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.

Eisenberg plays Luthor as Eisenberg, because that's more or less his range.

I think Henry Cavill could have been a great Superman but he was poorly directed. There are definitely glimpses of what he could have, and what he should have been.


I think Eisenberg's Lex Luthor is probably the worst casting decision in any movie I've ever seen regardless of genre.

 gorgon wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
From every interview I see of Cavill, I'm convinced he could easily be the best interpretation of Superman we've gotten if he could just be himself and not whatever it is Snyder was trying to make him be. You can see it a bit in the Whedon reshoots, not that that's enough to salvage things.

You could also see it in Man of Steel and Batman v Superman.

You just seem to choose not to.

Eh, kinda? Everyone is just so hostile towards everyone that the chances are few and far between. Even when he has a chance, there's so much burden draped in every scene its hard to shine through. This isn't praise to Justice League in any sense, but its offbeat levity during the apocalypse feels like it gives Cavill a chance to be, well... likeable.

I did part of the Snyder watchalong of MoS -- which wasn't as interesting or illuminating as I thought it'd be, BTW -- and again I was reminded that it's really not a morose, dark film like people make it out to be. Yes, he's a little broody early on...but that wraps up not even halfway through the film when he finds the alien ship. Cavill smiles plenty. Hell, first flight is full of joy. And yes, while Snyder used some filters, that film was mostly shot in bright daylight.

There's some Snyder-style excess carnage to be sure. But I don't know that anything in the film was actually darker or moodier than the comics have been. Too many people were stuck on the Chris Reeve films and their camp. The great mistake of the original DCEU was not following up MoS with a proper sequel showing us a fully-rounded Superman. Batman Begins was also not a smash hit or beloved by critics. But it broke the eggs that needed to be broken and set things up for a smash sequel.

Instead we got a lot of darkness with BvS and not enough time spent with Superman for his sacrifice to feel impactful. A good MoS2 film before BvS would have changed the course of the whole franchise. Not that BvS didn't have its inherent problems, mind you. It definitely had those.

What "eggs" were broken by Batman Begins? - all the hard work in making Batman "dark" was done much earlier (and better) by Tim Burton. Batman Begins brought nothing new except of course the whole become the best Ninja in Tibet - cos White guys are always best Ninjas.

 Ouze wrote:
I think Henry Cavill could have been a great Superman but he was poorly directed. There are definitely glimpses of what he could have, and what he should have been.
I think Eisenberg's Lex Luthor is probably the worst casting decision in any movie I've ever seen regardless of genre.

Totally agreed re Loopy Lex - I thought Cavil was good.

 gorgon wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
From every interview I see of Cavill, I'm convinced he could easily be the best interpretation of Superman we've gotten if he could just be himself and not whatever it is Snyder was trying to make him be. You can see it a bit in the Whedon reshoots, not that that's enough to salvage things.

You could also see it in Man of Steel and Batman v Superman.

You just seem to choose not to.

Eh, kinda? Everyone is just so hostile towards everyone that the chances are few and far between. Even when he has a chance, there's so much burden draped in every scene its hard to shine through. This isn't praise to Justice League in any sense, but its offbeat levity during the apocalypse feels like it gives Cavill a chance to be, well... likeable.

I did part of the Snyder watchalong of MoS -- which wasn't as interesting or illuminating as I thought it'd be, BTW -- and again I was reminded that it's really not a morose, dark film like people make it out to be. Yes, he's a little broody early on...but that wraps up not even halfway through the film when he finds the alien ship. Cavill smiles plenty. Hell, first flight is full of joy. And yes, while Snyder used some filters, that film was mostly shot in bright daylight.

There's some Snyder-style excess carnage to be sure. But I don't know that anything in the film was actually darker or moodier than the comics have been. Too many people were stuck on the Chris Reeve films and their camp. The great mistake of the original DCEU was not following up MoS with a proper sequel showing us a fully-rounded Superman. Batman Begins was also not a smash hit or beloved by critics. But it broke the eggs that needed to be broken and set things up for a smash sequel.

Instead we got a lot of darkness with BvS and not enough time spent with Superman for his sacrifice to feel impactful. A good MoS2 film before BvS would have changed the course of the whole franchise. Not that BvS didn't have its inherent problems, mind you. It definitely had those.

I think Costner is really what kills the mood of the film. He's just such a scared and angry father figure throughout the film whose arc ends with a really dumb suicide that isn't illogical, but doesn't click either. He's like a "HARRY POTTER DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THAT CUP" moment that keeps popping up throughout the film to make you wonder why Clark didn't turn out more like Brightburn.

