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.

It's in the Killing Joke that Batman probably kills the Joker. I say probably because the end is very vague, to the point where no one really talked about it much until Grant Morrison brought it up and made the case. The case makes sense, even moreso because it's Alan Moore. He was probably trying to write the "last" Batman/Joker story.

http://batman-news.com/2013/08/16/grant-morrison-batman-kills-joker-in-the-killing-joke/

Edit: Anyway, I think the intended point in BvS is that Bruce wasn't always like that (presumably it changed after the Joker killed one of the Robins), and at the end of the movie finds himself again.

 Da Boss wrote:
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.

I'm pretty much agreed with all of this. Watchmen (comic) was deconstructing the superhero genre, taking "great power & responsiblity" to an end.

Watchmen (film) did a tremendous job of adapting the comic, but I did not like how he changed the ending. There were better, more faithful options that could have been. Oh, well.

Watchmen (comic) was a landmark because it was such a groundbreaking deconstruction, trying to show the impact of what supers would have. Batman is all about the good means to an end.

I will watch BvS on Blu-Ray, and probably again if/when Snyder does a Directors Cut. I especially want to hear his commentary, because it's obvious that he was forced to do things that he didn't want to do. There's a lot of Hideaki Anno "FETH YOU ALL!" in BvS that will be amusing to have him talk to or willfully ignore.

As far as serials go, I really, really love the Clone Wars. Truly excellent.

Pfft. I don't think there's any real support for that. It certainly wasn't my take away.

I hate Morrison with a fiery passion though.

 Da Boss wrote:
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.

Yeah I love Dread too. Didn't even mind Stallone's version either except he spent too much time with the mask off. However, the 'Dread' movie was pretty dead on. Wish they would make 20 of those films.

 Da Boss wrote:
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.

The problem is that Judge Dredd is clearly a parody comic. Same with Lobo. Same with Punisher. When they turn a character that hardcore, he quickly becomes a joke. At least Deadpool is in on the joke.

Well, I LOVED the Punisher comic. So I guess I like parodies.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
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.

The problem is that Judge Dredd is clearly a parody comic. Same with Lobo. Same with Punisher. When they turn a character that hardcore, he quickly becomes a joke. At least Deadpool is in on the joke.

There are elements of parody in Judge Dredd but I wouldn't say it's pure parody. It's been a lot of things over the years, as you'd expect from a comic published weekly (and sometimes also monthly) for decades on end. I don't think Dredd is always a joke, sometimes the stories are very thoughtful and thought provoking.

Equally, I'd argue the best Punisher comics are the ones where Garth Ennis doesn't do his over the top gross out humour stuff and just tells and interesting story. Like, have you read Born? That story is friggin' awesome.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I will watch BvS on Blu-Ray, and probably again if/when Snyder does a Directors Cut. I especially want to hear his commentary, because it's obvious that he was forced to do things that he didn't want to do. There's a lot of Hideaki Anno "FETH YOU ALL!" in BvS that will be amusing to have him talk to or willfully ignore.

IMO (and I liked the film overall), you can "see the seams" in the story. It'll be interesting to see if the 3-hour Director's Cut (it is coming) improves this, or if some of the patchwork we're seeing is simply a result of a Goyer story that Terrio then rewrote, with both of them operating under a number of constraints. It seems easy in some cases to spot Terrio's influence, such as the Christopher Wren epitaph "if you seek his monument – look around you." I highly doubt that was Goyer.

JL will be solely Terrio and Snyder -- and fewer constraints should be placed on them for that one -- so it'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

Batman changing over the years is a good development. It just fits that after ohsomany years, he realized that he was wrong and that his lack of consequence led to the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of people.The constant failure he was to watch every day, the lack of change and the lack of the people's will to change, made him bitter and realize the cold, harsh truth: he cannot rely on the police to do the job, the corrupt bunch, who faciliated so many crimes and criminals getting away. He had to take fate in his own hands and end crime. Permanently.

Shortly after taking the dark path, he realized that he was right. The criminals weren't coming back, no bribing cops to get free, no selling each other out to get out of jail. A dead criminal cannot steal, rape or kill other people anymore. He stays dead. People were soon split on the new Batman. While some were embracing the new version of The Dark Knight thinking that he finally started to do something against crime, seeing his progress, others doomed him for his behavior, called him a low-life and hated him. The police turned on him, driven by false righteousness or hate.

Batman, however, still was The Dark Knight. Watching over the city. Differently. Yet still the silent guardian the city needs, not wants.

