[QuickTidal]

Tsundoku, on 04 May 2016 - 11:40 AM, said:

Didn't Superman cop an excessive and essentially fatal dose of sun in the All Star Superman (2011) movie? Juiced him up for a while but even his system "could'nae handle the powah!"

The All-Star books are not in DC Universe continuity. They were specifically an attempt by DC brass to allow comic creators to tell stories with their IP's but not be conformed to the DC continuity. So they are purposely stories you'd never see with the characters doing thins they might not ever do. The All-Star Batman and Robin was HORRIBLY sexist and brutal (for example).

[QuickTidal]

Finally DC and WB have put someone into the Showrunner-type role that Kevin Feige has to great success at Marvel...with making Geoff Johns and Jon Berg basically co-running/overseeing all DC's film entries from here on out.

http://collider.com/...man-v-superman/

This is a good thing. DC needs this role as I don't think Zack Snyder should be allowed to run the show (even though I might enjoy his films)...and Johns lives and breathes DC comics as one of their premiere writers and the CEO role at DC. He's the right choice, and will hopefully bring the DC movies up to par with Marvel.

I'm unsure if maybe some of the late game things that happened with SUICIDE SQUAD and possibly WW were the result of this change, but I'd imagine that's so. This also speaks to the fact that Seth Graeme-Smith was taken off the FLASH standalone movie recently, and he may possibly also be behind the shift to get Affleck into the Exec producer seat, since the two are co-penning the Standalone Batflick.

Anyways, good news methinks. We will see how they do now.

[amphibian]

I agree it's good news. Having that overall awareness of multiple versions without the "coming to these projects already steeped in Hollywood BS" layer is probably going to yield better results - even if I like the weirdness and somewhat original takes Snyder was giving us.

QuickTidal, did you get a chance to look at my thoughts on the Captain America: Civil War movie?

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 18 May 2016 - 03:12 PM, said:

I agree it's good news. Having that overall awareness of multiple versions without the "coming to these projects already steeped in Hollywood BS" layer is probably going to yield better results - even if I like the weirdness and somewhat original takes Snyder was giving us.

QuickTidal, did you get a chance to look at my thoughts on the Captain America: Civil War movie?

I didn't get to read them over yet, I'll go look on thread.

[Coco with marshmallows]

So i'm hearing VERY positive rumblings regarding the extra long DVD version of the film, anyone on here seen it?

care to comment?

[Binder of Demons]

Coco with marshmallows, on 02 July 2016 - 09:08 PM, said:

So i'm hearing VERY positive rumblings regarding the extra long DVD version of the film, anyone on here seen it?

care to comment?

Not sure how to address this since i have only seen the longer version and so can't compare it too the theatrical release.

But even without that frame of reference I can say that the extended cut is way too long, and could be edited tighter without losing much of the content. The dream sequences were very poorly done in my opinion, completely breaking the flow of the movie. The film has it's moments to be fair, most notably Wonder Woman joining the big fight (which was awesome). But the flaws with the film for me came down to some very uneven writing (some plot stuff too), some uneven acting (Henry Cavill was very mixed in this i felt), and some weird and downright poor characterisation in at least one case (Lex Luthor). Perhaps my issues with Lex Luthor in it are down to a really offputting performance by the actor, crap direction, or maybe that's how it was written? Can't tell at this stage.

But there may be some value in seeing the extended version if you were planning on doing a rewatch, since that way you have some surprises in store, however minor they may be.

[Studlock]

I just saw this movie and I'm outright baffled by its positive reception here. It's not a good movie. Like its really bad, from plot, to characters, to theme, its all a bumbling mess with two big fight scenes to tie it together. I could right why its interpretations of Batman and Superman is the worst interpretations I've ever seen/read/heard but really that's the least of its problem. Its a fundamentally boring movie, the conflicts in the plot, the motivations (or non motivations, or confused motivations) of the characters, even the colour palette is washed out over-dark throw up. I'm not particularly surprised as Snyder has always been a Bay clone without the emotional maturity and tendency toward fascist imagery (300 anyone?) but I am surprised people who actually like Superman or Batman liked this film (Wonder Woman was fine, and really just fine). Lex Luther was a terrible villain and the emotional climax of film involved two grown men coming together by recognizing that there mothers share the same name.