The best thing about the Snyder Cut coming out is that people will finally stop talking about the Snyder Cut.

 Mr Morden wrote:
What "eggs" were broken by Batman Begins? - all the hard work in making Batman "dark" was done much earlier (and better) by Tim Burton. Batman Begins brought nothing new except of course the whole become the best Ninja in Tibet

Burton does deserve a lot of credit, but his films were dark the way an emo kid is dark. Still a bit campy and nothing you take too seriously. AND the last two films in that series broke hard toward camp. Nolan tossed out every shred of campiness. Those series are nothing alike, stylistically speaking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The best thing about the Snyder Cut coming out is that people will finally stop talking about the Snyder Cut.

I half think that crowd — when presented with a JL that isn’t quite the masterpiece they’ve built it up to be — will move on to complaining that the studio ruined his original, original vision. Which is not what he shot. The goalposts will move...

Batman Begins might be one of the best comic book origin films ever made. I rate it almost as highly as The Dark Knight.

The only thing I remember about Justice League is that I saw it, and that I thought Cyborg was pretty cool. Hopefully this new version will be better, but more than that I hope it just makes all discussion of it go away. It's so exhausting.

 gorgon wrote:

I half think that crowd — when presented with a JL that isn’t quite the masterpiece they’ve built it up to be — will move on to complaining that the studio ruined his original, original vision. Which is not what he shot. The goalposts will move...

I mean, is it really fair to say "the goalposts will move" if we know that Snyder wanted reshoots but wasn't allowed to do them?

Whedon wasn't the right person for 'fixing' Justice League, IMO. It's just a retread of Avengers.

Yeah, there's some characters Whedon was right for (Superman and potentially Barry), and there's some characters he very, very, very much wasn't - Like Batman and Cyborg.

You can have humour with a 'serious' non-campy Batman, and I'd like to see some humour with Batman but what Whedon did in the recut/reshot rooftop sequence, wasn't it.

I think if you want him to be funny, it's in a sort of 'deadpan' humour way. - There's a line in Justice League Dark where he's asked, "How do you cope with all the pain and anger you feel every day?" Where he replies, simply. "I have a butler."

Or this fun exchange between Bruce and Barry in a recent comic.




Conversely, I really loved the setup of Supermans arrival to Steppenwolf, not just the dialogue, but the setup and literal punchline. "Well, I believe in truth... But I'm also a big fan of justice too."

So yeah, in summary, I'm going to go back to the Whedon Cut is probably the best of a messy and bad situation but it's still... Not Good.

The Snyder Cut will probably be more coherent as a movie, but it will also be relentlessly grim, depressing and I'm probably expecting Batman to just casually double baterang the thief in the opening scene in the eyes before launching him off of the rooftop, or something like that.

 gorgon wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
What "eggs" were broken by Batman Begins? - all the hard work in making Batman "dark" was done much earlier (and better) by Tim Burton. Batman Begins brought nothing new except of course the whole become the best Ninja in Tibet

Burton does deserve a lot of credit, but his films were dark the way an emo kid is dark. Still a bit campy and nothing you take too seriously. AND the last two films in that series broke hard toward camp. Nolan tossed out every shred of campiness. Those series are nothing alike, stylistically speaking.
..

The first Batman film was a huge revelation when it came out and IMO is actually more effectively darker than Nolans....because it has a contrasting element of humour which makes the darker bits more effective.

Michael Keatons portrayal of a very damaged Bruce Wayne is very good - works for me much better than Christian Bales.

Yeah Jacks Joker is over the top - but he is a sadistic, killer in a way that makes the Ledger version pale in comparison - as he said "he makes art until some one dies" - if that involves using acid on your girlfriends face - all good, if that involves killing an entire museum full of people to be alone with Vicky, no problem and the Smily poision being in a unknown mixture of beauty products....etc etc

Heath Ledgers version blows up some empty buildings and kills some mobsters.....bonus points for Bats girlfiend but tehrre is so little chemistry or interaction between the couple that is has little impact but then Nolan seems unable or unwilling to write female characters as more than window dressing to a scene or plot.

Both are happy to kill anyone, but Jack's version does it all the time, mostly to innocent bystanders whereas Ledgers tends to target other criminals whilst relying on his super-precog abilities to drive the plot.

Agreed on the Burton sequals - Michelle Pfeifer is a dream but the rest is a mess.

Also Batman begins has excellent portrayal of Scarecrow but the Ninja plot is hilariously bad and silly

Whedon wasn't the right person for 'fixing' Justice League, IMO. It's just a retread of Avengers.