Ok I am getting off this thread, and just going to say I really like Snyder. He's a really talented guy. Was 300 historically accurate? No, but it looked just like the comic and was visually stunning. But the Spartans fighting for freedom and democracy? Lol come on. They even had slaves picking up the dead bodies at the battlefield. But the movie, is fun to watch.

I have to say I think the extended edition of Watchmen is near flawless. All the actors delivered.

Watched some of Sucker Punch, but not enough to form an opinion.

Man of Steel, great casting. Loved the first 3/4s of the film. But all the destruction, well, its desensitizing. Those around for 9/11, well, you dont forget the horror of a building with people collapsing. But when you show a whole city, like many movies from the Avengers to GI Joe do it, it kind of gets old. Like Stalin saying "A death of one is a tragedy, a death of a million is a statistic"). I am more impressed with the Daredevil hallway fight than I am with Superman vs Zod. Nevertheless, I hated the Reeves movies, so MoS is my favorite Superman movie.

Batman v Superman is awesome, but suffers from the overkill at the end. I dont need to see the world falling apart to appreciate an epic struggle. But the actors re-defined the characters to me and I appreciate that. And ironically, the first 10min showing the recap of the fight in MoS, was awesome. Showing all that from Bruce's point of view was far more powerful than what I saw in MoS. Loved it. Prob the most exciting start to a movie I have seen in many years.

But as visually awesome as Snyder movies are, he does a great job directing the actors. Who would have thought Affleck was going to crush this role 2 years ago? People even complaned about Gal, and she was one of the best parts.

Can't wait for Justice League.

All you guys enjoying Watchmen just show there is no accounting for taste.

And thanks for the personal attack, Hwang. Much appreciated.

I've actually read about half of the graphic novel. And found it as disappointing as the movie. And a large amount of the people I've asked have also read the book and hated the movie. It's not "deep". As much as you and Sig want to argue it is. The whole thing can be boiled down to "I want to be edgy and different from the super hero movies that are an escape from reality and drag them into a 'real world' setting". Honestly, it's pretty much the same thing as Game of Thrones/ASOFAI. A dark and damning idea that the writer HAS to be different from the other writers in his genre. Super heroes and fantasy stories are in general designed to be an escape from the reality of this world we live in. Super heroes, in addition to being an escape from reality, also have the challenging task of being people/characters we're supposed to look up to as they overcome odds we can't handle as regular people, while still retaining their humanity. Watchmen is not a super hero story. Not a proper one, anyway. It's the George RR Martin version of super heroes. And guess what; I dislike his work too. When something is built to be an escape from the real world, and you drag it back in, you defeat the entire purpose of its existence.

KTG17 wrote:
Ok I am getting off this thread, and just going to say I really like Snyder. He's a really talented guy. Was 300 historically accurate? No, but it looked just like the comic and was visually stunning. But the Spartans fighting for freedom and democracy? Lol come on. They even had slaves picking up the dead bodies at the battlefield. But the movie, is fun to watch.

I have to say I think the extended edition of Watchmen is near flawless. All the actors delivered.

Watched some of Sucker Punch, but not enough to form an opinion.

But as visually awesome as Snyder movies are, he does a great job directing the actors. Who would have thought Affleck was going to crush this role 2 years ago? People even complaned about Gal, and she was one of the best parts.

Can't wait for Justice League.

I like Snyder, too. I love that he had the balls to do 300 with all the comic-accurate beefcake of a gay porno. or so I'm told.

As above, I like Watchmen, and will probably watch it again. Despite the ending.

I enjoy watching Sucker Punch. It's gorgeous. Here, enjoy:


His direction is good. The problem for him is getting good writing. That's why Watchmen was so good until he veered off the comic. It's also why BvS is a clusterfeth. Bad writing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
And thanks for the personal attack, Hwang. Much appreciated.

Excuse you?

Did you not personally attack me?

And now you're calling that a "personal attack?"

I think I'll leave this to the mods to address what was, and wasn't a personal attack.

Thanks all.

I still suspect that I wont like the film, but I can give it a chance to prove me wrong when it rolls aound to the local discount movie night. Futhermore; if I've seen it, at least I can complain about it with authority.

Rule Number One Reminder ... and remember it's okay to like/not like things!

 Pendix wrote:
I still suspect that I wont like the film

To further confuse you, I really liked (not loved) Man of Steel but hated (not disliked) Batman versus Superman.

Ha I wanted to add that while I loved Watchmen the movie, hated the comic. Couldn't get past the art.

Blasphemy I hear? Whateva.

Nah you're not alone on that one. The artwork for Watchman was probably good back in 86 (I assume?), but it has not held up well to time imo. I read it after the movie came out, and the artwork was a put off. I procrastinated that book for awhile.

 gorgon wrote:

 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.

