Who would they even have play Batman? I'm pretty sure Christian Bale is done with the role. Honestly, DC doesn't have a chance against Marvel in the movies.
On July 21 2013 17:15 kushm4sta wrote: How are they even in the same league?? Superman could own batman in like half a second
Uh... No? Superman is only as powerful as the story needs him to be. Also, read the comics. Batman destroys Superman at least 3 different times that I can remember.
On July 21 2013 17:15 kushm4sta wrote: How are they even in the same league?? Superman could own batman in like half a second
Uh... No? Superman is only as powerful as the story needs him to be. Also, read the comics. Batman destroys Superman at least 3 different times that I can remember.
The problem is just transferring comic book to live action and make it believable.
On July 21 2013 17:16 NEOtheONE wrote: Who would they even have play Batman? I'm pretty sure Christian Bale is done with the role. Honestly, DC doesn't have a chance against Marvel in the movies.
Bale is done playing Bruce Wayne/Batman unless Nolan comes back as director. Nolan being a producer is not enough for him to return. I'm glad it's that way since I'd rather have someone new instead. Even if Bale returns it will be hard to not remember how he was in The Dark Knight trilogy. In order to make this and a future Justice League movie work, there needs a Batman that is more like the Arkham video games and the comics.
On July 21 2013 17:15 kushm4sta wrote: How are they even in the same league?? Superman could own batman in like half a second
Uh... No? Superman is only as powerful as the story needs him to be. Also, read the comics. Batman destroys Superman at least 3 different times that I can remember.
NOPE NOPE NOPE.
Superman beats Batman in Babel despite Batman’s heavy preparation. Superman kills Batman in Red Son. Superman humiliates Batman in Superman/Batman 2 despite all the odds favoring Batman. Superman smashes Batman in Infinite Crisis despite the absolute Krypton Ring. Superman obliterates Batman in Hush series, again despite Batman’s preparation.
The only time Batman beats Superman is when Batman just turns on Superman without any motivation or when Superman acts out of character due to poor script writing.
There is no universe, alternate reality, hallucinatory world, or fantasy where Batman wins vs. Superman.
On July 21 2013 17:15 kushm4sta wrote: How are they even in the same league?? Superman could own batman in like half a second
Uh... No? Superman is only as powerful as the story needs him to be. Also, read the comics. Batman destroys Superman at least 3 different times that I can remember.
Yeah. Just give Batman enough time to prepare, then he can fight Superman on some level. Even if Batman did not have time, this guy has backup of a backup anyways. The problem is just transferring comic book to live action and make it believable.
On July 21 2013 17:16 NEOtheONE wrote: Who would they even have play Batman? I'm pretty sure Christian Bale is done with the role. Honestly, DC doesn't have a chance against Marvel in the movies.
Bale is done playing Bruce Wayne/Batman unless Nolan comes back as director. Nolan being a producer is not enough for him to return. I'm glad it's that way since I'd rather have someone new instead. Even if Bale returns it will be hard to not remember how he was in The Dark Knight trilogy. In order to make this and a future Justice League movie work, there needs a Batman that is more like the Arkham video games and the comics.
sorry sir you are wrong. read above. even when Batman has all eternity to prepare, he CANNOT beat Superman.
I agree. The only people Batman can't beat, even with preparation, are people with cosmic powers. Regular old Superman doesn't have them. Silver Age Superman does. Magog (Superboy Evil) does. Can't remember who else.
I don't think this will turn out well. Especially if they go the Batman vs. Superman route. Also, too soon after Bale dominated as Batman for anybody else to play the role.
I hate Superman because he is the worst super hero concept ever thought of. He is so overpowered they had to make up some random weakness, like the original green kryptonite, red kryptonite, gold, blue, etc, to keep the story from going full retard to semi retard. Then there's Superman Prime, with the power of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality, invulnerability, resurrection, creation, alteration of reality and physics, and other stuff.
How about Shining Knight and the Vigilante duo? They're pretty funny together.
Bad idea. Especially if Synder and Nolan are in charge. MOS was awful. If this is the Superman sequel I won't be watching it. I've already had enough of Synder/Nolan's "version" of Superman.
Speaking of which, if anyone wants to watch a good animation of TDKR, I strongly recommend:
On July 21 2013 17:36 anrimayu wrote: I hate Superman because he is the worst super hero concept ever thought of. He is so overpowered they had to make up some random weakness, like the original green kryptonite, red kryptonite, gold, blue, etc, to keep the story from going full retard to semi retard. Then there's Superman Prime, with the power of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality, invulnerability, resurrection, creation, alteration of reality and physics, and other stuff.
How about Shining Knight and the Vigilante duo? They're pretty funny together.
Superman is comparable to Thor in the role they fit in their respective universes. Both have a hard time transitioning to the big screen because of how OP they are, but Marvel has been doing a slightly better job than DC have at making their hero interesting (though Thor really isn't that fun to watch for me personally).
Most (superhero)movies besides the latest batman movies are quite lame CGI-clashes of badly written charakters.
So Batsuperironman plot:
Batman is pissed with superman (and RDJ is too, money should be the only legal superpower) Batman secretly reveals supermans identity, and then superman is forced to move from metropolis, loosing his wife/gf/whatver he has in this universe, starts doing drugs and alcohol, starts random robbing and killing. Batman is quite happy with the result. And builds a Kryptonite Jail for the now ill intended superman, he appeals at supermans moral via media , to deliver himself to the cell and get frozen in ice covered with kryptonite, repaying for all the harm he has done. Batman and RDJ happy controling the world with money In the dark and frozen superman pics up radiowaves, showing him the new courrupt world RDJ and Batma created. Closing scene : Superman in the dark burns out of the ice-jail with laser eyes.
Batsuperironman II :
Dripping water from Kryptonite/ice Jail, superman is free, in the dark, but kryotonite harms him, he breaks out of the room to find out, it was just a capsule traveling through space, the radiowaves have reached him from 1000 ligth years late. Being a stupid journalist, he can not determine where he is, and even with super speed he can not find earth.
Other part of the movie. Batmans grand grand grand grand grand grand son is sad having no superman and builds time machine to stop the ice/Kryptonite Jail rocket from launching. Fails. Builds superman beacon to lead him home. Wins. Gives Superman astronomy lessons and together they do the Startrek-style around the sun timetravel to stop evilpast batman and RDJ from launching superman and corrupting the world. DA END.
Shitting piss, didn't we JUST see the ultimate Batman trilogy? How am I ever going to get over Christian Bale, who was the perfect Batman?
Either they take some pathetic 100 pound dude like Michael Keaton, or some expressionless bulk-monster to play Batman, none of which nearly capture the character. And seriously, in a universe where Superman exists, Batman is absolutely pointless. That maybe works in animation, but if they want to make it in life action, they have to completely overturn the "realistic" Batman we just learned to love.
On July 21 2013 17:15 kushm4sta wrote: How are they even in the same league?? Superman could own batman in like half a second
Uh... No? Superman is only as powerful as the story needs him to be. Also, read the comics. Batman destroys Superman at least 3 different times that I can remember.
NOPE NOPE NOPE.
Superman beats Batman in Babel despite Batman’s heavy preparation. Superman kills Batman in Red Son. Superman humiliates Batman in Superman/Batman 2 despite all the odds favoring Batman. Superman smashes Batman in Infinite Crisis despite the absolute Krypton Ring. Superman obliterates Batman in Hush series, again despite Batman’s preparation.
The only time Batman beats Superman is when Batman just turns on Superman without any motivation or when Superman acts out of character due to poor script writing.
There is no universe, alternate reality, hallucinatory world, or fantasy where Batman wins vs. Superman.
Pretty sure he beats him in The Dark Knight Returns. Albeit, with significant planning, money and a little help. But it's all Batman's work, so it still counts
Why is everyone so negative? I for one am absolutely ready for a new Batman, especially if we don't have to sit through yet another origin story. Yes Nolans Batman was great but what is so bad about a less realistic Batman?
Honestly this is the only way I can see a Justice League movie ever happening too. If they can make make Batman work alongside Supes then JL will be a lot easier to make work. If it doesn't work then there'll be no JL.
I'm not saying it will be easy to do but people seem to forget that Bats is smart, Like super genius smart! Supes just punches things really hard. We have yet to see the world greatest detective side of Batman on the big screen and I think this is the perfect place to do that.
On the studios side of things, this is going to make Warner Bros. a metric shit-ton of money regardless of how good it is. That's the only reason they need to make it.
On July 21 2013 18:13 plgElwood wrote: Most (superhero)movies besides the latest batman movies are quite lame CGI-clashes of badly written charakters.
So Batsuperironman plot:
Batman is pissed with superman (and RDJ is too, money should be the only legal superpower) Batman secretly reveals supermans identity, and then superman is forced to move from metropolis, loosing his wife/gf/whatver he has in this universe, starts doing drugs and alcohol, starts random robbing and killing. Batman is quite happy with the result. And builds a Kryptonite Jail for the now ill intended superman, he appeals at supermans moral via media , to deliver himself to the cell and get frozen in ice covered with kryptonite, repaying for all the harm he has done. Batman and RDJ happy controling the world with money In the dark and frozen superman pics up radiowaves, showing him the new courrupt world RDJ and Batma created. Closing scene : Superman in the dark burns out of the ice-jail with laser eyes.
Batsuperironman II :
Dripping water from Kryptonite/ice Jail, superman is free, in the dark, but kryotonite harms him, he breaks out of the room to find out, it was just a capsule traveling through space, the radiowaves have reached him from 1000 ligth years late. Being a stupid journalist, he can not determine where he is, and even with super speed he can not find earth.
Other part of the movie. Batmans grand grand grand grand grand grand son is sad having no superman and builds time machine to stop the ice/Kryptonite Jail rocket from launching. Fails. Builds superman beacon to lead him home. Wins. Gives Superman astronomy lessons and together they do the Startrek-style around the sun timetravel to stop evilpast batman and RDJ from launching superman and corrupting the world. DA END.
WTF is up with people bitching about it being too soon? I'd rather watch movies while I'm still young and living rather than wait years for movies to come out. If Hollywood has the money to pump into it, then do it sooner than later. I don't want to wait around doing other shit if I can get it earlier. Why watch it in two years' time when you can watch it in one?
Would you rather Starcraft III come out in one year or two?
lol. If it really is Batman vs. Superman it's going to be really bad. There is no way a fight between them is even close without a convoluted, horrible, very DCesque storyline, or kryptonite. This will be bad.
At first this sounds like the worst idea ever - *ever*. Yes, even worse than Blade Runner 2 (stay the f*** away from your good movies, Scott).
But when you think about it, this could mean: 1. The potential end for the MoS-Superman 2. A Batman that doesn't look, sound and emote equivalently to Kristen Stewart 3. The perfect opportunity to utilize an overly complicated and confusing plot and storyline for something good for once - how else can a mere mortal in a Halloween costume compete with fascist-space-Jesus-guy? We must exposition away and it shall lead to glory 4. Relevance for characters like Lex Luthor, who would be completely redundant in the current Superman-movie franchise.
On July 21 2013 19:15 ZackAttack wrote: lol. If it really is Batman vs. Superman it's going to be really bad. There is no way a fight between them is even close without a convoluted, horrible, very DCesque storyline, or kryptonite. This will be bad.
Yeah this is main reason I am hesitant about it...
This is coming from a Superman fan btw. Yeah I feel Supes is OP but a lot of his traditional villains are also OP so it kinda balances out... Putting him up against Batman would be lame.
well its quite obvious the whole film is going to revolve around bullshit inventions to keep superman humanish, the only way they will get around it is not to use bullshit kryptonite cop out but more of an artificial krytonite engineered bullshit which falls out of sync freqency or some bullshit but basically its going to be encounter after encounter of bullshit cos superman is too fucking OP
On July 21 2013 18:28 Meow-Meow wrote: Shitting piss, didn't we JUST see the ultimate Batman trilogy? How am I ever going to get over Christian Bale, who was the perfect Batman?
Exactly my thoughts...
Also, even though Superman is always however powerful the plot needs him to be, sometimes even outright pathetic (like the alternative comics where Batman actually beat him...), going by the canon it is pretty clear he could effortlessly destroy even an army of batmen with a snap of his fingers.
I haven't seen the man of steel movie but I'm sure no amount of time, no amount of preparation, no amount of resources even have a minuscule chance of working against Superman. He is basically an unstoppable force compared to a small ant that is the bat. He is way smarter than batman, finding weaknesses and flaws in batman's technology, gadgets and inventions. He has access to alien technology a million times more advanced anything Bruce could ever imagine. He can basically make entire planets explode, time stop etc. He can even come back from the dead.
It will be incredibly difficult for them to make something that works. Perhaps impossible.
"Superman is as strong as he needs to be" the whole concept of Superman seems cheap to me. Remembers me of the Superman vs Goku video. As horrible of an idea it may be, this is gonna make cash. Just look at Man of Steel, a mediocre film wich grossed 650 million dollars.
Batman is an interesting hero. He needs to use stealth, skill and gadgetry to overcome his adversaries. Superman is just "me smash".
How anyone can get entertainment out of Superman has always been beyond me. Nevertheless, I'll be interested to watch this just to see how they can possibly come up with a storyline in which Batman stands a chance against Superman.
Superman vs batman? Why would they fight one another? I thought they both are good (not evil). The best movie will be superman, batman, alien and tyrranosaurus ffa.
On July 21 2013 22:24 Amanebak wrote: Superman vs batman? Why would they fight one another? I thought they both are good (not evil). The best movie will be superman, batman, alien and tyrranosaurus ffa.
Tyrannosarus? Superman could rape Godzilla -- without even trying. That's how utterly dumb a character he is and how flawed he is in concept.
On July 21 2013 22:23 PassiveAce wrote: this looks atrocious imo
obviously superman wrecks batmans face. its not even a competition
like someone said there is like no way to make superman into an interesting character
What does, the one screencap you saw?
Man, most of you guys are just cynical little 14 year olds. You know nothing yet, and already calling this the shittiest movie ever. Batman vs Superman has been around for a long ass time. And were some of the best comics, definitely some of the most entertaining.
You know nothing yet, so stop pretending like you do.
On July 21 2013 22:23 PassiveAce wrote: this looks atrocious imo
obviously superman wrecks batmans face. its not even a competition
like someone said there is like no way to make superman into an interesting character
What does, the one screencap you saw?
Man, most of you guys are just cynical little 14 year olds. You know nothing yet, and already calling this the shittiest movie ever. Batman vs Superman has been around for a long ass time. And were some of the best comics, definitely some of the most entertaining.
You know nothing yet, so stop pretending like you do.
On July 21 2013 22:23 PassiveAce wrote: this looks atrocious imo
obviously superman wrecks batmans face. its not even a competition
like someone said there is like no way to make superman into an interesting character
What does, the one screencap you saw?
Man, most of you guys are just cynical little 14 year olds. You know nothing yet, and already calling this the shittiest movie ever. Batman vs Superman has been around for a long ass time. And were some of the best comics, definitely some of the most entertaining.
You know nothing yet, so stop pretending like you do.
pretty sure the only people that can enjoy movies like this are 14 y/o's
On July 21 2013 22:23 PassiveAce wrote: this looks atrocious imo
obviously superman wrecks batmans face. its not even a competition
like someone said there is like no way to make superman into an interesting character
What does, the one screencap you saw?
Man, most of you guys are just cynical little 14 year olds. You know nothing yet, and already calling this the shittiest movie ever. Batman vs Superman has been around for a long ass time. And were some of the best comics, definitely some of the most entertaining.
You know nothing yet, so stop pretending like you do.
boxoffice will do well, just that it won't be that good of a movie imo they just don't really fit in well together, only the comics do it pretty well but in a movie? it will just feel silly
On July 21 2013 22:23 PassiveAce wrote: this looks atrocious imo
obviously superman wrecks batmans face. its not even a competition
like someone said there is like no way to make superman into an interesting character
What does, the one screencap you saw?
Man, most of you guys are just cynical little 14 year olds. You know nothing yet, and already calling this the shittiest movie ever. Batman vs Superman has been around for a long ass time. And were some of the best comics, definitely some of the most entertaining.
You know nothing yet, so stop pretending like you do.
Uh oh. We got a DC fanboy on our hands. Why don't you stop rooting for John Cena and read Marvel like a real man.
I think that, if one looks at the recent surge in superhero movies (say over the past decade or so) it's actually pretty obvious who makes for good movies and who doesn't. The reason that Nolan's Batman trilogy was so successful, aside from just being well put-together, was because it was, at least on the level of characters themselves, fairly believable and realistic. The basic problem I've always had with the superhero genre in general (from comics to TV to movies) is that most superheroes are just kinda boring. It's not that they don't have interesting histories, or that they don't have complex motivations (depending on the source) but that I feel a lot of them are just...lacking in concept. While comic books as a medium are great in the sense that they allow collaboration, parallel storylines, and a continuously evolving canon, they also promote diffuse characterization insofar as even though a particular author might characterize the Hulk in a particular fashion, this author is still contributing to the overall canon, which means that when someone says they're going to make a "Hulk movie," the definition of Hulk is unclear, as it depends entirely on which manifestation of the Hulk is used. And that's where we run into problems. Regrettably, there are a shitload of comics which are basically author-insertion, reader-insertion, or which power up characters to astronomical (literally) proportions in order to raise the stakes and differentiate the work in question from the dozens of other authors treating the same character (be they past, present, or future). Frankly, that just sucks.
Superman vs. Batman sounds dumb because of who the public perceives these two heroes to be: Batman is a clever, physically fit, but otherwise human hero with a dark history and a tendency for a mixture of practical cynicism and harsh personal rules/ideals. Superman is an alien with unmatchable powers and near-invulnerability; unfortunately, he's also boring, because he's not a real-seeming human being with anything approaching a human crisis. Sigh.
superman is overpowered yeah but its his morals and origins that make him interesting, not powers. plus, there are enemies as strong or stronger than him. dont yell nonsense if you havent done research.
great, looking forward to another gritty superhero movie with inept, heavy-handed social commentary, lifeless wham-punch action sequences, no character development, and heroes who aren't relatable to anything in the real world
just because they're based on comic books, that doesn't mean the movies have to be mindless, childish escapism like comic books... how about writing a compelling story that happens to take place in a superhero world?
I just hope this doesn't take away from their animated movie budget. They're in the middle of a good streak with them, having Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox releasing this last week, and Justice League: War coming this winter.
I don't watch a lot of movies and I don't read a lot of comics, but reading this thread I have to ask: what do you guys demand from a movie? There is almost no info available yet all I see is criticism. What do you want from a movie, superhero movies in particular?
On July 21 2013 23:34 Zealously wrote: I don't watch a lot of movies and I don't read a lot of comics, but reading this thread I have to ask: what do you guys demand from a movie? There is almost no info available yet all I see is criticism. What do you want from a movie, superhero movies in particular?
i demand that a movie have some kind of narrative merit, that's all. it can be full of action, explosions and CGI as long as it's telling a story and telling it effectively.
in my opinion, all movies should be art and all movies should be storytelling. action as a genre doesn't mean "no story/no artistic vision," it just means that the vision is presented in an action context.
On July 21 2013 23:18 agahamsorr0w wrote: superman is overpowered yeah but its his morals and origins that make him interesting, not powers. plus, there are enemies as strong or stronger than him. dont yell nonsense if you havent done research.
his origins? suuuuper interesting. we have an super advanced race capable of space travel yet they entirely miss that their planet blows up. really? that was interesting as long as we didn't know it. because it doesn't make any sense. and stronger as superman. that's really totally what we need. more overpoweredness. more senseless bashing because it would be clear after 5 min that only superman stands a chance against this evil.
On July 21 2013 23:34 Zealously wrote: I don't watch a lot of movies and I don't read a lot of comics, but reading this thread I have to ask: what do you guys demand from a movie? There is almost no info available yet all I see is criticism. What do you want from a movie, superhero movies in particular?
Characters with depth, aversion to fanservice, coherent storylines, a deliberate decision to make either a fantasy movie or a realistic movie (rather than both at once) as well as fewer philosophy 101 themes would be fine. I guess what I'm looking for is a really good superhero genre movie, rather than a movie about superheroes that is good/a blockbuster, but which fades away quickly because it's basically just a creative, well-executed action movie with not much substance. I'd say the best example of this is something like the Avengers; it was a really well-made movie, and a joy to watch, but it didn't really have much to it since it was banking on the hype factor of "omg all these characters on the screen at the same time and huge battles." There's nothing really "wrong" with that, per se, but it just feels similar to popular fiction: there are good works and bad ones, but none of them endure, because none of them bring much new to the table.
I'm thinking that something is going to happen to make Supes turn against the world he loves (mind control? alien virus?)
Supes then starts becoming a threat to the world and it is up to Batman to use his skills and intelligence to come up with a way to defeat the Worlds most Powerful Being.
Batman figures out how to emulate Krypton's atmosphere via a special chemical/gas/device/tinker toy. He uses it on Supes. But to Batman's shock Supes is not 100% weakened. THe Kryptonian still maintains a fraction of his super powers and in a climactic duel the two fight it in an epic battle that destroys half of Gotham. Or Metropolis. No wait... Metropolis was already half destroyed...
On July 21 2013 23:46 Shiori wrote: fewer philosophy 101 themes
oh god, if i never have to sit through christopher nolan's batman morality again it will be too soon. i got really sick of the effusive praise people heaped on the redemption/vigilante themes in the dark knight movies, because the thing everyone ignored was that while the movies may have raised those issues, it ultimately didn't do anything to address them because the audience is already on batman's side and will be no matter what. there was no true moral ambiguity to the storyline. bane was supposed to represent certain leftist/socialist ideals... but he was simplified to a terrorist trying to bomb a stadium. harvey dent was a commentary on how power and politics corrupt, fine, but his corruption was so swift and undeniable that there was no ambiguity there. everyone knows "he's a bad guy now", right down to the very mildly overbearing visual cue that half his face was burnt off. joker was a well acted psychopath, but his anarchic ethics were much too rudimentary to actually make a meaningful statement about anything
On July 21 2013 23:18 agahamsorr0w wrote: superman is overpowered yeah but its his morals and origins that make him interesting, not powers. plus, there are enemies as strong or stronger than him. dont yell nonsense if you havent done research.
his origins? suuuuper interesting. we have an super advanced race capable of space travel yet they entirely miss that their planet blows up. really? that was interesting as long as we didn't know it. because it doesn't make any sense. and stronger as superman. that's really totally what we need. more overpoweredness. more senseless bashing because it would be clear after 5 min that only superman stands a chance against this evil.
seen man of steel? jor el said they stopped space travel programs and settled (humans also settle if u didnt know) . they artificially made babies and gave them a task in their society to fulfill. im sure they programmed everyone to just stay on krypton and defend it. thats why they didnt leave. or it could be that they had nowhere to go and it would take too long to get to planets like earth. zod said they STARVED meaning that if all of krypton went along, noone would have survived if they didnt perform cannibalism.
Superman was cool back in the days the comic book genre just started. But now?? He's just too perfect in a sense, most people smell that and don't buy it anymore. In before they're gonna cast a heartrob like Taylor Lautner for Bruce Wayne. Same as im not convinced of Henry Cavill, he was ok but nothing special.
Funny thing is i find the asian Superman alot more interesting then the American one (Goku). Like Superman also an alien, but regarded as low class by his own race. A guy with limitless potential but not unbeatable (looking at his deaths), he has flaws unlike superman like him beïng not smart and too forgiving towards people/naïve.
I too think this is too soon. If Bale is not playing Batman they don't have any iconic actors that is famous for his superhero role in order to compete with Marvel. They need like 5 years of separate hero movies in order for justice league to be a success. Who knows maybe this is a way to introduce new batman face..
Way too soon to be rebooting Batman. They need to give people more time to get over Christian Bale's portrayal, which was seminal. Imagine how people would react if Marvel rebooted Iron Man 2~3 years down the line. That would almost be disrespecting RDJ's work. But it doesn't surprise me that they're in a hurry to get the Dark Knight back on the big screen. He's a huge box office draw. I almost feel sorry for whoever gets the part, because people are going to be very critical.
On July 21 2013 23:46 Shiori wrote: fewer philosophy 101 themes
oh god, if i never have to sit through christopher nolan's batman morality again it will be too soon. i got really sick of the effusive praise people heaped on the redemption/vigilante themes in the dark knight movies, because the thing everyone ignored was that while the movies may have raised those issues, it ultimately didn't do anything to address them because the audience is already on batman's side and will be no matter what. there was no true moral ambiguity to the storyline. bane was supposed to represent certain leftist/socialist ideals... but he was simplified to a terrorist trying to bomb a stadium. harvey dent was a commentary on how power and politics corrupt, fine, but his corruption was so swift and undeniable that there was no ambiguity there. everyone knows "he's a bad guy now", right down to the very mildly overbearing visual cue that half his face was burnt off. joker was a well acted psychopath, but his anarchic ethics were much too rudimentary to actually make a meaningful statement about anything
Agreed. The sad thing is that, even though the Nolan films had simplistic moral themes, it's still the Socrates of superhero movies because the standard is so low. Superhero movies up to that point (I don't really consider Watchmen to be a "superhero movie," per se, but it's the only one I can think of which tried for some depth; it failed, but it tried, at least) were almost entirely standard action fare, with varying levels of creativity and visual flair. So when Nolan made a Batman franchise that had even a modicum of philosophical/social/ethical speculation built-in, everyone was blown away, and everyone thought it was Best Picture and so on and so forth. It wasn't because the Nolan movies were omfg-the-next-Citizen-Kane, or anything, but because the kind of people who get excited for action movies (i.e. most casual moviegoers, of which I am but one) have pretty much no examples of idea-centric movies to compare it against. That's why the Academy was largely benevolent toward TDK while everyone who didn't normally watch the Oscars thought it was certain to win.
hmm superman vs batman huh? Superman would take it easy. I mean cmon, he's invincible -_- Batman would get fried from a distance without superman even raising a finger lol. Should be interesting to see what the plot is though
Don't really like this.... and not having Bale play Batman would just not be right and I'm pretty sure he won't play him again. Regardless I hope this movie ends up being better than The Avengers, my goodness that movie was terrible.
I have heard (albeit from comment sections of sketchy-ish tabloid sites) that this film will be based, at least partially, on The Dark Knight Returns. A careful viewing of the previously mentioned film gives some valuable insights to the Batman Vs. Superman matchup. The most important being: Superman doesn't actually know how to fight 1v1. As Andre the Giant pointed out, you use different moves when you have to fight half a dozen men as opposed to only having to worry about one. Brute strength and eye-lazers with no skill behind them don't match up to Batman: Fighting Incarnate. Sort of like PvT.
The second most important insight from The Dark Knight Returns is The Dark Knight Returns itself. In this age of gritty reboots and the ruining of superheroes to make them darker (i.e. Man of Steel) the darker source material is going to be used most. It doesn't get any darker than TDKReturns.
Superman is going to lose. But, chances are they will avoid any sort of definite outcome either way because, for some reason, people seem to blow up on this topic.