Which is why they asked him to do it - they wanted a film as good as the Avengers was - its not but it tries hard to be it

You guys are going back and forth on if it is going to be good or not. That is all fine and good. But you guys are missing something way more important.

What is the drinking game for the Snyder Cut?

In terms of Burton’s Batman, I think it’s easy to lose sight of just how bold the tonal shift was.

For instance, I grew up in the U.K. in the. 80’s. We didn’t really have a big comic culture back then as we do now. Closest I got was He-Man, The Dandy and The Beano.

So prior to Batman, my only exposure to the Caped Crusader was the gloriously camp TV series. That was Batman to me. Not just Canon, but the only iteration.

Then came Tim Burton. Most likely saw it on VHS at birthday party or such, but it was a revelation and a half. I distinctly recall a childhood friend called Michael complaining that there was no Chief O’Hara.

I don’t think you could’ve done a Batman Begins type film at that point, no matter how Big Name the Director, subject and actors.

And don’t forget, Burton’s aesthetic fed heavily into Batman The Animated Series, aka The Besterest Batman Ever And If You Disagree I’ll Tell A Squirrel You Said It Smells!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

I half think that crowd — when presented with a JL that isn’t quite the masterpiece they’ve built it up to be — will move on to complaining that the studio ruined his original, original vision. Which is not what he shot. The goalposts will move...

I mean, is it really fair to say "the goalposts will move" if we know that Snyder wanted reshoots but wasn't allowed to do them?

Whedon wasn't the right person for 'fixing' Justice League, IMO. It's just a retread of Avengers.

I was referencing that the studio had already demanded changes in the wake of the reaction to BvS. BvS was building toward multiple JL movies where would Superman fall to the Anti-Life Equation (because who doesn't love evil, murderous Superman) and the 'Knightmare' sequence would come to pass, forcing the remaining heroes to...well, basically the Endgame plot. But I *think* that was already tabled by the time Snyder started shooting. So even if we see his original footage, one can argue that it's not truly his original vision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In terms of Burton’s Batman, I think it’s easy to lose sight of just how bold the tonal shift was.

As I said, he deserves a lot of credit, but stylistically his movies were nothing like Nolan's. And in fact Nolan did 'break eggs' -- big, campy eggs -- in making Batman Begins.

It's also not like Burton *invented* a modern Batman -- O'Neill and Adams, anyone? But if your only exposures to the character are Super Friends and the Adam West series, then I guess Burton seems like a revelation.

Burton's original film was revolutionary and still holds up as one of the greats. Tonally it did the exact same thing Batman Begins did for its time and is a huge reason the animated series became the phenomena it did. The film was so big WB was willing to go with a darker tone for the show and the audience for the character was enormous. Maybe people are just too young to remember, but Tim Burton's Batman absolutely exploded the popularity of comics in general, and set in motion much of the media throughout the 90's that drives the fandom today.

And that theme, absolutely perfect!




One of the great themes of its age, so much so it’s impossible to conceive of the film without it.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You guys are going back and forth on if it is going to be good or not. That is all fine and good. But you guys are missing something way more important.

What is the drinking game for the Snyder Cut?

Ill propose any time a characters says anything clearly ripped from a late 90s comic take a shot

Turnip Jedi wrote:Ill propose any time a characters says anything clearly ripped from a late 90s comic take a shot

I'd stretch that back to the mid-80s... wait, or did Zack already use up all the Dark Knight Returns references in BvS?

 Vermis wrote:

Turnip Jedi wrote:Ill propose any time a characters says anything clearly ripped from a late 90s comic take a shot

I'd stretch that back to the mid-80s... wait, or did Zack already use up all the Dark Knight Returns references in BvS?

Fair point, I was going for the peak post Watchmen grim derp period in comics as about the last time Zack most likely loooked at a comic

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And don’t forget, Burton’s aesthetic fed heavily into Batman The Animated Series, aka The Besterest Batman Ever And If You Disagree I’ll Tell A Squirrel You Said It Smells!

Not going to deny Burton's influence on Batman in pop culture - I just got that animated series on Blu-Ray, and to me Kevin Conroy is my Batman - but I'd still take Begins over Burton's take any day.

Wait. Are you suggesting that Nolan’s Batman is less campy than Burton’s or even West’s?

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

Turnip Jedi wrote:Ill propose any time a characters says anything clearly ripped from a late 90s comic take a shot

I'd stretch that back to the mid-80s... wait, or did Zack already use up all the Dark Knight Returns references in BvS?