1) I was only suggesting why Reeve keeps coming up. For many, many people, his is the iconic Superman. If there is any person who can be that incorruptible good, it should be Superman. Cavill did a good job with what he was given, but the film was trying too hard to be edgy. If the direction, pacing and dialog were better, I wouldn't have a problem with the concept of a murkier Superman who finds his moral center through struggle.


2)In BVS, he is clearly conflicted, maybe a bit too conflicted, when it comes to saving lives. Clearly the film was going for a Dark Knight vibe with Lex as the Joker trying to make Superman break his own moral code. That conflict means a lot less with a Superdude's soul at stake rather than SuperChrist's. And really, Superman was always written as a paragon in his better stories. Batman is more relatable. The X-Men are even more relatable. Maybe Snyder shouldn't try to make an X-Men movie.

Point conceded on the scale and dichotomy of the two heroes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the Watchmen record, I really enjoyed the comic but felt no emotional response either way to the movie. It was. I saw it. I forgot it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its Hollywood accounting gimmicks, designed to insure even blockbusters somehow never make a profit.

No, studios don’t go about trying to make every film lose money on paper. That’s both pointless and impossible.

There is a thing where revenues and expenditure (especially studio overheads) are shifted around between films in order to make certain films lose money no matter what happens. Typically this is because someone involved in the film foolishly took ‘points on net’ as part of their salary, ie part of their remuneration comes from taking a share of the profits of the film. But there can be other reasons, profits are often shifted from film to film to ensure the best tax effect in each country of production.

But I’ve not heard one thing about Batman v Superman having those issues. This is a simple case of the studio getting, more or less overall, about 50% of the box office take. So for a $400m production, they need about $800m back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:
Seem like valid reasons to kill to me.

Yeah, both Superman's neck snapping, and Batman's kills were clearly justified by the events around them. Zod was just about to kill some terrified civilians right at that very second if Superman didn’t do something. The guys that Batman probably killed weren’t giving as clear a threat, but I think it’s more that they didn’t contrive events to avoid Batman having to use lethal force. Goons didn’t crash themselves trying to chase Batman, or set up all within punching distance of each other. If Batman was to take down a convoy to get that thing, or a room full of goons to make that rescue, he wasn’t going to be able to pull any punches.

Neither character murders in this iteration, they just don't have the luxury of circumstances allowing them to avoid using lethal force.

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.

It’s also to differentiate from Marvel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
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.

Actually, Ozymandias believed he had to wipe out a city in order to save billions. The point is that he was probably wrong, and the other Watchmen were also wrong in believing him. They were all wrong because they’d spent their lives in the muck, among the scum, that they couldn’t see things any other way.

That’s the point of the Tales of the Black Freighter, the hero there was so obsessed the threat of the Freighter to his home town. So he suffered through awful things, and then set about doing awful things just to make sure they were safe. But in the end the Freighter was never coming for the town, only to collect him for their crew, on account of what he himself did to the town.

That’s probably the cleverest thing about Watchmen – in almost all stories the actual super power everyone hero has is that they’re right all the time, they automatically understand the situation and act appropriately. Things that would are really bad ideas in the real world, like vigilantism, become justifiable because the heroes never screw up, never target the wrong person. Watchmen added that uncertainty back, even the guy who can literally see the future doesn’t know what’s going on. And the final commentary on that is that Ozy, and then the rest of the team, become certain that his awful plan is necessary. But of course they’re wrong, and they just wiped NYC for no reason.

Anyway, Watchmen the movie was… okay. The comic is brilliant, of course, but while Snyder’s interpretation was very faithful and well executed, but often what makes something great is its context. The 80s comic was a commentary on 80s comics. The 00s film was also a commentary 80s comics, because it was basically the same thing. We didn’t really need commentary on 80s comics by then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kojiro wrote:
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.

Did you see Robin’s suit in Batman’s lair, with ‘ho ho ho’ and some more text written across it?

Anyhow, this Batman still hasn’t murdered. He’s used lethal force, there’s a difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
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.

Absolutely, not every character has to be like that. And I like the Batman version where he doesn’t kill. He fit the Burton setting well, and honestly when he did kill in that universe it undermined the film.

But that was a very different setting than this one, and followed different themes. In BvS a Batman who used non-lethal gadgets and could resolve everything with clean hands just wouldn’t fit. There’s a line that they like so much they use it twice in the film - ‘power can be innocent’. You have to get your hands dirty to do good. Batman shows no qualms about getting his hands dirty, he is in contrast to Superman who remains a reluctant hero. To show that Batman, but then have him back off from lethal force (or worse, have events conspire around him so that bad guys can get taken out without Batman doing anything)… it just wouldn’t fit.

