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.
Future War Cultist wrote: I just love how this movie and Wonder Woman show that DC can still make good movies when they stick to the source material and focus on characterisation. If only they had started off with this in mind; could have spared us Dawn Of Justice and Justice League.
I still wonder how much of that came down to green lantern flopping. They might have seen how the ‘funny’ movie flopped and the ‘serious’ Nolan trilogy didn’t and figured that serious, humorous and depressing was the way to go. What a shame...
There's little doubt the big problem with the DCEU was simply that it launched after the success of the Dark Knight trilogy. Even GL suffers in part from not being committed enough to being funny or really anything unique. GL suffers from a lot of things. It was an experiment in a ton of ways even putting a ton of marketing into the suit being total CG when no one wanted that (funny enough, the tech for that suit is pretty much identical to Spiderman and Iron Man's Infinity War costumes fwiw). More that anything though, GL just didn't know what it wanted to be as much as it knew what it wanted its sequel (or two) to be.
Man of Steel was pretty obviously a "Dark Knight" take on Superman in a lot of ways. Snyder is a pretty good pick for that tone of film, but the problem is simply that that tone doesn't work for ongoing continuity. I don't think Snyder is a bad filmmaker by any means, but as a comic fan, he's obviously not really fan of the ongoing medium as much as he is in love with the deconstruction of the medium. Granted, a LOT of people first loved comics as they were being dismantled in the late 80's but the people that took stories like Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen as how comics "should" be created the 90's era for a reason. The problem with those stories is that they're not meant to keep going. They're inherently fatalistic, the world is literally ending and by the end of it everything people love in the beginning has probably died to stall out the apocalypse for one more day. It's not a sustainable universe because its literally falling apart and unfortunately that's the kind of foundation Snyder built in Man of Steel.
I am glad Aquaman is doing well, and I hope they keep having success, but I do really hope DC finds a voice with its movies. As good as WW is, it... kinda... wants to make a point about humanity's warring nature, sort of, maybe? what were we talking abo... OOO KAMEHAMEHA!!!! DC's characters tend to incarnate big ideas and I really hope to see them start to tell stories that show people what makes these characters resonate beyond their costumes and powers.
Yeah, Man of Steel was as much the Nolans' movie as it was Snyder's. They came up with the idea, pitched it, and picked the director. Their influence is all over it. The movies that came after was all Snyder though. And as he recently revealed on social media, his idea wasn't for a sustainable universe. It was supposed to be a five (or whatever) movie arc with an ending. Which puts his movies in a different light. No wonder he was so willing to cap every other character in the DC universe. It didn't matter...he wasn't building another MCU. And his take -- flawed as it was -- also wasn't a crazy idea. There are clearly some inspirations from the highly popular Injustice franchise, and it does seem the original plan was for an evil Superman in JL1.
But obviously it didn't resonate. And as much as you have to blame Snyder for that, you also have to look at the WB execs who handed a single director $750 mil (?) without understanding what they really wanted or needed, and without room to change course.
Anyway, Snyder's gone, a different exec is firmly in charge of the DC properties, and I think we'll see things take a much more normal path.
gorgon wrote: The movies that came after was all Snyder though. And as he recently revealed on social media, his idea wasn't for a sustainable universe. It was supposed to be a five (or whatever) movie arc with an ending. Which puts his movies in a different light. No wonder he was so willing to cap every other character in the DC universe. It didn't matter...he wasn't building another MCU. And his take -- flawed as it was -- also wasn't a crazy idea. There are clearly some inspirations from the highly popular Injustice franchise, and it does seem the original plan was for an evil Superman in JL1.
It's pretty clear JL was supposed to end with Steppenwolf resurrecting Superman as Darkseid's general based on the foreshadowing in BvS. Basically the "Legacy" arc from the Superman animated series. I think the general plan could have worked, but the execution of BvS sent it flying off the rails. Moviebob's Really That Bad on it is a great breakdown of the, well.... breakdown of the film, but I'm still a little puzzled by what took that blueprint so far off the rails. BvS is a weird film in that I feel that everyone involved in it can and has done better than what we got. In many ways its the Phantom Menace of the superhero genre.
gorgon wrote: The movies that came after was all Snyder though. And as he recently revealed on social media, his idea wasn't for a sustainable universe. It was supposed to be a five (or whatever) movie arc with an ending. Which puts his movies in a different light. No wonder he was so willing to cap every other character in the DC universe. It didn't matter...he wasn't building another MCU. And his take -- flawed as it was -- also wasn't a crazy idea. There are clearly some inspirations from the highly popular Injustice franchise, and it does seem the original plan was for an evil Superman in JL1.