On July 21 2013 23:18 agahamsorr0w wrote: superman is overpowered yeah but its his morals and origins that make him interesting, not powers. plus, there are enemies as strong or stronger than him. dont yell nonsense if you havent done research.
his origins? suuuuper interesting. we have an super advanced race capable of space travel yet they entirely miss that their planet blows up. really? that was interesting as long as we didn't know it. because it doesn't make any sense. and stronger as superman. that's really totally what we need. more overpoweredness. more senseless bashing because it would be clear after 5 min that only superman stands a chance against this evil.
seen man of steel? jor el said they stopped space travel programs and settled (humans also settle if u didnt know) . they artificially made babies and gave them a task in their society to fulfill. im sure they programmed everyone to just stay on krypton and defend it. thats why they didnt leave. or it could be that they had nowhere to go and it would take too long to get to planets like earth. zod said they STARVED meaning that if all of krypton went along, noone would have survived if they didnt perform cannibalism.
Aside from your speculations about "what they programmed them to do", it didn't stop jor-el to completely overthrow everything and make a baby. The thing is: both jor-el and Zod could engineer that "warp drive" that brought them to earth in almost no time. (Zod states that clarks discovery of the abandoned space ship triggered his visit iirc). So they obv have the tech to fly through space super fast. But this tech is neither used to breed colonists/colonies nor to safe cryptonians. They just sit there and do nothing. It's like they wanted to go extinct. And they also have no one except jor-el to realize that the whole planet breaks apart? what a shitty science caste.
(Let alone that utter nonsense of "giving up colonization" because it didn't work the first time.)
I don't care about this at all. You can't implement Nolan's dark gotham to a superman movie. It will look way too superficial. So they will just do a batman from different perspective and universe where supernatural can exist in a absurdly picky way. And i don't really like that kind pure graphics less story, development and logical explanations just to fill all the holes.
The entire build-up of a potential Justice League has been disastrous on DC's part.
Unlike Marvel's Avengers, none of the JL related characters have properly connected stories (Batman, for example, is probably the most disconnected). The combination of Nolan's Batman with pretty much anything is just too stupid for me to even consider watching. I wish this seemingly never-ending circle-jerk would end. Marvel won.
On July 22 2013 02:40 EpiK wrote: I really hope Nolan and Bale don't get involved with this.
Not entirely sure about Nolan, but Bale has categorically said he's not reprising the role. I doubt Nolan will be involved, either in this or the Justice League movie. They have moved on, which is good. As much as I enjoyed their foray into the comic book genre, they're too good and talented to be tied down. I would prefer to see them move onto more interesting projects.
It's amazing how writers don't realize that making a character overpowered is the equivalent of planting a cancer into your story.
Look at Star Trek: The Next Generation. All-around fantastic series with one exception: Lieutenant Commander Data was overpowered as a motherfucker. Every crew member's main strength, he had it in greater quantity. He was physically stronger than Worf and could beat him in a fight. He was more creative than Captain Picard and better at solving problems. He had more engineering expertise than Geordi La Forge, more medical expertise than Dr Crusher.
The rest of the crew were made redundant. His only weakness is that he didn't know what it means to be "human", and this resulted in some of the worst sentimental schlock in the history of the series, as well as some of the dumbest gimmicks such as that one about the "emotion chip". How much more interesting would it have been if he lacked in some noticeable way such as in creativity...and to solve problems the crew needed to work as a team instead of smartypants Data having the correct answer for everything?
Hello, quick question I kind of like Marvel universe and I'd like to read the comics, is there a site where we can read them online ? Like mangareader for mangas ?
On July 22 2013 02:56 Lylat wrote: Hello, quick question I kind of like Marvel universe and I'd like to read the comics, is there a site where we can read them online ? Like mangareader for mangas ?
Both marvel and dc have e-comics but you have to buy a subscription/buy them on the comic reader apps on your phone.
Otherwise if you read fast you can run to your comic store and read the books there XD I did that for ulimates vol 3... what utter crap. the comic store guy even told me not to buy it, hes like read it first and gave me a chair. i was like, dafuq.
On July 22 2013 01:21 Gibbas wrote: I have heard (albeit from comment sections of sketchy-ish tabloid sites) that this film will be based, at least partially, on The Dark Knight Returns. A careful viewing of the previously mentioned film gives some valuable insights to the Batman Vs. Superman matchup. The most important being: Superman doesn't actually know how to fight 1v1. As Andre the Giant pointed out, you use different moves when you have to fight half a dozen men as opposed to only having to worry about one. Brute strength and eye-lazers with no skill behind them don't match up to Batman: Fighting Incarnate. Sort of like PvT.
The problem with Superman is they should. When he had troubles in the comics, it was just due to convenience of the writer and illogical design - they had a conclusion in mind and had to create new devices that would lead to it. It semi-works in comics, especially older comics which have lower expectations, but it's hard to translate that stuff into movies. There is no backstory with kryptonite and Batman (in movies) and literally nothing he has should do anything to Superman.
It's a cash grab, and considering it'll be from the same writer as Man of Steel, I'm not sure why anyone would have confidence in it.
That said, even re-watching TDKR and part of TDK isn't great. They really had a ton of flaws, even for action movies. I think they were really just carried by tone and brilliant individuals. But sheesh, you really take notice of the criticisms of Nolan on later viewings. And it's almost impossible not to laugh at Christian Bale doing the growly voice. The CollegeHumor guy has his Batman pegged.
That said, even re-watching TDKR and even TDK isn't great. They really had a ton of flaws, even for action movies. I think they were really just carried by tone and brilliant individuals.
Depends what you're comparing them to. I thought TDK was pretty good, because it was such a departure from normal action fare. It was kinda like a philosophy-lite version of some of those less-known action-y movies that dare to think outside the box a little. It was shallow compared to an actual high concept film, or compared to an innovative action movie that aims for depth rather than ticket sales, but it was such a massive step up from any previous superhero/comic book movie that it was actually a big deal. At least that's the way I looked at it. The actors/writers were really good at making you think there was a tonne of depth from the trailers/first viewing, even though there actually wasn't much beneath the surface .
TDKR was alright. I thought it was a fun watch, but watching it the second time was pretty mediocre. There's really nothing to it other than the big reveal at the end. There were so many interesting social issues they brought up, but at the beginning of the third act they literally just abandoned all of them in the most moronic way possible (jk guys Bane is actually just evil not trying to fix anything kekekeke) for the sake of simplicity.
Personally, I thought that Batman Arkham Asylum and its sequel were the best Batman-related things to come out the last few years. I'd take them over the Christian Bale movies any day of the week.
DC should have one new Batman reboot movie (of a possible triology if planned) first before this Batman-Superman movie. I also think the Man of Steel had too much destruction too quickly for a 1st movie. A bit gratuitous and actually having the opposite effect to a certain extent.
Since it sounds like they are going down the Dark Knight Returns route I wonder if they will get Stephan Amell to play Oliver Queen/Green Arrow in the film. One of the reasons batman is able to so handily thrash Superman in the trap he sets is Arrow puts a kryptonite arrow through the man of steel..
That said, even re-watching TDKR and even TDK isn't great. They really had a ton of flaws, even for action movies. I think they were really just carried by tone and brilliant individuals.
Depends what you're comparing them to. I thought TDK was pretty good, because it was such a departure from normal action fare. It was kinda like a philosophy-lite version of some of those less-known action-y movies that dare to think outside the box a little. It was shallow compared to an actual high concept film, or compared to an innovative action movie that aims for depth rather than ticket sales, but it was such a massive step up from any previous superhero/comic book movie that it was actually a big deal. At least that's the way I looked at it. The actors/writers were really good at making you think there was a tonne of depth from the trailers/first viewing, even though there actually wasn't much beneath the surface .
TDKR was alright. I thought it was a fun watch, but watching it the second time was pretty mediocre. There's really nothing to it other than the big reveal at the end. There were so many interesting social issues they brought up, but at the beginning of the third act they literally just abandoned all of them in the most moronic way possible (jk guys Bane is actually just evil not trying to fix anything kekekeke) for the sake of simplicity.
That's what I'm saying. They were awesome on first watch, but all the cracks appear as you watch them again. I think even moreso than some campier superhero movies, which were worse upon first viewing.
Looking bad so far... Looks like Bale and Nolan are not going to be involved, which leaves us with Zach Snyder and one-third of Nolan's screenwriting crew. So basically this is Man of Steel 2.
In more exciting news, Nolan and his brother are working on a new sci-fi with the ideas from Kip Thorne, a top theoretical physicist from Caltech. Basically he does a lot of work on wormholes, black holes, and time travel. Bale is locked into two Terrence Malick films. I wonder who the new batman will be.
So does this mean we're going to have THREE different super hero "universes" working against each other and coming out with separate movies over the next few years?
Disney/Marvel = Avengers
DC Comics = Justice League
Sony/Fox = X-men, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man
Fucking too much. At least Sony/Fox should join up with Disney. Greedy bastards.... go with the originator (Marvel). My expectations in the X-men/Fantastic 4 movie are zero.
On July 22 2013 03:42 Orcasgt24 wrote: Since it sounds like they are going down the Dark Knight Returns route I wonder if they will get Stephan Amell to play Oliver Queen/Green Arrow in the film. One of the reasons batman is able to so handily thrash Superman in the trap he sets is Arrow puts a kryptonite arrow through the man of steel..
They said they will use ideas from The Dark Knight Returns along with other source materials. A lot of comic book movies rarely stick to one source material, but encompasses about two or three source materials. It is like how Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises had elements of Breaking the Bat, No Man's Land, etc.
On July 22 2013 04:01 Griffins wrote: Looking bad so far... Looks like Bale and Nolan are not going to be involved, which leaves us with Zach Snyder and one-third of Nolan's screenwriting crew. So basically this is Man of Steel 2.
It was known from the star that this IS a Man of Steel sequel. Majority of the cast is returning. Nolan is now an Executive Producer instead of just a Producer.
On July 22 2013 04:06 On_Slaught wrote: So does this mean we're going to have THREE different super hero "universes" working against each other and coming out with separate movies over the next few years?
Disney/Marvel = Avengers
DC Comics = Justice League
Sony/Fox = X-men, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man
Fucking too much. At least Sony/Fox should join up with Disney. Greedy bastards.... go with the originator (Marvel). My expectations in the X-men/Fantastic 4 movie are zero.
A lot of people would like to see that, but no way in hell will Fox and Sony give up their movie rights especially with how much money they can make off it. At least Sony and Marvel Studios is willing to work with each other to some degree since there was suppose to be a small connection with Sony's The Amazing Spider-Man in the first Avengers movie.
This movie is probably not going to be Superman vs. Batman. Snyder said that TDKR would serve as a guide for the relationship between Superman and Batman during the movie - namely, that Batman doesn't trust Superman and is contemptuous and a little passive-aggressive towards him. Nothing about the main plot being Superman fighting Batman. Probably what will happen is like what happened in the "World's Finest" three-parter of Superman the Animated Series, where there is one very brief Superman vs. Batman tussle (Batman punches Superman, Superman throws Batman across the room, Batman pops out some Kryptonite, the fight stops and they work together after that).
So I think most of the bitching here is wayyyy off-base. Doesn't mean that people are wrong that this movie will probably suck balls though. The villains will probably be stupid choices and the story will probably be equally stupid.
I'd like to see Lex Luthor and Metallo vs. Superman and Batman, maybe with Dr. Strange as the Batman villain thrown in.
World's best detective and "I have plans upon plans upon plans to take out all the superheroes / supervillains cus I'm the goddamn Batman" aside, if the Superman villain is someone like Brainiac or Darkseid I can't see where Batman would actually be very useful, and Batman's villains are too not superpowered to be a threat to Superman. Have Luthor and Strange for a battle of wits against Batman and Metallo for a villain that can threaten Superman but also not be totally out of of Batman's league in a fight, if Batman prepared properly.
Also please no Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Batman, the "Nolanverse" should be completely shut off from other DC movies' continuity. If the Christian Bale Batman movies are taking place in the same universe as Man of Steel, where the hell was Superman when Ra's was trying to fear-gas Gotham, when the Joker was killing dozens of people at a time, and when Bane held the biggest American city in the DC-verse hostage for six months?
On July 22 2013 02:52 crms wrote: Superman has always been incredibly lame and Batman just redeemed itself post-keaton movies with bale. This is a terrible idea.
The Keaton movies were not what the batman franchise had to redeem itself from. It was the Kilmer and Clooney movies that were terrible. Batman 1989 was pretty fucking decent.
On July 22 2013 02:52 crms wrote: Superman has always been incredibly lame and Batman just redeemed itself post-keaton movies with bale. This is a terrible idea.
The Keaton movies were not what the batman franchise had to redeem itself from. It was the Kilmer and Clooney movies that were terrible. Batman 1989 was pretty fucking decent.
Personally I wouldn't mind if they decided to re-reboot Batman and went full camp. Batman vs. Robin doesn't count because as goofy as it was, the movie had the gall to take itself seriously and was just an unmitigated disaster. Tim Burton's take was great, and Nolan's take was great (and of course TAS was the best), but at this point we don't really need another "dark" Batman. It actually would be a refreshing change of pace to have something more like Adam West's Batman.
But you know, screw that movie. Everyone knows Superman is a cheating fraud.
edit: dude what?? Batman is the fucking super hero from the dark. Adam West was ridiculous. the only thing he had going for him was his batmobile with a nuclear reactor. thats it.
Fojod thinks this movie is going to be great. But then again Fojod liked man of steel, and that seems to be generally considered bad here. Fojod never liked the fat batman logo though.
On July 22 2013 02:54 GreenGringo wrote: It's amazing how writers don't realize that making a character overpowered is the equivalent of planting a cancer into your story.
The only way that this could be fun is by making batman-superman a team that fights some superman OP villain, where batman supports superman trough strategy and helping him realize his power (and superman isn't his super smart OP version but rather just super strong and can't do ridicously OP stuff like flying into the sun for energy)
All you too soon people, WTF? Do you want this in 2025 then? The time is now.
Batman can defeat Superman, he doesn't have to KILL Superman because that would be bad for business and also defeat the purpose of a Justice League movie.
An example scenario:
Batman and Superman disagree over something to the point where they would physically fight over it. Batman has something Superman needs, or a world of innocents will be destroyed. Batman needs it for what he believes is a greater purpose, with the planet of innocents being a necessary cost. Superman has to fly back from Apokolips (no boom tubes) to earth, while Batman is already on earth, so Batman has prep time. Superman comes to Gotham to look for Batman and take back the key/device. Batman predicts where Superman will appear in Gotham based on either history, or knowing where he is coming from. He then makes his location known making sure he takes into account Superman's speed (assuming hear that Superman would not fly at lightspeed because he would not consider it necessary and because doing so could have negative consequences). Superman goes to Batman and follows him into a warehouse or subway, which Bruce has rigged with red sun light and kryptonite rays (as many as would be required to bring him down). The kryptonite was encased in lead and disguised as part of the building/infrastructure so superman didn't suspect. Superman is unable to leave as the Kryptonite is near all exit points and Superman is weakened to the point he can't use brute force to escape Batman should then essentially have Superman at his mercy, or brought down to a level where he can beat him physically.
On July 22 2013 08:43 DeathProfessor wrote: All you too soon people, WTF? Do you want this in 2025 then? The time is now.
Batman can defeat Superman, he doesn't have to KILL Superman because that would be bad for business and also defeat the purpose of a Justice League movie.
An example scenario:
Batman and Superman disagree over something to the point where they would physically fight over it. Batman has something Superman needs, or a world of innocents will be destroyed. Batman needs it for what he believes is a greater purpose, with the planet of innocents being a necessary cost. Superman has to fly back from Apokolips (no boom tubes) to earth, while Batman is already on earth, so Batman has prep time. Superman comes to Gotham to look for Batman and take back the key/device. Batman predicts where Superman will appear in Gotham based on either history, or knowing where he is coming from. He then makes his location known making sure he takes into account Superman's speed (assuming hear that Superman would not fly at lightspeed because he would not consider it necessary and because doing so could have negative consequences). Superman goes to Batman and follows him into a warehouse or subway, which Bruce has rigged with red sun light and kryptonite rays (as many as would be required to bring him down). The kryptonite was encased in lead and disguised as part of the building/infrastructure so superman didn't suspect. Superman is unable to leave as the Kryptonite is near all exit points and Superman is weakened to the point he can't use brute force to escape Batman should then essentially have Superman at his mercy, or brought down to a level where he can beat him physically.
... on a Wednesday afternoon during a solar eclipse if all labor unions are on strike and Superman is diverted by an eight week old Labrador puppy that had ham for breakfast.
I would love a Batman Beyond movie as well. I thought the animated series was awesome. There was a rumor that Warner Bros were planning a Batman Beyond for 2015 a couple of days leading up to Comic Con, but it was never confirmed. Fans speculated that they could use the Beyond Batsuit as a way for Bruce to be on some level with other DC characters. I find the idea bad since he'll just be another Iron Man despite some similarities already.
I think it'd be ok since Iron man shouldn't ever really show up in a justice league universe for a direct robot suit comparison and even in batman beyond it's not like he was running around throwing plasma bursts at everything.
On July 22 2013 02:54 GreenGringo wrote: It's amazing how writers don't realize that making a character overpowered is the equivalent of planting a cancer into your story.
Counter-example: Dr. Manhattan.
Not really. He ended that movie in one hit. It would be like a game of LoL where as soon as your ult comes off the cooldown, your team automatically wins match.
With regards to getting a "suit" for Batman, I think they will just make an excuse with a similar falvor to why Ironman built the Hulk Buster.
In the comics, Batman had that "mech suit" ala Ironman HulkBuster anyway so at least he had the physical output to at least deal even a bit of damage.
But still, I don't understand how this works or will work. I honestly think this was a last minute decision since they haven't started production anyway for MoS 2. It could break the plans of DC in movies for me, so I am not optimistic about it.
I do want them to do a crossover movie and eventually a Justice League by using that as a stepping stone to establish the need for a justice league. You could even go as far as thinking a crossover storyline for the two be like a Public Enemies Storyline wherein the world government placed responsibility for the major problems of "villains" on the shoulders of the two.
But you can't do that yet for MoS, not yet anyway.
In MoS, they never showed the president of the USA. What if that was Lex Luthor or going to be Lex Luthor in MoS 3. At least MoS 2 could setup a world where Lex Luthor made the world or the US at least fear superman as a magnet for destruction and mayhem. Batman could be hinted at in the beginning of MoS 2 as sort of an inspiration to do good without killing for Supes and maybe he mentions him in one of his interview with Lois. Near the end, LEx could use that as leverage to put down Batman for inspiring extreme vigilantism which would make both "Public Enemies".
Of course, you end up figuring out in MoS 3 that a shadow organization with Lex as a member was pulling the strings behind the whole thing to villify heroes, not only Supes and Batman, but to a certain extent the rest of the JLA (you do this as it is a setup for the JLA movie anyway).
MoS 3 ends up in a cliff hanger ( I don't care about cliffhangers because you know it is leading up to something greater) and we get our JLA 1 to battle this group that works in the shadows.
They don't need the watchtower yet here so they could have their base on land first then setup for a satellite watchtower later on for succeeding JLA movies. Don't need to be too grand from the get go.
I find it funny how they team up and yet Jerry (the creator) felt like Batman was just a rip-off of his own ideas. In one of his comic strips he was doing for the same company, National, Joe Shuster drew a Bat-Man... then a guy who joined the company within 2 issues of the issue that pictured a Bat-Man in cape in a graveyard proposes that for a new superhero they make Bat-Man...
The initial feedback of this should tell them it's a really bad idea... They should cancel it outright and do at least another proper superman sequel. And skip the whole thing where Superman and Batman fight, come on, nobody believes that shit.
Wonder if superhero movies in general are becoming tiresome these days...I feel like they should move on to something else. Unless they want to make a green lantern movie...not sure if they came out with one yet. Batman/superman is just particularly tiresome
On July 22 2013 11:12 radscorpion9 wrote: Wonder if superhero movies in general are becoming tiresome these days...I feel like they should move on to something else. Unless they want to make a green lantern movie...not sure if they came out with one yet. Batman/superman is just particularly tiresome
Oh man, I would fucking love a movie series based on the War of Light.
On July 22 2013 11:12 radscorpion9 wrote: Wonder if superhero movies in general are becoming tiresome these days...I feel like they should move on to something else. Unless they want to make a green lantern movie...not sure if they came out with one yet.
They did, a couple of years ago, with Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan. It was terrible.
This is a bit...questionable imo. I like it for the merger, but honestly, the recent batman movie trends seem to show more...down to earth action. Tragedy, villain, and hero we can all relate to. That's what Batman is. Superman...is well too much out of this world and the only interesting thing is the grand slam fights.
On July 22 2013 11:09 Djzapz wrote: The initial feedback of this should tell them it's a really bad idea... They should cancel it outright and do at least another proper superman sequel. And skip the whole thing where Superman and Batman fight, come on, nobody believes that shit.
Have you or anyone suggesting that Superman would just destroy Batman ever heard of Dark Knight Returns?
Everyone saying Superman vs Batman fights are destined to be lame, hence the movie will suck, apparently have never read / seen The Dark Knight Returns. Regardless of how he did it, Batman seriously held his own against SuperJesus and he was an old man at the time to boot.
Like someone else in this thread said in regards to people complaining about it being "too soon" cause of some indignation that it will tarnish Nolan's Batman trilogy. Nothing can tarnish that trilogy unless Nolan himself decided to continue it and somehow had a stroke mid-directing and the film still somehow sucked.
The same character might be being used however it has nothing to do with the iteration of the character in the Nolan trilogy. Unless they decide to somehow get Bale back in which case Nolan would be back and the script would have to be a modern day masterpiece.
I honestly wouldn't mind seeing Joseph Gorden-Levitt as Batman. They could continue that universe without Bale or even Nolan and still not tarnish the trilogy.
The thing that worries me the most is that Goyer will probably be the sole writer for MoS 2. The horror.....
^ As much as I like JGL, he's a little short to be playing Batman against Cavill's Supes. JGL is like 5'9 and Cavill's 6'1. I guess he can wear 3~4 inch lifts like Hardy did in TDKR, but I would rather see him play Nightwing.
Batman Beyond movie with Anthony Hopkins playing old Bruce Wayne would be the shittt
you'd have to play with camera angles a bit to make sir anthony look a little bit taller but other than that i'd love to see crotchety old anthony/bruce bitching out whoever would be playing terry mcginnis
“I want you to remember Clark, in all the years to come. In all your private moments. In all the years to come, my hand at your throat. I want you to remember, the one man who beat you.”
“I want you to remember Clark, in all the years to come. In all your private moments. In all the years to come, my hand at your throat. I want you to remember, the one man who beat you.”
no no no no no no.
superman and batman are teaming up in the movie.
doesnt mean that they wont fight at some point in the movie.
but all the press releases and other comments from Snyder and others is that the two are going to team up.
snyder said that TDKR and that quote specifically are an inspiration for the movie. which means they will have batman be suspicious, distrustful, and contemptuous of superman the way he was in TDKR. not that the main focus of the movie is going to be superman and batman fighting in the streets of metropolis or gotham or wherever.
it would also hurt the future JLA movie(s) if the superman batman movie is about superman and batman not being able to overcome their differences and ally up, superman and batman being enemies = no believability that they would later form the JLA.
I find it funny how people keep of saying/assuming that Superman is a nitwit compared to Batman.
Krypton was an advanced alien civilization and he himself is an inventor/collector in certain respects. And he has the knowledge of Krypton within his reach, via the Fortress of Solitude.
I know AngryJoe is a superman fan, but you have to understand that both heroes have their own lores to them which were created by different people. They do crossover from time to time but they have to adjust it depending on who the comics really are about. Case in point, TDKR comic would of course focus of Batman and show how he would do it so it would downplay Supes' lore but at least respect him to a certain degree.
Oh, for people hating on the next Batman actor, personally for me. It won't matter as long as he can pull off a Batman.
Why? Well it is pretty simple. This is not a Batman movie, but a crossover movie and later on a JLA movie.
Even in the JL and JLU animated series, they rarely had Batman be Bruce Wayne anyway, so he is always behind the mask. A crossover or team movie would mean the crossing over character is already established with this backstory or whatever. So there is no reason in actually showing a Bruce Wayne per se, unless you want to play it into your story, like say Diana and Bruce actually meeting while Diana was undercover. It was that episode with Zatana where Diana turned to a pig, forgot the episode title though.
As long as it is smartly played, why not. You could actually just have Batman talk to Morgan Freeman's character (forgot the name also) over the comm of the Batmobile, jet or whatever just to establish a Wayne Enterprise connection in a MoS or JLA storyline.
On July 21 2013 17:15 kushm4sta wrote: How are they even in the same league?? Superman could own batman in like half a second
Uh... No? Superman is only as powerful as the story needs him to be. Also, read the comics. Batman destroys Superman at least 3 different times that I can remember.
NOPE NOPE NOPE.
Superman beats Batman in Babel despite Batman’s heavy preparation. Superman kills Batman in Red Son. Superman humiliates Batman in Superman/Batman 2 despite all the odds favoring Batman. Superman smashes Batman in Infinite Crisis despite the absolute Krypton Ring. Superman obliterates Batman in Hush series, again despite Batman’s preparation.
The only time Batman beats Superman is when Batman just turns on Superman without any motivation or when Superman acts out of character due to poor script writing.
There is no universe, alternate reality, hallucinatory world, or fantasy where Batman wins vs. Superman.
Wow that's kind of interesting lol. I always just kind of assumed that Superman would (according to canon) be able to embarrass Batman if it came down to it, but it really seems like he just completely owns Batman :O
On July 21 2013 17:15 kushm4sta wrote: How are they even in the same league?? Superman could own batman in like half a second
Uh... No? Superman is only as powerful as the story needs him to be. Also, read the comics. Batman destroys Superman at least 3 different times that I can remember.
NOPE NOPE NOPE.
Superman beats Batman in Babel despite Batman’s heavy preparation. Superman kills Batman in Red Son. Superman humiliates Batman in Superman/Batman 2 despite all the odds favoring Batman. Superman smashes Batman in Infinite Crisis despite the absolute Krypton Ring. Superman obliterates Batman in Hush series, again despite Batman’s preparation.
The only time Batman beats Superman is when Batman just turns on Superman without any motivation or when Superman acts out of character due to poor script writing.
There is no universe, alternate reality, hallucinatory world, or fantasy where Batman wins vs. Superman.
Wow that's kind of interesting lol. I always just kind of assumed that Superman would (according to canon) be able to embarrass Batman if it came down to it, but it really seems like he just completely owns Batman :O
If NOBODY from the cast of any of the Nolan movies touches this with a ten foot pole, it has a slim chance of maybe not being terrible. But hey, I'm an optimist.
On July 22 2013 15:05 Shantastic wrote: If NOBODY from the cast of any of the Nolan movies touches this with a ten foot pole, it has a slim chance of maybe not being terrible. But hey, I'm an optimist.
For people who don't read comics it may be hard for them to understand how Batman and Superman can actually work together given their different power levels but done well it can actually work out nicely. The fact that Batman is the contingency plan to stopping Superman should he go baddy in the DC universe should speak to how Batman is not as wimpy as you might think.
On July 22 2013 13:59 17Sphynx17 wrote: I find it funny how people keep of saying/assuming that Superman is a nitwit compared to Batman.