I understand that’s not a vision of Batman everyone wants or will enjoy, but it’s a valid look at the character, I think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The problem is that Judge Dredd is clearly a parody comic. Same with Lobo. Same with Punisher. When they turn a character that hardcore, he quickly becomes a joke. At least Deadpool is in on the joke.

As has already been mentioned, Dredd isn’t always a parody. He’s often played straight, as an anti-hero. The Punisher also isn’t parody, in most cases he's an anti-hero as well. Batman is commonly an anti-hero as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I've actually read about half of the graphic novel. And found it as disappointing as the movie. And a large amount of the people I've asked have also read the book and hated the movie. It's not "deep". As much as you and Sig want to argue it is. The whole thing can be boiled down to "I want to be edgy and different from the super hero movies that are an escape from reality and drag them into a 'real world' setting".

Watchmen has an incredible amount level of depth, concepts that link back to earlier concepts, frames that reference earlier frames, themes explored in multiple ways, from different viewpoints. It isn’t Ulysses, but like Ulysses the first reading is really just the prep work to read it again.

Reading half of it and then thinking you can comment on it’s depth is farcical.

When something is built to be an escape from the real world, and you drag it back in, you defeat the entire purpose of its existence.

A superhero story just involves giving some kind of special power to one or more people, from there it can go anywhere that the author takes it. Arguing that it can only become breezy, escapist fun is as silly as arguing that it has to be grim, dark storytelling. Both can happen, and a million other stories can be told. It’s just a concept to spur the imagination, and tell any kind of story you want. Putting rules on that isn’t just defeating the purpose of superhero stories, it’s defeating the purpose of stories.

THE WATCHMEN MOVIE WAS AWESOME!!!!

Especially the Comedian. I love that bastard.

Uhm...I find it hard to "love" a character that's a rapist who point-blank killed the mother of his unborn child.

Yeah he's a real bastard as I said.

I still say The Incredibles is the best Watchmen adaptation so far.
But that's probably just me.

 sebster wrote:
But that was a very different setting than this one, and followed different themes. In BvS a Batman who used non-lethal gadgets and could resolve everything with clean hands just wouldn’t fit. There’s a line that they like so much they use it twice in the film - ‘power can be innocent’. You have to get your hands dirty to do good. Batman shows no qualms about getting his hands dirty, he is in contrast to Superman who remains a reluctant hero. To show that Batman, but then have him back off from lethal force (or worse, have events conspire around him so that bad guys can get taken out without Batman doing anything)… it just wouldn’t fit.

Kind of a tangent, but power vs. powerlessness was an important theme in the film. Both Bruce and Lex are enormously powerful people by any normal definition, yet both developed the "fever" that Alfred talked about in the face of Clark's power. Of course, Lex's fever was a selfish thing -- I'm brilliant and rich, and it's not fair that I'm so powerless compared to that. Bruce's fever was obviously more of external concern -- humanity is powerless and at risk because of that. Still, both men turned cruel as Alfred stated.

But then neither was truly intimidated by Clark either. Different thing in that deleted scene when Lex learned of the New Gods and met Steppenwolf and his brain leaked out his ears.

I don't think that was his brain leaking out of his ears? I thought that it was supposed to be that whole goop he was standing in?

Watched the movie last night, and I gotta say I just don't know how Snyder keeps getting work. There were some things I liked about it, but on the whole I think it suffers from trying to do too much in one movie like Amazing Spider Man 2 did. It sounds like some fans are giving it a pass for that on the idea that it couldn't have been much better with all the ground they had to cover, but if your movie is too ambitious you need to reign it in and reduce the scope until you have something that's actually cohesive.

I surprisingly really liked Ben Affleck as Batman. I never thought I would say that, but I think he did a great job. I also really dug Jeremy Irons as Alfred, it was pretty cool to see a more hands on approach to that character. I can definitely understand people having issues with how cold blooded and utterly ruthless this Batman is, but I personally didn't mind it much for some reason. Maybe that makes me less of a fan, I don't know.

I really liked how they showed the events of Man of Steel through Bruce Wayne's eyes, that was really cool and well done. Definitely does a great job laying the groundwork for a confrontation between the two heroes. I also really enjoyed all the controversy about Superman and how it all affected him, making him question what he's really all about and becoming a reluctant hero. That stuff was great.