It's pretty clear JL was supposed to end with Steppenwolf resurrecting Superman as Darkseid's general based on the foreshadowing in BvS. Basically the "Legacy" arc from the Superman animated series. I think the general plan could have worked, but the execution of BvS sent it flying off the rails. Moviebob's Really That Bad on it is a great breakdown of the, well.... breakdown of the film, but I'm still a little puzzled by what took that blueprint so far off the rails. BvS is a weird film in that I feel that everyone involved in it can and has done better than what we got. In many ways its the Phantom Menace of the superhero genre.
Agreed on Superman's resurrection. Per Snyder, Batman was also going to expire at the end of JL2.
The ultimate cut of BvS is a much better film, just by being fully coherent, giving Clark more screen time and purpose, and doing a better job showing Lex's manipulations. But it's three hours long, and Snyder and company have to take blame for creating a story that can't be told in less than 180 minutes. Plus, it gets a little slow and is strangely light on action for long stretches. Some of the visuals are also gorgeous though...really beautiful stuff.
But I think the Snyder DC enterprise shows you what happens when you give a director with a very specific, not-mainstream vision an almost infinite budget and no constraints for a property that needs to be blockbuster-level popular with the general public. Nothing's lined up there. Jay Baruchel had a great line in a interview when he said that people in the future will look back on BvS as the most expensive indy film ever made. He's right IMO...Snyder dropped $250(?) mil on making the film that HE wanted to see.
Getting back on topic, something that James Wan understands and does well is franchise filmmaking. WB gave him creative control and plenty of budget on Aquaman, but he also understood what he was being asked to deliver. And I think the sequel is potentially set up to be a meatier film in some ways now that so much of the worldbuilding has been done.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/07 22:33:08
The ultimate cut of BvS is a much better film, just by being fully coherent, giving Clark more screen time and purpose, and doing a better job showing Lex's manipulations. But it's three hours long, and Snyder and company have to take blame for creating a story that can't be told in less than 180 minutes. Plus, it gets a little slow and is strangely light on action for long stretches. Some of the visuals are also gorgeous though...really beautiful stuff.
Unless you recast and rewrite the Luthor character there is no saving that film - that god awful capering idiot Joker wannabe ruins the entire film. Its not last Jedi bad but the Luthor character gaks all over everything every pitiful moment he is on screen
but OT - Aquaman was great fun - which is what alot of people want from a film and not pretending to mean something to score worthless points with the worthless critics.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/08 00:05:40
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Future War Cultist wrote: You know, I like James Wan’s work. I’m a fan of the Insidious and Conjouring series, and I’m glad to see what a good job he did on Aquaman.
The Conjuring is the best modern horror film I've seen.
The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy
You know I almost wish something like aqua man would actually happen . I mean an advanced power living in the ocean and finally demanding the human race stop poisoning and devastating it or get smacked down hard.
As long as pollution does not directly hurt the plutocrats running the world they will not change it. Maybe it would literally take an ultimatum from Atlantis to force things to get better....
"I learned the hard way that if you take a stand on any issue, no matter how insignificant, people will line up around the block to kick your ass over it." Jesse "the mind" Ventura.
While I agree with the principle, the bit about that that irks me is like a lot of the film, there's no real thought given to that message. It's not like Atlanteans have chosen to forgo modern society to keep the oceans clean. They just apparently have a society so incredible it can produce borderline unlimited energy and impossibly advanced machinery with no waste. Kind of kills the nobility of the argument when you change it from "we're attacking you because you refuse to sacrifice for the good of all" to "we're attacking you because you're too stupid to figure out how to use the three seashells and we can't be bothered to explain it to you".But again, on principle, I agree it would be nice to see some accountability for how waste is managed.
LunarSol wrote: While I agree with the principle, the bit about that that irks me is like a lot of the film, there's no real thought given to that message. It's not like Atlanteans have chosen to forgo modern society to keep the oceans clean. They just apparently have a society so incredible it can produce borderline unlimited energy and impossibly advanced machinery with no waste. Kind of kills the nobility of the argument when you change it from "we're attacking you because you refuse to sacrifice for the good of all" to "we're attacking you because you're too stupid to figure out how to use the three seashells and we can't be bothered to explain it to you".But again, on principle, I agree it would be nice to see some accountability for how waste is managed.