[amphibian]

Studlock, on 03 July 2016 - 01:14 AM, said:

I just saw this movie and I'm outright baffled by its positive reception here. It's not a good movie. Like its really bad, from plot, to characters, to theme, its all a bumbling mess with two big fight scenes to tie it together. I could right why its interpretations of Batman and Superman is the worst interpretations I've ever seen/read/heard but really that's the least of its problem. Its a fundamentally boring movie, the conflicts in the plot, the motivations (or non motivations, or confused motivations) of the characters, even the colour palette is washed out over-dark throw up. I'm not particularly surprised as Snyder has always been a Bay clone without the emotional maturity and tendency toward fascist imagery (300 anyone?) but I am surprised people who actually like Superman or Batman liked this film (Wonder Woman was fine, and really just fine). Lex Luther was a terrible villain and the emotional climax of film involved two grown men coming together by recognizing that there mothers share the same name.

For me, the ambition of what Snyder tried to do (and still is trying to do with the other movies in the franchise) was/is something to be recognized and appreciated.

He could have turned in a lighthearted Marvel-style movie, but chose to challenge viewers with a brooding Superman figuring out the right way to be a demigod, an off-putting Silicon Valley billionaire with an inferiority complex, a murderous Batman with PTSD, and things like African conflicts continuing past superhero interventions. Those are all wildly ambitious things for a tentpole movie to tackle and I'm amazed the studios and funders let Snyder do this.

I have pointed out what I see as the flaws earlier in this thread, but I remain staunchly positive over the ambition and the unique portrayals of the major characters here. It's interesting, even if it fails - which is why I think BvS and Captain America: Civil War are the same level of movie in terms of overall quality.

I'm going to watch the longer version soon and I'll see how I feel about it. Will put my thoughts in this thread.

[Studlock]

I don't know I think something like Red Son, and Dark Knight Rises approaches those themes in a much better way than this films wildest dreams. Its not that Superman is a brooding figure that makes in a bad film (after all we got an amazing brooding Superman in Kingdom Come, or any number of Superman knock-offs--I'm not against a dark Superman, and indeed I think superheroes in general are great of this type of, uh, 'symbolic literalism') its that's there no conviction behind that brooding. The best scene of the movie is when Bruce Wayne is running into the collapsing downtown core whilst everyone is running away, and from that scene alone at least we have some sense of Batman's conviction (but his arc is also heavily disjointed with the 'Knightmare' scenes)--Superman is a complete cipher which is bizarre because he had entire different movie dedicated to him (and that movie is heavily flawed in its own right). Maybe its because I've read way to many (better) comics the riff on the concept 'crazy Batman' or 'dangerous Superman' to see this movie as Snyder fumbling his way through themes he can't help but simplify them because he simply doesn't understand them. His adaption of Watchmen, for instance, is plot wise a very good adaption, but thematically and visual is a terrible adaption. Violence in the comics is not suppose to look stylish or superheroic, its brutal and dehumanizing--deconstructing the violence of superheroes. Sucker Punch was supposedly a feminist film, and yet it's camera's eye is the same as those films its supposedly critiquing. Snyder's ambition is wholly undermined constantly by his inability to present complex images in a coherent manner making his films nothing more than visually/thematically incoherent intimations of better works. That's not a good look.

[amphibian]

If you're pointing to the Nolan movie "The Dark Knight Rises" as a better example of a gritty Batman, I think you're stuck in the "Snyder hate" mode.

I'm very aware of his work, of his Frank Miller love, and of his bizarre/bad interviews. However, his Watchman improves upon the comic books. His 300 improves on the comic book. Sucker Punch is a feminist movie - but falls apart as an actual movie. I speculate because he doesn't know how to put dancing into his movies well and which led to us not being transported by a strong connection to the main character. I thought Guardians of Ga'Hoole had a similar lack of strong connection to his main character as well.