Krypton was an advanced alien civilization and he himself is an inventor/collector in certain respects. And he has the knowledge of Krypton within his reach, via the Fortress of Solitude. .
Yea this bugs me too, Superman is actually a scientific genius in his own right.
On July 22 2013 15:05 Shantastic wrote: If NOBODY from the cast of any of the Nolan movies touches this with a ten foot pole, it has a slim chance of maybe not being terrible. But hey, I'm an optimist.
Why...
Frankly, he has a point. You could argue the merits and flaws of Nolan's Batman movies at length, but one of the selling points of this adaptation was that it was supposed to depict Batman as part of a halfway realistic world. I'd say it's actually reasonable to expect this Batman style to not mix as well with superpowered aliens.
I assume they're getting this guy to play both parts? + Show Spoiler +
On a serious note, it seems a bit absurd to be making this film right after batman and superman films, I thought having another spiderman was ridiculous enough.
Also superman would whoop batman's ass no problem.
Batman can go ahead and keep claiming "the one man who beat you", but despite holding back, being exposed to Green Arrow's kryptonite, and being more concern of Batman's health than his own, Superman is the one holding Bruce's body after a heart attack.
TDKR isn't even canon, I believe, but I guess that doesn't matter to a movie that's inspired by it. I just hope that there's not gonna be some major PIS, because it seems obvious that they aren't going to be working together.
On July 22 2013 16:40 Emnjay808 wrote: So Im a comic noob. But, Superman and Batman both exist in the same universe/world right. Just making sure.
Yes, both are products of the DC Universe.
On July 22 2013 16:35 NapkinBox wrote: Batman can go ahead and keep claiming "the one man who beat you", but despite holding back, being exposed to Green Arrow's kryptonite, and being more concern of Batman's health than his own, Superman is the one holding Bruce's body after a heart attack.
TDKR isn't even canon, I believe, but I guess that doesn't matter to a movie that's inspired by it. I just hope that there's not gonna be some major PIS, because it seems obvious that they aren't going to be working together.
Batman deliberately faked his death in TKDR. Does this change the fact that Supes was far superior in terms of strength? Nope, just thought I'd point out that minor detail.
On July 22 2013 13:59 17Sphynx17 wrote: I find it funny how people keep of saying/assuming that Superman is a nitwit compared to Batman.
Krypton was an advanced alien civilization and he himself is an inventor/collector in certain respects. And he has the knowledge of Krypton within his reach, via the Fortress of Solitude.
I know AngryJoe is a superman fan, but you have to understand that both heroes have their own lores to them which were created by different people. They do crossover from time to time but they have to adjust it depending on who the comics really are about. Case in point, TDKR comic would of course focus of Batman and show how he would do it so it would downplay Supes' lore but at least respect him to a certain degree.
Yeah I completly agree. How can people think that Superman is not a genius ? After all, as you said, Krypton was an advanced retarded alien civilization who could do everything aside from knowing that their planet was going to blow up. And he has the "knowledge of Krypton via tha fortress of solitude", plus he shit rainbows while pissing.
We can all love to immerge ourselves in a long and furnished storyline and a universe like the superman universe, with some DBZ like fisty cuffs, and a hero that represent the best of humanity, blue eyes and shit, but please, you can also understand that some people are really bored with this hero with no flaws and that needs a villain with no flaws to compete with, or some ridiculous plot twist ("You see this rock ? Now you can't move anymore"). The simple idea of "Superman AND Batman" makes it difficult just to comes with a good storyline, especially if you take into consideration that the last Batman movies were taking a more "realistic" approach.
On July 21 2013 17:15 kushm4sta wrote: How are they even in the same league?? Superman could own batman in like half a second
Uh... No? Superman is only as powerful as the story needs him to be. Also, read the comics. Batman destroys Superman at least 3 different times that I can remember.
NOPE NOPE NOPE.
Superman beats Batman in Babel despite Batman’s heavy preparation. Superman kills Batman in Red Son. Superman humiliates Batman in Superman/Batman 2 despite all the odds favoring Batman. Superman smashes Batman in Infinite Crisis despite the absolute Krypton Ring. Superman obliterates Batman in Hush series, again despite Batman’s preparation.
The only time Batman beats Superman is when Batman just turns on Superman without any motivation or when Superman acts out of character due to poor script writing.
There is no universe, alternate reality, hallucinatory world, or fantasy where Batman wins vs. Superman.
Wow that's kind of interesting lol. I always just kind of assumed that Superman would (according to canon) be able to embarrass Batman if it came down to it, but it really seems like he just completely owns Batman :O
Why would Superman fight Batman...unless one of them goes Evil? Makes no sense to me ;_;
Also i think these two super heros are probably the worst to put into the same film on there own. Adding them to the avengers type film would be fine, but as a two piece i wouldn't see enough chemistry between the two to keep people entertained. In Avengers you pretty much have IronMan keeping everyone entertained constantly and Hulk making you think i wonder what he will do next. Then if you go back to cartoons of Avengers and add in Spiderman, Avengers becomes perfect as Spidy is another great charismatic character (the proper Spiderman that is). But Superman and Batman are pretty serious and don't see much for Charisma so i wouldn't see it attracting many viewings other than comic buffs, and for that reason alone it will get raped and be deemed "worst movie ever" from all the fanboys. Don't really see a batman vs superman film happening. Teaming up film yeah be a bit more appealing to the neutral, a vs film just seems ridiculous
Indeed @ thezanursic i know "a bit" about the comic book lore to these films but very little and i do want to point out that this is just my opinion on a movie on the whole and lore itself obviously does not exist, i would like to know the lore behind a previous batman/superman comic book and why it happened etc if anyone has links
Just my opinion on the movie again, with values to film watchers over anything else
On July 22 2013 18:34 Pandemona wrote: Why would Superman fight Batman...unless one of them goes Evil? Makes no sense to me ;_;
Also i think these two super heros are probably the worst to put into the same film on there own. Adding them to the avengers type film would be fine, but as a two piece i wouldn't see enough chemistry between the two to keep people entertained. In Avengers you pretty much have IronMan keeping everyone entertained constantly and Hulk making you think i wonder what he will do next. Then if you go back to cartoons of Avengers and add in Spiderman, Avengers becomes perfect as Spidy is another great charismatic character (the proper Spiderman that is). But Superman and Batman are pretty serious and don't see much for Charisma so i wouldn't see it attracting many viewings other than comic buffs, and for that reason alone it will get raped and be deemed "worst movie ever" from all the fanboys. Don't really see a batman vs superman film happening. Teaming up film yeah be a bit more appealing to the neutral, a vs film just seems ridiculous
In the world of DC universe. Everybody has betrayed everybody at some point.
My proposal for a Superman/Batman movie where... a) they get to fight each other without one of them dying, b) they both get to show off their strengths, c) and neither holds the idiot ball.
Introductory scenes show Batman and Superman consecutively dealing with the same events... let's say, Bats is infiltrating a nuclear reactor taken by a para-military terrorist group, silently taking out one after another while Superman is taking a more direct approach. Naturally, they meet at an area where the terrorists are holding the staff hostage and royally fuck up each other's act to the point where some terrorists get away after they barely manage to stop the reactor from blowing up and to rescue the hostages.
In the aftermath of said events, we get to know that each has taken up pursuit of the other. Batman is aware of the disaster-level destruction of Metropolis and worried about whether such power belongs to one man, while Superman is briefed by the US military on this criminal called Batman ruling the night in Gotham.
While it becomes clear that they do not like each other, it is also made clear that both have their doubts on how to approach this "problem". We see Wayne doing extensive research in order to find Superman's achilles heel, and during a talk with Alfred we realize that he's well aware that he's in over his head and scared of Superman's brute force. We see Kent at home in Smallville with his mother, debating whether it's his place to question what the authorities deem a criminal, if Batman's goals justify the means, and whether he's basically a criminal/vigilante himself.
When Metropolis gets rebuilt after the battles against Zod, Wayne steps in as a sponsor/philantropist. At a press conference, Wayne and Kent meet. What should have been a PR event ends up in a heated debate between the two on the concepts of "doing good", "one man can make a difference", "the hero the world needs", and the like. Notably, the roles are reversed because in their alternate identities, Wayne is the powerful one. Everybody else who attends the press conference is left dumbfounded by their quarrel.
At the same press conference, another philantropist shows himself to have taken an interest in the future of Metropolis - he is a promising politician who goes by the name of Lex Luthor, agitates against the alien menace and the way the government is addressing this and similar threats. Kent is visibly shaken by the public appeal for Luthor's stance, and Wayne figures out his secret identity as a consequence.
At night, we see Batman collecting clues on Clark Kent in the offices of the Daily Planet. Superman shows up and tells him to leave him alone... or else. Batman threatens to expose Superman's secret, which leads to a fight, and after Batman has unloaded the whole arsenal of his utility belt on Superman (without any effect), Superman flings him effortlessly around the room, and Batman barely makes his escape.
A battered Batman arrives at the Batcave... to find Superman waiting for him. We get to realize that carbonite masks don't work against x-ray vision, and Superman returns the favor of threatening to expose Batman's secret identity. He tells Wayne to stop being Batman and lays ruin to the Batcave before leaving, the whole time being an arrogant dick about it.
A humiliated and angry Bruce Wayne joins forces with Luthor. Together, Bruce and Lex devise a cunning plan to kill Superman. Notably, this plan goes way beyond the level of force that Batman is normally comfortable with, and it involves threats to Clark's family and love interest, expected risk of extensive collateral damage, and so forth.
The ultimate showdown begins when the plan is set in motion. Wayne invites Kent for an exclusive live interview, during which he issues a thinly veiled challenge for Superman. When he shows up to the challenge, Superman is treated to an ordeal that tests out his limits, and he gets to show off his powers against the combined high tech (low sci-fi) arsenal that Wayne enterprises and Luthorcorp can come up with. At the very end, when even Superman is visibly exhausted, he is lured into a tailor-made lead-sealed trapping system that overloads his supersenses/blocks out yellow sunlight/simulates the atmosphere of Krypton/whatever bullshit explanation is necessary to bring him down to "peak human" power level. Batman shows up in his new combat suit with more powerful gadgets and manages to beat Superman to death, while himself escaping with an inch of his life.
Nearly dead Batman is confronted by Luthor accompanied by a dozen guards, some of which we can identify for the terrorists from the first scene. Luthor thanks Batman for being gullible enough to fall for his ruse, explains that Superman and Batman had been the only ones who could have interfered with his plans, and then proceeds to take a defenseless Batman hostage.
We see Batman chained up in the interior of Luthor's base. Luthor is mocking him by exposing his plan for simultaneous countrywide attacks that cripple the USA to an extent where he'll be able to assume power by rallying forces behind his own political agenda. After the exposure, Batman thanks Luthor for being gullible enough to assume that he would fall for such a ruse, breaks his chains and decimates Luthor's guards in seconds. Luthor is terrified when he realizes that he has captured Superman wearing Batman's suit.
(Flashbacks to Wayne carrying an engraved lead plate in his pocket during the interview with Kent to instruct him about the plan, which Kent reads via x-ray vision, and to them changing costumes upon entering the lead-sealed trapping system)
Wayne calls in over radio, and we see that he has followed them to the base and is about to take down the command posts. For the ultimate ultimate finale, we get to see Superman in Batman's suit and Batman in Superman's suit working in perfect unison: Bats is ransacking the command posts in Luthorcorp headquarters and extracting intel on the respective tactical positions of Luthor's henchmen while directing Superman to the positions of Luthor's goons throughout the country where Supes can take them down. Bonus points for humorous intermissions when Gotham's finest catch view of a flying Batman or when the guards at Luthorcorp headquarters flee in sheer terror at the sight of Wayne in a Superman outfit.
For the last scene, we see Batman and Superman standing on top of a building, pondering how and if they should work together in the future. Although we still see that they do not get along well, they now hold a lot of respect for each other. Despite this, it's still mostly a pissing contest: When all seems sad and done, Superman takes off and warns Batman to not overestimate himself; they acted out Luthor's/Batman's plan, but during the staged fight he has held back the whole time. After Superman has disappeared into the night sky, Batman pulls out a kryptonite dagger and mutters something along the lines of "so have I".
On July 22 2013 19:31 Poffel wrote: My proposal for a Superman/Batman movie where... a) they get to fight each other without one of them dying, b) they both get to show off their strengths, c) and neither holds the idiot ball.
Introductory scenes show Batman and Superman consecutively dealing with the same events... let's say, Bats is infiltrating a nuclear reactor taken by a para-military terrorist group, silently taking out one after another while Superman is taking a more direct approach. Naturally, they meet at an area where the terrorists are holding the staff hostage and royally fuck up each other's act to the point where some terrorists get away after they barely manage to stop the reactor from blowing up and to rescue the hostages.
In the aftermath of said events, we get to know that each has taken up pursuit of the other. Batman is aware of the disaster-level destruction of Metropolis and worried about whether such power belongs to one man, while Superman is briefed by the US military on this criminal called Batman ruling the night in Gotham.
While it becomes clear that they do not like each other, it is also made clear that both have their doubts on how to approach this "problem". We see Wayne doing extensive research in order to find Superman's achilles heel, and during a talk with Alfred we realize that he's well aware that he's in over his head and scared of Superman's brute force. We see Kent at home in Smallville with his mother, debating whether it's his place to question what the authorities deem a criminal, if Batman's goals justify the means, and whether he's basically a criminal/vigilante himself.
When Metropolis gets rebuilt after the battles against Zod, Wayne steps in as a sponsor/philantropist. At a press conference, Wayne and Kent meet. What should have been a PR event ends up in a heated debate between the two on the concepts of "doing good", "one man can make a difference", "the hero the world needs", and the like. Notably, the roles are reversed because in their alternate identities, Wayne is the powerful one. Everybody else who attends the press conference is left dumbfounded by their quarrel.
At the same press conference, another philantropist shows himself to have taken an interest in the future of Metropolis - he is a promising politician who goes by the name of Lex Luthor, agitates against the alien menace and the way the government is addressing this and similar threats. Kent is visibly shaken by the public appeal for Luthor's stance, and Wayne figures out his secret identity as a consequence.
At night, we see Batman collecting clues on Clark Kent in the offices of the Daily Planet. Superman shows up and tells him to leave him alone... or else. Batman threatens to expose Superman's secret, which leads to a fight, and after Batman has unloaded the whole arsenal of his utility belt on Superman (without any effect), Superman flings him effortlessly around the room, and Batman barely makes his escape.
A battered Batman arrives at the Batcave... to find Superman waiting for him. We get to realize that carbonite masks don't work against x-ray vision, and Superman returns the favor of threatening to expose Batman's secret identity. He tells Wayne to stop being Batman and lays ruin to the Batcave before leaving, the whole time being an arrogant dick about it.
A humiliated and angry Bruce Wayne joins forces with Luthor. Together, Bruce and Lex devise a cunning plan to kill Superman. Notably, this plan goes way beyond the level of force that Batman is normally comfortable with, and it involves threats to Clark's family and love interest, expected risk of extensive collateral damage, and so forth.
The ultimate showdown begins when the plan is set in motion. Wayne invites Kent for an exclusive live interview, during which he issues a thinly veiled challenge for Superman. When he shows up to the challenge, Superman is treated to an ordeal that tests out his limits, and he gets to show off his powers against the combined high tech (low sci-fi) arsenal that Wayne enterprises and Luthorcorp can come up with. At the very end, when even Superman is visibly exhausted, he is lured into a tailor-made lead-sealed trapping system that overloads his supersenses/blocks out yellow sunlight/simulates the atmosphere of Krypton/whatever bullshit explanation is necessary to bring him down to "peak human" power level. Batman shows up in his new combat suit with more powerful gadgets and manages to beat Superman to death, while himself escaping with an inch of his life.
Nearly dead Batman is confronted by Luthor accompanied by a dozen guards, some of which we can identify for the terrorists from the first scene. Luthor thanks Batman for being gullible enough to fall for his ruse, explains that Superman and Batman had been the only ones who could have interfered with his plans, and then proceeds to take a defenseless Batman hostage.
We see Batman chained up in the interior of Luthor's base. Luthor is mocking him by exposing his plan for simultaneous countrywide attacks that cripple the USA to an extent where he'll be able to assume power by rallying forces behind his own political agenda. After the exposure, Batman thanks Luthor for being gullible enough to assume that he would fall for such a ruse, breaks his chains and decimates Luthor's guards in seconds. Luthor is terrified when he realizes that he has captured Superman wearing Batman's suit.
(Flashbacks to Wayne carrying an engraved lead plate in his pocket during the interview with Kent to instruct him about the plan, which Kent reads via x-ray vision, and to them changing costumes upon entering the lead-sealed trapping system)
Wayne calls in over radio, and we see that he has followed them to the base and is about to take down the command posts. For the ultimate ultimate finale, we get to see Superman in Batman's suit and Batman in Superman's suit working in perfect unison: Bats is ransacking the command posts in Luthorcorp headquarters and extracting intel on the respective tactical positions of Luthor's henchmen while directing Superman to the positions of Luthor's goons throughout the country where Supes can take them down. Bonus points for humorous intermissions when Gotham's finest catch view of a flying Batman or when the guards at Luthorcorp headquarters flee in sheer terror at the sight of Wayne in a Superman outfit.
For the last scene, we see Batman and Superman standing on top of a building, pondering how and if they should work together in the future. Although we still see that they do not get along well, they now hold a lot of respect for each other. Despite this, it's still mostly a pissing contest: When all seems sad and done, Superman takes off and warns Batman to not overestimate himself; they acted out Luthor's/Batman's plan, but during the staged fight he has held back the whole time. After Superman has disappeared into the night sky, Batman pulls out a kryptonite dagger and mutters something along the lines of "so have I".
Oh my god, that was surprisingly good! Probably won't happen though!
On July 22 2013 19:31 Poffel wrote: My proposal for a Superman/Batman movie where... a) they get to fight each other without one of them dying, b) they both get to show off their strengths, c) and neither holds the idiot ball.
Introductory scenes show Batman and Superman consecutively dealing with the same events... let's say, Bats is infiltrating a nuclear reactor taken by a para-military terrorist group, silently taking out one after another while Superman is taking a more direct approach. Naturally, they meet at an area where the terrorists are holding the staff hostage and royally fuck up each other's act to the point where some terrorists get away after they barely manage to stop the reactor from blowing up and to rescue the hostages.
In the aftermath of said events, we get to know that each has taken up pursuit of the other. Batman is aware of the disaster-level destruction of Metropolis and worried about whether such power belongs to one man, while Superman is briefed by the US military on this criminal called Batman ruling the night in Gotham.
While it becomes clear that they do not like each other, it is also made clear that both have their doubts on how to approach this "problem". We see Wayne doing extensive research in order to find Superman's achilles heel, and during a talk with Alfred we realize that he's well aware that he's in over his head and scared of Superman's brute force. We see Kent at home in Smallville with his mother, debating whether it's his place to question what the authorities deem a criminal, if Batman's goals justify the means, and whether he's basically a criminal/vigilante himself.
When Metropolis gets rebuilt after the battles against Zod, Wayne steps in as a sponsor/philantropist. At a press conference, Wayne and Kent meet. What should have been a PR event ends up in a heated debate between the two on the concepts of "doing good", "one man can make a difference", "the hero the world needs", and the like. Notably, the roles are reversed because in their alternate identities, Wayne is the powerful one. Everybody else who attends the press conference is left dumbfounded by their quarrel.
At the same press conference, another philantropist shows himself to have taken an interest in the future of Metropolis - he is a promising politician who goes by the name of Lex Luthor, agitates against the alien menace and the way the government is addressing this and similar threats. Kent is visibly shaken by the public appeal for Luthor's stance, and Wayne figures out his secret identity as a consequence.
At night, we see Batman collecting clues on Clark Kent in the offices of the Daily Planet. Superman shows up and tells him to leave him alone... or else. Batman threatens to expose Superman's secret, which leads to a fight, and after Batman has unloaded the whole arsenal of his utility belt on Superman (without any effect), Superman flings him effortlessly around the room, and Batman barely makes his escape.
A battered Batman arrives at the Batcave... to find Superman waiting for him. We get to realize that carbonite masks don't work against x-ray vision, and Superman returns the favor of threatening to expose Batman's secret identity. He tells Wayne to stop being Batman and lays ruin to the Batcave before leaving, the whole time being an arrogant dick about it.
A humiliated and angry Bruce Wayne joins forces with Luthor. Together, Bruce and Lex devise a cunning plan to kill Superman. Notably, this plan goes way beyond the level of force that Batman is normally comfortable with, and it involves threats to Clark's family and love interest, expected risk of extensive collateral damage, and so forth.
The ultimate showdown begins when the plan is set in motion. Wayne invites Kent for an exclusive live interview, during which he issues a thinly veiled challenge for Superman. When he shows up to the challenge, Superman is treated to an ordeal that tests out his limits, and he gets to show off his powers against the combined high tech (low sci-fi) arsenal that Wayne enterprises and Luthorcorp can come up with. At the very end, when even Superman is visibly exhausted, he is lured into a tailor-made lead-sealed trapping system that overloads his supersenses/blocks out yellow sunlight/simulates the atmosphere of Krypton/whatever bullshit explanation is necessary to bring him down to "peak human" power level. Batman shows up in his new combat suit with more powerful gadgets and manages to beat Superman to death, while himself escaping with an inch of his life.
Nearly dead Batman is confronted by Luthor accompanied by a dozen guards, some of which we can identify for the terrorists from the first scene. Luthor thanks Batman for being gullible enough to fall for his ruse, explains that Superman and Batman had been the only ones who could have interfered with his plans, and then proceeds to take a defenseless Batman hostage.
We see Batman chained up in the interior of Luthor's base. Luthor is mocking him by exposing his plan for simultaneous countrywide attacks that cripple the USA to an extent where he'll be able to assume power by rallying forces behind his own political agenda. After the exposure, Batman thanks Luthor for being gullible enough to assume that he would fall for such a ruse, breaks his chains and decimates Luthor's guards in seconds. Luthor is terrified when he realizes that he has captured Superman wearing Batman's suit.
(Flashbacks to Wayne carrying an engraved lead plate in his pocket during the interview with Kent to instruct him about the plan, which Kent reads via x-ray vision, and to them changing costumes upon entering the lead-sealed trapping system)
Wayne calls in over radio, and we see that he has followed them to the base and is about to take down the command posts. For the ultimate ultimate finale, we get to see Superman in Batman's suit and Batman in Superman's suit working in perfect unison: Bats is ransacking the command posts in Luthorcorp headquarters and extracting intel on the respective tactical positions of Luthor's henchmen while directing Superman to the positions of Luthor's goons throughout the country where Supes can take them down. Bonus points for humorous intermissions when Gotham's finest catch view of a flying Batman or when the guards at Luthorcorp headquarters flee in sheer terror at the sight of Wayne in a Superman outfit.
For the last scene, we see Batman and Superman standing on top of a building, pondering how and if they should work together in the future. Although we still see that they do not get along well, they now hold a lot of respect for each other. Despite this, it's still mostly a pissing contest: When all seems sad and done, Superman takes off and warns Batman to not overestimate himself; they acted out Luthor's/Batman's plan, but during the staged fight he has held back the whole time. After Superman has disappeared into the night sky, Batman pulls out a kryptonite dagger and mutters something along the lines of "so have I".
Something along those lines would indeed be one of the most plausible approaches to a superman/batman 'faceoff'
good write, and i hope they will bring us something like it
On July 22 2013 16:05 vol_ wrote: For people who don't read comics it may be hard for them to understand how Batman and Superman can actually work together given their different power levels but done well it can actually work out nicely. The fact that Batman is the contingency plan to stopping Superman should he go baddy in the DC universe should speak to how Batman is not as wimpy as you might think.
On July 22 2013 13:59 17Sphynx17 wrote: I find it funny how people keep of saying/assuming that Superman is a nitwit compared to Batman.
Krypton was an advanced alien civilization and he himself is an inventor/collector in certain respects. And he has the knowledge of Krypton within his reach, via the Fortress of Solitude. .
Yea this bugs me too, Superman is actually a scientific genius in his own right.
I know the writers have done it, but most of DC's writers also tend to be fucking awful, especially when it comes to Superman. The fact that Superman and Batman have been in tie-ins before isn't a reflection on it making sense, it's a reflection on DC's previous cash grabs. They never should have co-existed.
Let's ignore supercharging in the Sun and the fact that the Batman movie series have just come from the more "real" universe, where he has no concept of kryptonite or red sunlight. Take away Superman's stupid mindreading and intelligence and martial arts mastery and hypnosis and just reduce him to his speed and strength\. Let's not even put him at peak levels. He can be the original 1930's speed (faster than a speeding bullet), and he gets his planet moving strength (not the effortless planet smashing strength).
That's 1,000 mph and capable of lifting 66 quintillion tons. He is just so many orders of magnitudes different. That's 2.2 x 10^19 times stronger than Bane at his peak. The idea that kryptonite instantly reduces him to the levels of a weak human has always been absurd. It should make him vulnerable against other superhumans, not real humans.
It being in the comics before is not a good explanation. It's never made any sense. Superman is a only good character when he's dealing with galactic stuff. His design falls apart everywhere else.
On July 22 2013 21:58 Jibba wrote: That's 1,000 mph and capable of lifting 66 quintillion tons. He is just so many orders of magnitudes different. That's 2.2 x 10^19 times stronger than Bane at his peak.
I know Superman is an awful character, but where do you get this figure that you quote so religiously? Different comics have wholly different interpretations. They never agree on something as exact as the mass that a comic being is capable of lifting.
That estimate is clearly ridiculous anyway, as it would mean the Earth would move when he's in a fight with someone like Doomsday due to transfer of momentum.
On July 21 2013 17:36 anrimayu wrote: I hate Superman because he is the worst super hero concept ever thought of. He is so overpowered they had to make up some random weakness, like the original green kryptonite, red kryptonite, gold, blue, etc, to keep the story from going full retard to semi retard. Then there's Superman Prime, with the power of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality, invulnerability, resurrection, creation, alteration of reality and physics, and other stuff.
How about Shining Knight and the Vigilante duo? They're pretty funny together.
It's the Professor X problem. Too broken for their own universe.
On July 22 2013 21:58 Jibba wrote: That's 1,000 mph and capable of lifting 66 quintillion tons. He is just so many orders of magnitudes different. That's 2.2 x 10^19 times stronger than Bane at his peak.
I know Superman is an awful character, but where do you get this figure that you quote so religiously? Different comics have wholly different interpretations. They never agree on something as exact as the mass that a comic being is capable of lifting.
That estimate is clearly ridiculous anyway, as it would mean the Earth would move when he's in a fight with someone like Doomsday due to transfer of momentum.
Comics don't have to make sense, just look at the flash who can theoretically throw a punch with infinite force behind it and destroy the entire universe.
On July 22 2013 21:58 Jibba wrote: That's 1,000 mph and capable of lifting 66 quintillion tons. He is just so many orders of magnitudes different. That's 2.2 x 10^19 times stronger than Bane at his peak.
I know Superman is an awful character, but where do you get this figure that you quote so religiously? Different comics have wholly different interpretations. They never agree on something as exact as the mass that a comic being is capable of lifting.
