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.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The SS reshoots were decided when Deadpool started breaking box office records. While not uncommon, it's never a good sign, as it means that the studio has lost confidence in the original director's work, and has started meddling.

There's no evidence that this has anything to do anything other than Suicide Squad. Everything isn't about Marvel or Marvel character films. Suicide Squad isn't going to be Deadpool anyway, not unless they reshoot the entire film with a different director and script. Ayer isn't that kind of filmmaker. Besides, as Faraci's article on birth.movies.death even states:

The enormous positive response to the trailer led to Warner Bros requesting reshoots that would alter the tone of the film, bringing in some more of the lightness to which audiences responded.

Hearing that WB is aware that they need to inject some fun into these movies - and that's what I'm hearing is happening here, not that they're inserting jokes left and right but that they're beefing up fun character moments and interactions

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charles Rampant wrote:
I watched the Screen Junkies 58-minute discussion on this earlier today, while aggressively procrastinating on actual work, and there heard the interesting snippet that the screenings for the pre-release version were really positive; this pre-release version is apparently the 3-hour version that they are releasing this summer. Despite these good screenings, WB (or Synder?) decided to edit the film by another 30 minutes, to make the theatrical release, which was not so well received.

I wonder what would have happened if they just left it alone?

A bunch of irritated theater owners, I imagine. They don't want 3 hour films.

And again, I doubt it would have changed much. Folks were lined up to bash this one (note that's not the same thing as saying everyone who was negative is merely bashing). The deleted scene suggests that certain things will be explored/explained more (just that scene improves the bit about the painting), but that they might also require a deeper dive into DC lore, etc.

Had they made a big, dumb, crowd-pleasing, Marvel-style Golden Retriever of a film, that might have made a difference. Or not. Sometimes the winds just blow a certain way. You see this happen in music, TV, etc. where something doesn't find its audience during its initial release and later finds one. I'll never understand how Age of Ultron wasn't panned more by critics, other than that Marvel got some kind of mulligan based on the success of the first film. I'll take Doomsday's CGI over loosey-goosey Ultron with James Spader's unaltered voice, and take the "YouTube" heroes segment over Thor in the cave as an inserted universe-building moment that has nothing to do with that film. *shrug*

 Baragash wrote:
Unfortunately I can't find a link (at least right now) but I read an article about 6 months ago that said 4x movie production budget is the true "break even" target (ie the point at which enough profit is made to be job well done).

That probably isn't just box office but everything else, merchandising, tie-ins, all that stuff. Even then it's a completely arbitrary number, different films have completely different business models.

You know what I think the actual story of Batman v Superman is? That they made this movie, it got swamped with negative press before release, got pretty bad reviews, and is overlong and kind of messy, and it is still going to take in something north of $700m. That tells you something about how strong a brand Batman and Superman have.

If I was at WB I'd be getting rather excited about how strong box office and merchandising might become if they make one of these films that gets positive press, good reviews and is actually really good.

Saw this last night...

I want to say that the acting was superb. I was worried, but Afflect nailed Waynes/Batman and I really loved that Wonder Woman chick.

It's just that the plot was horribad. I got nothing good to say about the story...

Also.... holy Batman! Afflect Hulked out!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Which probably has some studio execs panicking that they're not going to get the $1B that they wanted.

Jesus here it is again - pick a number that you decided that the studio 'wanted', and then judge performance against that. It is the silliest way to judge financial performance I can imagine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
What I'm concerned with is DC knee-jerk reactively deciding they need slapstick and 4th-wall breaking stuff. Edgar Wright stuff. Rather than the natural comedy that fits the team and the genre.

You're just making things up. There is nothing in WB's treatment of DC properties that shows them wanting to follow Marvel in that way - they've actually looked to differentiate themselves, go dark and serious as heavily as Marvel have gone light and comedic.

The most obvious, and simplest explanation, is that the film as it currently stands isn't what the studio wanted. It's got David Ayer writing and directing, and that guy's work, Training Day, Fury etc makes Snyder look light and breezy. That explains the studio putting out the trailer focusing on the comedy and crazy stuff, checking that their understanding of the material is closer to what fans want than Ayer's. And when that was confirmed, well it's back to re-shoot.