What he does very well is render the action in 300, Watchmen, and Sucker Punch into stylish, yet kinda sterile violence - which is different from BvS, which had a much more visceral feel than those three other movies. What he doesn't do well is get the more subtle emotions in relationships between characters onscreen in great fashion.

Visually, he's a better director/scene creator than Michael Bay. Emotionally, he's got a lesser "hit" rate than Bay does in his better movies.

[QuickTidal]

Nolan's Batman movies are GREAT crime thrillers that just happen to feature Batman and showcase his villains over the titular characters anyways. They are not trumping BvS for gritty Batman, which is the pinnacle of the character that has ever been on the big screen.

And I agree about why Snyder is doing with his films,and I enjoy them for the reasons you've laid out Amph.

[polishgenius]

amphibian, on 03 July 2016 - 03:07 PM, said:

However, his Watchman improves upon the comic books.

I haven't seen BvS yet so I can't comment on it, but this... naaaaaaaaaa. I mean, I liked Watchmen-the-movie but it messed up two of the most important things in the ending so I can't be labeling it better than the original.

I also have my concerns over the idea of Sucker-Punch as a feminist movie- it's absolute male-gaze wish-fullfilment dressed up as feminism by dint of kick-ass women, for me - but that's a whole long debate to be had I think and I've only seen it the once so I'm not sure I'd be up to it.

[Studlock]

I was referencing Dark Knight Returns the comic, so yeah not the movies but you had no way to know that so that's on me. But other than that I heavily disagree. There's a term for video games when the gameplay is disconnected from the story its trying to tell (think like COD having an anti-war story paired with fun twitch gameplay that is the antithesis to the themes of the story)--I can't remember it but I think a similar thing happens in pretty much all of Snyder's movies. BvS is no different (outside of the first Batman scene which is probably the best in the movie)--it's visual language is completely disconnected from the story Snyder is trying to tell, it usually makes the movies an incoherent mess. I've already laid out why I thinks that so--but yeah I think you'll have hard time convincing me the Sucker Punch is a feminist movie (the reading that is, I think, would have to be completely disconnected from the film's visual and characters, and focusing on the 'idea' of the movie), or that the Watchmen movie is better than the book (mostly because the movie is an empty copy of the books visuals in the least appropriate way without the thematic depth). I think 300 is probably his most complete movie, with Man of Steel following close behind, but I also think 300 is a piece of fascistic propaganda and Man of Steel is Superman as raised by a libertarian (his mom) and misanthropic nihilist (his father) which is interesting as an idea, but as a movie is very boring.

I haven't seen, how ever, his work with Dawn of the Dead which is supposedly pretty good, or Legend of the Guardians.

[Morgoth]

amphibian, on 03 July 2016 - 03:07 PM, said:

If you're pointing to the Nolan movie "The Dark Knight Rises" as a better example of a gritty Batman, I think you're stuck in the "Snyder hate" mode.

I'm very aware of his work, of his Frank Miller love, and of his bizarre/bad interviews. However, his Watchman improves upon the comic books. His 300 improves on the comic book. Sucker Punch is a feminist movie - but falls apart as an actual movie. I speculate because he doesn't know how to put dancing into his movies well and which led to us not being transported by a strong connection to the main character. I thought Guardians of Ga'Hoole had a similar lack of strong connection to his main character as well.

What he does very well is render the action in 300, Watchmen, and Sucker Punch into stylish, yet kinda sterile violence - which is different from BvS, which had a much more visceral feel than those three other movies. What he doesn't do well is get the more subtle emotions in relationships between characters onscreen in great fashion.

Visually, he's a better director/scene creator than Michael Bay. Emotionally, he's got a lesser "hit" rate than Bay does in his better movies.

To argue that Snyder's Watchmen improves upon the original comic is crazy talk. Except for the choice of Manhattan being the new "villain" rather than the vagina monster, that was a good choice. Other than that though, there movie fails entierly to grasp not only what the comic was about, but also why the storytelling of the comic was so good.