That estimate is clearly ridiculous anyway, as it would mean the Earth would move when he's in a fight with someone like Doomsday due to transfer of momentum.
There's multiple examples, either from All Star Superman (where he's lifting 200 quintillion tons with terrible posture and the scientist says it's 3x more than before) or just from what's required in order to move planets.
DC writers are terrible when it comes to dolling out powers and giving them limits. 1930's Superman obviously couldn't, but once you get to the 70's and beyond, he basically just becomes infinitely powerful. Enough for humans to be completely insignificant to him.
I really think Superman is the worst handled franchise in all of comics.
On July 22 2013 21:58 Jibba wrote: That's 1,000 mph and capable of lifting 66 quintillion tons. He is just so many orders of magnitudes different. That's 2.2 x 10^19 times stronger than Bane at his peak.
I know Superman is an awful character, but where do you get this figure that you quote so religiously? Different comics have wholly different interpretations. They never agree on something as exact as the mass that a comic being is capable of lifting.
That estimate is clearly ridiculous anyway, as it would mean the Earth would move when he's in a fight with someone like Doomsday due to transfer of momentum.
There's multiple examples, either from All Star Superman (where he's lifting 200 quintillion tons with terrible posture and the scientist says it's 3x more than before) or just from what's required in order to move planets.
DC writers are terrible when it comes to dolling out powers and giving them limits. 1930's Superman obviously couldn't, but once you get to the 70's and beyond, he basically just becomes infinitely powerful. Enough for humans to be completely insignificant to him.
I really think Superman is the worst handled franchise in all of comics.
That's because the whole concept is stupid. Oh, he's indestructible and strong as a god, his only weakness is Kryptonite, I wonder what they will try to use against him this time. . . . . . It's either people with equal powers that will fight him (in which case it comes down to a boxing match) or that, pretty boring. Batman is mortal and mankind has a million ways to kill him, also he is not some witeknight with 0 character but a badass playboy richguy that went through tough times.
I want Lobo and Wolverine, Batman and Ironman and those guys to tear shit up, not someone who is about as predictable as (super)humanly possible and thus, just as boring.
wolverine can heal through everything and has an indestructible skeleton so i dont see why superman would be boring. the only difference i see is that wolverine is aggressive and has a big mouth while superman tries to reason with people.
Honestly, I feel like this combo is really odd. Superman does it all and everything, batman is more serious and dark. Superman isn't really a dark story line, he just saves the day lol. I know this combo has been done before in cartoon movies and stuff. But idk. I am kinda burnt out on the super hero movie thing lately.
On July 22 2013 23:08 agahamsorr0w wrote: wolverine can heal through everything and has an indestructible skeleton so i dont see why superman would be boring. the only difference i see is that wolverine is aggressive and has a big mouth while superman tries to reason with people.
That's just BS. There are a ton of guys that can fight and kill or at least imprison Wolverine. It's one thing to be hard to kill and a decent enough fighter and quite another to be capable of packing a punch so heavy it shatters mountains while a tank shot hitting you in the open eye will to about the same amount of damage as someone burping in your direction from 20 feet away.
On July 22 2013 23:08 agahamsorr0w wrote: wolverine can heal through everything and has an indestructible skeleton so i dont see why superman would be boring. the only difference i see is that wolverine is aggressive and has a big mouth while superman tries to reason with people.
That's just BS. There are a ton of guys that can fight and kill or at least imprison Wolverine. It's one thing to be hard to kill and a decent enough fighter and quite another to be capable of packing a punch so heavy it shatters mountains while a tank shot hitting you in the open eye will to about the same amount of damage as someone burping in your direction from 20 feet away.
good thing superman has no reason at all to destroy mountains with one punch uh? obviously if he wanted it he would kill batman in one shot but if you knew how he was designed, you would know he doesnt kill unless under influence of red kryptonite. same with magneto. he could kill wolverine by tearing his skeleton out of his body but he doesnt. its not in his interest even though they are enemies.
oh and superman isnt strong enough to shatter a mountain with a punch. you just made that up.
do people here even know villains can team up too? does the injustice league ring any bells?
On July 22 2013 23:08 agahamsorr0w wrote: wolverine can heal through everything and has an indestructible skeleton so i dont see why superman would be boring. the only difference i see is that wolverine is aggressive and has a big mouth while superman tries to reason with people.
That's just BS. There are a ton of guys that can fight and kill or at least imprison Wolverine. It's one thing to be hard to kill and a decent enough fighter and quite another to be capable of packing a punch so heavy it shatters mountains while a tank shot hitting you in the open eye will to about the same amount of damage as someone burping in your direction from 20 feet away.
good thing superman has no reason at all to destroy mountains with one punch uh? obviously if he wanted it he would kill batman in one shot but if you knew how he was designed, you would know he doesnt kill unless under influence of red kryptonite. same with magneto. he could kill wolverine by tearing his skeleton out of his body but he doesnt. its not in his interest even though they are enemies.
oh and superman isnt strong enough to shatter a mountain with a punch. you just made that up.
do people here even know villains can team up too? does the injustice league ring any bells?
Still all my points stand.
Superman is just immortal invoulnerable and so strong he can do whatever he wants. That's when the makers realized that it is kind of boring this way so they designed Kryptonite and then more and more versions of it and added in magic..... magic. Yeah. Because those are the two weaknesses, something that simply stands for all that is illogical and impossible thus can not be reasoned with (Magic) and some weak ass crap they just implemented to keep the Superman Saga from being the biggest joke ever. Still is though, I mean come on. . Pink Kryptonite that makes people gay?! WTF
Still all these flaws can be seen as flaws or not, that I can understand but the guy itself is just too boring. Superman will always be the white knight and never do anything anyone could deam as wrong, no matter what (unless. . . surprise kryptonite...) I feel like being 100% predictable and nice makes a person too boring to have a huge fanbase. It is no wonder that Batman and Wolverine both have ton of good movies before Superman does (I don't care for 50 year old movies anymore, hurts my brain to watch those effects t.t got spoiled and now can't help it).
On July 22 2013 23:08 agahamsorr0w wrote: wolverine can heal through everything and has an indestructible skeleton so i dont see why superman would be boring. the only difference i see is that wolverine is aggressive and has a big mouth while superman tries to reason with people.
That's just BS. There are a ton of guys that can fight and kill or at least imprison Wolverine. It's one thing to be hard to kill and a decent enough fighter and quite another to be capable of packing a punch so heavy it shatters mountains while a tank shot hitting you in the open eye will to about the same amount of damage as someone burping in your direction from 20 feet away.
good thing superman has no reason at all to destroy mountains with one punch uh? obviously if he wanted it he would kill batman in one shot but if you knew how he was designed, you would know he doesnt kill unless under influence of red kryptonite. same with magneto. he could kill wolverine by tearing his skeleton out of his body but he doesnt. its not in his interest even though they are enemies.
oh and superman isnt strong enough to shatter a mountain with a punch. you just made that up.
do people here even know villains can team up too? does the injustice league ring any bells?
Still all my points stand.
Superman is just immortal invoulnerable and so strong he can do whatever he wants. That's when the makers realized that it is kind of boring this way so they designed Kryptonite and then more and more versions of it and added in magic..... magic. Yeah. Because those are the two weaknesses, something that simply stands for all that is illogical and impossible thus can not be reasoned with (Magic) and some weak ass crap they just implemented to keep the Superman Saga from being the biggest joke ever. Still is though, I mean come on. . Pink Kryptonite that makes people gay?! WTF
Still all these flaws can be seen as flaws or not, that I can understand but the guy itself is just too boring. Superman will always be the white knight and never do anything anyone could deam as wrong, no matter what (unless. . . surprise kryptonite...) I feel like being 100% predictable and nice makes a person too boring to have a huge fanbase. It is no wonder that Batman and Wolverine both have ton of good movies before Superman does (I don't care for 50 year old movies anymore, hurts my brain to watch those effects t.t got spoiled and now can't help it).
Its just a question of scale. How can a heros in the avengers work when they are all of different power levels? With good writing. The battle on the sky fortress is a great example of good writing making for intresting fights that everyone can take part in. They deal with Ironman(one of the most powerful characters) by making him repair the airship, while the Hulk and Thor are busy dealing with eachother.
Superman and Batman work the same way. You just need things that both parties need to deal with on a sperately. If the fights and battles are big enough, Superman will be locked down and busy. Also, the new Man of Steel had a very "reasonable" Superman who had limits to how strong he was or how much damge he could take before being knocked around.
And batman and superman are intresting characters when they interact with eachother. Both have a lot in common and see the world in very differnet ways. The best writing for them makes them play off eachother. If you read Kingdom Come, the part where Batman is talking to Superman and turns back to find Superman gone is one of the best quotes of all time. Batman just says "So thats what that feels like."
On July 22 2013 23:08 agahamsorr0w wrote: wolverine can heal through everything and has an indestructible skeleton so i dont see why superman would be boring. the only difference i see is that wolverine is aggressive and has a big mouth while superman tries to reason with people.
That's just BS. There are a ton of guys that can fight and kill or at least imprison Wolverine. It's one thing to be hard to kill and a decent enough fighter and quite another to be capable of packing a punch so heavy it shatters mountains while a tank shot hitting you in the open eye will to about the same amount of damage as someone burping in your direction from 20 feet away.
good thing superman has no reason at all to destroy mountains with one punch uh? obviously if he wanted it he would kill batman in one shot but if you knew how he was designed, you would know he doesnt kill unless under influence of red kryptonite. same with magneto. he could kill wolverine by tearing his skeleton out of his body but he doesnt. its not in his interest even though they are enemies.
oh and superman isnt strong enough to shatter a mountain with a punch. you just made that up.
do people here even know villains can team up too? does the injustice league ring any bells?
Still all my points stand.
Superman is just immortal invoulnerable and so strong he can do whatever he wants. That's when the makers realized that it is kind of boring this way so they designed Kryptonite and then more and more versions of it and added in magic..... magic. Yeah. Because those are the two weaknesses, something that simply stands for all that is illogical and impossible thus can not be reasoned with (Magic) and some weak ass crap they just implemented to keep the Superman Saga from being the biggest joke ever. Still is though, I mean come on. . Pink Kryptonite that makes people gay?! WTF
Still all these flaws can be seen as flaws or not, that I can understand but the guy itself is just too boring. Superman will always be the white knight and never do anything anyone could deam as wrong, no matter what (unless. . . surprise kryptonite...) I feel like being 100% predictable and nice makes a person too boring to have a huge fanbase. It is no wonder that Batman and Wolverine both have ton of good movies before Superman does (I don't care for 50 year old movies anymore, hurts my brain to watch those effects t.t got spoiled and now can't help it).
you havent seen man of steel have you? no kryptonite at all. and its not magic. its an element from krypton that reached earth after krypton exploded. infused with energy from the yellow sun its lethal to people from krypton. different kryptonite has different effects.
are you just yelling nonsense because youre being supported by the majority of people here or did you really not know what kryptonote was? im baffeled you had the nerve to call kryptonite magic
On July 22 2013 23:08 agahamsorr0w wrote: wolverine can heal through everything and has an indestructible skeleton so i dont see why superman would be boring. the only difference i see is that wolverine is aggressive and has a big mouth while superman tries to reason with people.
That's just BS. There are a ton of guys that can fight and kill or at least imprison Wolverine. It's one thing to be hard to kill and a decent enough fighter and quite another to be capable of packing a punch so heavy it shatters mountains while a tank shot hitting you in the open eye will to about the same amount of damage as someone burping in your direction from 20 feet away.
good thing superman has no reason at all to destroy mountains with one punch uh? obviously if he wanted it he would kill batman in one shot but if you knew how he was designed, you would know he doesnt kill unless under influence of red kryptonite. same with magneto. he could kill wolverine by tearing his skeleton out of his body but he doesnt. its not in his interest even though they are enemies.
oh and superman isnt strong enough to shatter a mountain with a punch. you just made that up.
do people here even know villains can team up too? does the injustice league ring any bells?
Still all my points stand.
Superman is just immortal invoulnerable and so strong he can do whatever he wants. That's when the makers realized that it is kind of boring this way so they designed Kryptonite and then more and more versions of it and added in magic..... magic. Yeah. Because those are the two weaknesses, something that simply stands for all that is illogical and impossible thus can not be reasoned with (Magic) and some weak ass crap they just implemented to keep the Superman Saga from being the biggest joke ever. Still is though, I mean come on. . Pink Kryptonite that makes people gay?! WTF
Still all these flaws can be seen as flaws or not, that I can understand but the guy itself is just too boring. Superman will always be the white knight and never do anything anyone could deam as wrong, no matter what (unless. . . surprise kryptonite...) I feel like being 100% predictable and nice makes a person too boring to have a huge fanbase. It is no wonder that Batman and Wolverine both have ton of good movies before Superman does (I don't care for 50 year old movies anymore, hurts my brain to watch those effects t.t got spoiled and now can't help it).
you havent seen man of steel have you? no kryptonite at all. and its not magic. its an element from krypton that reached earth after krypton exploded. infused with energy from the yellow sun its lethal to people from krypton. different kryptonite has different effects.
are you just yelling nonsense because youre being supported by the majority of people here or did you really not know what kryptonote was? im baffeled you had the nerve to call kryptonite magic
So fanboy that you lost reading comprehension?
He was talking about 2 weaknesses. Kryptonite and magic. He never implied Kryptonite was magic.
On July 21 2013 17:22 aNGryaRchon wrote: NOPE NOPE NOPE.
Superman beats Batman in Babel despite Batman’s heavy preparation. Superman kills Batman in Red Son. Superman humiliates Batman in Superman/Batman 2 despite all the odds favoring Batman. Superman smashes Batman in Infinite Crisis despite the absolute Krypton Ring. Superman obliterates Batman in Hush series, again despite Batman’s preparation.
The only time Batman beats Superman is when Batman just turns on Superman without any motivation or when Superman acts out of character due to poor script writing.
There is no universe, alternate reality, hallucinatory world, or fantasy where Batman wins vs. Superman.
And he really shouldn't. Batman comes from a universe where extraordinary physical strength and willpower meets technology, where Superman is a practically invincible alien. I really don't think the two ever fit together, I don't know how they'll make this work.
On July 21 2013 17:22 aNGryaRchon wrote: NOPE NOPE NOPE.
Superman beats Batman in Babel despite Batman’s heavy preparation. Superman kills Batman in Red Son. Superman humiliates Batman in Superman/Batman 2 despite all the odds favoring Batman. Superman smashes Batman in Infinite Crisis despite the absolute Krypton Ring. Superman obliterates Batman in Hush series, again despite Batman’s preparation.
The only time Batman beats Superman is when Batman just turns on Superman without any motivation or when Superman acts out of character due to poor script writing.
There is no universe, alternate reality, hallucinatory world, or fantasy where Batman wins vs. Superman.
And he really shouldn't. Batman comes from a universe where extraordinary physical strength and willpower meets technology, where Superman is a practically invincible alien. I really don't think the two ever fit together, I don't know how they'll make this work.
The same way to make a Thunder God run around with a guy with a bow and arrow, a girl with two guns and a guy with a shield. Good writing and a villian that can be beat with force alone.
On July 22 2013 16:05 vol_ wrote: For people who don't read comics it may be hard for them to understand how Batman and Superman can actually work together given their different power levels but done well it can actually work out nicely. The fact that Batman is the contingency plan to stopping Superman should he go baddy in the DC universe should speak to how Batman is not as wimpy as you might think.
On July 22 2013 13:59 17Sphynx17 wrote: I find it funny how people keep of saying/assuming that Superman is a nitwit compared to Batman.
Krypton was an advanced alien civilization and he himself is an inventor/collector in certain respects. And he has the knowledge of Krypton within his reach, via the Fortress of Solitude. .
Yea this bugs me too, Superman is actually a scientific genius in his own right.
I know the writers have done it, but most of DC's writers also tend to be fucking awful, especially when it comes to Superman. The fact that Superman and Batman have been in tie-ins before isn't a reflection on it making sense, it's a reflection on DC's previous cash grabs. They never should have co-existed.
Let's ignore supercharging in the Sun and the fact that the Batman movie series have just come from the more "real" universe, where he has no concept of kryptonite or red sunlight. Take away Superman's stupid mindreading and intelligence and martial arts mastery and hypnosis and just reduce him to his speed and strength\. Let's not even put him at peak levels. He can be the original 1930's speed (faster than a speeding bullet), and he gets his planet moving strength (not the effortless planet smashing strength).
That's 1,000 mph and capable of lifting 66 quintillion tons. He is just so many orders of magnitudes different. That's 2.2 x 10^19 times stronger than Bane at his peak. The idea that kryptonite instantly reduces him to the levels of a weak human has always been absurd. It should make him vulnerable against other superhumans, not real humans.
It being in the comics before is not a good explanation. It's never made any sense. Superman is a only good character when he's dealing with galactic stuff. His design falls apart everywhere else.
Did you even read the Superman & Batman comics? DC writers have made it work. The two characters bring very different skillsets to the table and can complement each other nicely.
I don't understand all the hate for Supes. I think anyone who has been in any place of power no matter how small can relate. It's a lot harder to resist the temptation to do the evil sorts of things he could be doing than people realize.
As long as Legendary/Snyder/Nolan have hands in it, I'm confident. I enjoyed Man of Steel, enjoyed the new Batman flicks, I can't think of any reason not to be excited. Maybe I'm just an easy to please comic fan, I dunno.
On July 23 2013 01:05 Noobity wrote: I don't understand all the hate for Supes. I think anyone who has been in any place of power no matter how small can relate. It's a lot harder to resist the temptation to do the evil sorts of things he could be doing than people realize.
As long as Legendary/Snyder/Nolan have hands in it, I'm confident. I enjoyed Man of Steel, enjoyed the new Batman flicks, I can't think of any reason not to be excited. Maybe I'm just an easy to please comic fan, I dunno.
I get the feeling that most people who "hate" Supes have never read or watched anything that features him. The fact that his main villian is a normal person who has tons of money and political influance is enough to make it intresting.
On July 22 2013 16:05 vol_ wrote: For people who don't read comics it may be hard for them to understand how Batman and Superman can actually work together given their different power levels but done well it can actually work out nicely. The fact that Batman is the contingency plan to stopping Superman should he go baddy in the DC universe should speak to how Batman is not as wimpy as you might think.
On July 22 2013 13:59 17Sphynx17 wrote: I find it funny how people keep of saying/assuming that Superman is a nitwit compared to Batman.
Krypton was an advanced alien civilization and he himself is an inventor/collector in certain respects. And he has the knowledge of Krypton within his reach, via the Fortress of Solitude. .
Yea this bugs me too, Superman is actually a scientific genius in his own right.
I know the writers have done it, but most of DC's writers also tend to be fucking awful, especially when it comes to Superman. The fact that Superman and Batman have been in tie-ins before isn't a reflection on it making sense, it's a reflection on DC's previous cash grabs. They never should have co-existed.
Let's ignore supercharging in the Sun and the fact that the Batman movie series have just come from the more "real" universe, where he has no concept of kryptonite or red sunlight. Take away Superman's stupid mindreading and intelligence and martial arts mastery and hypnosis and just reduce him to his speed and strength\. Let's not even put him at peak levels. He can be the original 1930's speed (faster than a speeding bullet), and he gets his planet moving strength (not the effortless planet smashing strength).
That's 1,000 mph and capable of lifting 66 quintillion tons. He is just so many orders of magnitudes different. That's 2.2 x 10^19 times stronger than Bane at his peak. The idea that kryptonite instantly reduces him to the levels of a weak human has always been absurd. It should make him vulnerable against other superhumans, not real humans.
It being in the comics before is not a good explanation. It's never made any sense. Superman is a only good character when he's dealing with galactic stuff. His design falls apart everywhere else.
Did you even read the Superman & Batman comics? DC writers have made it work. The two characters bring very different skillsets to the table and can complement each other nicely.
No, they really don't. DC fans love how they've been brought together because they're DC fans, not because the books have done it well. For all the positives DKR had for the Batman franchise, the portrayal of Superman was as bad as any other. Given how much they've loaded up Superman over the years, even in good series like All Star, there's no way to bring him back down to earth to exist on Batman's level.
They don't complement each other at all. It's the same with Superman and Flash. Flash serves no purpose in a universe where Superman exists and is as fast as him. Superman has all of the skill sets. People are talking like Superman isn't a genius or a combat specialist or a mindcontroller. He's all of those things, unfortunately. And even if he weren't those things, the strength difference still makes up for it. There's no fighting technique by which a 3 year old will defeat a body builder.
On July 21 2013 17:22 aNGryaRchon wrote: NOPE NOPE NOPE.
Superman beats Batman in Babel despite Batman’s heavy preparation. Superman kills Batman in Red Son. Superman humiliates Batman in Superman/Batman 2 despite all the odds favoring Batman. Superman smashes Batman in Infinite Crisis despite the absolute Krypton Ring. Superman obliterates Batman in Hush series, again despite Batman’s preparation.
The only time Batman beats Superman is when Batman just turns on Superman without any motivation or when Superman acts out of character due to poor script writing.
There is no universe, alternate reality, hallucinatory world, or fantasy where Batman wins vs. Superman.
And he really shouldn't. Batman comes from a universe where extraordinary physical strength and willpower meets technology, where Superman is a practically invincible alien. I really don't think the two ever fit together, I don't know how they'll make this work.
The same way to make a Thunder God run around with a guy with a bow and arrow, a girl with two guns and a guy with a shield. Good writing and a villian that can be beat with force alone.
Avengers wasn't well written. And Loki was the enemy. Imagine if the movie was Thor vs Black Widow and Hawkeye? GG to them.
On July 21 2013 17:22 aNGryaRchon wrote: NOPE NOPE NOPE.
Superman beats Batman in Babel despite Batman’s heavy preparation. Superman kills Batman in Red Son. Superman humiliates Batman in Superman/Batman 2 despite all the odds favoring Batman. Superman smashes Batman in Infinite Crisis despite the absolute Krypton Ring. Superman obliterates Batman in Hush series, again despite Batman’s preparation.
The only time Batman beats Superman is when Batman just turns on Superman without any motivation or when Superman acts out of character due to poor script writing.
There is no universe, alternate reality, hallucinatory world, or fantasy where Batman wins vs. Superman.
And he really shouldn't. Batman comes from a universe where extraordinary physical strength and willpower meets technology, where Superman is a practically invincible alien. I really don't think the two ever fit together, I don't know how they'll make this work.
The same way to make a Thunder God run around with a guy with a bow and arrow, a girl with two guns and a guy with a shield. Good writing and a villian that can be beat with force alone.
Avengers wasn't well written. And Loki was the enemy. Imagine if the movie was Thor vs Black Widow and Hawkeye? GG to them.
I don't think this is going to be Superman vs Batman. They quoted the Dark Knight Returns comic because it is the most well known time they were featured together. If anything, the two will be at odds due to the ways that choose to operate, rahter than fighting each other. The conflict between them will be at a professional level, not physical. There is no way to write that and have it be reasonable in a movie.
On July 21 2013 17:22 aNGryaRchon wrote: NOPE NOPE NOPE.
Superman beats Batman in Babel despite Batman’s heavy preparation. Superman kills Batman in Red Son. Superman humiliates Batman in Superman/Batman 2 despite all the odds favoring Batman. Superman smashes Batman in Infinite Crisis despite the absolute Krypton Ring. Superman obliterates Batman in Hush series, again despite Batman’s preparation.
The only time Batman beats Superman is when Batman just turns on Superman without any motivation or when Superman acts out of character due to poor script writing.
There is no universe, alternate reality, hallucinatory world, or fantasy where Batman wins vs. Superman.
And he really shouldn't. Batman comes from a universe where extraordinary physical strength and willpower meets technology, where Superman is a practically invincible alien. I really don't think the two ever fit together, I don't know how they'll make this work.
The same way to make a Thunder God run around with a guy with a bow and arrow, a girl with two guns and a guy with a shield. Good writing and a villian that can be beat with force alone.
Avengers wasn't well written. And Loki was the enemy. Imagine if the movie was Thor vs Black Widow and Hawkeye? GG to them.
I don't think this is going to be Superman vs Batman. They quoted the Dark Knight Returns comic because it is the most well known time they were featured together. If anything, the two will be at odds due to the ways that choose to operate, rahter than fighting each other. The conflict between them will be at a professional level, not physical. There is no way to write that and have it be reasonable in a movie.
Many articles online indicate it was confirmed at Comic Con it's going to be Batman vs Superman. I agree it can't be a physical fight per se, but I don't see any non far-fetched way that Superman couldn't thwart Batman simply using his supreme powers.
I think he can be interesting, if the writer focused the movie on his internal struggles as an alien who was raised as a human, and how he develops from that. There was a bit of that in MoS, but it still felt like a celebration of an OP character. It's why the earlier trailers for MoS was so good. The film actually seemed like it would focus more on the Man of Steel. I should've known better though with Goyer writing it.
On July 21 2013 17:22 aNGryaRchon wrote: NOPE NOPE NOPE.
Superman beats Batman in Babel despite Batman’s heavy preparation. Superman kills Batman in Red Son. Superman humiliates Batman in Superman/Batman 2 despite all the odds favoring Batman. Superman smashes Batman in Infinite Crisis despite the absolute Krypton Ring. Superman obliterates Batman in Hush series, again despite Batman’s preparation.
The only time Batman beats Superman is when Batman just turns on Superman without any motivation or when Superman acts out of character due to poor script writing.
There is no universe, alternate reality, hallucinatory world, or fantasy where Batman wins vs. Superman.
And he really shouldn't. Batman comes from a universe where extraordinary physical strength and willpower meets technology, where Superman is a practically invincible alien. I really don't think the two ever fit together, I don't know how they'll make this work.
The same way to make a Thunder God run around with a guy with a bow and arrow, a girl with two guns and a guy with a shield. Good writing and a villian that can be beat with force alone.
Avengers wasn't well written. And Loki was the enemy. Imagine if the movie was Thor vs Black Widow and Hawkeye? GG to them.
I don't think this is going to be Superman vs Batman. They quoted the Dark Knight Returns comic because it is the most well known time they were featured together. If anything, the two will be at odds due to the ways that choose to operate, rahter than fighting each other. The conflict between them will be at a professional level, not physical. There is no way to write that and have it be reasonable in a movie.
This is my point. There was no way to write it and have it be reasonable in a comic either.
On July 21 2013 17:22 aNGryaRchon wrote: NOPE NOPE NOPE.
Superman beats Batman in Babel despite Batman’s heavy preparation. Superman kills Batman in Red Son. Superman humiliates Batman in Superman/Batman 2 despite all the odds favoring Batman. Superman smashes Batman in Infinite Crisis despite the absolute Krypton Ring. Superman obliterates Batman in Hush series, again despite Batman’s preparation.
The only time Batman beats Superman is when Batman just turns on Superman without any motivation or when Superman acts out of character due to poor script writing.
There is no universe, alternate reality, hallucinatory world, or fantasy where Batman wins vs. Superman.
And he really shouldn't. Batman comes from a universe where extraordinary physical strength and willpower meets technology, where Superman is a practically invincible alien. I really don't think the two ever fit together, I don't know how they'll make this work.
The same way to make a Thunder God run around with a guy with a bow and arrow, a girl with two guns and a guy with a shield. Good writing and a villian that can be beat with force alone.