But nothing in any of that says 'oh people liked Deadpool and he makes goofy jokes and breaks the fourth wall so let's do that'. You've invented that in your own head.

Also, you called BvS a debacle. It's going to gross upwards of $700m. You're just not being very sensible about any of this.

Oh...so one of the little things I missed the first time but noticed the second time around involves the "Knightmare" sequence.

After Bruce "wakes" following Flash's message, there are papers blowing around the Batcave. So it's not strictly a dream, as if we didn't know that already.

Oddly, I never noticed that - it was the otherwise- secret information he passed on that clued me in.

The whole future sequence could have been a dream until then. Actually, now that I think about it, it could still be - IIRC, Bruce woke up, then future Flash appeared.

I thought Future Flash actually woke Bruce up!

I think that the Blu-Ray/DVD better come with a friggin' cheat sheet for what is going on!

 gorgon wrote:
Oh...so one of the little things I missed the first time but noticed the second time around involves the "Knightmare" sequence.

After Bruce "wakes" following Flash's message, there are papers blowing around the Batcave. So it's not strictly a dream, as if we didn't know that already.

So what the hell is it?!! A vison sent from the Gods - given Wonderwoman presence - who knows

It was portrayed as neither one thing or another and just turned out to be a plot device as bad as Thors dream in the otherwise excellent Avengers 2 - why is not made clear what the hell is going on when studios are trying to get non comic fans to watch their films? Yeah make stuff interesting, make it complex, but don;t just throw wierd stuff in without any kind of internal reference.

Actually, now that I think about it, it could still be - IIRC, Bruce woke up, then future Flash appeared

I thought he woke up in the batcave after seeing the guy in the portal?

For me the main problem with the film sems to be that they got a title and theme - "Batman and Superman have a fight" and tried to build everything around that one element - and it simply does not work very well - there is lots of crowbaring various plot elements in to get that fight - which is well done but there is so much more they could have done - in a tighter film

Every horribly cringeworthy scene with Lex could have been another Wonder woman scene for instance
A Joker style villian, - hell the Joker would have worked much better - scheming and plotting to get the two good guys to fight. - Lex is poorly used and portrayed - its embaressing to watch.

I liked the Lois / Superman story - I feel that Marvel do "people" so so much better but in this film with those two and Batman, Alfred, at lest they tried!

As usual cut another half an hour out of the film and it would have been better.

Mostly this film made me want to see a Wonderwoman film! Oh and Suicide Squad - DC finally realised that black comedy is great.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Oh...so one of the little things I missed the first time but noticed the second time around involves the "Knightmare" sequence.

After Bruce "wakes" following Flash's message, there are papers blowing around the Batcave. So it's not strictly a dream, as if we didn't know that already.

So what the hell is it?!! A vison sent from the Gods - given Wonderwoman presence - who knows

It was portrayed as neither one thing or another and just turned out to be a plot device as bad as Thors dream in the otherwise excellent Avengers 2 - why is not made clear what the hell is going on when studios are trying to get non comic fans to watch their films? Yeah make stuff interesting, make it complex, but don;t just throw wierd stuff in without any kind of internal reference.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on Avengers 2, but yes, Snyder has a habit of catering to more diehard comics fans over general audiences. He's said that this film was the closest thing he'll ever have to directing a Dark Knight Returns movie, and he certainly worked in a lot of elements from TDKR. But that story wouldn't necessarily be a crowd-pleaser for everyone.

It's probably fair to say that BvS is a little too "inside baseball," to use an American term. That's undoubtedly why they cut the Steppenwolf scene, even though it connects to and makes more sense of the story element involving the painting. And that's why I'm guessing that the 3-hour version won't be any more crowd-pleasing to non-comics fans...it probably digs even deeper, although it's possible that the story will flow better and the diehards will like it even more.

The placement of the Knightmare sequence was odd in some respects. But then they have to create the threat and thereby a motivation to form the JL. It would make more sense at the end of the film, probably. Marvel would have put it in some kind of after-credits thing (supposedly we might get 3(!) of those in Civil War...which is dumb). But during the movie proper, you have the big fight and the death to work around. Can't interrupt those.