Fair point, I was going for the peak post Watchmen grim derp period in comics as about the last time Zack most likely loooked at a comic

I think you're on the right path though.

Drink twice if said reference is Alan Moore or Frank Miller?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Wait. Are you suggesting that Nolan’s Batman is less campy than Burton’s or even West’s?

Are you suggesting that Nolan's Batman is MORE or EQUALLY campy as the Adam West TV show or Burton/Schumacher movies?

I'm sure we can play the 'whaddabout' game all day, but one has to have a wildly different definition of 'camp' than what's commonly accepted in order to believe that. Burden of proof is on you here if that's what you believe, LOL.

The Adam West show was deliberately crafted as a comedy. A lot of what we laugh at today was laughed at back then. You might be able to say the same for Burton’s Batman, but not for Nolan’s. Both of those have aged into campiness.

Nolan’s Batman series, like Burton’s, goes off the rails by the third movie. The later movies elevate the audience’s awareness of styles or tropes or whatever In the first movies that were always silly even if they didn’t jump out at first viewing. Nolan’s Batman has the voice, the tryhard grittiness, the problem with women, awkward meme-tastic dialogue, the white guy ninja best ninja stuff, Microwave beam silliness, disturbing socio-economic subtext, etc.. Again, they might not have been ridiculous off the bat, but have become more highlighted with distance and time.

And campiness is not synonymous with low quality. Campy Batman is not bad Batman. I love the first two Nolan Batman movies in their own ways. But let’s not kid ourselves that Nolan made a Batman any less campy than previous directors.

This is definitely not the same definition of camp I know... Cheese, arguably.

But not camp.

The only things I can remotely think of as camp in the Nolan trilogy is the Joker Nurse Outfit scene (which is like, classic Camp, to be fair) and, maybe the 'what a lovely voice' line from Bane.

Would you point me to the true definition of camp, please? I seem to have learned the wrong one.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:I love the first two Nolan Batman movies in their own ways. But let’s not kid ourselves that Nolan made a Batman any less campy than previous directors.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:Would you point me to the true definition of camp, please? I seem to have learned the wrong one.

I'll agree with you on that last point!

I mean, it's no Justice Potter Stewart moment, most likely, but yeah, there's not a lot of 'camp' in Nolan's Batman - by most reasonable definitions of the term.

Definitions vary quite a bit. I hold closer to the Simpson’s definition than Susan Sontag’s. (And perhaps the term has been conflated with cheese or kitsch for me.). When the cast or director play straight something that is ridiculous, or don’t seem to recognize the ridiculousness, to me that is campy. Nolan’s Batman has plenty of ridiculous stuff played straight. Hell, the whole tread of darker and grittier in movies is silly as hell, but for some reason a lot of people either still don’t see it or only laugh when Snyder does it even though Nolan’s films started it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Would you point me to the true definition of camp, please? I seem to have learned the wrong one.

Please keep in mind I'm not a dictionary, nor an expert. No offence is intended to anyone, any failings are due to my own vocabulary rather than any intent to be a jerk...

Broadly speaking, I'd describe camp as adjacent to traditional 60s era LGBT+ / Queer culture (but not necessarily always directly related to it), as illustrated, as for example, the Carry On series of films (Which had one literally called Carry On Camping.)

In reference to Batman, the examples would include a lot of elements of Batman Forever, pretty much everything about Batman & Robin and the 60's Batman show. More modern shows would include DCs Legends of Tomorrow, and Batman: The Brave and the Bold.

Further examples of 'campy' films could include, as an example, Flash Gordon and Rocky Horror. Also, British pantomines.


EDIT: I couldn't let me reference Batman: The Brave and the Bold and its relationship to camp without linking this video...

Well, I used the wrong word then. I had always associated camp with stylistic excess, the “tragically ludicrous”, and an over-the-top sensibility passed off as normalcy (and not anything pertaining to LGBT themes directly). Whatever word describes that, the Nolan films have that in spades.

also adding whenever Jason Momoa is clearly the only actor enjoying himself to the drinking game, not recommmended for lightweights

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Definitions vary quite a bit. I hold closer to the Simpson’s definition than Susan Sontag’s. (And perhaps the term has been conflated with cheese or kitsch for me.). When the cast or director play straight something that is ridiculous, or don’t seem to recognize the ridiculousness, to me that is campy. Nolan’s Batman has plenty of ridiculous stuff played straight. Hell, the whole tread of darker and grittier in movies is silly as hell, but for some reason a lot of people either still don’t see it or only laugh when Snyder does it even though Nolan’s films started it.

Cool - someone else who does not worship in the temple of Nolan