Avengers wasn't well written. And Loki was the enemy. Imagine if the movie was Thor vs Black Widow and Hawkeye? GG to them.
I don't think this is going to be Superman vs Batman. They quoted the Dark Knight Returns comic because it is the most well known time they were featured together. If anything, the two will be at odds due to the ways that choose to operate, rahter than fighting each other. The conflict between them will be at a professional level, not physical. There is no way to write that and have it be reasonable in a movie.
Many articles online indicate it was confirmed at Comic Con it's going to be Batman vs Superman. I agree it can't be a physical fight per se, but I don't see any non far-fetched way that Superman couldn't thwart Batman simply using his supreme powers.
Clearly the conflict will be about something that physical power won't be able to deal with. And it will end with an epic team up, that is how these movies go. The best buddy cop movies start out with the characters in conflict and end up with them working together. That is how all the best Superman & Batman stories go.
Superman is at his best when he is punching missiles out of the sky. Batman is at this best when he is threatening people and hanging them from skylights. They can do both those things at the same time. Hell, Batman could save people in a plane filled with hostages while Superman punches missiles out of the sky that are coming at the plane.
On July 21 2013 17:22 aNGryaRchon wrote: NOPE NOPE NOPE.
Superman beats Batman in Babel despite Batman’s heavy preparation. Superman kills Batman in Red Son. Superman humiliates Batman in Superman/Batman 2 despite all the odds favoring Batman. Superman smashes Batman in Infinite Crisis despite the absolute Krypton Ring. Superman obliterates Batman in Hush series, again despite Batman’s preparation.
The only time Batman beats Superman is when Batman just turns on Superman without any motivation or when Superman acts out of character due to poor script writing.
There is no universe, alternate reality, hallucinatory world, or fantasy where Batman wins vs. Superman.
And he really shouldn't. Batman comes from a universe where extraordinary physical strength and willpower meets technology, where Superman is a practically invincible alien. I really don't think the two ever fit together, I don't know how they'll make this work.
The same way to make a Thunder God run around with a guy with a bow and arrow, a girl with two guns and a guy with a shield. Good writing and a villian that can be beat with force alone.
Avengers wasn't well written. And Loki was the enemy. Imagine if the movie was Thor vs Black Widow and Hawkeye? GG to them.
I don't think this is going to be Superman vs Batman. They quoted the Dark Knight Returns comic because it is the most well known time they were featured together. If anything, the two will be at odds due to the ways that choose to operate, rahter than fighting each other. The conflict between them will be at a professional level, not physical. There is no way to write that and have it be reasonable in a movie.
This is my point. There was no way to write it and have it be reasonable in a comic either.
It happened in Dark Knight Returns. Batman beats superman(an older, slower Superman), only to have heart failure at the end. Do people not read this comic any more?
On July 21 2013 17:22 aNGryaRchon wrote: NOPE NOPE NOPE.
Superman beats Batman in Babel despite Batman’s heavy preparation. Superman kills Batman in Red Son. Superman humiliates Batman in Superman/Batman 2 despite all the odds favoring Batman. Superman smashes Batman in Infinite Crisis despite the absolute Krypton Ring. Superman obliterates Batman in Hush series, again despite Batman’s preparation.
The only time Batman beats Superman is when Batman just turns on Superman without any motivation or when Superman acts out of character due to poor script writing.
There is no universe, alternate reality, hallucinatory world, or fantasy where Batman wins vs. Superman.
And he really shouldn't. Batman comes from a universe where extraordinary physical strength and willpower meets technology, where Superman is a practically invincible alien. I really don't think the two ever fit together, I don't know how they'll make this work.
The same way to make a Thunder God run around with a guy with a bow and arrow, a girl with two guns and a guy with a shield. Good writing and a villian that can be beat with force alone.
Avengers wasn't well written. And Loki was the enemy. Imagine if the movie was Thor vs Black Widow and Hawkeye? GG to them.
I don't think this is going to be Superman vs Batman. They quoted the Dark Knight Returns comic because it is the most well known time they were featured together. If anything, the two will be at odds due to the ways that choose to operate, rahter than fighting each other. The conflict between them will be at a professional level, not physical. There is no way to write that and have it be reasonable in a movie.
This is my point. There was no way to write it and have it be reasonable in a comic either.
It happened in Dark Knight Returns. Batman beats superman(an older, slower Superman), only to have heart failure at the end. Do people not read this comic any more?
I've cited DKR like a million times already. Frank Miller did a great job until he got to Superman. The Superman conceptualization sucks. Post-nuclear blast Superman, who's now a radioactive hazard btw, would destroy Batman in the exoframe, without much effort. Green Arrow even hitting Superman with the kryptonite was ridiculous.
Just because it happened in a comic series doesn't mean it makes sense. DC has lots of bad tie ins that don't make sense.
After Chris Nolan rehabilitated Batman with a great trilogy Zack Snyder is going to trash him again. IMO he is just a shitty director who blinds you with visuals.
On July 21 2013 17:22 aNGryaRchon wrote: NOPE NOPE NOPE.
Superman beats Batman in Babel despite Batman’s heavy preparation. Superman kills Batman in Red Son. Superman humiliates Batman in Superman/Batman 2 despite all the odds favoring Batman. Superman smashes Batman in Infinite Crisis despite the absolute Krypton Ring. Superman obliterates Batman in Hush series, again despite Batman’s preparation.
The only time Batman beats Superman is when Batman just turns on Superman without any motivation or when Superman acts out of character due to poor script writing.
There is no universe, alternate reality, hallucinatory world, or fantasy where Batman wins vs. Superman.
And he really shouldn't. Batman comes from a universe where extraordinary physical strength and willpower meets technology, where Superman is a practically invincible alien. I really don't think the two ever fit together, I don't know how they'll make this work.
The same way to make a Thunder God run around with a guy with a bow and arrow, a girl with two guns and a guy with a shield. Good writing and a villian that can be beat with force alone.
Avengers wasn't well written. And Loki was the enemy. Imagine if the movie was Thor vs Black Widow and Hawkeye? GG to them.
I don't think this is going to be Superman vs Batman. They quoted the Dark Knight Returns comic because it is the most well known time they were featured together. If anything, the two will be at odds due to the ways that choose to operate, rahter than fighting each other. The conflict between them will be at a professional level, not physical. There is no way to write that and have it be reasonable in a movie.
This is my point. There was no way to write it and have it be reasonable in a comic either.
It happened in Dark Knight Returns. Batman beats superman(an older, slower Superman), only to have heart failure at the end. Do people not read this comic any more?
I've cited DKR like a million times already. Frank Miller did a great job until he got to Superman. The Superman conceptualization sucks. Post-nuclear blast Superman, who's now a radioactive hazard btw, would destroy Batman in the exoframe, without much effort. Green Arrow even hitting Superman with the kryptonite was ridiculous.
Just because it happened in a comic series doesn't mean it makes sense. DC has lots of bad tie ins that don't make sense.
I guess if you want to see it that way. I personally never saw Superman as unbeatable in most comics and didn't find anything in DKR to be unreasonable, but everyone is entitled to their view.
On July 22 2013 02:52 crms wrote: Superman has always been incredibly lame and Batman just redeemed itself post-keaton movies with bale. This is a terrible idea.
They could always get Clooney in to kill Batman off again in Batman vs Superman, then set up another epic reboot (Nolan style)....
On July 23 2013 02:22 JustPassingBy wrote: Wait, will there be no next superman stand-alone movie?
If there was going to be a stand alone Superman one, half of it would be spent with him rebuilding Metropolis and apologising for making such a mess...
On July 22 2013 16:05 vol_ wrote: For people who don't read comics it may be hard for them to understand how Batman and Superman can actually work together given their different power levels but done well it can actually work out nicely. The fact that Batman is the contingency plan to stopping Superman should he go baddy in the DC universe should speak to how Batman is not as wimpy as you might think.
On July 22 2013 13:59 17Sphynx17 wrote: I find it funny how people keep of saying/assuming that Superman is a nitwit compared to Batman.
Krypton was an advanced alien civilization and he himself is an inventor/collector in certain respects. And he has the knowledge of Krypton within his reach, via the Fortress of Solitude. .
Yea this bugs me too, Superman is actually a scientific genius in his own right.
I know the writers have done it, but most of DC's writers also tend to be fucking awful, especially when it comes to Superman. The fact that Superman and Batman have been in tie-ins before isn't a reflection on it making sense, it's a reflection on DC's previous cash grabs. They never should have co-existed.
Let's ignore supercharging in the Sun and the fact that the Batman movie series have just come from the more "real" universe, where he has no concept of kryptonite or red sunlight. Take away Superman's stupid mindreading and intelligence and martial arts mastery and hypnosis and just reduce him to his speed and strength\. Let's not even put him at peak levels. He can be the original 1930's speed (faster than a speeding bullet), and he gets his planet moving strength (not the effortless planet smashing strength).
That's 1,000 mph and capable of lifting 66 quintillion tons. He is just so many orders of magnitudes different. That's 2.2 x 10^19 times stronger than Bane at his peak. The idea that kryptonite instantly reduces him to the levels of a weak human has always been absurd. It should make him vulnerable against other superhumans, not real humans.
It being in the comics before is not a good explanation. It's never made any sense. Superman is a only good character when he's dealing with galactic stuff. His design falls apart everywhere else.
Did you even read the Superman & Batman comics? DC writers have made it work. The two characters bring very different skillsets to the table and can complement each other nicely.
No, they really don't. DC fans love how they've been brought together because they're DC fans, not because the books have done it well. For all the positives DKR had for the Batman franchise, the portrayal of Superman was as bad as any other. Given how much they've loaded up Superman over the years, even in good series like All Star, there's no way to bring him back down to earth to exist on Batman's level.
They don't complement each other at all. It's the same with Superman and Flash. Flash serves no purpose in a universe where Superman exists and is as fast as him. Superman has all of the skill sets. People are talking like Superman isn't a genius or a combat specialist or a mindcontroller. He's all of those things, unfortunately. And even if he weren't those things, the strength difference still makes up for it. There's no fighting technique by which a 3 year old will defeat a body builder.
The Superman & Batman comics are not about the two characters fighting each other. That would be ridiculous. They are about the two characters teaming up against various threats. I'm not a DC fan yet there are plenty of storylines in the original Superman & Batman run in which both characters bring something to the table and complement each other nicely (not to say the movie should be an adaptation of any of these storylines, but they show it can be done). Also, the Superman we've seen in MoS certainly doesn't seem to be a great tactician or strategist, and has no genius-level feats so far either.
The two characters also bring two different visions of what it means to be a hero, how a hero can influence society, how a hero should fight crime, how optimistic you should be about mankind, etc. There's plenty of material to make a Superman-Batman partnership interesting beyond fights/action.
edit: for the record, I would have liked to see at least another Superman movie before the team-up, to better establish the journalist Clark Kent character and possibly introduce a couple other Superman enemies.
On July 21 2013 17:22 aNGryaRchon wrote: NOPE NOPE NOPE.
Superman beats Batman in Babel despite Batman’s heavy preparation. Superman kills Batman in Red Son. Superman humiliates Batman in Superman/Batman 2 despite all the odds favoring Batman. Superman smashes Batman in Infinite Crisis despite the absolute Krypton Ring. Superman obliterates Batman in Hush series, again despite Batman’s preparation.
The only time Batman beats Superman is when Batman just turns on Superman without any motivation or when Superman acts out of character due to poor script writing.
There is no universe, alternate reality, hallucinatory world, or fantasy where Batman wins vs. Superman.
And he really shouldn't. Batman comes from a universe where extraordinary physical strength and willpower meets technology, where Superman is a practically invincible alien. I really don't think the two ever fit together, I don't know how they'll make this work.
The same way to make a Thunder God run around with a guy with a bow and arrow, a girl with two guns and a guy with a shield. Good writing and a villian that can be beat with force alone.
Avengers wasn't well written. And Loki was the enemy. Imagine if the movie was Thor vs Black Widow and Hawkeye? GG to them.
I don't think this is going to be Superman vs Batman. They quoted the Dark Knight Returns comic because it is the most well known time they were featured together. If anything, the two will be at odds due to the ways that choose to operate, rahter than fighting each other. The conflict between them will be at a professional level, not physical. There is no way to write that and have it be reasonable in a movie.
This is my point. There was no way to write it and have it be reasonable in a comic either.
It happened in Dark Knight Returns. Batman beats superman(an older, slower Superman), only to have heart failure at the end. Do people not read this comic any more?
I've cited DKR like a million times already. Frank Miller did a great job until he got to Superman. The Superman conceptualization sucks. Post-nuclear blast Superman, who's now a radioactive hazard btw, would destroy Batman in the exoframe, without much effort. Green Arrow even hitting Superman with the kryptonite was ridiculous.
Just because it happened in a comic series doesn't mean it makes sense. DC has lots of bad tie ins that don't make sense.
Aside from the logistics of the whole thing I have to say the general story pacing staggers in book three and practically collapses in four. I think they had deadline pressure or something or the second half would have been very different.
Like majority of comic book movies, they will most likely combine elements of The Dark Knight Returns, Superman/Batman: Apocalypse, Superman/Batman: Public Enemies, and an old favorite, The Batman Superman Movie: World's Finest.
Fans speculate that with the ending of Man of Steel, a large chunk of Metropolis has been destroyed during the invasion of General Zod. Lex Luthor will most likely be a key figure in the reconstruction of the city. After all, there were two shots of Lex Corp logos in the movie along with a Wayne Enterprises easter egg in the Man of Steel. He won't be the only billionaire because he will team up with Bruce Wayne. In the film, Superman early on realizes Luthor's motives and attempts to stop him, but will be met with a force known as Batman. Batman has no reason to trust Superman after what he has done during the fight with Zod and causing so much destruction and civilian deaths. Plus, he could a have a friendship with Lex Luthor in the beginning and end up using his detective skills and find out who he really is. Near the middle of the movie is where we get a Superman and Batman team up such as the animated movie/short arc called The Batman Superman Movie: World's Finest. They could bring in a villain from Batman's world or they could stick with Lex Luthor and Metallo vs Batman and Superman.
The only way they can get Superman vs Batman to work is by abandoning that canon in which Superman is capable of moving planets with his little finger.
As I've pointed out, that doesn't even make sense in the context of the comics. If Doomsday and Superman are laying into each other their hardest, it would cause a lot more than smashed windows. It would throw the Earth out of its orbit.
I can't believe that intelligent people can derive entertainment out of the Superman stories.
Come on people, kryptonite. You really think they can come up with any way for Batman to beat Superman without kryptonite.
The point of the movie will be to convince the viewer that the reason why they are fighting is realistic, not the fight itself. The Dark Knight Returns anime failed in this regard, I hope this movie will do better.
The responses in this thread tell why Superman is a terrible character. Outside of kryptonite, which is lame itself, the only way Batman or any non-cosmic powered person can go toe to toe with Superman is if he goes full retard. Well, Superman is supposed to be a genius. He's not supposed to be a Hulk-like character who loses his genius when he transforms. The fact that many people believe he's a Hulk-like character shows how often DC writers have made Superman go full retard in his interactions with other characters.
On July 22 2013 23:08 agahamsorr0w wrote: wolverine can heal through everything and has an indestructible skeleton so i dont see why superman would be boring. the only difference i see is that wolverine is aggressive and has a big mouth while superman tries to reason with people.
That's just BS. There are a ton of guys that can fight and kill or at least imprison Wolverine. It's one thing to be hard to kill and a decent enough fighter and quite another to be capable of packing a punch so heavy it shatters mountains while a tank shot hitting you in the open eye will to about the same amount of damage as someone burping in your direction from 20 feet away.
good thing superman has no reason at all to destroy mountains with one punch uh? obviously if he wanted it he would kill batman in one shot but if you knew how he was designed, you would know he doesnt kill unless under influence of red kryptonite. same with magneto. he could kill wolverine by tearing his skeleton out of his body but he doesnt. its not in his interest even though they are enemies.
oh and superman isnt strong enough to shatter a mountain with a punch. you just made that up.
do people here even know villains can team up too? does the injustice league ring any bells?
Still all my points stand.
Superman is just immortal invoulnerable and so strong he can do whatever he wants. That's when the makers realized that it is kind of boring this way so they designed Kryptonite and then more and more versions of it and added in magic..... magic. Yeah. Because those are the two weaknesses, something that simply stands for all that is illogical and impossible thus can not be reasoned with (Magic) and some weak ass crap they just implemented to keep the Superman Saga from being the biggest joke ever. Still is though, I mean come on. . Pink Kryptonite that makes people gay?! WTF
Still all these flaws can be seen as flaws or not, that I can understand but the guy itself is just too boring. Superman will always be the white knight and never do anything anyone could deam as wrong, no matter what (unless. . . surprise kryptonite...) I feel like being 100% predictable and nice makes a person too boring to have a huge fanbase. It is no wonder that Batman and Wolverine both have ton of good movies before Superman does (I don't care for 50 year old movies anymore, hurts my brain to watch those effects t.t got spoiled and now can't help it).
Its just a question of scale. How can a heros in the avengers work when they are all of different power levels? With good writing. The battle on the sky fortress is a great example of good writing making for intresting fights that everyone can take part in. They deal with Ironman(one of the most powerful characters) by making him repair the airship, while the Hulk and Thor are busy dealing with eachother.
Superman and Batman work the same way. You just need things that both parties need to deal with on a sperately. If the fights and battles are big enough, Superman will be locked down and busy. Also, the new Man of Steel had a very "reasonable" Superman who had limits to how strong he was or how much damge he could take before being knocked around.
And batman and superman are intresting characters when they interact with eachother. Both have a lot in common and see the world in very differnet ways. The best writing for them makes them play off eachother. If you read Kingdom Come, the part where Batman is talking to Superman and turns back to find Superman gone is one of the best quotes of all time. Batman just says "So thats what that feels like."
Except that in The Avengers, The Hulk, Iron Man and Thor did pretty much everything. What did Captain America do? Shepherd some people around on the streets, and beat up a few monsters which ultimately had no impact on the overall result of the fight? Even in your post, the strongest 3 are the only ones you mention.
On July 22 2013 02:52 crms wrote: Superman has always been incredibly lame and Batman just redeemed itself post-keaton movies with bale. This is a terrible idea.
They could always get Clooney in to kill Batman off again in Batman vs Superman, then set up another epic reboot (Nolan style)....
On July 23 2013 02:22 JustPassingBy wrote: Wait, will there be no next superman stand-alone movie?
If there was going to be a stand alone Superman one, half of it would be spent with him rebuilding Metropolis and apologising for making such a mess...
If it wasn't for him the entire human race would be extinct and Earth would have been transformed to new Krypton. But of course he now needs to go apologise to annoying viewers for destroying a few buildings..
On July 22 2013 23:08 agahamsorr0w wrote: wolverine can heal through everything and has an indestructible skeleton so i dont see why superman would be boring. the only difference i see is that wolverine is aggressive and has a big mouth while superman tries to reason with people.
That's just BS. There are a ton of guys that can fight and kill or at least imprison Wolverine. It's one thing to be hard to kill and a decent enough fighter and quite another to be capable of packing a punch so heavy it shatters mountains while a tank shot hitting you in the open eye will to about the same amount of damage as someone burping in your direction from 20 feet away.
good thing superman has no reason at all to destroy mountains with one punch uh? obviously if he wanted it he would kill batman in one shot but if you knew how he was designed, you would know he doesnt kill unless under influence of red kryptonite. same with magneto. he could kill wolverine by tearing his skeleton out of his body but he doesnt. its not in his interest even though they are enemies.
oh and superman isnt strong enough to shatter a mountain with a punch. you just made that up.
do people here even know villains can team up too? does the injustice league ring any bells?
Still all my points stand.
Superman is just immortal invoulnerable and so strong he can do whatever he wants. That's when the makers realized that it is kind of boring this way so they designed Kryptonite and then more and more versions of it and added in magic..... magic. Yeah. Because those are the two weaknesses, something that simply stands for all that is illogical and impossible thus can not be reasoned with (Magic) and some weak ass crap they just implemented to keep the Superman Saga from being the biggest joke ever. Still is though, I mean come on. . Pink Kryptonite that makes people gay?! WTF
Still all these flaws can be seen as flaws or not, that I can understand but the guy itself is just too boring. Superman will always be the white knight and never do anything anyone could deam as wrong, no matter what (unless. . . surprise kryptonite...) I feel like being 100% predictable and nice makes a person too boring to have a huge fanbase. It is no wonder that Batman and Wolverine both have ton of good movies before Superman does (I don't care for 50 year old movies anymore, hurts my brain to watch those effects t.t got spoiled and now can't help it).
Its just a question of scale. How can a heros in the avengers work when they are all of different power levels? With good writing. The battle on the sky fortress is a great example of good writing making for intresting fights that everyone can take part in. They deal with Ironman(one of the most powerful characters) by making him repair the airship, while the Hulk and Thor are busy dealing with eachother.
Superman and Batman work the same way. You just need things that both parties need to deal with on a sperately. If the fights and battles are big enough, Superman will be locked down and busy. Also, the new Man of Steel had a very "reasonable" Superman who had limits to how strong he was or how much damge he could take before being knocked around.
And batman and superman are intresting characters when they interact with eachother. Both have a lot in common and see the world in very differnet ways. The best writing for them makes them play off eachother. If you read Kingdom Come, the part where Batman is talking to Superman and turns back to find Superman gone is one of the best quotes of all time. Batman just says "So thats what that feels like."
Except that in The Avengers, The Hulk, Iron Man and Thor did pretty much everything. What did Captain America do? Shepherd some people around on the streets, and beat up a few monsters which ultimately had no impact on the overall result of the fight? Even in your post, the strongest 3 are the only ones you mention.
So what? The others were still written sufficiently well to have them contribute, even if they weren't as strong as the three you mention. Black Widow helped Selvig close the portal, Captain America protected civilians and directed everyone to their respective roles, and Hawkeye contributed to providing coordination to everyone by staying high. There's no doubt that Iron Man, Thor and Hulk had a higher kill list, but it certainly didn't feel like the others were useless.
To everyone yelling that batman v superman will be unrealistic... Do you not realize that one of supermans villains is just a really smart human like batman? (lex luthor)
Superman is powerful, blithe is crippled by his ideals etc. Batman gets shit done.
On July 21 2013 18:13 plgElwood wrote: Most (superhero)movies besides the latest batman movies are quite lame CGI-clashes of badly written charakters.
So Batsuperironman plot:
Batman is pissed with superman (and RDJ is too, money should be the only legal superpower) Batman secretly reveals supermans identity, and then superman is forced to move from metropolis, loosing his wife/gf/whatver he has in this universe, starts doing drugs and alcohol, starts random robbing and killing. Batman is quite happy with the result. And builds a Kryptonite Jail for the now ill intended superman, he appeals at supermans moral via media , to deliver himself to the cell and get frozen in ice covered with kryptonite, repaying for all the harm he has done. Batman and RDJ happy controling the world with money In the dark and frozen superman pics up radiowaves, showing him the new courrupt world RDJ and Batma created. Closing scene : Superman in the dark burns out of the ice-jail with laser eyes.
Batsuperironman II :
Dripping water from Kryptonite/ice Jail, superman is free, in the dark, but kryotonite harms him, he breaks out of the room to find out, it was just a capsule traveling through space, the radiowaves have reached him from 1000 ligth years late. Being a stupid journalist, he can not determine where he is, and even with super speed he can not find earth.
Other part of the movie. Batmans grand grand grand grand grand grand son is sad having no superman and builds time machine to stop the ice/Kryptonite Jail rocket from launching. Fails. Builds superman beacon to lead him home. Wins. Gives Superman astronomy lessons and together they do the Startrek-style around the sun timetravel to stop evilpast batman and RDJ from launching superman and corrupting the world. DA END.
I don't understand how people can accept Lex Luther as one of Superman's primary antagonists, (A man with no superpowers, but vast intelligence and money/social power.) but then put forth the notion that Batman can't co-exit with Superman in a story.
Justice League comics were some of my favorites. I'm skeptical because Man of Steel didn't do well, not because of some idea that Batman+Superman = guaranteed fail.
On July 25 2013 00:07 Lounge wrote: I don't understand how people can accept Lex Luther as one of Superman's primary antagonists, (A man with no superpowers, but vast intelligence and money/social power.) but then put forth the notion that Batman can't co-exit with Superman in a story.
Justice League comics were some of my favorites. I'm skeptical because Man of Steel didn't do well, not because of some idea that Batman+Superman = guaranteed fail.
People don't understand or read Supes and don't get that having that level of power doesn't help him against people like Lex. Everyone just needs to read Kingdom Come and then they will understand what Supes is all about. Its less about how powerful he is and more about how does a man keep his faith in humanity over several life times. People also do not understand how much Supes life kinda sucks, he outlives everyone he loves and humanity lets him down over and over and demands that he fix their problems. But that stuff it hard to get across in a movie.
I find the best way for heroes of varying power to coexist is to not have them interact with each other i.e. Marvel's Civil War series where Hulk was off-planet, Thor was in exile/cloned, and Dr. Strange abstained from the conflict. As a non-DC fan, I think you need to have Superman out of crossovers, but seeing how he's a large part of their sales, I don't think that is an option.
Ok, I don't hate Ben Affleck and if Nolan did the casting, I am ok with this. After all, he gave of Heath Ledger as the Joker and people hated that when it was first announced.
On July 24 2013 20:27 levelping wrote: To everyone yelling that batman v superman will be unrealistic... Do you not realize that one of supermans villains is just a really smart human like batman? (lex luthor)
Superman is powerful, blithe is crippled by his ideals etc. Batman gets shit done.
I guess it's just that superman hasn't really been established as having good reason for believing those ideals (in this series at least)
Argo was pretty good and so was Heath Ledger. I think people should give him a shot. He loves comic books and it is important to have someone who loves the role. Or you get the Spiderman problem.
On August 23 2013 12:24 Plansix wrote: Argo was pretty good and so was Heath Ledger. I think people should give him a shot. He loves comic books and it is important to have someone who loves the role. Or you get the Spiderman problem.
I wasn't saying Heath Ledger wasn't good. And I like Affleck more as a director/writer than an actor. I just have doubts of thinking of various acting rolls he's been in doesn't suit my taste.
I will wait until I see him in costume and spitting out a few lines before I judge. I mean people HATED the Heath Ledger casting and look how that turned out. I am not entirely excited for this project anyways because Man of Steel wasn't that great to me but we shall see.
I'd rather have Josh Brolin or Karl Urban... Warner Brothers said that they wanted an older and experienced Batman, but Affleck doesn't fit that role in my eyes.
On August 23 2013 12:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Ben Affleck? One of the worst actors in Hollywood. People will see like they want to see race cars crash.
as long as matt damon plays robin and salma hayeks boobs play catwoman and he gets to say fuck in a strong boston accent a lot im sure it will be good.
Chloe Grace Moretz. She's the one that should be in this movie. She's a better action super hero star than Affleck or Bale or any other former Bruce Wayne.
On August 23 2013 12:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Ben Affleck? One of the worst actors in Hollywood. People will see like they want to see race cars crash.
I don't know if he's that bad of an actor... just doesn't have much of a range.