[polishgenius]

Morgoth, on 04 July 2016 - 10:22 AM, said:

To argue that Snyder's Watchmen improves upon the original comic is crazy talk. Except for the choice of Manhattan being the new "villain" rather than the vagina monster, that was a good choice.

Nah, it was also a terrible choice.

I mean, making the monster not be a vagina monster would have been fine, but making it Manhattan should have ruined the plan entirely.

[Andorion]

Finally saw this.

The movie had its moments but there are too many flaws to ignore.

First off I am not a fan of shoehorning two plots - Dark Knight Returns and Doomsday into the same movie.

Luthor's plan didn't really make a lot of sense to me. His main plan seemed to be to start a scare against Superman and sell his Kryptonite weapon to the US in exchange for access to the ship. When the Senator who chaired the Committee disagreed about taking a hard line against Superman he went for the Bomb plot. Yet apparently he was also setting Batman up with the cancelled checks? What would he have done if the Senator had taken a hard line? That would have made the Batman plot superfluous.

Also how does Luthor know the secret identities of Wayne and Kent?

The Martha moment was atrocious. Batman had a pretty good case against Superman, and all of that just dissolves because they share mothers with the same name? Seriously? It was ridiculous.

The ship and Luthor was also pretty jarring. Luthor gained access using Kryptonian DNA but then the ship let him have proscribed and restricted Kryptonian research projects simply because he asked for it? No security, no access rights?

Superman's death was contrived. The Kryptonite spear was the clear weapon of choice. Superman could not wield it safely. Yet Wonder Woman was present and had demonstrated great skill with archaic weapons/ Neither Superman, not Batman thought for one second that she was the clear candidate to use it? Superman keeps Doomsday busy long enough for WW to get a stab in. Instead Superman does that stupid kamikaze thing.

There are other minor quibbles. Doomsday looked like the Mountain Troll from Fellowship of the Ring. Alfred looked like Commissioner Gordon.

There were things I really liked. Wonder Woman was excellently done. I really wish she got more screentime.

Also the Easter Eggs - the Flash vision was a nod towards Injustice. The Joker Graffiti on the Robin costume, the burnt out Wayne Manor.

Finally there is my issue with this DC pessimistic interpretation of Superman. It just doesn't click with me. For me Superman will be the Superman of the Our Worlds at War finale who did things against impossible odds because he believed it was right. This Superman is bland.

Also isn't Batman supposed to have a No Kill policy? He machine gunned quite a few people here.

[Abyss]

polishgenius, on 04 July 2016 - 04:26 PM, said:

... making the monster not be a vagina monster would have been fine, but making it Manhattan should have ruined the plan entirely.

So basically you're saying that the giant blue penis should have foiled the giant vagina monster?

[QuickTidal]

Andorion, on 05 July 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

Luthor's plan didn't really make a lot of sense to me. His main plan seemed to be to start a scare against Superman and sell his Kryptonite weapon to the US in exchange for access to the ship. When the Senator who chaired the Committee disagreed about taking a hard line against Superman he went for the Bomb plot. Yet apparently he was also setting Batman up with the cancelled checks? What would he have done if the Senator had taken a hard line? That would have made the Batman plot superfluous.

I think that his goal the entire time was to get at the Ship. He knew that the tech on board was going to be the dogs bollocks for his own universe. So everything he did seems to bend to that end. I'd have to re-watch to see if it all holds up. Also, I kind of think that the intention is to see Luthor as a wild card "watch the world burn" Joker-type...but with an endgame of "ruling" said burned wasteland.

Andorion, on 05 July 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

Also how does Luthor know the secret identities of Wayne and Kent?

Ever since Superman showed up, he's basically had his "considerable" resources seeking out all and any info on Metahumans/Superheroes that he can find. We don't know how he accomplished it, but he knows because he's been studying them every since Supes showed up on the global stage presumably.

Andorion, on 05 July 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

The Martha moment was atrocious. Batman had a pretty good case against Superman, and all of that just dissolves because they share mothers with the same name? Seriously? It was ridiculous.

