[Andorion]

Studlock, on 06 July 2016 - 02:08 AM, said:

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?

I agree with the ultra cynical critique. I think Injustice does a better job of breaking down the Superman mythos.

[amphibian]

The messianic figure of Superman - whether he wants it or not - is interesting to me, even as it falls flat for you.

Also, having been in the Capitol and Supreme Court of the US, it's easy to get a wheelchair bomb into the place if accompanied by a billionaire like Lex. Heck, I didn't get searched on my way into Supreme Court bc I went in a different way than everyone else bc I had to meet my interpreters ahead of time and get good seating in front.

It's astoundingly easy with that level of access. That part of the movie is scarily plausible. That's why it's brilliant - Lex won no matter how it turned out and he still chose to kill the lady senator for rejecting him - bc he's a Silicon Valley bro sociopath, not the Lex of canon.

[amphibian]

An aside, I forgot my suit in a train station and had to wear my cousin's clubbing outfit, which was a sparkly black blazer and acid washed jeans, to the Supreme Court. Justice Alito disapproved of my garments and gave me a snooty stare.

[Andorion]

amphibian, on 06 July 2016 - 02:36 AM, said:

The messianic figure of Superman - whether he wants it or not - is interesting to me, even as it falls flat for you.

Also, having been in the Capitol and Supreme Court of the US, it's easy to get a wheelchair bomb into the place if accompanied by a billionaire like Lex. Heck, I didn't get searched on my way into Supreme Court bc I went in a different way than everyone else bc I had to meet my interpreters ahead of time and get good seating in front.

It's astoundingly easy with that level of access. That part of the movie is scarily plausible. That's why it's brilliant - Lex won no matter how it turned out and he still chose to kill the lady senator for rejecting him - bc he's a Silicon Valley bro sociopath, not the Lex of canon.

Interesting about the Capitol. I'll have to tell my brother. He was really interested in the lack of security in the movie

I find it really weird that there seems to be this false binary between messianic Superman and menace Superman. Is there really no other way to show him? Something I loved about this character was how inspiring he was, not it an awe-generating God like sense, but in all the tiny stories of normal people, how Superman made a difference in their lives, how one interaction changed them - he was somehow relatable inspite of the difference between them. That in fact was one of the key differences between him and Batman.

And this is where I disagree with the DC movies - not everything has to be dark and grim. I hate the washed out tone of the movies, also that kind of colour palette makes a lot of trouble for my colour blindness

amphibian, on 06 July 2016 - 02:49 AM, said:

An aside, I forgot my suit in a train station and had to wear my cousin's clubbing outfit, which was a sparkly black blazer and acid washed jeans, to the Supreme Court. Justice Alito disapproved of my garments and gave me a snooty stare.

So you kind of did a Tony Stark at the Senate hearing?

[amphibian]

The way I see it is that nobody human in Clark's home environment could teach him how to be a superhero. Nobody else on Earth can do what he does (although WW comes close). The movie Kents raised him to be a normal person and made it quite clear he was to engage on his own terms - which he is to figure out for himself. That's really difficult, especially with things like power vacuums and the sheer amount of extremely fast decisions he has to make with things and beings he's never trained for or encountered before. Everything is new to him and he is going to fuck up lots at first, then less and less as time goes on. The Pa Kent thing comes off as liberalism, as presented by Ron Paul or somebody and it's interesting to see Superman grapple with that because Corntown, Iowa is exactly the kind of place where liberalism thrives in illogically. It sets up Superman to be oddly unequipped to precisely wield his power on a world scale.

He has no idea of public relations, symbolism, or geopolitical realities - even though he's a reporter, Perry has him doing sports. The people he save are mostly uneducated or off camera. The places he's destroyed (Metropolis, some segments of Gotham) were full of cameras and richer people. There are so many dominoes he's knocking over or placing wrong that the world governments are both frustrated with him and salivating over possible control of him.

So yeah, competing and confusing narratives are going to be built around Superman by groups of people (some of whom have ulterior motives). The narrative for the Affleck Batman is much more tightly controlled, as he knows exactly what he's doing in becoming the grim Batman.