He's a great director, hard to imagine him as Batman.
This movie has some serious potential, they just have to do it right! World's Finest kicked ass and I'd love to see a movie at that level on the big screen.
On August 23 2013 13:38 publicenemies wrote: Ben Affleck is like one of those actors that you see in movies but never realize that he's in the movie until you look on wikipedia.
On August 23 2013 12:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Ben Affleck? One of the worst actors in Hollywood. People will see like they want to see race cars crash.
I don't know if he's that bad of an actor... just doesn't have much of a range.
He's a great director, hard to imagine him as Batman.
agreed. But its really up to the director. I like George Clooney as an actor but his Batman was about as terrible as comic book movies can be.
On August 23 2013 13:25 felisconcolori wrote: That's it. I'm proposing a radical solution.
Chloe Grace Moretz. She's the one that should be in this movie. She's a better action super hero star than Affleck or Bale or any other former Bruce Wayne.
#HitGirl4Batman
chloe moretz is famous for getting shot by nick cage and then calling everyone a shit. her acting ability is still up for debate.
On August 23 2013 12:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Ben Affleck? One of the worst actors in Hollywood. People will see like they want to see race cars crash.
I don't know if he's that bad of an actor... just doesn't have much of a range.
He's a great director, hard to imagine him as Batman.
agreed. But its really up to the director. I like George Clooney as an actor but his Batman was about as terrible as comic book movies can be.
George Clooney plays George Clooney in every single movie he's in.
On August 23 2013 13:38 publicenemies wrote: Ben Affleck is like one of those actors that you see in movies but never realize that he's in the movie until you look on wikipedia.
On August 23 2013 13:25 felisconcolori wrote: That's it. I'm proposing a radical solution.
Chloe Grace Moretz. She's the one that should be in this movie. She's a better action super hero star than Affleck or Bale or any other former Bruce Wayne.
#HitGirl4Batman
Considering that there will be future Batman movies, they can cast her as Stephanie Brown since by then she'll be in her late teens at least.
On August 23 2013 12:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Ben Affleck? One of the worst actors in Hollywood. People will see like they want to see race cars crash.
I don't know if he's that bad of an actor... just doesn't have much of a range.
He's a great director, hard to imagine him as Batman.
agreed. But its really up to the director. I like George Clooney as an actor but his Batman was about as terrible as comic book movies can be.
George Clooney plays George Clooney in every single movie he's in.
No, you got it all wrong. George Clooney plays a character who is doing their best George Clooney impersonation.
On August 23 2013 12:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Ben Affleck? One of the worst actors in Hollywood. People will see like they want to see race cars crash.
I don't know if he's that bad of an actor... just doesn't have much of a range.
He's a great director, hard to imagine him as Batman.
agreed. But its really up to the director. I like George Clooney as an actor but his Batman was about as terrible as comic book movies can be.
George Clooney plays George Clooney in every single movie he's in.
To be fair, I recall George Clooney was cast in the Batman where they put nipples on the bat-suit. That's basically a franchise low-point.
Ben Affleck is directing such great movies right now, I hope he's doing this to learn visual effects from Zack Snyder. He previously turned down some directing gigs because he said he didn't know how to work with CG.
Any reason why Bale wasn't made batman again? Or what, being Christopher Nolan film i don't understand how he wouldn't of asked him? Unless Bale said no i guess. Any confirmation on that?
i doubt the style of this batman will be much different, because nolan's batman was such a hit. and there is the problem, affleck is just too much of a niceguy to present the coolness but also threat that was that batman. i think casting affleck was a terrible decision.
Batman just redeemed itself with an awesome trilogy, only to be ruined by superman
Was man of steel bad?
Superman killed Zod .. if the fundamentals of the character was destroyed then consider the franchise destroyed.
Well, it is a good lead up to Dark Knight Returns comics that this Batman vs Superman movie is supposed to based upon. In that coming Superman is a total jerk that has no problems killing people. At one point he fights together with US army against Russians and kills untold number of soldiers. Then he goes to stop/kill Batman because Batman was stopping bad guys from killing innocents but it made the government look bad and incompetent in the eyes of the public so the president tells Superman to stop Batman in any way possible. Oh and Superman crippled Green Arrow because like Batman he would also not stop being a hero.
So while the movie did show a different Superman then what we are used to, it will work for this upcoming movie
He's matured into a good director, but I never found him interesting as an actor. He was decent in Argo and The Town, but that's because those roles didn't really require much range. Then again, perhaps that will be the case with Snyder and Goyer's new Batman.
In any case, I was always going to be critical since I believe it's way too soon to bring Batman back to the big screens. It's just a shame that WB are so desperate for the MoS sequel to succeed, and the Justice League movie to happen, that they're disrespecting Nolan's trilogy, which he's strangely partaking in by being executive producer of the sequel. I guess money always talks.
Btw, isn't Affleck like 6'2, and Cavil 6'1? It's going to be a little odd seeing a taller Batman than Superman.
On August 23 2013 18:21 LoLAdriankat wrote: So is this Batman going to be from a different canon than Nolan's series?
This (2015) Batman movie is sequel to (2017) Batman remake with Nic Cage. Directed by Ben Affleck. And yes I do think so this is defferent canon than Nolan's series.
On August 23 2013 19:30 Telcontar wrote: He's matured into a good director, but I never found him interesting as an actor. He was decent in Argo and The Town, but that's because those roles didn't really require much range. Then again, perhaps that will be the case with Snyder and Goyer's new Batman.
In any case, I was always going to be critical since I believe it's way too soon to bring Batman back to the big screens. It's just a shame that WB are so desperate for the MoS sequel to succeed, and the Justice League movie to happen, that they're disrespecting Nolan's trilogy, which he's strangely partaking in by being executive producer of the sequel. I guess money always talks.
Btw, isn't Affleck like 6'2, and Cavil 6'1? It's going to be a little odd seeing a taller Batman than Superman.
On August 23 2013 19:30 Telcontar wrote: He's matured into a good director, but I never found him interesting as an actor. He was decent in Argo and The Town, but that's because those roles didn't really require much range. Then again, perhaps that will be the case with Snyder and Goyer's new Batman.
In any case, I was always going to be critical since I believe it's way too soon to bring Batman back to the big screens. It's just a shame that WB are so desperate for the MoS sequel to succeed, and the Justice League movie to happen, that they're disrespecting Nolan's trilogy, which he's strangely partaking in by being executive producer of the sequel. I guess money always talks.
Btw, isn't Affleck like 6'2, and Cavil 6'1? It's going to be a little odd seeing a taller Batman than Superman.
Height is not hard to fake in a movie. It's the reason why people think Schwarzenegger is actually tall. If they are going to bother is a different question.
On August 23 2013 18:06 Pandemona wrote: Any reason why Bale wasn't made batman again? Or what, being Christopher Nolan film i don't understand how he wouldn't of asked him? Unless Bale said no i guess. Any confirmation on that?
On August 23 2013 19:30 Telcontar wrote: He's matured into a good director, but I never found him interesting as an actor. He was decent in Argo and The Town, but that's because those roles didn't really require much range. Then again, perhaps that will be the case with Snyder and Goyer's new Batman.
In any case, I was always going to be critical since I believe it's way too soon to bring Batman back to the big screens. It's just a shame that WB are so desperate for the MoS sequel to succeed, and the Justice League movie to happen, that they're disrespecting Nolan's trilogy, which he's strangely partaking in by being executive producer of the sequel. I guess money always talks.
Btw, isn't Affleck like 6'2, and Cavil 6'1? It's going to be a little odd seeing a taller Batman than Superman.
Height is not hard to fake in a movie. It's the reason why people think Schwarzenegger is actually tall. If they are going to bother is a different question.
You don't consider 6'2" tall? We're both Scandinavians, but come on, thats taller than just about every single actor. :p
On August 23 2013 19:30 Telcontar wrote: He's matured into a good director, but I never found him interesting as an actor. He was decent in Argo and The Town, but that's because those roles didn't really require much range. Then again, perhaps that will be the case with Snyder and Goyer's new Batman.
In any case, I was always going to be critical since I believe it's way too soon to bring Batman back to the big screens. It's just a shame that WB are so desperate for the MoS sequel to succeed, and the Justice League movie to happen, that they're disrespecting Nolan's trilogy, which he's strangely partaking in by being executive producer of the sequel. I guess money always talks.
Btw, isn't Affleck like 6'2, and Cavil 6'1? It's going to be a little odd seeing a taller Batman than Superman.
Height is not hard to fake in a movie. It's the reason why people think Schwarzenegger is actually tall. If they are going to bother is a different question.
You don't consider 6'2" tall? We're both Scandinavians, but come on, thats taller than just about every single actor. :p
Yeah Arnold certainly isn't short lol. And the fact that he's a big guy helps too.
Oscar for best original screenplay Academy Award for best director Golden Globe for best picture Golden Globe for best director
Directed Argo Wrote Good Will Hunting
Starred in Gigli Starred in Daredevil Starred in Pearl Harbor
Clearly they could have found a better Batman?
I think there's something else in the deal. It was known that WB wanted Affleck to direct a DC movie for them. With this, they could have signed him on to also direct Justice League or the rebooted Batman movies, which I guess, now he'll star in as well as direct.
I think this is a big step back for Affleck, as well as the Batman franchise. He could've taken his directorial career to new heights off the success of Argo and his previous attempts. Now, he's stuck in a role that will divert a lot of energy and resources from other potential projects. And the franchise has now a mediocre actor to lead it.
On August 23 2013 19:30 Telcontar wrote: He's matured into a good director, but I never found him interesting as an actor. He was decent in Argo and The Town, but that's because those roles didn't really require much range. Then again, perhaps that will be the case with Snyder and Goyer's new Batman.
In any case, I was always going to be critical since I believe it's way too soon to bring Batman back to the big screens. It's just a shame that WB are so desperate for the MoS sequel to succeed, and the Justice League movie to happen, that they're disrespecting Nolan's trilogy, which he's strangely partaking in by being executive producer of the sequel. I guess money always talks.
Btw, isn't Affleck like 6'2, and Cavil 6'1? It's going to be a little odd seeing a taller Batman than Superman.
Height is not hard to fake in a movie. It's the reason why people think Schwarzenegger is actually tall. If they are going to bother is a different question.
You don't consider 6'2" tall? We're both Scandinavians, but come on, thats taller than just about every single actor. :p
Yeah Arnold certainly isn't short lol. And the fact that he's a big guy helps too.
Yeah, I recall Arnie being just shy of 6'2 in his prime days. There's even a record of a measurement they did for a bodybuilding competition he participated in. Of course his body weight would've shrunk him down these days, but he was a tall dude in his youth. I think he's around 6'0 now.
For me, I honestly do not see the issue with Affleck. Yes, it came as a surprise, but can people try to be civil and see how it actually turns out. Hell, if we can have a batman that is actually understandable and does not need to drink honey tea after every line, I will see it as an improvement. For myself, I think Bale made an amazing Bruce Wayne but batman was disappointing. I think that we will have is maybe a disappointing Bruce Wayne and perhaps an awesome batman.
Regardless though, let us hold back on the torch/pitchfork mob routine and wait until the first video is released. Until then, the people that have raged (and there are many who are) really need to chill.
On August 23 2013 19:30 Telcontar wrote: He's matured into a good director, but I never found him interesting as an actor. He was decent in Argo and The Town, but that's because those roles didn't really require much range. Then again, perhaps that will be the case with Snyder and Goyer's new Batman.
In any case, I was always going to be critical since I believe it's way too soon to bring Batman back to the big screens. It's just a shame that WB are so desperate for the MoS sequel to succeed, and the Justice League movie to happen, that they're disrespecting Nolan's trilogy, which he's strangely partaking in by being executive producer of the sequel. I guess money always talks.
Btw, isn't Affleck like 6'2, and Cavil 6'1? It's going to be a little odd seeing a taller Batman than Superman.
Height is not hard to fake in a movie. It's the reason why people think Schwarzenegger is actually tall. If they are going to bother is a different question.
You don't consider 6'2" tall? We're both Scandinavians, but come on, thats taller than just about every single actor. :p
Shorter/smaller than what many people think he is. There's many accounts of people meeting him in real life and being surprised by how small he is compared to their image of him. The actual height wasn't really the point, I just picked him because I've seen quite a few reactions in regards to him before.. Maybe I should have phrased it differently.
On August 23 2013 19:30 Telcontar wrote: He's matured into a good director, but I never found him interesting as an actor. He was decent in Argo and The Town, but that's because those roles didn't really require much range. Then again, perhaps that will be the case with Snyder and Goyer's new Batman.
In any case, I was always going to be critical since I believe it's way too soon to bring Batman back to the big screens. It's just a shame that WB are so desperate for the MoS sequel to succeed, and the Justice League movie to happen, that they're disrespecting Nolan's trilogy, which he's strangely partaking in by being executive producer of the sequel. I guess money always talks.
Btw, isn't Affleck like 6'2, and Cavil 6'1? It's going to be a little odd seeing a taller Batman than Superman.
Height is not hard to fake in a movie. It's the reason why people think Schwarzenegger is actually tall. If they are going to bother is a different question.
You don't consider 6'2" tall? We're both Scandinavians, but come on, thats taller than just about every single actor. :p
Yeah Arnold certainly isn't short lol. And the fact that he's a big guy helps too.
I didn't say he was short. And still my original point is still that faking heights in movies is usually not very hard if it bothers them, especially when we are not talking about a huge difference here. Of all the implications of this casting his height is a minor one.
On August 23 2013 23:04 XenOmega wrote: Bale did such a good job being Batman for Nolan. I haven't seen everything from Affleck, but I'm not sure if he can convey the same aura
I'll give the runner a try before condemning him. But let me say it right now : I have my doubts
Just keep him in the batman suit and he'll be fine. Even Bale had the range of a tree when he was in the batman persona.
Anyone not remember the atrocity that was Daredevil? Ben Affleck killed all desire of seeing this movie. IF somehow the movie doesnt bomb (which I think it will now) and Affleck shocks us all with a good performance (like Heath Ledger did with Joker) than I will definitely go see it.
But Im calling it now. Because Affleck is going to be Batman... this movie will most likely tank.
I think I've just tired of the way DC feels the need to make superhero movies as if they're apologizing the whole time for the fact that it's a comic-book movie. "Look at how grounded in reailty this is! We'll make an entire Superman movie without even really mentioning his name because that would be silly! Why have Gotham City when we can have <insert generic US setting> instead?" Why so serious?
Contrast that with Marvel who is like "oh, giant green monster? Norse god? Fuck it, whatever." They seem to understand that a superhero movie should be fun.
Don't get me wrong, I bonered as hard over the Dark Knight trilogy as anyone, but the shtick did get quite tired by the end. And I was as shocked as anyone to find that I enjoyed Thor more than I enjoyed The Dark Knight Rises.
Forget all of this stuff and just give me a Guillermo Del Toro Dark Knight Returns.
On August 23 2013 23:14 DyEnasTy wrote: Anyone not remember the atrocity that was Daredevil? Ben Affleck killed all desire of seeing this movie. IF somehow the movie doesnt bomb (which I think it will now) and Affleck shocks us all with a good performance (like Heath Ledger did with Joker) than I will definitely go see it.
But Im calling it now. Because Affleck is going to be Batman... this movie will most likely tank.
Affleck is not the worst part of that movie by far. He is one of the better parts. The movies suffers from shitty pacing, lack of budget and lack of special effects. Also, studio fear of super heroes. You should listen to the directors commentary on it and how they change the costume half was through shooting and then switched it back. You have to remember that this is like 5 minutes after Spiderman 1 was a hit, not the era of Iron Man 2.
Also, Heath Ledger. I will continue to say Heath Ledger and Anne Hathaway as proof that we don’t know who will be a good super hero.
People have already made up their minds. Afflecks performance will be nitpicked to death and every flaw will be highlighted. If Affleck would have been the one to do the Dark Knight voice he would have been crucified.
Batman has been done perfectly and portrayed in a realistic way. Batman vs Superman is so far fetched and so silly that im glad Bale kept out. Nolan created a beatiful and realistic portrayal of Batman. There is no way, no how he will ever be close to even touching or breathing on Superman.
On August 23 2013 23:14 DyEnasTy wrote: Anyone not remember the atrocity that was Daredevil? Ben Affleck killed all desire of seeing this movie. IF somehow the movie doesnt bomb (which I think it will now) and Affleck shocks us all with a good performance (like Heath Ledger did with Joker) than I will definitely go see it.
But Im calling it now. Because Affleck is going to be Batman... this movie will most likely tank.
Affleck is not the worst part of that movie by far. He is one of the better parts. The movies suffers from shitty pacing, lack of budget and lack of special effects. Also, studio fear of super heroes. You should listen to the directors commentary on it and how they change the costume half was through shooting and then switched it back. You have to remember that this is like 5 minutes after Spiderman 1 was a hit, not the era of Iron Man 2.
Also, Heath Ledger. I will continue to say Heath Ledger and Anne Hathaway as proof that we don’t know who will be a good super hero.
We didn't have mountains of evidence proving that Ledger or Hathaway were shit actors. We had movies that they were good in, but we didn't think they'd translate to into the type of character in these movies. No one accused Ledger of being complete shit before TDK, we all just said "the gay cowboy is going to be the Joker? WTF?"
In this case, we all say "Ben Affleck was complete shit in this and that," and that he has the screen presence of a fly. The only roles Affleck has ever succeeded as are those of a douchebag from Boston (and then he's pretty much just playing himself). Unless Batman is going to come from Boston now, Affleck won't handle the role well. Even in his best movies, he wasn't that good, other actors covered for him (Jeremy Renner in The Town, Matt Damon in GWH, etc.).
On August 23 2013 20:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: With Ben Affleck as the new Batman, it's abundantly clear that the next Batman movie will be a buddy comedy with Matt Damon as Robin. I can't wait!
On August 23 2013 23:14 DyEnasTy wrote: Anyone not remember the atrocity that was Daredevil? Ben Affleck killed all desire of seeing this movie. IF somehow the movie doesnt bomb (which I think it will now) and Affleck shocks us all with a good performance (like Heath Ledger did with Joker) than I will definitely go see it.
But Im calling it now. Because Affleck is going to be Batman... this movie will most likely tank.
Affleck is not the worst part of that movie by far. He is one of the better parts. The movies suffers from shitty pacing, lack of budget and lack of special effects. Also, studio fear of super heroes. You should listen to the directors commentary on it and how they change the costume half was through shooting and then switched it back. You have to remember that this is like 5 minutes after Spiderman 1 was a hit, not the era of Iron Man 2.
Also, Heath Ledger. I will continue to say Heath Ledger and Anne Hathaway as proof that we don’t know who will be a good super hero.
We didn't have mountains of evidence proving that Ledger or Hathaway were shit actors. We had movies that they were good in, but we didn't think they'd translate to into the type of character in these movies. No one accused Ledger of being complete shit before TDK, we all just said "the gay cowboy is going to be the Joker? WTF?"
In this case, we all say "Ben Affleck was complete shit in this and that," and that he has the screen presence of a fly. The only roles Affleck has ever succeeded as are those of a douchebag from Boston (and then he's pretty much just playing himself). Unless Batman is going to come from Boston now, Affleck won't handle the role well. Even in his best movies, he wasn't that good, other actors covered for him (Jeremy Renner in The Town, Matt Damon in GWH, etc.).
Health Ledger was in 10 things I hate about you and A Knights Tale.
Anne Hathaway was in....all Disney movies and the Devil Wears Prada. They both have some pretty bad movies in their past. Ben Affleck has some really good movies in his back pocket and loves comics. I will take someone who loves the role over someone that we all "think" would make a good Batman. I refuse to have Spiderman 3 again, where everyone hated being there.
It's not screen presence alone that makes Batman, it's getting that 'comes from high society' thing as well. Bale nailed that aspect well, although I'm not sure if it's the subconscious recollection of his Patrick Bateman coming into play.
It's why, for my money a young Clooney could have actually been a good Batman if it wasn't for everything else about those films! Bruce Wayne's public face is that of the debonair playboy, and that kind of actor is perfect for that aspect.
I'm not sure Affleck can nail that aspect of the character, but then again I'm not sure he'll need to.Anyway, for my money it's a cross-over, so there's less need for that kind of expanding on the backgrounds of the characters. Tbh I'm just sick of continual comic book films, would like to see the studios take another risk with some new IPs, like they did with Inception.
On August 23 2013 23:14 DyEnasTy wrote: Anyone not remember the atrocity that was Daredevil? Ben Affleck killed all desire of seeing this movie. IF somehow the movie doesnt bomb (which I think it will now) and Affleck shocks us all with a good performance (like Heath Ledger did with Joker) than I will definitely go see it.
But Im calling it now. Because Affleck is going to be Batman... this movie will most likely tank.
Affleck is not the worst part of that movie by far. He is one of the better parts. The movies suffers from shitty pacing, lack of budget and lack of special effects. Also, studio fear of super heroes. You should listen to the directors commentary on it and how they change the costume half was through shooting and then switched it back. You have to remember that this is like 5 minutes after Spiderman 1 was a hit, not the era of Iron Man 2.
Also, Heath Ledger. I will continue to say Heath Ledger and Anne Hathaway as proof that we don’t know who will be a good super hero.
We didn't have mountains of evidence proving that Ledger or Hathaway were shit actors. We had movies that they were good in, but we didn't think they'd translate to into the type of character in these movies. No one accused Ledger of being complete shit before TDK, we all just said "the gay cowboy is going to be the Joker? WTF?"
In this case, we all say "Ben Affleck was complete shit in this and that," and that he has the screen presence of a fly. The only roles Affleck has ever succeeded as are those of a douchebag from Boston (and then he's pretty much just playing himself). Unless Batman is going to come from Boston now, Affleck won't handle the role well. Even in his best movies, he wasn't that good, other actors covered for him (Jeremy Renner in The Town, Matt Damon in GWH, etc.).
Where does the Ben Affleck is a douchebag come from? I hear this all the time.
On August 23 2013 23:14 DyEnasTy wrote: Anyone not remember the atrocity that was Daredevil? Ben Affleck killed all desire of seeing this movie. IF somehow the movie doesnt bomb (which I think it will now) and Affleck shocks us all with a good performance (like Heath Ledger did with Joker) than I will definitely go see it.
But Im calling it now. Because Affleck is going to be Batman... this movie will most likely tank.
Affleck is not the worst part of that movie by far. He is one of the better parts. The movies suffers from shitty pacing, lack of budget and lack of special effects. Also, studio fear of super heroes. You should listen to the directors commentary on it and how they change the costume half was through shooting and then switched it back. You have to remember that this is like 5 minutes after Spiderman 1 was a hit, not the era of Iron Man 2.
Also, Heath Ledger. I will continue to say Heath Ledger and Anne Hathaway as proof that we don’t know who will be a good super hero.
We didn't have mountains of evidence proving that Ledger or Hathaway were shit actors. We had movies that they were good in, but we didn't think they'd translate to into the type of character in these movies. No one accused Ledger of being complete shit before TDK, we all just said "the gay cowboy is going to be the Joker? WTF?"
In this case, we all say "Ben Affleck was complete shit in this and that," and that he has the screen presence of a fly. The only roles Affleck has ever succeeded as are those of a douchebag from Boston (and then he's pretty much just playing himself). Unless Batman is going to come from Boston now, Affleck won't handle the role well. Even in his best movies, he wasn't that good, other actors covered for him (Jeremy Renner in The Town, Matt Damon in GWH, etc.).
Health Ledger was in 10 things I hate about you and A Knights Tale.
where he did exactly what he should do. it's some time i watched those but iirc those are some mindless teen flicks. I won't expect all too much from them, least a well thought out script. (and 10 things aren't that bad, but again time)
On August 24 2013 01:38 Plansix wrote: Anne Hathaway was in....all Disney movies and the Devil Wears Prada. They both have some pretty bad movies in their past. Ben Affleck has some really good movies in his back pocket and loves comics. I will take someone who loves the role over someone that we all "think" would make a good Batman. I refuse to have Spiderman 3 again, where everyone hated being there.
i guess we could even find some movies of morgan freeman that suck. but since they are all actors, they should be able to fill a role regardless of their love of the comic or not. Maybe Ben Affleck isn't the best Batman, but he could be a decent Batman if the script is good.
On August 23 2013 23:14 DyEnasTy wrote: Anyone not remember the atrocity that was Daredevil? Ben Affleck killed all desire of seeing this movie. IF somehow the movie doesnt bomb (which I think it will now) and Affleck shocks us all with a good performance (like Heath Ledger did with Joker) than I will definitely go see it.
But Im calling it now. Because Affleck is going to be Batman... this movie will most likely tank.
Affleck is not the worst part of that movie by far. He is one of the better parts. The movies suffers from shitty pacing, lack of budget and lack of special effects. Also, studio fear of super heroes. You should listen to the directors commentary on it and how they change the costume half was through shooting and then switched it back. You have to remember that this is like 5 minutes after Spiderman 1 was a hit, not the era of Iron Man 2.
Also, Heath Ledger. I will continue to say Heath Ledger and Anne Hathaway as proof that we don’t know who will be a good super hero.
We didn't have mountains of evidence proving that Ledger or Hathaway were shit actors. We had movies that they were good in, but we didn't think they'd translate to into the type of character in these movies. No one accused Ledger of being complete shit before TDK, we all just said "the gay cowboy is going to be the Joker? WTF?"
In this case, we all say "Ben Affleck was complete shit in this and that," and that he has the screen presence of a fly. The only roles Affleck has ever succeeded as are those of a douchebag from Boston (and then he's pretty much just playing himself). Unless Batman is going to come from Boston now, Affleck won't handle the role well. Even in his best movies, he wasn't that good, other actors covered for him (Jeremy Renner in The Town, Matt Damon in GWH, etc.).
Where does the Ben Affleck is a douchebag come from? I hear this all the time.
No idea. From reports he is a really nice guy that is down to earth. People just hate him for reasons beyond my understanding. Just like some women hate Kristin Dunst, for unknown reasons.
Not sure about Ben Affleck fitting the role of Batman (though I said the exact same thing about Heath Ledger as the Joker, and that turned out to be legendary), but I will say that he has become an extremely well respected film director. It definitely was a surprising choice, that's for sure.
I hope batman kills superman. I am bored of movies of a guy that is unbeatable and all movies are based around the idea "will he be fast enough to save us all?" and what if not? who cares he will still live and there is no "if not" because he is superman and can just time travel and gg...sry I am not a superman fan. Maybe Batman will help to make a Superman movie somehow enjoyable for me.
On August 23 2013 23:14 DyEnasTy wrote: Anyone not remember the atrocity that was Daredevil? Ben Affleck killed all desire of seeing this movie. IF somehow the movie doesnt bomb (which I think it will now) and Affleck shocks us all with a good performance (like Heath Ledger did with Joker) than I will definitely go see it.
But Im calling it now. Because Affleck is going to be Batman... this movie will most likely tank.
Affleck is not the worst part of that movie by far. He is one of the better parts. The movies suffers from shitty pacing, lack of budget and lack of special effects. Also, studio fear of super heroes. You should listen to the directors commentary on it and how they change the costume half was through shooting and then switched it back. You have to remember that this is like 5 minutes after Spiderman 1 was a hit, not the era of Iron Man 2.