See, I think that everyone seems to focus down on the fact that their mother's share the name Martha. It's not that which stays Bruce's final hand at all. It's the realization, after basically unceremoniously deeming Supes an alien demi-god who could turn at any moment and must be stopped, that this guy has a mother. A human mother. Someone who raised him with human values. This is a two-fold hit to Bruce's mindset: 1. That Superman has a human mother is a staggering turn of just who Superman is and why he would NOT turn on humanity as Bruce assumed, and 2. That his own beloved mother was taken from him at a young age and he never got to have that upbringing that Kent's gave Supes. Both of these things are what stay Bruce's hand. The catalyst for his revelations is the name "Martha"...but that's where it ends. And then add on top of the two things I noted the fact that Bruce is being given a chance to SAVE a mother, a Martha, when Superman asks him. It's an overwhelming set of things to process, and Bruce's mind is changed (at least initially) by all that...not because their mother's share the same name. I also assume rattling around in there is the knowledge that Supes drops on him at the beginning of the fight where he explains that Luthor has been playing them off one another since the beginning. At least that's how I saw it.

Andorion, on 05 July 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

The ship and Luthor was also pretty jarring. Luthor gained access using Kryptonian DNA but then the ship let him have proscribed and restricted Kryptonian research projects simply because he asked for it? No security, no access rights?

The Kryptonian ships worked off the Keys and vocal commands not set to a particular voice (as evidenced in MoS). So with the key AND Zod's body in the water, the Ship naturally agrees. Recall that Zod had unequalled access to the information on his ship because of who he was in life (a General of Krypton). Also, be aware that one of Darkseid's generals is already messing with things on board (deleted scene on the Ultimate edition that was released online) and that may be a part of it as well.

Andorion, on 05 July 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

Superman's death was contrived. The Kryptonite spear was the clear weapon of choice. Superman could not wield it safely. Yet Wonder Woman was present and had demonstrated great skill with archaic weapons/ Neither Superman, not Batman thought for one second that she was the clear candidate to use it? Superman keeps Doomsday busy long enough for WW to get a stab in. Instead Superman does that stupid kamikaze thing.

WW was BARELY holding down Doomsday in that whole sequence. She was holding him with the lasso, and Batman staggers him with the final Kryptonite grenade, and someone had to take the final run with the spear...there was no way DD was being taken down with just WW wielding the spear. I see your issue with it, but this is classic Trinity behaviour on the part of these three individuals.

Andorion, on 05 July 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

There are other minor quibbles. Doomsday looked like the Mountain Troll from Fellowship of the Ring. Alfred looked like Commissioner Gordon.

Agree about the Doomsday design. He really was cribbed directly from the Mountain Troll design. LOL. Blaming Patrick Tatopolous for that (he who is responsible for the 2000 Godzilla design)...Oh, I liked Alfred. It's nice to see an Alfred who isn't a frail guy like Michael Caine (who was great mind you) and instead looks more like Alfred in the comics. At least to me. And with J.K. Simmons playing Gordon in the JL movie, I think we are in for a treat for the DCMU Gordon to be honest. Only time will tell though.

Andorion, on 05 July 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

There were things I really liked. Wonder Woman was excellently done. I really wish she got more screentime.

Easily the BEST bit of the movie were her scenes. And yeah I wished she got more screentime, but it just gets me more amped for her solo movie....and her score theme was the best on the soundtrack too!

Andorion, on 05 July 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

Finally there is my issue with this DC pessimistic interpretation of Superman. It just doesn't click with me. For me Superman will be the Superman of the Our Worlds at War finale who did things against impossible odds because he believed it was right. This Superman is bland.

From what I hear the goal has always been to make Superman EARN the moniker of the White Hat Superman, and earn the whole bright outlook on humanity. He has been challenged by our modern post-9/11 world since his childhood by those who didn't understand him, didn't want him around, or feared him outright...or worse wanted to USE him. He had to GET to the place where he does the things we want him to every time. I like that we've gone there organically. That only when he rises from his "death" will he be able to actually BE the Superman that we need. His sacrifice here has steeled the populace who questioned him into reverence now...so whne he comes back he can be that. If that doesn't happen when he returns, I'll agree with you, but until then I'm okay with this route. It's certainly different than what we've seen before.