Like I think I said in my original comments, this wasn't an easy film to make considering all the stuff it had to do. Now, should the Knightmare sequence and Flash message have been quite that cryptic? Maybe not. It may pay off handsomely down the road, but as the first official DCEU film, maybe you worry more about keeping general audiences focused on THIS film.

As for what it is, my best guess is that it's a message of sorts from the New Gods to the guy most capable of organizing the troops and a defense against what's coming.

Saw it today, I thought characters needed more development, and there were themes I found interesting. The whole argument over the power of superman and the need for protection from him. It was a shame to me the court room scene amounted to just an explosion, because I really wanted to hear both sides speak. Superman never got to have a platform to speak to humanity and be questioned. I would have liked more development if big ideas instead of the huge monster fight scene which felt a bit tacked on after the buildup to the Superman-Batman fight.

Quite frankly, simply the creation of Doomsday is enough of a threat to pull the Justice League together.

Darkseid isn't necessary unless the *next* movie is the JLA one. And it isn't. We have SS and WW coming up before JLA.

SS is a smaller film, regional at best, no larger than the USA. It's a natural place to introduce Cyborg, for example.

WW is a global film, and is a better place to have introduced other JLA members, such as Aquaman.

JLA would be a great place to defeat final Doomsday and have Scott Free appear with Darkseid looming.

But that would be if DC can pace their movies appropriately, letting each movie breathe a bit.

 gorgon wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Oh...so one of the little things I missed the first time but noticed the second time around involves the "Knightmare" sequence.

After Bruce "wakes" following Flash's message, there are papers blowing around the Batcave. So it's not strictly a dream, as if we didn't know that already.

So what the hell is it?!! A vison sent from the Gods - given Wonderwoman presence - who knows

It was portrayed as neither one thing or another and just turned out to be a plot device as bad as Thors dream in the otherwise excellent Avengers 2 - why is not made clear what the hell is going on when studios are trying to get non comic fans to watch their films? Yeah make stuff interesting, make it complex, but don;t just throw wierd stuff in without any kind of internal reference.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on Avengers 2, but yes, Snyder has a habit of catering to more diehard comics fans over general audiences. He's said that this film was the closest thing he'll ever have to directing a Dark Knight Returns movie, and he certainly worked in a lot of elements from TDKR. But that story wouldn't necessarily be a crowd-pleaser for everyone.

It's probably fair to say that BvS is a little too "inside baseball," to use an American term. That's undoubtedly why they cut the Steppenwolf scene, even though it connects to and makes more sense of the story element involving the painting. And that's why I'm guessing that the 3-hour version won't be any more crowd-pleasing to non-comics fans...it probably digs even deeper, although it's possible that the story will flow better and the diehards will like it even more.

The placement of the Knightmare sequence was odd in some respects. But then they have to create the threat and thereby a motivation to form the JL. It would make more sense at the end of the film, probably. Marvel would have put it in some kind of after-credits thing (supposedly we might get 3(!) of those in Civil War...which is dumb). But during the movie proper, you have the big fight and the death to work around. Can't interrupt those.

Like I think I said in my original comments, this wasn't an easy film to make considering all the stuff it had to do. Now, should the Knightmare sequence and Flash message have been quite that cryptic? Maybe not. It may pay off handsomely down the road, but as the first official DCEU film, maybe you worry more about keeping general audiences focused on THIS film.

As for what it is, my best guess is that it's a message of sorts from the New Gods to the guy most capable of organizing the troops and a defense against what's coming.

Hmm maybe - i still don’t think they had a clear idea of what they were making beyond the title / theme. I like some of Synders work - I loved Sucker Punch for instance and enjoyed the varied and often very dark elements within it.

Is the Steppenwolf scene the Wonder Woman in WW1 - weird choice to cut when they left other stuff in - I also agree that a great opportunity was missed with the courtroom - it could have been an internal and external debate on Superman – but I think was not that ambitious
- instead it was just another Loopy Lex moment........

Agree that a post credits scene would have worked far better for the dream/vision/whatever from a story telling - and that’s what I feel Marvel do better, by and large..........
Re "what they had to do"?

re-introduce Batman - this was well done - perhaps a little drawn out considering they did not bother to do the same with Superman but,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.He elements of the darker batman introuduced on screen by Burton and which Nolan continued (even if I didn't like them - most did).