I maintain that this is a very interesting set of things for a blockbuster movie to deal with and the theatrical version is marred by one dream sequence too many (Bruce's umpteenth origin story), badly done hopscotching around at the end in timeline, missing chunks regarding Lex, the appearance of Pa Kent didn't make sense, and a too sterile Clark with Lois. The rest is actually pretty good, even the Martha thing - which is pure comic books goofiness.

I'm not expecting the longer version to fix everything. But thematically, this movie is more interesting than Civil War, but less well executed as a whole.

[Silencer]

amphibian, on 06 July 2016 - 03:24 AM, said:

The way I see it is that nobody human in Clark's home environment could teach him how to be a superhero. Nobody else on Earth can do what he does (although WW comes close). The movie Kents raised him to be a normal person and made it quite clear he was to engage on his own terms - which he is to figure out for himself. That's really difficult, especially with things like power vacuums and the sheer amount of extremely fast decisions he has to make with things and beings he's never trained for or encountered before. Everything is new to him and he is going to fuck up lots at first, then less and less as time goes on. The Pa Kent thing comes off as liberalism, as presented by Ron Paul or somebody and it's interesting to see Superman grapple with that because Corntown, Iowa is exactly the kind of place where liberalism thrives in illogically. It sets up Superman to be oddly unequipped to precisely wield his power on a world scale.

He has no idea of public relations, symbolism, or geopolitical realities - even though he's a reporter, Perry has him doing sports. The people he save are mostly uneducated or off camera. The places he's destroyed (Metropolis, some segments of Gotham) were full of cameras and richer people. There are so many dominoes he's knocking over or placing wrong that the world governments are both frustrated with him and salivating over possible control of him.

So yeah, competing and confusing narratives are going to be built around Superman by groups of people (some of whom have ulterior motives). The narrative for the Affleck Batman is much more tightly controlled, as he knows exactly what he's doing in becoming the grim Batman.

I maintain that this is a very interesting set of things for a blockbuster movie to deal with and the theatrical version is marred by one dream sequence too many (Bruce's umpteenth origin story), badly done hopscotching around at the end in timeline, missing chunks regarding Lex, the appearance of Pa Kent didn't make sense, and a too sterile Clark with Lois. The rest is actually pretty good, even the Martha thing - which is pure comic books goofiness.

I'm not expecting the longer version to fix everything. But thematically, this movie is more interesting than Civil War, but less well executed as a whole.

I think it was probably not the best decision to do this movie at the same time as Civil War, given they both deal with the same theme on a large scale - namely that heroes are generally pretty good at saving the crap out of people on a small scale in the case of natural disasters or accidents, but struggle to do so in the midst of a battle against beings as powerful or more powerful than themselves, and how apparently everyone on the planet (at least this is true for politicians) is apparently blind to the fact that collateral damage from these two sides going to war is going to cause serious destruction, but that ultimately you're better off having Metropolis fall over and go boom than letting Zod terraform the entire planet and kill everyone there, same as you're better off having the Avengers fight a long drawn out battle in NY against aliens coming through a portal than either allowing the aliens to enter the world or alternatively just giving up and nuking the entire site from orbit.

I think where both movies fall down is that they don't have the best premise to work with, and fail to really get into the politics that might be driving these "misunderstandings". Winter Soldier might have had an unbelievable level of HYDRA infiltration into SHIELD/the government, but at least some sort of equivalent level of deliberate political organisation to register the metahumans would have made the Civil War plotline make sense.
Similarly, other than Lex, where was the motivation for anyone to be gunning for Superman? How can an extremely pragmatic Batman hold Superman in any way responsible for the clusterfuck that was Man of Steel, when clearly there was no alternative in place? There needed to be something forcing that spin on the situation.
And I get it. There are people in the world who vote for Donald Trump. Some people will engage in conspiracy theories and ignore reason just because that's who they are. But were there seriously enough of those people to result in the events we see in BvS? If people can't get that up in arms over *mortal humans* controlling UAV strikes, nuclear missiles, or orbital kinetic weapons platforms, then I doubt they'd be too upset over a demi-god who has literally done nothing but try and save the day since his first appearance.