I can kinda agree with that, but, honestly, if you look at humanity can you really blame the Atlanteans for not giving them advanced technology?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: While I agree with the principle, the bit about that that irks me is like a lot of the film, there's no real thought given to that message. It's not like Atlanteans have chosen to forgo modern society to keep the oceans clean. They just apparently have a society so incredible it can produce borderline unlimited energy and impossibly advanced machinery with no waste. Kind of kills the nobility of the argument when you change it from "we're attacking you because you refuse to sacrifice for the good of all" to "we're attacking you because you're too stupid to figure out how to use the three seashells and we can't be bothered to explain it to you".But again, on principle, I agree it would be nice to see some accountability for how waste is managed.
I can kinda agree with that, but, honestly, if you look at humanity can you really blame the Atlanteans for not giving them advanced technology?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/08 05:09:09
"I learned the hard way that if you take a stand on any issue, no matter how insignificant, people will line up around the block to kick your ass over it." Jesse "the mind" Ventura.
LunarSol wrote: While I agree with the principle, the bit about that that irks me is like a lot of the film, there's no real thought given to that message. It's not like Atlanteans have chosen to forgo modern society to keep the oceans clean. They just apparently have a society so incredible it can produce borderline unlimited energy and impossibly advanced machinery with no waste. Kind of kills the nobility of the argument when you change it from "we're attacking you because you refuse to sacrifice for the good of all" to "we're attacking you because you're too stupid to figure out how to use the three seashells and we can't be bothered to explain it to you".But again, on principle, I agree it would be nice to see some accountability for how waste is managed.
Also we don't actually know if there any downsides to the A tech, if it pollutes, side effects etc how they deal with the amount of sewage from cities that size mianly cos its a super hero film
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
LunarSol wrote: While I agree with the principle, the bit about that that irks me is like a lot of the film, there's no real thought given to that message. It's not like Atlanteans have chosen to forgo modern society to keep the oceans clean. They just apparently have a society so incredible it can produce borderline unlimited energy and impossibly advanced machinery with no waste. Kind of kills the nobility of the argument when you change it from "we're attacking you because you refuse to sacrifice for the good of all" to "we're attacking you because you're too stupid to figure out how to use the three seashells and we can't be bothered to explain it to you".But again, on principle, I agree it would be nice to see some accountability for how waste is managed.
Also we don't actually know if there any downsides to the A tech, if it pollutes, side effects etc how they deal with the amount of sewage from cities that size mianly cos its a super hero film
I mean, if nothing else, they dumped a seventh of the kingdoms into the lowest class of creature and feed them people every now and then to contain the damage they can cause.
Aquaman vs Black Panther..... I see they both shared liberally in their world building, cast of strong females, isolationist nation schtick, evil brother, and blunt instrument hero.
Which movie did it better and why?
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Easy E wrote: Aquaman vs Black Panther..... I see they both shared liberally in their world building, cast of strong females, isolationist nation schtick, evil brother, and blunt instrument hero.
Which movie did it better and why?
Aquaman by far, it didnt try and beat you over the head with its message or try to claim such a regressive nation like wakanda was somehow able to even work, Aquaman just went "underwater superpower.... go with it" and it was refreshing to not have all the outside nonsense that seems to go with movies these days, Aquaman was escapism at its best, Black Panther was too preachy and surrounded hollywood back patting about how great they are for making such a film... ignoring blade years before it.
LunarSol wrote: While I agree with the principle, the bit about that that irks me is like a lot of the film, there's no real thought given to that message. It's not like Atlanteans have chosen to forgo modern society to keep the oceans clean. They just apparently have a society so incredible it can produce borderline unlimited energy and impossibly advanced machinery with no waste. Kind of kills the nobility of the argument when you change it from "we're attacking you because you refuse to sacrifice for the good of all" to "we're attacking you because you're too stupid to figure out how to use the three seashells and we can't be bothered to explain it to you".But again, on principle, I agree it would be nice to see some accountability for how waste is managed.
I can kinda agree with that, but, honestly, if you look at humanity can you really blame the Atlanteans for not giving them advanced technology?
I mean, if their objective is to get humanity to stop polluting the oceans, and the choices are A: give humanity the technology to stop polluting the oceans or B: genocide humanity until they give in and live as subsistence farmers or are wiped out, yeah I think it's pretty fair to blame them. If you have the solution to a problem, refuse to allow the solution to be used(or, you know, even tell people it exists), and then attack people because they can't figure out a version of your solution on their own and all other options for solving the problem are untenable, you're kinda the bad guy in that scenario.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/08 16:08:05
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Easy E wrote: Aquaman vs Black Panther..... I see they both shared liberally in their world building, cast of strong females, isolationist nation schtick, evil brother, and blunt instrument hero.
Which movie did it better and why?
Black Panther.