Establish the impact of the fight with Zod on the world - done (well sorta - see below) the initial sequence with Bruce racing through the streets was a million times better than the tedious fight of Man of Steel - really good stuff.

Introduce Wonder Woman - not enough of her for me - the WW1 should have stayed in - what they did was good but limited. They did however establish her as a great character that people want to see more of - so kudos

Establish there are other powered individuals – done.

Lex - Swing and an almighty miss = Loopy Lex drags the film down and takes up an awful lot of screen time with his antics that are simply, in my opinion not needed.

If Doomsday had arisen merely as a result of his meddling in the middle of a Bat/Sups confrontation, I think it would have been much better - instead we had the nonsense with Kryptionian ship giving full access despite scanning him because he had selotaped the bits of skin onto his own fingers etc etc

Also it’s interesting that the DC films are much more US focussed – as are the hero’s – again maybe why the WW1 bit was cut – its not in the US. The enquiry into Superman is not a UN matter – but US senators only – Marvel goes for the global story and impact?

I'm sorry if it has already come up, but if this Batman uses guns and has no regard for the lives of scum, how is the Joker still alive for Suicide Squad? Are they retconning him to be bullet proof? The big moral dilemma in most of the best Joker comics (including DKR, which Snyder claims to love) is whether or not Batman should kill the Joker. If this movie has solved that problem, how is he still walking around with his face intact? Maybe they're going to also completely alter the Joker to make him a superhuman badass who can survive against the Batman.

Also, Batman is now a proper Republican. Rich, gun nut with a judgemental attitude and a simplistic idea about justice.

Da Boss wrote:

Also, Batman is now a proper Republican. Rich, gun nut with a judgemental attitude and a simplistic idea about justice.

Did we really need that in this thread?

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm sorry if it has already come up, but if this Batman uses guns and has no regard for the lives of scum, how is the Joker still alive for Suicide Squad? Are they retconning him to be bullet proof? The big moral dilemma in most of the best Joker comics (including DKR, which Snyder claims to love) is whether or not Batman should kill the Joker. If this movie has solved that problem, how is he still walking around with his face intact? Maybe they're going to also completely alter the Joker to make him a superhuman badass who can survive against the Batman.

Also, Batman is now a proper Republican. Rich, gun nut with a judgemental attitude and a simplistic idea about justice.

Wasn't that always Batman (and quite a few other Hero's?)

Apparently Iron Man never kills either in the comics - so I am told - not the same in the films.............(and much likely when you had throwing heavy military armament around)

Batman in the newer films uses guns - they were extensively used in the Burton film - he had chain guns the same as he does in the latest version.

Do we know when Suicide Squad is set - could be before Bat V Sups so he might have killed the Joker?

It's a joke!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm sorry if it has already come up, but if this Batman uses guns and has no regard for the lives of scum, how is the Joker still alive for Suicide Squad? Are they retconning him to be bullet proof? The big moral dilemma in most of the best Joker comics (including DKR, which Snyder claims to love) is whether or not Batman should kill the Joker. If this movie has solved that problem, how is he still walking around with his face intact? Maybe they're going to also completely alter the Joker to make him a superhuman badass who can survive against the Batman.

Also, Batman is now a proper Republican. Rich, gun nut with a judgemental attitude and a simplistic idea about justice.

Wasn't that always Batman (and quite a few other Hero's?)

Apparently Iron Man never kills either in the comics - so I am told - not the same in the films.............(and much likely when you had throwing heavy military armament around)

Batman in the newer films uses guns - they were extensively used in the Burton film - he had chain guns the same as he does in the latest version.

Do we know when Suicide Squad is set - could be before Bat V Sups so he might have killed the Joker?

The Burton film was also (in my view) wrong to have batman use guns. I mean if he's going to use guns SOMETIMES, why not just use them all the time? Most of his schtick is based on the avoidance of firearms and killing. No need for batarangs if you can just blow someone away!

Batman not killing is a pretty consistent and core part of a the character, with only a few exceptions over 80 years.

It will be difficult for them to build their cinematic universe if the Bat vs. Supes opener was actually the last movie too. One would have thought they'd like to keep an antagonist like the Joker around.