Andorion, on 05 July 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

Also isn't Batman supposed to have a No Kill policy? He machine gunned quite a few people here.

There is collateral damage (he machine gunned no one specifically; but villains got in his way) is pretty much par for the course with Batman since the 90's. He beats everyone within an inch of their lives. But yeah, at this point the altruistic Batman who began his crusade 25 years ago is a shadow of who he was...killing, even by Collateral damage, has become a need in his jaded heart. This is the point of that last scene with Bruce and Diana, he's realized that he had long ago lost his way and become cruel and if not villainous, then misguidedly bad. Superman's sacrifice shows him that he has to go back to what he proposed to be when he set out, and Affleck has noted as much in his interviews about his standalone Bamtan movie and his input into the JL movie...that the Batman who returns in those films will be MUCH more like the old Bats, with his no-kill order (even with regards to Collateral damage) intact. What was Bruce's line? Somethign like "I've failed him... in life. I won't fail him in death." and then "Men are still good. We fight. We kill. We betray one another. But we can rebuild. We can do better. We will. We have to. "

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 05 July 2016 - 06:49 PM

[Studlock]

I think you're being quite generous with you viewing QuickTidal. Superman, for instance, doesn't have to earn anything--he is already presented as the better person (see the Jesus imagery that follows him in the past to films). The exceptional person even--one who the rest of society not has to rely on, but should because he's better than them. Likewise, Luthor is all over the place--his character isn't consistent, nor is his character arc coherent. And the Martha thing is hilariously cheesy and only works if you build up an elaborate excuse of why it happens, taken at face value, and even with add subtext, its a man letting go of his hate because his mother shares the same name as his enemy.

Overall, I think as movies they are pretty bad, but as representations of Superman, and Batman its downright cynical and ugly, of both humanity and the heroes themselves. I get it, on some level. Looking at these heroes in a new light is interesting and worthwhile. Watchmen is one of the greatest comics ever (and is light years ahead of the movie in this regard) because it takes tenets of the superhero mythos and deconstructs it; violence is no longer of the cartoon variety but brutal and dehumanizing, the heroes no longer icons and ideals, but people with sexual hangups and ideological motivation. But these movies are not that--they are the exact opposite of that. They are lazy in there deconstruction--boring even (Jesus-Libertarian Superman is not an interesting character). I'm really failing to see the appeal here. There are better deconstructions of the superhero mythos in pretty much all mediums--and its quite clear that the movies don't understand the base characters so what is left here? Vague reinterpretations of iconic characters into cynical, lifeless dolls for Snyder throw at each other in over-saturated, nonsensical violence?

[Andorion]

Quote

I think that his goal the entire time was to get at the Ship. He knew that the tech on board was going to be the dogs bollocks for his own universe. So everything he did seems to bend to that end. I'd have to re-watch to see if it all holds up. Also, I kind of think that the intention is to see Luthor as a wild card "watch the world burn" Joker-type...but with an endgame of "ruling" said burned wasteland.

But that was achieved in the first phase. The male Senator immediately agreed to let him access the ship. He was getting that anyway.

I got the pseudo-Joker vibe from him as well, and it annoyed me a bit because giving every villain that attitude cheapens it. Joler's mindset made him scary and unique. Luthor was never about watching the world burn, it was always about control.