....which is exactly where Lex fucking Luthor should have come in. If you're going to play him as some sort of sociopathic silicon valley bro, as someone upthread put it, then at least have him clearly and effectively pulling political strings all over the place be basically the central premise of the plot, not a sidejob that may or may not have been properly alluded to, and also don't then make him someone who very clearly could never have *become* said silicon valley bro by virtue of his outright obvious insanity and lack of coherent planning ability!

Additionally, make him work his way into Bruce's and Clark's psyches, not just have him do almost literally nothing except for a very poorly thought out plan involving maternal kidnapping and actual terrorism? If you want him to be a puppetmaster, make him a puppetmaster. Want him to be a sociopathic manchild with no real plan? Don't make him Lex Luthor. Want to make a conflicted Superman? Make a conflicted Superman, not a brooding-for-no-reason Superman. Dark Batman? Actually didn't do too badly on that with the nice little allusions in the background there (honestly I think he got a lot more development than Supes in this one), but maybe also make him not completely irrational and easily swayed by mentioning his mummy's name?


Heck, it would have been nicer to see Kent more unsettled by the hero-worship/cultism popping up around him than anything else.

[Andorion]

amphibian, on 06 July 2016 - 03:24 AM, said:

The way I see it is that nobody human in Clark's home environment could teach him how to be a superhero. Nobody else on Earth can do what he does (although WW comes close). The movie Kents raised him to be a normal person and made it quite clear he was to engage on his own terms - which he is to figure out for himself. That's really difficult, especially with things like power vacuums and the sheer amount of extremely fast decisions he has to make with things and beings he's never trained for or encountered before. Everything is new to him and he is going to fuck up lots at first, then less and less as time goes on. The Pa Kent thing comes off as liberalism, as presented by Ron Paul or somebody and it's interesting to see Superman grapple with that because Corntown, Iowa is exactly the kind of place where liberalism thrives in illogically. It sets up Superman to be oddly unequipped to precisely wield his power on a world scale.

He has no idea of public relations, symbolism, or geopolitical realities - even though he's a reporter, Perry has him doing sports. The people he save are mostly uneducated or off camera. The places he's destroyed (Metropolis, some segments of Gotham) were full of cameras and richer people. There are so many dominoes he's knocking over or placing wrong that the world governments are both frustrated with him and salivating over possible control of him.

So yeah, competing and confusing narratives are going to be built around Superman by groups of people (some of whom have ulterior motives). The narrative for the Affleck Batman is much more tightly controlled, as he knows exactly what he's doing in becoming the grim Batman.

I maintain that this is a very interesting set of things for a blockbuster movie to deal with and the theatrical version is marred by one dream sequence too many (Bruce's umpteenth origin story), badly done hopscotching around at the end in timeline, missing chunks regarding Lex, the appearance of Pa Kent didn't make sense, and a too sterile Clark with Lois. The rest is actually pretty good, even the Martha thing - which is pure comic books goofiness.

I'm not expecting the longer version to fix everything. But thematically, this movie is more interesting than Civil War, but less well executed as a whole.

So I suppose here is where I fundamentally differ with the directorial interpretation

I don't see the utility of putting politics - whether libertarian or otherwise into Supermans development. It might ting some contemporary bells, but frankly they could have gone with a more "above and beyond" approach where he does what is right - saving lives regardless of politics and then gone from there into ramifications of a phenomena like that. This is also where I disagree with killing of his father in the first movie. His parents are his moral compass and place of solace. This is illustrated multiple times in the canon in where he flies to them and immediately takes of the costume. For there, he is only their son.

To me these are rather fundamental aspects of Superman's life and I don't agree with the other interpretations made.

Its funny you say that Batman's narrative is more controlled where its usually been the opposite with Superman getting praise and Batman causing controversy.

This brings up another point - the role of Lex Luthor

I have stated upthread that I did not like pseudo Joker Luthor, I want to expand on this.

Luthor has usually been an extremely self-possessed extremely long term planning controlling individual. The issue Superman often has with him is that nothing can be proven against Luthor. This chafes at Superman as he cannot do anything without discarding his own code. Also what Luthor has is ambiguity. He is somebody who can be a potential ally at times of extreme danger. His character is never irredeemably evil. And this ambiguity makes him interesting. Its odd that they bring in ambiguity regarding Superman, while dismissing ambiguity regarding Luthor.