Also, Heath Ledger. I will continue to say Heath Ledger and Anne Hathaway as proof that we don’t know who will be a good super hero.
We didn't have mountains of evidence proving that Ledger or Hathaway were shit actors. We had movies that they were good in, but we didn't think they'd translate to into the type of character in these movies. No one accused Ledger of being complete shit before TDK, we all just said "the gay cowboy is going to be the Joker? WTF?"
In this case, we all say "Ben Affleck was complete shit in this and that," and that he has the screen presence of a fly. The only roles Affleck has ever succeeded as are those of a douchebag from Boston (and then he's pretty much just playing himself). Unless Batman is going to come from Boston now, Affleck won't handle the role well. Even in his best movies, he wasn't that good, other actors covered for him (Jeremy Renner in The Town, Matt Damon in GWH, etc.).
Health Ledger was in 10 things I hate about you and A Knights Tale.
Anne Hathaway was in....all Disney movies and the Devil Wears Prada. They both have some pretty bad movies in their past. Ben Affleck has some really good movies in his back pocket and loves comics. I will take someone who loves the role over someone that we all "think" would make a good Batman. I refuse to have Spiderman 3 again, where everyone hated being there.
Did you actually watch any of those movies?
10 Things I Hate About You was pretty well received by critics, and when I saw it as a high school student, I enjoyed it. Likewise, I enjoyed Knight's Tale, I mean it wasn't a serious movie, but it wasn't crap.
I saw both of them on rental though, so my perception might have changed if I bought a ticket, but I knew what type of movie they were and they were well made for what they tried to be.
I'm not (nor ever have been) a young girl so I didn't see any of the Princess Diaries stuff, I saw Devil Wears Prada on cable one night, seemed like your average chick flick, so I won't try to judge it (brief look at wiki shows it got mixed reviews though).
I checked my calendar, it is not April 1, I checked it again, still not April 1, I checked my 2015 calendar and where I had scrawled over each summer month "Go see Superman/Batman movie" and now there was nothing. It had mysteriously cleansed itself! Because I am sure as hell not paying money to see Ben Affleck play Bruce Wayne / Batman. I keep imagining the "Bruce Wayne meets Clark Kent for the first time" scene and I get this almost irresistible urge to start breaking things.
On August 24 2013 06:52 zeru wrote: All this reminds me of the negativity heath ledger received as he was announced as the joker.
My original disappointment in that case was due to the fact that it was the wrong Knight's Tale actor cast. I had heard it was Paul Bettany, who I thought would have been perfect. Ledger proved me wrong and Bettany got to be Jarvis in Iron Man I guess.
I remember this and in Armagedon he did his job alright. But with this strong cast what to do? It was like Val Kilm vs Jim Karry. He had no real chance to shine.
On July 21 2013 17:36 anrimayu wrote: I hate Superman because he is the worst super hero concept ever thought of. He is so overpowered they had to make up some random weakness, like the original green kryptonite, red kryptonite, gold, blue, etc, to keep the story from going full retard to semi retard. Then there's Superman Prime, with the power of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality, invulnerability, resurrection, creation, alteration of reality and physics, and other stuff.
How about Shining Knight and the Vigilante duo? They're pretty funny together.
Superman is comparable to Thor in the role they fit in their respective universes. Both have a hard time transitioning to the big screen because of how OP they are, but Marvel has been doing a slightly better job than DC have at making their hero interesting (though Thor really isn't that fun to watch for me personally).
Part of the problem is that Superman rarely meets beings that are more powerful than him. Thor meets beings that are just as powerful if not more powerful than him on a regular basis. Silver Surfer, Thanos, Celestials, Phoenix, etc. are all just as strong if not stronger than him (depending on level of power).
Superman typically deals with your average super villain, and may on occasion actually have trouble with someone once in a blue moon. Kinda why Superman is boring to be honest.
On August 23 2013 18:21 LoLAdriankat wrote: So is this Batman going to be from a different canon than Nolan's series?
Yes, they're both in their own universe.
What a dick move.
Online Petitions by fans are dumb and normally lead to nothing. There is some dumb one related to Dr Who to get one specific person to stop writing for the show because a subset of fans hate his episodes. Other fans love them and are not aware of the petition.
On August 23 2013 18:21 LoLAdriankat wrote: So is this Batman going to be from a different canon than Nolan's series?
Yes, they're both in their own universe.
What a dick move.
Online Petitions by fans are dumb and normally lead to nothing. There is some dumb one related to Dr Who to get one specific person to stop writing for the show because a subset of fans hate his episodes. Other fans love them and are not aware of the petition.
I don't get the hate. It's just people voicing their opinion >.>
On July 21 2013 17:36 anrimayu wrote: I hate Superman because he is the worst super hero concept ever thought of. He is so overpowered they had to make up some random weakness, like the original green kryptonite, red kryptonite, gold, blue, etc, to keep the story from going full retard to semi retard. Then there's Superman Prime, with the power of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality, invulnerability, resurrection, creation, alteration of reality and physics, and other stuff.
How about Shining Knight and the Vigilante duo? They're pretty funny together.
Superman is comparable to Thor in the role they fit in their respective universes. Both have a hard time transitioning to the big screen because of how OP they are, but Marvel has been doing a slightly better job than DC have at making their hero interesting (though Thor really isn't that fun to watch for me personally).
Part of the problem is that Superman rarely meets beings that are more powerful than him. Thor meets beings that are just as powerful if not more powerful than him on a regular basis. Silver Surfer, Thanos, Celestials, Phoenix, etc. are all just as strong if not stronger than him (depending on level of power).
Superman typically deals with your average super villain, and may on occasion actually have trouble with someone once in a blue moon. Kinda why Superman is boring to be honest.
Superman has plenty of villains on par with him. Doomsday, Darkseid, Brainiac, Mongul...not to mention all the other Kryptonians/Superman clones.
On August 24 2013 12:31 EleanorRIgby wrote: if he cant even do daredevil justice, i dont even wanna give him a chance as batman.
i dont think they should have gone with a "superstar" someone like alexander skarsgard would have been good
You can't entirely blame him for Daredevil. Mark Steven Johnson has a bad history of directing and writing bad movies. Affleck has come a long way since then (about a decade). We can just hope he takes the mistakes of Daredevil and improves on it for this movie.
On August 23 2013 18:21 LoLAdriankat wrote: So is this Batman going to be from a different canon than Nolan's series?
Yes, they're both in their own universe.
What a dick move.
Online Petitions by fans are dumb and normally lead to nothing. There is some dumb one related to Dr Who to get one specific person to stop writing for the show because a subset of fans hate his episodes. Other fans love them and are not aware of the petition.
I don't get the hate. It's just people voicing their opinion >.>
Their dumbass opinions. I won't be surprised if Affleck gets death threats.
On August 24 2013 12:31 EleanorRIgby wrote: if he cant even do daredevil justice, i dont even wanna give him a chance as batman.
i dont think they should have gone with a "superstar" someone like alexander skarsgard would have been good
You can't entirely blame him for Daredevil. Mark Steven Johnson has a bad history of directing and writing bad movies. Affleck has come a long way since then (about a decade). We can just hope he takes the mistakes of Daredevil and improves on it for this movie.
On August 23 2013 18:21 LoLAdriankat wrote: So is this Batman going to be from a different canon than Nolan's series?
Yes, they're both in their own universe.
What a dick move.
Online Petitions by fans are dumb and normally lead to nothing. There is some dumb one related to Dr Who to get one specific person to stop writing for the show because a subset of fans hate his episodes. Other fans love them and are not aware of the petition.
I don't get the hate. It's just people voicing their opinion >.>
Their dumbass opinions. I won't be surprised if Affleck gets death threats.
What does this have to do with the petition per se? It's not unheard for celebrities to receive death threats by stupid fucks, petition or no petition.
On August 23 2013 20:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: With Ben Affleck as the new Batman, it's abundantly clear that the next Batman movie will be a buddy comedy with Matt Damon as Robin. I can't wait!
I would watch this.
That picture made me laugh more than it should've. :D
Honestly, Bale was a terrible Batman, his voice was awful, shit he even looked stupid under the cowl, those damn pursed lips, inaudible ramblings and a bipolar contrast between Bruce and Batman. I'm really glad Bale is gone. I welcome Ben.
I really enjoyed this past Batman trilogy and I was hoping for a few more movies starring some more batman villans. (There are so many different ones like Killer Croc [MY FAV], Mr. Freeze, Zsazz, ect...) The options are endless! I wish in the recent trilogy there was some more detective work in it but it was still great.
As for Superman his newest movie was kind of a let down and I have no idea what to expect for this new movie. It just seems kind of stuipid. Like I wanted to really like it especially since i really enjoyed the soundtrack but the entire first half of the movie just seemed boring.
Honestly, Bale was a terrible Batman, his voice was awful, shit he even looked stupid under the cowl, those damn pursed lips, inaudible ramblings and a bipolar contrast between Bruce and Batman. I'm really glad Bale is gone. I welcome Ben.
But Bruce, at least the playboy version, is meant to be the antithesis of Batman. Did you not get that?
Honestly, Bale was a terrible Batman, his voice was awful, shit he even looked stupid under the cowl, those damn pursed lips, inaudible ramblings and a bipolar contrast between Bruce and Batman. I'm really glad Bale is gone. I welcome Ben.
But Bruce, at least the playboy version, is meant to be the antithesis of Batman. Did you not get that?
No I did not get that at all, it's way above my head. My little pea brain can't fathom these concepts. Do you really think the gap between Bruce and batman should be that large in terms of vocal acting? It was total shit! Yes, in terms of mental state, Bruce is the character and Batman is the reality. Bale's Batman was just an over the top joke for me. The only redeeming quality of that trilogy was the Joker.
I feel this video sums up Bale's performance nicely
There is a reason why these parody's exist, "Did you not get that?"
I can't say i am interested or have been interested in any superman movie, but i am interested to see how they will make this work ... and i am interested in seeing Ben as batman.
I just hope they make very clear this isn't supposed to be the Nolan/Bale-Batman. For me as somebody who isnt't reading comics (I know for just about every thinkable meeting of superheroes, there is a comic where it happens, and similarly a comic where each hero turns villain and vice versa), this movie still seems to be shitting on just about about everything build by the dark-knight-trilogy: Making a batman who was made to be a "realistic" superhero meet an alien from outer space whose powers are so ridiculous you have to think "why doesn't he do X" each second every movie he's in? No thanks. At least that's what it looks like to me.
batman is not suppose to be realistic, nolan did it really well. but it wasnt really "batman". like i hardly ever saw bale throw a batarang and use smoke bombs.
and batman would not quit for 8 years for fuck sake. and he wouldn't walk right in to banes hideout without a plan. hes a fucking world class detective and always scouts.
Honestly, Bale was a terrible Batman, his voice was awful, shit he even looked stupid under the cowl, those damn pursed lips, inaudible ramblings and a bipolar contrast between Bruce and Batman. I'm really glad Bale is gone. I welcome Ben.
But Bruce, at least the playboy version, is meant to be the antithesis of Batman. Did you not get that?
No I did not get that @ all, It's way above my head. My little pea brain can't fathom these concepts. Oh wise, one please enlighten me. Do you really think the gap between Bruce and batman should be that large in terms of vocal acting? It was total shit! Yes, in terms of mental state, Bruce is the character and Batman is the reality. But really...it was bad, really really bad. Bale's Batman was just an over the top joke. The only redeeming quality of that trilogy was the Joker. Simply Bale was just a total shit show, awful acting. Good Riddance.
There is a reason why these parody's exist, "Did you not get that?"
Why do you spew crap like this on public forums. Bale was bad??? Ok. I know Im overreacting but...."The only redeeming quality of that trilogy was the Joker."???? Ok. Nice opinions bro. They suck.
On August 25 2013 01:53 Mafe wrote: I just hope they make very clear this isn't supposed to be the Nolan/Bale-Batman. For me as somebody who isnt't reading comics (I know for just about every thinkable meeting of superheroes, there is a comic where it happens, and similarly a comic where each hero turns villain and vice versa), this movie still seems to be shitting on just about about everything build by the dark-knight-trilogy: Making a batman who was made to be a "realistic" superhero meet an alien from outer space whose powers are so ridiculous you have to think "why doesn't he do X" each second every movie he's in? No thanks. At least that's what it looks like to me.
The only thing I can think of that would wreck superman is dr manhatten from watchmen, he was basically god
On August 25 2013 01:53 Mafe wrote: I just hope they make very clear this isn't supposed to be the Nolan/Bale-Batman. For me as somebody who isnt't reading comics (I know for just about every thinkable meeting of superheroes, there is a comic where it happens, and similarly a comic where each hero turns villain and vice versa), this movie still seems to be shitting on just about about everything build by the dark-knight-trilogy: Making a batman who was made to be a "realistic" superhero meet an alien from outer space whose powers are so ridiculous you have to think "why doesn't he do X" each second every movie he's in? No thanks. At least that's what it looks like to me.
The only thing I can think of that would wreck superman is dr manhatten from watchmen, he was basically god
There are plenty of comic characters that can beat Superman (which certainly does not mean Superman is weak). In terms of human-like characters, the Silver Surfer is a good example (he'd also convincingly beat Dr. Manhattan, whose actual feats are relatively scarce and who tends to be massively overrated - I'm not even sure he could actually beat Superman, given Superman's feats with regards to resistance to matter manipulation).
On August 25 2013 01:53 Mafe wrote: I just hope they make very clear this isn't supposed to be the Nolan/Bale-Batman. For me as somebody who isnt't reading comics (I know for just about every thinkable meeting of superheroes, there is a comic where it happens, and similarly a comic where each hero turns villain and vice versa), this movie still seems to be shitting on just about about everything build by the dark-knight-trilogy: Making a batman who was made to be a "realistic" superhero meet an alien from outer space whose powers are so ridiculous you have to think "why doesn't he do X" each second every movie he's in? No thanks. At least that's what it looks like to me.
The only thing I can think of that would wreck superman is dr manhatten from watchmen, he was basically god
There are plenty of comic characters that can beat Superman (which certainly does not mean Superman is weak). In terms of human-like characters, the Silver Surfer is a good example (he'd also convincingly beat Dr. Manhattan, whose actual feats are relatively scarce and who tends to be massively overrated - I'm not even sure he could actually beat Superman, given Superman's feats with regards to resistance to matter manipulation).
oh k, I'm just basing it off what I saw in the two movies (watchmen/fantastic four). Sounds like it's different in the comics.
On August 25 2013 01:53 Mafe wrote: I just hope they make very clear this isn't supposed to be the Nolan/Bale-Batman. For me as somebody who isnt't reading comics (I know for just about every thinkable meeting of superheroes, there is a comic where it happens, and similarly a comic where each hero turns villain and vice versa), this movie still seems to be shitting on just about about everything build by the dark-knight-trilogy: Making a batman who was made to be a "realistic" superhero meet an alien from outer space whose powers are so ridiculous you have to think "why doesn't he do X" each second every movie he's in? No thanks. At least that's what it looks like to me.
The only thing I can think of that would wreck superman is dr manhatten from watchmen, he was basically god
There are plenty of comic characters that can beat Superman (which certainly does not mean Superman is weak). In terms of human-like characters, the Silver Surfer is a good example (he'd also convincingly beat Dr. Manhattan, whose actual feats are relatively scarce and who tends to be massively overrated - I'm not even sure he could actually beat Superman, given Superman's feats with regards to resistance to matter manipulation).
oh k, I'm just basing it off what I saw in the two movies (watchmen/fantastic four). Sounds like it's different in the comics.
Yeah, the movie Silver Surfer was a complete joke :-D He's vastly more powerful in the comics (and his power doesn't come from his board at all).
On August 25 2013 01:53 Mafe wrote: I just hope they make very clear this isn't supposed to be the Nolan/Bale-Batman. For me as somebody who isnt't reading comics (I know for just about every thinkable meeting of superheroes, there is a comic where it happens, and similarly a comic where each hero turns villain and vice versa), this movie still seems to be shitting on just about about everything build by the dark-knight-trilogy: Making a batman who was made to be a "realistic" superhero meet an alien from outer space whose powers are so ridiculous you have to think "why doesn't he do X" each second every movie he's in? No thanks. At least that's what it looks like to me.
The only thing I can think of that would wreck superman is dr manhatten from watchmen, he was basically god
There are plenty of comic characters that can beat Superman (which certainly does not mean Superman is weak). In terms of human-like characters, the Silver Surfer is a good example (he'd also convincingly beat Dr. Manhattan, whose actual feats are relatively scarce and who tends to be massively overrated - I'm not even sure he could actually beat Superman, given Superman's feats with regards to resistance to matter manipulation).
I didn't read a lot of comic books and such, but technically, couldn't Dr.M simply make a wall of kryptonite around him? :D
On August 25 2013 01:53 Mafe wrote: I just hope they make very clear this isn't supposed to be the Nolan/Bale-Batman. For me as somebody who isnt't reading comics (I know for just about every thinkable meeting of superheroes, there is a comic where it happens, and similarly a comic where each hero turns villain and vice versa), this movie still seems to be shitting on just about about everything build by the dark-knight-trilogy: Making a batman who was made to be a "realistic" superhero meet an alien from outer space whose powers are so ridiculous you have to think "why doesn't he do X" each second every movie he's in? No thanks. At least that's what it looks like to me.
The only thing I can think of that would wreck superman is dr manhatten from watchmen, he was basically god
There are plenty of comic characters that can beat Superman (which certainly does not mean Superman is weak). In terms of human-like characters, the Silver Surfer is a good example (he'd also convincingly beat Dr. Manhattan, whose actual feats are relatively scarce and who tends to be massively overrated - I'm not even sure he could actually beat Superman, given Superman's feats with regards to resistance to matter manipulation).
I didn't read a lot of comic books and such, but technically, couldn't Dr.M simply make a wall of kryptonite around him? :D
Well, how would he know about Superman's weakness to kryptonite? Contrary to the Silver Surfer, Dr. Manhattan does not possess cosmic awareness ,-) edit: also, he wouldn't know the structure of kryptonite.
On August 25 2013 01:53 Mafe wrote: I just hope they make very clear this isn't supposed to be the Nolan/Bale-Batman. For me as somebody who isnt't reading comics (I know for just about every thinkable meeting of superheroes, there is a comic where it happens, and similarly a comic where each hero turns villain and vice versa), this movie still seems to be shitting on just about about everything build by the dark-knight-trilogy: Making a batman who was made to be a "realistic" superhero meet an alien from outer space whose powers are so ridiculous you have to think "why doesn't he do X" each second every movie he's in? No thanks. At least that's what it looks like to me.
The only thing I can think of that would wreck superman is dr manhatten from watchmen, he was basically god
There are plenty of comic characters that can beat Superman (which certainly does not mean Superman is weak). In terms of human-like characters, the Silver Surfer is a good example (he'd also convincingly beat Dr. Manhattan, whose actual feats are relatively scarce and who tends to be massively overrated - I'm not even sure he could actually beat Superman, given Superman's feats with regards to resistance to matter manipulation).
I didn't read a lot of comic books and such, but technically, couldn't Dr.M simply make a wall of kryptonite around him? :D
Well, how would he know about Superman's weakness to kryptonite? Contrary to the Silver Surfer, Dr. Manhattan does not possess cosmic awareness ,-)
Been a while since I read Watchmen, but doesn't Manhattan experience all of time at once or something? That alone makes him way more godlike than either Supes or the Surfer.
On August 25 2013 01:53 Mafe wrote: I just hope they make very clear this isn't supposed to be the Nolan/Bale-Batman. For me as somebody who isnt't reading comics (I know for just about every thinkable meeting of superheroes, there is a comic where it happens, and similarly a comic where each hero turns villain and vice versa), this movie still seems to be shitting on just about about everything build by the dark-knight-trilogy: Making a batman who was made to be a "realistic" superhero meet an alien from outer space whose powers are so ridiculous you have to think "why doesn't he do X" each second every movie he's in? No thanks. At least that's what it looks like to me.
The only thing I can think of that would wreck superman is dr manhatten from watchmen, he was basically god
There are plenty of comic characters that can beat Superman (which certainly does not mean Superman is weak). In terms of human-like characters, the Silver Surfer is a good example (he'd also convincingly beat Dr. Manhattan, whose actual feats are relatively scarce and who tends to be massively overrated - I'm not even sure he could actually beat Superman, given Superman's feats with regards to resistance to matter manipulation).
I didn't read a lot of comic books and such, but technically, couldn't Dr.M simply make a wall of kryptonite around him? :D
Well, how would he know about Superman's weakness to kryptonite? Contrary to the Silver Surfer, Dr. Manhattan does not possess cosmic awareness ,-)
Been a while since I read Watchmen, but doesn't Manhattan experience all of time at once or something? That alone makes him way more godlike than either Supes or the Surfer.
No, he has the possibility to see his own past and future, but he can't see the past and future of other people. He has shown the ability to modify the past from his own timeline, but when he did he "fractured reality" (something he had no control over) and had to go back to fix the changes. That's why he states himself that he is a slave to determinism.
The Silver Surfer, meanwhile, has actual time travel feats (beyond his own timeline). I'm not sure post-Crisis Superman can time travel the way pre-Crisis Superman could, but I think he can still do it through speed.
I dunno, man, the Silver Surfer would probably only beat Superman if he called on Galactus. They're both basically unbeatable demigods, lol. They can both time-travel, both can deconstruct matter to some extent, but the advantage of the Surfer has always been the Board and the incredible power that comes with it. It's his link to Galactus and there is no fucking way Superman could ever stand up to a god.
On August 25 2013 01:53 Mafe wrote: I just hope they make very clear this isn't supposed to be the Nolan/Bale-Batman. For me as somebody who isnt't reading comics (I know for just about every thinkable meeting of superheroes, there is a comic where it happens, and similarly a comic where each hero turns villain and vice versa), this movie still seems to be shitting on just about about everything build by the dark-knight-trilogy: Making a batman who was made to be a "realistic" superhero meet an alien from outer space whose powers are so ridiculous you have to think "why doesn't he do X" each second every movie he's in? No thanks. At least that's what it looks like to me.
The only thing I can think of that would wreck superman is dr manhatten from watchmen, he was basically god
The saddest thing about all of this is that for the time and money spent taking Ben Affleck to coffee to cast him in the movie and fitting him for a batcodpiece, you could actually film a sequel to the extremely well executed Dredd film.
It's like a billion souls who like mediocre bullshit cried out and were rewarded.
On August 25 2013 07:39 Qwyn wrote: I dunno, man, the Silver Surfer would probably only beat Superman if he called on Galactus. They're both basically unbeatable demigods, lol. They can both time-travel, both can deconstruct matter to some extent, but the advantage of the Surfer has always been the Board and the incredible power that comes with it. It's his link to Galactus and there is no fucking way Superman could ever stand up to a god.
I think you're confusing the movie and comics versions of the Silver Surfer. In the comics, his power does not come from his board.
There would be absolutely no need for the Surfer to call Galactus to utterly defeat Superman. His cosmic awareness would instantly let him know Superman's weaknesses, and he'd absorb Superman's solar energy before Supes could even move. He could also encase him in kryptonite, immerse him in red sun radiation, create a black hole inside his brain... the Surfer's simply way faster, more versatile (he's a matter & energy manipulator, Supes isn't) and more powerful than Superman.
On August 25 2013 07:39 Qwyn wrote: I dunno, man, the Silver Surfer would probably only beat Superman if he called on Galactus. They're both basically unbeatable demigods, lol. They can both time-travel, both can deconstruct matter to some extent, but the advantage of the Surfer has always been the Board and the incredible power that comes with it. It's his link to Galactus and there is no fucking way Superman could ever stand up to a god.
I think you're confusing the movie and comics versions of the Silver Surfer. In the comics, his power does not come from his board.
There would be absolutely no need for the Surfer to call Galactus to utterly defeat Superman. His cosmic awareness would instantly let him know Superman's weaknesses, and he'd absorb Superman's solar energy before Supes could even move. He could also encase him in kryptonite, immerse him in red sun radiation, create a black hole inside his brain... the Surfer's simply way faster, more versatile (he's a matter & energy manipulator, Supes isn't) and more powerful than Superman.
Technically speaking, in the DC Universe, no one is harder than Lobo. End of story, bastich.
On August 25 2013 08:03 NSGrendel wrote: The saddest thing about all of this is that for the time and money spent taking Ben Affleck to coffee to cast him in the movie and fitting him for a batcodpiece, you could actually film a sequel to the extremely well executed Dredd film.
It's like a billion souls who like mediocre bullshit cried out and were rewarded.
(Edited for spelling mistake.)
It's such a shame, I hope the mooted sequel does occur. I enjoyed Dredd and really felt it was a good dip into the waters of the Dredd universe, and that the sequels would be more grand in scope. Sadly idiots didn't go to watch it
On August 25 2013 07:39 Qwyn wrote: I dunno, man, the Silver Surfer would probably only beat Superman if he called on Galactus. They're both basically unbeatable demigods, lol. They can both time-travel, both can deconstruct matter to some extent, but the advantage of the Surfer has always been the Board and the incredible power that comes with it. It's his link to Galactus and there is no fucking way Superman could ever stand up to a god.
I think you're confusing the movie and comics versions of the Silver Surfer. In the comics, his power does not come from his board.
There would be absolutely no need for the Surfer to call Galactus to utterly defeat Superman. His cosmic awareness would instantly let him know Superman's weaknesses, and he'd absorb Superman's solar energy before Supes could even move. He could also encase him in kryptonite, immerse him in red sun radiation, create a black hole inside his brain... the Surfer's simply way faster, more versatile (he's a matter & energy manipulator, Supes isn't) and more powerful than Superman.
I know the power doesn't come from the board and it comes from Galactus, but the board is his aura and is how he is changed by the Power Cosmic to be an icon, no? At least that was how I understood it, that the aura changes each herald in a different way and he got the board.
I also thought that the ability to warp space and time and create black holes/manipulate the multi-verse directly only belonged to Galactus. Though yes I was thinking after the fact that the Surfer could just form Kryptonite lol.
On August 25 2013 01:53 Mafe wrote: I just hope they make very clear this isn't supposed to be the Nolan/Bale-Batman. For me as somebody who isnt't reading comics (I know for just about every thinkable meeting of superheroes, there is a comic where it happens, and similarly a comic where each hero turns villain and vice versa), this movie still seems to be shitting on just about about everything build by the dark-knight-trilogy: Making a batman who was made to be a "realistic" superhero meet an alien from outer space whose powers are so ridiculous you have to think "why doesn't he do X" each second every movie he's in? No thanks. At least that's what it looks like to me.
The only thing I can think of that would wreck superman is dr manhatten from watchmen, he was basically god
There are plenty of comic characters that can beat Superman (which certainly does not mean Superman is weak). In terms of human-like characters, the Silver Surfer is a good example (he'd also convincingly beat Dr. Manhattan, whose actual feats are relatively scarce and who tends to be massively overrated - I'm not even sure he could actually beat Superman, given Superman's feats with regards to resistance to matter manipulation).