Things I didn't like: why the flying feth are Metropolis and Gotham so close together? Aren't these supposed to be two of the biggest cities in the DCEU? They just happen to be in spitting distance of each other? That was really dumb. The reason that they stop fighting was also really, really stupid. If they couldn't think of anything better, they should have scrapped the whole idea of them fighting each other to begin with. Wonder Woman was pretty bad ass, but felt completely and totally unnecessary to the movie along with the video clips of the other heroes. That kinda thing, if it had to be included, would have been better as a post credits scene rather than in the middle of the film.

Jesse Eisenberg was just... ugh, no. A lot of stuff with his character needed explanation. Why did he want them to fight? I mean a REAL reason, not just because he wanted to see God fall or whatever. How did he know what he was doing in the ship when he created Doomsday? The whole scene was like... boop beep, I have files on thousands of world. Would you like to create a Doomsday?

Overall I would say the movie easily deserves its current rotten tomatoes score.

I preferred Man of Steel to this but it was not bad.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
And really, Superman was always written as a paragon in his better stories.

I don't necessarily agree with that assessment. Then again, the truly great Superman stories are also few and far between. His books have mostly been a paragon of bad writing, frankly. People might think of The Death of Superman, but that story certainly wasn't great in terms of the writing -- that was a very simple, 7 issue brawl to the death with very little else to offer.

It's been in the Elseworlds and limited series where the stories have been better. The Superman: American Alien book currently running is one of the best Superman books in many years IMO, and is probably headed for greatness when all is said and done. And Clark is more of a Superdude in that series than a SuperChrist. He even hooks up with a future supervillain.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Goliath wrote:
I don't think that was his brain leaking out of his ears? I thought that it was supposed to be that whole goop he was standing in?

I didn't mean literally. I was referring to the fact that the look on his face made it seems as though his brain had gone through a blender.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Things I didn't like: why the flying feth are Metropolis and Gotham so close together? Aren't these supposed to be two of the biggest cities in the DCEU? They just happen to be in spitting distance of each other? That was really dumb. The reason that they stop fighting was also really, really stupid. If they couldn't think of anything better, they should have scrapped the whole idea of them fighting each other to begin with.

They're both different kinds of analogs for NYC, and in fact some past DC publications have placed them in close proximiity.



As someone who grew up on Bronze Age stuff, I can remember them being described as being in the northeast US and near NYC.

You're not the first person to have complained about this. But quite frankly, this is another example of a baseless gripe by fans who aren't as knowledgeable about this stuff as they think they are.

Metropolis is in Delaware? Delaware? WTF?

 creeping-deth87 wrote:


Jesse Eisenberg was just... ugh, no. A lot of stuff with his character needed explanation. Why did he want them to fight? I mean a REAL reason, not just because he wanted to see God fall or whatever. How did he know what he was doing in the ship when he created Doomsday? The whole scene was like... boop beep, I have files on thousands of world. Would you like to create a Doomsday?

Overall I would say the movie easily deserves its current rotten tomatoes score.

The passage of time wasn't clear, but Lex is a super genius who suddenly had access to all the knowledge of a vastly more technologically advanced civilisation. It seemed pretty clear that he had to go back to get Zods body, so it's not as though he knew exactly what he was going to be able to do going in the the ship.

I only had a slight problem with his Lex right at the end when he started to drift a little more into Batman villain territory, which wasn't too sour a note given the amount of Batman we saw in the movie.

I enjoyed the movie. It felt like a comic book, possibly more so than any other super hero movie so far, for better or for worse.
It won't be in my top 5 super hero movies by any means but I'm interested to see where it goes.
If anything I hope it does well enough to continue down this path and not necessitate another bloody reboot.

 gorgon wrote:


They're both different kinds of analogs for NYC, and in fact some past DC publications have placed them in close proximiity.



As someone who grew up on Bronze Age stuff, I can remember them being described as being in the northeast US and near NYC.

You're not the first person to have complained about this. But quite frankly, this is another example of a baseless gripe by fans who aren't as knowledgeable about this stuff as they think they are.

Never said I was knowledgeable. I've read two comic books in my entire life. Knowing there's precedent for their proximity in the comics makes it a little easier to swallow, but it still seems pretty silly.

 plastictrees wrote:


The passage of time wasn't clear, but Lex is a super genius who suddenly had access to all the knowledge of a vastly more technologically advanced civilisation. It seemed pretty clear that he had to go back to get Zods body, so it's not as though he knew exactly what he was going to be able to do going in the the ship.

.

See, it doesn't really seem like he's a super genius. The movie does a great job of making him seem eccentric but not so much intelligent. If the reason he knows how to make Doomsday is because he suddenly has all this vast knowledge, they did a really poor job of showing that in the movie.