Also I was rather disappointed by the acting Lois Lane. There really did not seem to be much chemistry there. I could not stop thinking of Scarlet Johansson as Black Widow. The way she dominates the screen - the role of Lois is quintessential in Superman's life - any acting weakness in this role is not really acceptable.

[QuickTidal]

Andorion, on 06 July 2016 - 02:17 AM, said:

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.

Yes, but control VIA slash and burn techniques. Like not caring who or what he has to take down to get there. I think we are essentially saying the same thing here.

Andorion, on 06 July 2016 - 02:17 AM, said:

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.

I don't think Bruce has a huge list of grievances at all. He's literally got one (Superman is dangerous becuase of his immense power) in that a portion of Metropolis (the portion that contained a Wayne Enterprises building) got destroyed. I wish I could find the screenshot from MoS but the pull back shot on the city of Metropolis after the Zod battle shows about 5% of it destroyed....but yes people still died, and that's Bruce's issue. But that's his only issue...and the clincher to Bruce's change of thinking is Clark's humanity.

Andorion, on 06 July 2016 - 02:17 AM, said:

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.

I can see what you mean, but honestly Wonder Woman knew nothing of the spear. And explaining "Stab him with this" during the massive fight would have been a bridge to far for me. Superman knew about the spear (as did Batman), and he chose to take that shot. The whole "sacrifice" at the end depends on that act, so it kind of had to go that way.

Andorion, on 06 July 2016 - 02:17 AM, said:

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.

1. I can't imagine that they don't. Snyder is a big fan of realism in his fantasy. But I think it's safe to say that terrorism exists in the DCMU.
2. I get that is the traditional view of the hero...but I really enjoy the cynical view that such a hero won't emerge fully formed from Kansas (especially not Kansas of the last 20 years) and needs shaping and forming and basically has the steepest learning curve of anyone on the planet. He WILL do what you want him to...just not yet. Look to the JL movies to see that Superman.
3. I've read it, not sure how it applies? Again, I get that the traditional example of Superman is the white-hatted, do good, spring out fully formed and make no mistakes. This is not that Superman. Not yet.
4, I'm not sure how they will handle it. I assume not the 90's resurrection with the multiple Superman allegories filling his shoes till he returns. But I love the idea that to become the white-hatted Superman he had to die first.

Andorion, on 06 July 2016 - 02:17 AM, said:

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.

Eh, this is debatable. I very carefully watched the second time I saw it in theatre for this reason. The only time anyone gets intentionally machinegunned is when he's driving the batmobile through the thugs to get the Kryptonite, and they basically jump in front of the batmobile and get gunned down as he's shooting to get past obstacles. The only other intentional death that occurs directly as a result of Batman's actions is the guy who is holding Martha Kent hostage...and he's an acceptable casualty to save her, so Batman makes that call. And yeah, he does kind of kill...but it REALLY is collaterally not caring as opposed to direct killing. Yes, this is not a Batman who has a no-kill code anymore, it's a Batman who has let that lapse in favor of his drive for justice that is completely misguuided. Something he realizes at the end of the film.

The overstuffedness (it's a word! LOL) I feel is largely due to DC tacking on all the JL stuff. DC is in a rush becuase they can't wait for 8 years to develop their series like Marvel did. They were behind the 8-ball and if they'd tried to go that route, Marvel would have saturated everyone on Superhero movies and DC would be left with its cheese in the wind. So they amped everything up, stuffed this movie full, and went for it. I THINK they largely succeeded to be honest...they've put their Superman AND Batman through their paces now to turn them into the two men we all know them to be traditionally by the end, they introduced us to a fantastic Wonder Woman (whose standalone movie is up next after SS...so that lines up perfect), and lined up Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg as well (if only scattered moments) and then gave us a peek at the villain in the JL movie (Darkseid's minion/general). Is it perfect? Oh hells no. But for me, they've set their table now in one film. So while it IS defintiely overstuffed...I can see why they had to go this way.

