It was a foul abomination of a movie.

Thanks, I'll bet you're a delight, too...

Did you not read the comic? I'll bet you didn't.

Sure, and that was the point of DKR - an exploration of an alternate, darker future where the world had gone to hell. It was notable for how it diverged from the mainstream batman. It was a really cool comic and made a big impression on me.

I've got no problem with hardcore characters - Judge Dredd is one of my all time favourites and he's a complete bastard. But I don't think every character has to be like that for it to be cool.