A big part of why Black Panther has been such a big deal is that its characters are representative of some pretty large and important ideas. Killmonger stands as a pretty literal embodiment of a culture trapped in anger, violence and oppression while T'Challa puts forth an idea of something new, based in tradition but ultimately looking to take tradition and show the world what it has to offer. It has the convenience of being unburdened by history and the realities of modern inequalities, but at the heart of it, it makes an argument against the urban culture sold since the 80's in favor of something more akin to the kind of modernization of tradition that has opened up the world in so many other ways. Seeing people pick up bosotho blankets in the wake of the film reminds me so much of the way anime and samurai epics brought Japanese traditions to the rest of the world. There's a reason that people so seriously want to see it get some recognition at the Oscars and its definitely not the special effects.
Aquaman is fine. It's super fun and I'd totally recommend seeing it. It just doesn't really know what it wants to say and instead is happy to be a cool ride through the ocean. It's just not the substantial film Black Panther was.
LunarSol wrote: While I agree with the principle, the bit about that that irks me is like a lot of the film, there's no real thought given to that message. It's not like Atlanteans have chosen to forgo modern society to keep the oceans clean. They just apparently have a society so incredible it can produce borderline unlimited energy and impossibly advanced machinery with no waste. Kind of kills the nobility of the argument when you change it from "we're attacking you because you refuse to sacrifice for the good of all" to "we're attacking you because you're too stupid to figure out how to use the three seashells and we can't be bothered to explain it to you".But again, on principle, I agree it would be nice to see some accountability for how waste is managed.
Also we don't actually know if there any downsides to the A tech, if it pollutes, side effects etc how they deal with the amount of sewage from cities that size mianly cos its a super hero film
I mean, if nothing else, they dumped a seventh of the kingdoms into the lowest class of creature and feed them people every now and then to contain the damage they can cause.
The film certainly doesn't present the Atlanteans as being right, but it does present them as being ... authoritarian, very unequal and racist. I don't think fascist or even nazi would be out of the question; Other than what appears to be an absolute monarchy (or at least one with few checks to its power other than tradition), we've got a literal vertical stratification ("the nobles don't come down here" being a heavy implication that the lords live near the surface and the lower orders are ... lower. There's an extreme emphasis on "purity" of breeding, even apart from the usual concerns of the succession in a monarchy. The fact that the commoners can't breathe air is interesting too; I mean, they're descended from humans - how did they lose the ability to breathe air? They've got the same "isolationist superpower" thing going on as Wakanda, although they don't seem to have the same vulnerabilities as Wakanda.
Perhaps a plot of a sequel could be Arthur's attempt to reform Atlantis.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, they certainly don't seem to have any qualms about collateral damage while chasing Arthur after his first duel (oh yes, blood sports - that well-known sign of the super-advanced civilisation ). I wonder how many dozens of people were killed by those missed shots, even before they opened up with those cannons on the wall (what the heck were they to keep out?)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/08 17:45:16
AndrewGPaul wrote: Perhaps a plot of a sequel could be Arthur's attempt to reform Atlantis.
I think that's a good call. What happens when Atlantis needs a king more than a hero? Lots of opportunities there for conflict, even among those close to him. Then you have Manta applying various pressures (going after Arthur's parents?) and taking his attention away from his kingdom.
Like I said before, now that the worldbuilding is done there's more opportunity to explore more themes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/08 22:05:05
LunarSol wrote: While I agree with the principle, the bit about that that irks me is like a lot of the film, there's no real thought given to that message. It's not like Atlanteans have chosen to forgo modern society to keep the oceans clean. They just apparently have a society so incredible it can produce borderline unlimited energy and impossibly advanced machinery with no waste. Kind of kills the nobility of the argument when you change it from "we're attacking you because you refuse to sacrifice for the good of all" to "we're attacking you because you're too stupid to figure out how to use the three seashells and we can't be bothered to explain it to you".But again, on principle, I agree it would be nice to see some accountability for how waste is managed.
I can kinda agree with that, but, honestly, if you look at humanity can you really blame the Atlanteans for not giving them advanced technology?
I mean, if their objective is to get humanity to stop polluting the oceans, and the choices are A: give humanity the technology to stop polluting the oceans or B: genocide humanity until they give in and live as subsistence farmers or are wiped out, yeah I think it's pretty fair to blame them. If you have the solution to a problem, refuse to allow the solution to be used(or, you know, even tell people it exists), and then attack people because they can't figure out a version of your solution on their own and all other options for solving the problem are untenable, you're kinda the bad guy in that scenario.
One of the more humorous parts of the attack is that the surface doesn't even know Atlantis exists in the film. There's the one nutcase on cable news screaming about it, but nobody actually thinks its a real thing. How anyone is supposed to get the message when they forgot to sign the card is beyond me.