It's almost like the aversion to killing served a purpose beyond moralising in a serial medium.

I feel like we've been down this road already in this thread....

And yes, please keep to politics over in the politics thread, please?

Fine, fine. My humour is too cutting edge for this board

Sorry if we have been, it's 23 pages and I freely admit - I haven't read it all.

It will be difficult for them to build their cinematic universe if the Bat vs. Supes opener was actually the last movie too. One would have thought they'd like to keep an antagonist like the Joker around.

Why - the Joker died in the same movie they introduced him in both Burton's and Nolans Batman films?

Both are apparently in the new Suicide Squad movie but we don't know the timeframe for it - well I don't (anyone?) - anyway people dying and coming back is standard comic fare.........its virtually unheard of for anyone to actually die.

re Bats and guns - depends on the version - apparently pre-code used guns and he used them in films - even modern law enforcement will use lethal force if they have to.......it might be a gun - it might not............

The new version of the Bat is, it seems, somewhat broken and weary - living on his rage - it may be that he changes and renouces lethal force as a characeter development?

The Joker did NOT die in Nolan's film - Two Face did.

Maybe that's who you're thinking of there?

 Alpharius wrote:
The Joker did NOT die in Nolan's film - Two Face did.

Maybe that's who you're thinking of there?

Ah right yeah - only watched it once (never again!) and misremembered - sorry.

To be fair, Batman still hasn't gone out of his way to kill people; he's killed people/let them die in pursuit of a much more important goal as far as he's concerned (when facing off with gods, he loses sight of the value of ordinary men's lives)...

 Paradigm wrote:
To be fair, Batman still hasn't gone out of his way to kill people; he's killed people/let them die in pursuit of a much more important goal as far as he's concerned (when facing off with gods, he loses sight of the value of ordinary men's lives)...

Spoiler:

He couldn't afford to pull his punches while going after the Kyrptonite or saving Martha Kent, there was no time to waste. But there's a big difference between not holding back/active avoiding deaths and just blowing away anyone he can.

There's also the argument that Batman needs The Joker as much as Joker needs Batman... if you take that as present, it makes sense....

Alternatively, the Joker is just good enough to not die, he's a pretty slippery bastard at the best of times....

well re the killing mooks - ke could have just follwoed the tracker and stole it later? (as in fact he does do) I got the impression he needed to let the rage out - often............

I think that's pretty weak, sorry Para. The number of times the "Should I kill the Joker?" dilemma has played out, to do it any justice... I can't see it working.


A batman who is okay with killing would not keep any joker worth his evil, poisonous salt alive. The guy is like the antichrist of the DCU. It's arguable it's morally indefensible that no-one has killed him yet, he's that bad.

To me, the explanation is that the people making this movie did not really understand what makes a character like Batman work.

Alternatively, then...

Batman has only just started killing, and hasn't run into the Joker since making that switch. After all, the branding as a 'death sentence' wouldn't be as controversial if Batman already routinely murdered people.

I reckon there are easily half a dozen interpretations for the change, of varying degrees of validity, though I doubt we'll get it confirmed one way or another, and I actually wouldn't be surprised given the ending of BvS if Bats reverts to a more traditional version in future films.

That would probably be the best solution.

Since none of the killing is plot relevant, perhaps there'll be a fan edit where it gets cut out and then I might be able to watch this movie (without paying for it) without my blood pressure spiking like crazy.

 Paradigm wrote:
To be fair, Batman still hasn't gone out of his way to kill people;

That is completely untrue. Go watch Burton's Batman again. He literally explodes a goon into a red mist.




Best Batman kill, ever.

Totally deliberate and cold-blooded murder there.

[quote=Mr Morden 655982 8567132 33b4df0e481c469309456f6975ea609c.jpegFor me the main problem with the film sems to be that they got a title and theme - "Batman and Superman have a fight" and tried to build everything around that one element - and it simply does not work very well - there is lots of crowbaring various plot elements in to get that fight - which is well done but there is so much more they could have done - in a tighter film

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
For me, the very title and premise are the problem. "let's make Batman and Superman fight!" is a ridiculous idea

But, it's a classic trope.