I think the thing I like most about the way DC is going about this, is it's COMPLETELY different from what Marvel is doing. It's a wholly different style and take on the whole Superhero genre as a whole. So we get the comedy-filled, action packed, bright Marvel movies on one side, and the darker toned, realism-infused, DC movies on the other. I'm happy to have both and have them be completely different from one another.

And if I can take a moment to SLIGHTLY give the MCU the gears...their movies HAVE become kind of cookie cutter. Cap 3 is fantastic...but I'd be lying if I said they did much different from the team-up movies that came before in the MCU). I think they need to shake things up.

Thanks for engaing on this Andorion! I love debating this flick!

[Primateus]

I agree that the whole" Batman has legitimate grievances" angle is bullshit. He doesn't. Nothing of what happened in Man of Steel was something that Clark could have prevented. Zod would have gone ahead with the terraforming regardless of what Clark did.
And the whole "You brought a war to our world" from BvS is COMPLETELY bullshit. He did nothing of the sort, he was a baby and simply cannot be held responsible for what happened on Krypton.

So, again, what grievances is it that Batman has that he hasn't just conjured up in his own mind?

[Andorion]

Don't want to make a huge wall of text, so fresh post to QT

1. Luthor - as I said in post upthread, Luthor is someone who plans long term. While Eisenberg did an excellent deranged Luthor, pseudo joker Luthor missed the dignified menace I have come to expect

2. You and I will have to agree to disagree on the Martha issue. I just feel it could have been done better

3. I don't think WW would have trouble with impromptu battlefield strategy. She seemed the brightest of the three really

4. World at War - remember how Superman lost his parents to an Imperiex attack? And then he was all over the globe, trying to fight off Imperiex probes and not doing a very good job until Luthor persuaded him that he has to operate under the overall strategic command of Luthor. To me that was Superman was making a compromise. Then he was persuaded by Luthor and Darkseid to supercharge from the Sun and fly straight into Warworld to destroy it, only he understood that it would only lead to the galaxy dying anyway. At that point he had agreed to set aside his No Kill policy but when he understood that they slapped together the Boom Tube plan. Now here is where the ending shone. So far Superman got lots of lectures on pragmatism from both Luthor and Darkseid. He was still grieving for his parents. he was still shocked from friends dying and yet, in that moment he managed to rescue Luthor's daughter and restored her as a baby to Lex, the baby Lex had bartered for power. That panel to me encapsulated Superman. He goes above and beyond because to him its the right thing and he honestly believes everybody deserves a second chance. And he left Luthor shocked and speechless with his baby in his arms. I really miss that Superman who was vulnerable but still strong in a different way.

5. I think I am comfortable with a Batman who went down the darker route but is now reconsidering his choices.

Marvel vs DC - maybe I don't like the DC movies because I had 0 investment in Marvel before the movies while I was quite into DC.

Though I disagree that Marvel is plain Cookie Cutter - Iron Man's storyline is pretty damn dark - I think he has a bad mixture of PTSD and childhood trauma which together explain his Civil War mentality quite well.

And Avengers is one of the most entertaining movies I have ever seen.

[QuickTidal]

1. I agree this is not the Luthor we know from the comics, the cold-hearted, steely-eyed CEO...but rather a modern day tech-bro gone mad. I kind of like that, it fits. And he has time to become something more menacing. I thought Eisenberg did a great job though, and I look forward to the growth of his version of Lex.

2. Fair enough. I know I'm in the minority as it's become something of a meme round the internet.

3. Oh I agree, but again this is very much in tune with the Trinity behaviour of old. On top of all else it probably really comes down to Superman WANTING to take the hit on a beast he feels totally responsible for.

4. I wholeheartedly agree that's Superman. But we're not there yet. I think Snyder (and at the time of MoS Goyer) were defiantly building that Superman out of the clay of a completely untested and untempered one. I hope for a scene like you mentioned in the upcoming JL movies.

5. Yeah, I mean it's a nice switch up from how he's always presented in the comics. Nothing wrong with a little character flip and growth as a result.