Thinking on it more, Aquaman kind of feels like things coming full circle from Iron Man a decade ago.
Iron Man (and at the same time, Batman Begins) started the cinematic revolution of comic book movies by taking the crazy, impossible concepts and stories of the comic book medium and making it real and believable in a way that they really weren't before. Since then, audiences have become fully comfortable with this, as is obvious when you consider things like GotG being as hugely successful as it is, or Infinity War happening at all.
minor spoilers
Spoiler:
But Aquaman, I think, takes the next step. It uses that level of acceptance to put the crazy back. It understands that audiences are going to be cool with a dude who talks to fish being the king of an underwater realm and just take that for granted, so it asks 'what next?' And the answer, it turns out, is Fish-men and crab-Dwarves being featured in a huge underwater battle sequence without a hint of irony, the hero journeying to the centre of the earth to find a magic trident and a kraken-godzilla, and a dude with a helmet the width of his torso shooting laser beams from his face while also being a genuinely compelling villain we look forward to seeing more of in a sequel.
Which, of course, has always been there in the comics for decades, but the fact you can put that level of crazy in a film, and that that film can be Aquaman of all things, and be this successful, is really quite something... I think it could honestly be game-changing as studios and writers and directors again start wondering just what you can get away with...
You could argue Guardians of the Galaxy did the same thing, but that was at least somewhat self-aware, poking fun at its own silliness throughout. Aquaman plays it entirely straight and pulls it off, and I think that's a key ingredient of what makes it such an incredibly fun film to watch as a comic fan; it's maybe the most comic book movie to date.
In any case, I hope a sequel gets announced sooner rather than later. Aquaman has gone straight to the upper echelons of my favourite comic book movies and I can't wait for more.
This was talked about by some friends and now it bothers me a bit. Queen is living with her land hubby and kid when the atlantean cops show up and tell her she has to come with them back to Atlantis. She proceeds to murder all of them, and then tell her hubby she has to go back to Atlantis now. Couldn’t she have skipped the part where she murdered a bunch of dudes just doing their job if she was going to do what they asked anyways?
Didn't she do that to remove the immediate threat to her family? it looked to me like those goons were going to gun down Arthur and his dad and then take Atlanna back. By taking them out and then returning, she removed the threat to her husband and son - without her, Atlantis wouldn't bother going after them because as a land-dweller and a half-caste they're clearly inferior and not worth bothering about.
AduroT wrote:This was talked about by some friends and now it bothers me a bit. Queen is living with her land hubby and kid when the atlantean cops show up and tell her she has to come with them back to Atlantis. She proceeds to murder all of them, and then tell her hubby she has to go back to Atlantis now. Couldn’t she have skipped the part where she murdered a bunch of dudes just doing their job if she was going to do what they asked anyways?
Yeah, this really bugged me when I saw it.
AndrewGPaul wrote:Didn't she do that to remove the immediate threat to her family? it looked to me like those goons were going to gun down Arthur and his dad and then take Atlanna back. By taking them out and then returning, she removed the threat to her husband and son - without her, Atlantis wouldn't bother going after them because as a land-dweller and a half-caste they're clearly inferior and not worth bothering about.
I assumed she was trying to keep the family a secret, but when Arthur returns its pretty clear she didn't since absolutely everyone seems to be aware of him and who his parents are.
I assumed they knew, but didn't care - he's obviously inferior, so as long as he stays away, they don't need to waste any effort on him. His mother was the important one - again, an obsession with inheritance and "purity".
AndrewGPaul wrote: I assumed they knew, but didn't care - he's obviously inferior, so as long as he stays away, they don't need to waste any effort on him. His mother was the important one - again, an obsession with inheritance and "purity".
I think this is supported by the dialogue before the ring of fire. Orm tells Arthur that he doesn't want to kill him, and tells him to leave and never return. We can infer from this that Orm never wanted to hunt Arthur down previously and was fine ignoring him as long as he stayed away.
The soldiers could easily have communicated what they found before they died. I can't quite remember all the dialogue after the fight, but it's believable that Atlanna may not have been aware of that fact until she returned.
My reading of that scene is that the troopers were ordered to bring Atlanna back no matter what. Clearly, the easiest way to do that is to subdue her and any other resistance and drag her off; any collateral damage is irrelevant. They weren't deliberately trying to kill Arthur and his dad, but then again, they weren't bothering to restrain themselves either. Once Atlanna had shown she was more difficult to recapture than they first thought, the following attempts would be more heavily armed; the more she resisted, the more likely her husband is to catch a stray round.
It's basically the same as how, when conducting an armed raid, the police probably don't concern themselves much if they accidentally squash a hamster.