Quote

See, I think that everyone seems to focus down on the fact that their mother's share the name Martha. It's not that which stays Bruce's final hand at all. It's the realization, after basically unceremoniously deeming Supes an alien demi-god who could turn at any moment and must be stopped, that this guy has a mother. A human mother. Someone who raised him with human values. This is a two-fold hit to Bruce's mindset: 1. That Superman has a human mother is a staggering turn of just who Superman is and why he would NOT turn on humanity as Bruce assumed, and 2. That his own beloved mother was taken from him at a young age and he never got to have that upbringing that Kent's gave Supes. Both of these things are what stay Bruce's hand. The catalyst for his revelations is the name "Martha"...but that's where it ends. And then add on top of the two things I noted the fact that Bruce is being given a chance to SAVE a mother, a Martha, when Superman asks him. It's an overwhelming set of things to process, and Bruce's mind is changed (at least initially) by all that...not because their mother's share the same name. I also assume rattling around in there is the knowledge that Supes drops on him at the beginning of the fight where he explains that Luthor has been playing them off one another since the beginning. At least that's how I saw it.

Look I got what they were trying to convey - the entire shared humanity angle, but too me it was very poorly done. Wayne had a huge list of grievances, and Superman having a mother does not nullify those grievances. He still fought a hugely damaging battle in Metropolis, people still died, he is still not accountable to anyone.

Quote

WW was BARELY holding down Doomsday in that whole sequence. She was holding him with the lasso, and Batman staggers him with the final Kryptonite grenade, and someone had to take the final run with the spear...there was no way DD was being taken down with just WW wielding the spear. I see your issue with it, but this is classic Trinity behaviour on the part of these three individuals.

I don't mean holding down as in actually holding down, but keeping occupied. Superman could have done that and WW could have stabbed a moving target. Actually I thought she fared very well in the fight against Doomsday. Her weapons did serious damage and she never really seemed at a loss. Getting her to stab him is pretty basic strategy and I expected Batman to come up with it.

Quote

From what I hear the goal has always been to make Superman EARN the moniker of the White Hat Superman, and earn the whole bright outlook on humanity. He has been challenged by our modern post-9/11 world since his childhood by those who didn't understand him, didn't want him around, or feared him outright...or worse wanted to USE him. He had to GET to the place where he does the things we want him to every time. I like that we've gone there organically. That only when he rises from his "death" will he be able to actually BE the Superman that we need. His sacrifice here has steeled the populace who questioned him into reverence now...so whne he comes back he can be that. If that doesn't happen when he returns, I'll agree with you, but until then I'm okay with this route. It's certainly different than what we've seen before.

Several points:

1. Does 9/11 and the related problems exist in this world? If it does it creates a new problem - how an unexamined wheelchair ended up in the Capitol
2. I am not talking about public opinion on Superman. I am talking about Supermans own attitude. The Superman I am referring to went above and beyond because to him it was the right thing to do.
3. QT have you read our Worlds at War story arc? I can't go into more detail without knowing that
4. How are they going to handle the resurrection? Death and Return of Superman style? Because I have a problem with Superman regeneration as shown here.

Quote

There is collateral damage (he machine gunned no one specifically; but villains got in his way) is pretty much par for the course with Batman since the 90's. He beats everyone within an inch of their lives. But yeah, at this point the altruistic Batman who began his crusade 25 years ago is a shadow of who he was...killing, even by Collateral damage, has become a need in his jaded heart. This is the point of that last scene with Bruce and Diana, he's realized that he had long ago lost his way and become cruel and if not villainous, then misguidedly bad. Superman's sacrifice shows him that he has to go back to what he proposed to be when he set out, and Affleck has noted as much in his interviews about his standalone Bamtan movie and his input into the JL movie...that the Batman who returns in those films will be MUCH more like the old Bats, with his no-kill order (even with regards to Collateral damage) intact. What was Bruce's line? Somethign like "I've failed him... in life. I won't fail him in death." and then "Men are still good. We fight. We kill. We betray one another. But we can rebuild. We can do better. We will. We have to. "

I think its pretty clear that he targets people with guns. Batwing vs cars he just miniguns through them. That kills people. No doubts whatsoever.

I got the hints about a darker Batman - the brandings, the burnt Wayne Manor, the Joker Graffiti and it would be really cool if he had gone down a darker path and Superman inspired him to change - but I really wish more space had been given to this. Which is why this movie felt overstuffed. Batman should have gotten a solo movie. I really don't know why DC is in such a rush.