Oh yeah, I can see that totally. I was WAY more invested in the DC universe ever since I was a little kid. I had Justice League sheets! (Still have a pillow case around somewhere, haha) and as a result I'm far more discerning of the universe...but I keep coming back to the whole "they are building up to that and when it comes, oh man it's going to be heroic!" POV with the movies. I am actually getting the classic, fully formed incarnations of the characters on the TV shows (FLASH, ARROW, and LoT), so I'm happy there is a difference. And I had little-to-no investment in Marvel since I was a kid barring probably Spiderman (sidebar: when I was a kid and my mom asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up I said Spiderman, and she would say "But he's American", and I'd reply that I was going to be the Canadian Spiderman). So when I went into movies like IRON MAN or THOR or even CAP...I had zero expectations or preconceived notions, so I think you're very right in that regard. I think that nostalgia and traditional set framework for the DC heroes has caused them some damage with the more traditionalist populace just because these characters have a 75 year history to contend with amongst the fanbase.

I should clarify, Marvel has GOTTEN cookie cutter over 8+ films. I think ANT-MAN is the culmination of the cookie-shape. It's a fun and enjoyable Superhero movie, but took zero risks and didn't try to do anything different with the origin style that Marvel has perfected.

I agree and think AVENGERS is the MCU's high water mark. But AVENGERS: AoU is a bit of a mess, and really lost any cohesion halfway through in it's attempt to set up CAP3. I have no issues with Marvel taking this approach. It works, and produces successful enjoyable movies that I usually really enjoy (again, barring AoU). I just think that what DC is attempting with their films is bolder and braver from an artistic POV.

[amphibian]

The suspicion and fear Batman has of Superman is somewhat reasonable in that Superman never told the world why he fought Zod. To an outsider's perspective, it could be a falling out between friends and much of a city gets wiped out in an hour. That's wildly destructive.

For all the world knows, Superman has been doing near random things after the battle in Metropolis and some of them turn out bad like the African warlord conflict. There's only 18 months in between Z's world altering appearance and the discovery of aliens by the general populace. People have to be going bonkers now and then - regular people, military, governments, eccentric billionaires etc. Clark hasn't given interviews or gone to the broadcast networks to explain himself, so all people see is what they want to see.

That's why Lex and Bruce both starting long R&D cycles, building plans, and putting things into motion to take down Superman is kind of reasonable. It's not what Bill Gates or Carlos Slim would do, but hey, this is comic book movie.

[QuickTidal]

Review of the Ultimate Cut of the film coming on DVD and BluRay sounds like it's pretty amazing.

[Silencer]

It does sound like it could be a lot better. Also sounds *extremely long*, lol. I've got nothing against watching a great 3 hour film, but I have my doubts any extra material could make BvS worth that much time. Will just have to wait and see.

[champ]

Justice League Comic Con trailer

[QuickTidal]

Looks great actually. Lots of humour. Batman is even not just Mr. McBroody here. Like the banter with Bruce and Diana...almost Ocean's 11-ish.

I think my only complaints are thus: Flash's outfit...not great, and Cyborg's armor being that organic looking growth metal?

Otherwise, count me SO in.

[Aptorian]

Didn't like the Flash character in this trailer but otherwise this looks interesting enough.

I wonder if they will go the Avengers route of releasing a slew of films, hinting at a nefarious plot by some unseen entity luriking in the shadows or if the first film will just be "Here comes Darkseid hold on to your butts!".

[Tsundoku]

Just saw BvS Ultimate Edition. Hadn't seen it in cinemas, so while there were things that irked me a little, it was far better than I had anticipated due to all the previous criticisms based on the cinematic version.

3 out of 4 super-powered freaks from me.

EDIT: how freaking hawt is Gal Gadot? Her Wonder Woman sure likes a good fight.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 24 July 2016 - 12:14 PM

[Cause]

Also just cached the extended edition. It goes a long way to improving on many aspects of the movie. Especially the Superman VS USA hearings. Still leaves a lot of plot holes.

[Aptorian]

Tsundoku, on 24 July 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

EDIT: how freaking hawt is Gal Gadot? Her Wonder Woman sure likes a good fight.

Yeah, there's that scene where she takes a big punch or eye beam blast or something and she just smiles and runs back in. She definitely came off as the coolest of the three heroes during the Doomsday battle.