I didn't read a lot of comic books and such, but technically, couldn't Dr.M simply make a wall of kryptonite around him? :D
Well, how would he know about Superman's weakness to kryptonite? Contrary to the Silver Surfer, Dr. Manhattan does not possess cosmic awareness ,-)
Been a while since I read Watchmen, but doesn't Manhattan experience all of time at once or something? That alone makes him way more godlike than either Supes or the Surfer.
No, he has the possibility to see his own past and future, but he can't see the past and future of other people. He has shown the ability to modify the past from his own timeline, but when he did he "fractured reality" (something he had no control over) and had to go back to fix the changes. That's why he states himself that he is a slave to determinism.
The Silver Surfer, meanwhile, has actual time travel feats (beyond his own timeline). I'm not sure post-Crisis Superman can time travel the way pre-Crisis Superman could, but I think he can still do it through speed.
Yeah I think you're right. I Still think manhattan would smash superman. Dude can put himself back together after being taken apart at the atomic level. What's Kal-El gonna do against that?
On August 25 2013 01:53 Mafe wrote: I just hope they make very clear this isn't supposed to be the Nolan/Bale-Batman. For me as somebody who isnt't reading comics (I know for just about every thinkable meeting of superheroes, there is a comic where it happens, and similarly a comic where each hero turns villain and vice versa), this movie still seems to be shitting on just about about everything build by the dark-knight-trilogy: Making a batman who was made to be a "realistic" superhero meet an alien from outer space whose powers are so ridiculous you have to think "why doesn't he do X" each second every movie he's in? No thanks. At least that's what it looks like to me.
The only thing I can think of that would wreck superman is dr manhatten from watchmen, he was basically god
There are plenty of comic characters that can beat Superman (which certainly does not mean Superman is weak). In terms of human-like characters, the Silver Surfer is a good example (he'd also convincingly beat Dr. Manhattan, whose actual feats are relatively scarce and who tends to be massively overrated - I'm not even sure he could actually beat Superman, given Superman's feats with regards to resistance to matter manipulation).
I didn't read a lot of comic books and such, but technically, couldn't Dr.M simply make a wall of kryptonite around him? :D
Well, how would he know about Superman's weakness to kryptonite? Contrary to the Silver Surfer, Dr. Manhattan does not possess cosmic awareness ,-)
Been a while since I read Watchmen, but doesn't Manhattan experience all of time at once or something? That alone makes him way more godlike than either Supes or the Surfer.
No, he has the possibility to see his own past and future, but he can't see the past and future of other people. He has shown the ability to modify the past from his own timeline, but when he did he "fractured reality" (something he had no control over) and had to go back to fix the changes. That's why he states himself that he is a slave to determinism.
The Silver Surfer, meanwhile, has actual time travel feats (beyond his own timeline). I'm not sure post-Crisis Superman can time travel the way pre-Crisis Superman could, but I think he can still do it through speed.
Yeah I think you're right. I Still think manhattan would smash superman. Dude can put himself back together after being taken apart at the atomic level. What's Kal-El gonna do against that?
Obviously you havent read the comics. You just base your argument on the movies. It's a pretty even fight, and Dr. M is not necessarily stronger as Superman can manipulate matter in some level. Also, Fortress of Solitude.
On August 25 2013 07:39 Qwyn wrote: I dunno, man, the Silver Surfer would probably only beat Superman if he called on Galactus. They're both basically unbeatable demigods, lol. They can both time-travel, both can deconstruct matter to some extent, but the advantage of the Surfer has always been the Board and the incredible power that comes with it. It's his link to Galactus and there is no fucking way Superman could ever stand up to a god.
I think you're confusing the movie and comics versions of the Silver Surfer. In the comics, his power does not come from his board.
There would be absolutely no need for the Surfer to call Galactus to utterly defeat Superman. His cosmic awareness would instantly let him know Superman's weaknesses, and he'd absorb Superman's solar energy before Supes could even move. He could also encase him in kryptonite, immerse him in red sun radiation, create a black hole inside his brain... the Surfer's simply way faster, more versatile (he's a matter & energy manipulator, Supes isn't) and more powerful than Superman.
I know the power doesn't come from the board and it comes from Galactus, but the board is his aura and is how he is changed by the Power Cosmic to be an icon, no? At least that was how I understood it, that the aura changes each herald in a different way and he got the board.
I also thought that the ability to warp space and time and create black holes/manipulate the multi-verse directly only belonged to Galactus. Though yes I was thinking after the fact that the Surfer could just form Kryptonite lol.
I'm not too sure of what you mean by "aura" - I've never come across the term with regards to Galactus heralds (or perhaps I don't remember it). The Silver Surfer without his board still has the same powers (in fact, it's been destroyed before and he simply remade it). You're right that his board is pretty much like a part of him, though. (btw, to clarify, Galactus gave him his powers, but if Galactus suddenly stopped existing it wouldn't affect the Surfer's powers at all)
On August 25 2013 01:53 Mafe wrote: I just hope they make very clear this isn't supposed to be the Nolan/Bale-Batman. For me as somebody who isnt't reading comics (I know for just about every thinkable meeting of superheroes, there is a comic where it happens, and similarly a comic where each hero turns villain and vice versa), this movie still seems to be shitting on just about about everything build by the dark-knight-trilogy: Making a batman who was made to be a "realistic" superhero meet an alien from outer space whose powers are so ridiculous you have to think "why doesn't he do X" each second every movie he's in? No thanks. At least that's what it looks like to me.
The only thing I can think of that would wreck superman is dr manhatten from watchmen, he was basically god
There are plenty of comic characters that can beat Superman (which certainly does not mean Superman is weak). In terms of human-like characters, the Silver Surfer is a good example (he'd also convincingly beat Dr. Manhattan, whose actual feats are relatively scarce and who tends to be massively overrated - I'm not even sure he could actually beat Superman, given Superman's feats with regards to resistance to matter manipulation).
I didn't read a lot of comic books and such, but technically, couldn't Dr.M simply make a wall of kryptonite around him? :D
Well, how would he know about Superman's weakness to kryptonite? Contrary to the Silver Surfer, Dr. Manhattan does not possess cosmic awareness ,-)
Been a while since I read Watchmen, but doesn't Manhattan experience all of time at once or something? That alone makes him way more godlike than either Supes or the Surfer.
No, he has the possibility to see his own past and future, but he can't see the past and future of other people. He has shown the ability to modify the past from his own timeline, but when he did he "fractured reality" (something he had no control over) and had to go back to fix the changes. That's why he states himself that he is a slave to determinism.
The Silver Surfer, meanwhile, has actual time travel feats (beyond his own timeline). I'm not sure post-Crisis Superman can time travel the way pre-Crisis Superman could, but I think he can still do it through speed.
Yeah I think you're right. I Still think manhattan would smash superman. Dude can put himself back together after being taken apart at the atomic level. What's Kal-El gonna do against that?
Yeah, I don't think Superman can do much to harm Dr. Manhattan (I must say I'm very far from an authority on Superman though :p), unless he gets prep time and can build a machine that would go beyond what Veidt built and actually do damage to him (or possibly send him to another dimension, or into a black hole - after all, in the comics, Superman has a genius-level intellect). I meant that the fight could possibly end in a stalemate.
One of my friends suggested Michael Fasbender as Batman, which I find to be an intriguing idea.
No telling how amazing (or terrible) Ben Affleck will be until we actually see him. That's the nature of acting :D I hope they make him look old
On August 25 2013 01:53 Mafe wrote: I just hope they make very clear this isn't supposed to be the Nolan/Bale-Batman. For me as somebody who isnt't reading comics (I know for just about every thinkable meeting of superheroes, there is a comic where it happens, and similarly a comic where each hero turns villain and vice versa), this movie still seems to be shitting on just about about everything build by the dark-knight-trilogy: Making a batman who was made to be a "realistic" superhero meet an alien from outer space whose powers are so ridiculous you have to think "why doesn't he do X" each second every movie he's in? No thanks. At least that's what it looks like to me.
They will make it clear.
This marks a departure away from Nolan's trilogy, which I'm actually happy for. I absolutely love Nolan's take on Batman, but I also love the other dark-knight take on him, Frank Miller's, which features an older and grittier Batman who faces off against Superman... twice.
However, I hope Zack Snyder doesn't direct the movie... he has yet to impress me with anything
On August 25 2013 00:43 KaiserKieran wrote: I really enjoyed this past Batman trilogy and I was hoping for a few more movies starring some more batman villans. (There are so many different ones like Killer Croc [MY FAV], Mr. Freeze, Zsazz, ect...) The options are endless! I wish in the recent trilogy there was some more detective work in it but it was still great.
As for Superman his newest movie was kind of a let down and I have no idea what to expect for this new movie. It just seems kind of stuipid. Like I wanted to really like it especially since i really enjoyed the soundtrack but the entire first half of the movie just seemed boring.
Invincible Alien vs billionaire in a suit.
it just doesn't make much sense.
Nearly invincible.
You don't understand... the fun part about Batman vs Superman... is that Batman wins.
On August 25 2013 01:53 Mafe wrote: I just hope they make very clear this isn't supposed to be the Nolan/Bale-Batman. For me as somebody who isnt't reading comics (I know for just about every thinkable meeting of superheroes, there is a comic where it happens, and similarly a comic where each hero turns villain and vice versa), this movie still seems to be shitting on just about about everything build by the dark-knight-trilogy: Making a batman who was made to be a "realistic" superhero meet an alien from outer space whose powers are so ridiculous you have to think "why doesn't he do X" each second every movie he's in? No thanks. At least that's what it looks like to me.
The only thing I can think of that would wreck superman is dr manhatten from watchmen, he was basically god
There are plenty of comic characters that can beat Superman (which certainly does not mean Superman is weak). In terms of human-like characters, the Silver Surfer is a good example (he'd also convincingly beat Dr. Manhattan, whose actual feats are relatively scarce and who tends to be massively overrated - I'm not even sure he could actually beat Superman, given Superman's feats with regards to resistance to matter manipulation).
I didn't read a lot of comic books and such, but technically, couldn't Dr.M simply make a wall of kryptonite around him? :D
Well, how would he know about Superman's weakness to kryptonite? Contrary to the Silver Surfer, Dr. Manhattan does not possess cosmic awareness ,-)
Been a while since I read Watchmen, but doesn't Manhattan experience all of time at once or something? That alone makes him way more godlike than either Supes or the Surfer.
No, he has the possibility to see his own past and future, but he can't see the past and future of other people. He has shown the ability to modify the past from his own timeline, but when he did he "fractured reality" (something he had no control over) and had to go back to fix the changes. That's why he states himself that he is a slave to determinism.
The Silver Surfer, meanwhile, has actual time travel feats (beyond his own timeline). I'm not sure post-Crisis Superman can time travel the way pre-Crisis Superman could, but I think he can still do it through speed.
Yeah I think you're right. I Still think manhattan would smash superman. Dude can put himself back together after being taken apart at the atomic level. What's Kal-El gonna do against that?
Obviously you havent read the comics. You just base your argument on the movies. It's a pretty even fight, and Dr. M is not necessarily stronger as Superman can manipulate matter in some level. Also, Fortress of Solitude.
I'm willing to bet that I read Watchmen before you were able to read, kid. :-P Believe whatever you want, DR. M blinks and pulls apart the Kryptonian atom by atom, nothing Superman can do about that.
On August 25 2013 01:53 Mafe wrote: I just hope they make very clear this isn't supposed to be the Nolan/Bale-Batman. For me as somebody who isnt't reading comics (I know for just about every thinkable meeting of superheroes, there is a comic where it happens, and similarly a comic where each hero turns villain and vice versa), this movie still seems to be shitting on just about about everything build by the dark-knight-trilogy: Making a batman who was made to be a "realistic" superhero meet an alien from outer space whose powers are so ridiculous you have to think "why doesn't he do X" each second every movie he's in? No thanks. At least that's what it looks like to me.
The only thing I can think of that would wreck superman is dr manhatten from watchmen, he was basically god
There are plenty of comic characters that can beat Superman (which certainly does not mean Superman is weak). In terms of human-like characters, the Silver Surfer is a good example (he'd also convincingly beat Dr. Manhattan, whose actual feats are relatively scarce and who tends to be massively overrated - I'm not even sure he could actually beat Superman, given Superman's feats with regards to resistance to matter manipulation).
I didn't read a lot of comic books and such, but technically, couldn't Dr.M simply make a wall of kryptonite around him? :D
Well, how would he know about Superman's weakness to kryptonite? Contrary to the Silver Surfer, Dr. Manhattan does not possess cosmic awareness ,-)
Been a while since I read Watchmen, but doesn't Manhattan experience all of time at once or something? That alone makes him way more godlike than either Supes or the Surfer.
No, he has the possibility to see his own past and future, but he can't see the past and future of other people. He has shown the ability to modify the past from his own timeline, but when he did he "fractured reality" (something he had no control over) and had to go back to fix the changes. That's why he states himself that he is a slave to determinism.
The Silver Surfer, meanwhile, has actual time travel feats (beyond his own timeline). I'm not sure post-Crisis Superman can time travel the way pre-Crisis Superman could, but I think he can still do it through speed.
Yeah I think you're right. I Still think manhattan would smash superman. Dude can put himself back together after being taken apart at the atomic level. What's Kal-El gonna do against that?
Obviously you havent read the comics. You just base your argument on the movies. It's a pretty even fight, and Dr. M is not necessarily stronger as Superman can manipulate matter in some level. Also, Fortress of Solitude.
I'm willing to bet that I read Watchmen before you were able to read, kid. :-P Believe whatever you want, DR. M blinks and pulls apart the Kryptonian atom by atom, nothing Superman can do about that.
Depends on the superman. Superman Prime would be pretty much omnipotent, and also wields a GL ring.
On August 25 2013 01:53 Mafe wrote: I just hope they make very clear this isn't supposed to be the Nolan/Bale-Batman. For me as somebody who isnt't reading comics (I know for just about every thinkable meeting of superheroes, there is a comic where it happens, and similarly a comic where each hero turns villain and vice versa), this movie still seems to be shitting on just about about everything build by the dark-knight-trilogy: Making a batman who was made to be a "realistic" superhero meet an alien from outer space whose powers are so ridiculous you have to think "why doesn't he do X" each second every movie he's in? No thanks. At least that's what it looks like to me.
The only thing I can think of that would wreck superman is dr manhatten from watchmen, he was basically god
There are plenty of comic characters that can beat Superman (which certainly does not mean Superman is weak). In terms of human-like characters, the Silver Surfer is a good example (he'd also convincingly beat Dr. Manhattan, whose actual feats are relatively scarce and who tends to be massively overrated - I'm not even sure he could actually beat Superman, given Superman's feats with regards to resistance to matter manipulation).
I didn't read a lot of comic books and such, but technically, couldn't Dr.M simply make a wall of kryptonite around him? :D
Well, how would he know about Superman's weakness to kryptonite? Contrary to the Silver Surfer, Dr. Manhattan does not possess cosmic awareness ,-)
Been a while since I read Watchmen, but doesn't Manhattan experience all of time at once or something? That alone makes him way more godlike than either Supes or the Surfer.
No, he has the possibility to see his own past and future, but he can't see the past and future of other people. He has shown the ability to modify the past from his own timeline, but when he did he "fractured reality" (something he had no control over) and had to go back to fix the changes. That's why he states himself that he is a slave to determinism.
The Silver Surfer, meanwhile, has actual time travel feats (beyond his own timeline). I'm not sure post-Crisis Superman can time travel the way pre-Crisis Superman could, but I think he can still do it through speed.
Yeah I think you're right. I Still think manhattan would smash superman. Dude can put himself back together after being taken apart at the atomic level. What's Kal-El gonna do against that?
Obviously you havent read the comics. You just base your argument on the movies. It's a pretty even fight, and Dr. M is not necessarily stronger as Superman can manipulate matter in some level. Also, Fortress of Solitude.
I'm willing to bet that I read Watchmen before you were able to read, kid. :-P Believe whatever you want, DR. M blinks and pulls apart the Kryptonian atom by atom, nothing Superman can do about that.
Well, Superman has resistance to matter manipulation feats. All Dr. Manhattan ever destroyed with his matter manipulation powers were a regular human and the top of a tank. That's why if you go by feats, you can't really call this imo.
On August 25 2013 01:53 Mafe wrote: I just hope they make very clear this isn't supposed to be the Nolan/Bale-Batman. For me as somebody who isnt't reading comics (I know for just about every thinkable meeting of superheroes, there is a comic where it happens, and similarly a comic where each hero turns villain and vice versa), this movie still seems to be shitting on just about about everything build by the dark-knight-trilogy: Making a batman who was made to be a "realistic" superhero meet an alien from outer space whose powers are so ridiculous you have to think "why doesn't he do X" each second every movie he's in? No thanks. At least that's what it looks like to me.
They will make it clear.
This marks a departure away from Nolan's trilogy, which I'm actually happy for. I absolutely love Nolan's take on Batman, but I also love the other dark-knight take on him, Frank Miller's, which features an older and grittier Batman who faces off against Superman... twice.
However, I hope Zack Snyder doesn't direct the movie... he has yet to impress me with anything
On August 25 2013 00:43 KaiserKieran wrote: I really enjoyed this past Batman trilogy and I was hoping for a few more movies starring some more batman villans. (There are so many different ones like Killer Croc [MY FAV], Mr. Freeze, Zsazz, ect...) The options are endless! I wish in the recent trilogy there was some more detective work in it but it was still great.
As for Superman his newest movie was kind of a let down and I have no idea what to expect for this new movie. It just seems kind of stuipid. Like I wanted to really like it especially since i really enjoyed the soundtrack but the entire first half of the movie just seemed boring.
Invincible Alien vs billionaire in a suit.
it just doesn't make much sense.
Nearly invincible.
You don't understand... the fun part about Batman vs Superman... is that Batman wins.
I actually hope they kick out David S Goyer. Snyder can do decent directing if he gets a good script. Goyer is just god awful. I just found out that he wrote the blade trilogy. Holy batman that is bad.
This super-power vs super-power hypothetical discussion kind of explains to me why I am not a big fan of Superman.
I'll just sit and hope the dystopian future lawman Judge Dredd makes a cinematic return soon. That or the Neuromancer adaptation sees the light of day.
Also, wtf, the Stallon Dredd made a 20 million dollar profit, the latest one lost round about the same (thus far). Oh this strange world we live in
It all depends on who the director is Batman vs Superman has plenty of comic book cred: dark knight returns by Frank Miller and others I cant recall if pulled off well it will be sick!
On August 25 2013 14:05 BAdGer_ wrote: It all depends on who the director is Batman vs Superman has plenty of comic book cred: dark knight returns by Frank Miller and others I cant recall if pulled off well it will be sick!
On August 25 2013 14:05 BAdGer_ wrote: It all depends on who the director is Batman vs Superman has plenty of comic book cred: dark knight returns by Frank Miller and others I cant recall if pulled off well it will be sick!
Am I the only one who finds him a bit too old to play the part? Especially if he's signed for six movies (such a high number sounds pretty unlikely to me, though)...
On August 27 2013 22:27 kwizach wrote: Am I the only one who finds him a bit too old to play the part? Especially if he's signed for six movies (such a high number sounds pretty unlikely to me, though)...
Why would he be too old. Gene Hackman was not exactly young when he played Lex.
On August 27 2013 22:27 kwizach wrote: Am I the only one who finds him a bit too old to play the part? Especially if he's signed for six movies (such a high number sounds pretty unlikely to me, though)...
Why would he be too old. Gene Hackman was not exactly young when he played Lex.
They picked Ben because they want older Batman. I think they want to make them all little bit older and I think its excelent idea.
On August 27 2013 22:27 kwizach wrote: Am I the only one who finds him a bit too old to play the part? Especially if he's signed for six movies (such a high number sounds pretty unlikely to me, though)...
Why would he be too old. Gene Hackman was not exactly young when he played Lex.
Well, Gene Hackman was 48 when he played him, and Bryan Cranston will be 59 in 2015 (not to mention the next five films), while Henry Cavill will be, and will look to be, in his early thirties. I don't know, I've always pictured Lex Luthor as a bit older than Superman, but not that much older. It's part of their history and of the complexity of his character too - Luthor always declares that he could have done so much good for mankind if he had not had to fight the menace that he considers Superman to be. With this age difference, he would have had all the time in the world to help mankind before Superman ever showed up. Oh well, I guess it's not impossible to make it work.
On August 27 2013 22:27 kwizach wrote: Am I the only one who finds him a bit too old to play the part? Especially if he's signed for six movies (such a high number sounds pretty unlikely to me, though)...
Also, it is six movie appearances, not full roles. They are just signing him up to do work in any of the DC films. It gives the writers the freedom to us Lex in any film, even if it is just him in a news broadcast or a minor role in a scene.
On August 27 2013 22:27 kwizach wrote: Am I the only one who finds him a bit too old to play the part? Especially if he's signed for six movies (such a high number sounds pretty unlikely to me, though)...
Why would he be too old. Gene Hackman was not exactly young when he played Lex.
Well, Gene Hackman was 48 when he played him, and Bryan Cranston will be 59 in 2015 (not to mention the next five films), while Henry Cavill will be, and will look to be, in his early thirties. I don't know, I've always pictured Lex Luthor as a bit older than Superman, but not that much older. It's part of their history and of the complexity of his character too - Luthor always declares that he could have done so much good for mankind if he had not had to fight the menace that he considers Superman to be. With this age difference, he would have had all the time in the world to help mankind before Superman ever showed up. Oh well, I guess it's not impossible to make it work.
Make up is a cool thing. And really its all about the aura of Lex and the confidence. He isn't scared of Superman, even though Superman is so much more powerful than him. You need a great act to play off that dynamic. Plus, Bryan Cranston is bad ass.
Yeah, I agree that Bryan Cranston's a great actor who can give off a powerful vibe. We'll have to see how they make it work (I have my doubts about make-up managing to make him look just a bit older than Cavill, and I don't think that's what they're going to attempt to do), but what I mentioned still stands - one of the interesting threads of the Luthor-Superman relationship in the comics is Luthor's claims (and probably beliefs) about what he would have done for the world and mankind had Superman not existed. With a big age difference between the two, this aspect cannot be kept.
On August 28 2013 02:12 kwizach wrote: Yeah, I agree that Bryan Cranston's a great actor who can give off a powerful vibe. We'll have to see how they make it work (I have my doubts about make-up managing to make him look just a bit older than Cavill, and I don't think that's what they're going to attempt to do), but what I mentioned still stands - one of the interesting threads of the Luthor-Superman relationship in the comics is Luthor's claims (and probably beliefs) about what he would have done for the world had Superman not existed. With a big age difference between the two, this aspect cannot be kept.
It is also going to be the beginning of their relationship and conflict, so they could never push that part of the dynamic. You are talking about current Superman where he and Lex have had it out for eachother for years. This is proto-superman, where they have not started that relationship yet.
On August 28 2013 02:12 kwizach wrote: Yeah, I agree that Bryan Cranston's a great actor who can give off a powerful vibe. We'll have to see how they make it work (I have my doubts about make-up managing to make him look just a bit older than Cavill, and I don't think that's what they're going to attempt to do), but what I mentioned still stands - one of the interesting threads of the Luthor-Superman relationship in the comics is Luthor's claims (and probably beliefs) about what he would have done for the world had Superman not existed. With a big age difference between the two, this aspect cannot be kept.
It is also going to be the beginning of their relationship and conflict, so they could never push that part of the dynamic. You are talking about current Superman where he and Lex have had it out for eachother for years. This is proto-superman, where they have not started that relationship yet.
This being the beginning of the Superman-Luthor relationship doesn't change the fact that they could perfectly well use this part of Luthor's character. It could for example be done by featuring it in a second movie with him (if we go by the rumor, they're planning on having Luthor as a significant character in more than one movie), or even in the first movie by showing Luthor as a self-absorbed and ego-driven genius who nevertheless was helping mankind because of how important it made him feel. This would be "disrupted" by Superman's appearance having the attention taken off Luthor (it's actually a plot point of at least one Superman arc), and Luthor choosing to put his resources into fighting Superman rather than into his previous endeavors which were benefiting mankind. Even within the scope of a single movie, this could begin an interesting "I could have done so much for mankind if not for Superman" character line. With an already old Luthor, this wouldn't work considering he would already have had a lot of time to help mankind.
On August 28 2013 02:12 kwizach wrote: Yeah, I agree that Bryan Cranston's a great actor who can give off a powerful vibe. We'll have to see how they make it work (I have my doubts about make-up managing to make him look just a bit older than Cavill, and I don't think that's what they're going to attempt to do), but what I mentioned still stands - one of the interesting threads of the Luthor-Superman relationship in the comics is Luthor's claims (and probably beliefs) about what he would have done for the world had Superman not existed. With a big age difference between the two, this aspect cannot be kept.
It is also going to be the beginning of their relationship and conflict, so they could never push that part of the dynamic. You are talking about current Superman where he and Lex have had it out for eachother for years. This is proto-superman, where they have not started that relationship yet.
This being the beginning of the Superman-Luthor relationship doesn't change the fact that they could perfectly well use this part of Luthor's character. It could for example be done by featuring it in a second movie with him (if we go by the rumor, they're planning on having Luthor as a significant character in more than one movie), or even in the first movie by showing Luthor as a self-absorbed and ego-driven genius who nevertheless was helping mankind because of how important it made him feel. This would be "disrupted" by Superman's appearance having the attention taken off Luthor (it's actually a plot point of at least one Superman arc), and Luthor choosing to put his resources into fighting Superman rather than into his previous endeavors which were benefiting mankind. Even within the scope of a single movie, this could begin an interesting "I could have done so much for mankind if not for Superman" character line. With an already old Luthor, this wouldn't work considering he would already have had a lot of time to help mankind.
"this is the foe I've been waiting all my life" could also work quite well - competition! (the pure essence of TL )
Yeah, I'm not at all saying the character of Lex Luthor can't be very well done on screen with a considerable age difference between him and Superman - I was just pointing out how it meant it would be hard to include this particular facet of his personality ,-)
Well I guess it would shift LL to a more "grey-ish" area but idk if the writers are willing to take this risk. After all Supes is "pure good" and this would also make him mildly less bright. And given the "quality" of the writers I'm not sure if it would be a good idea.
On August 28 2013 02:12 kwizach wrote: Yeah, I agree that Bryan Cranston's a great actor who can give off a powerful vibe. We'll have to see how they make it work (I have my doubts about make-up managing to make him look just a bit older than Cavill, and I don't think that's what they're going to attempt to do), but what I mentioned still stands - one of the interesting threads of the Luthor-Superman relationship in the comics is Luthor's claims (and probably beliefs) about what he would have done for the world had Superman not existed. With a big age difference between the two, this aspect cannot be kept.
It is also going to be the beginning of their relationship and conflict, so they could never push that part of the dynamic. You are talking about current Superman where he and Lex have had it out for eachother for years. This is proto-superman, where they have not started that relationship yet.
This being the beginning of the Superman-Luthor relationship doesn't change the fact that they could perfectly well use this part of Luthor's character. It could for example be done by featuring it in a second movie with him (if we go by the rumor, they're planning on having Luthor as a significant character in more than one movie), or even in the first movie by showing Luthor as a self-absorbed and ego-driven genius who nevertheless was helping mankind because of how important it made him feel. This would be "disrupted" by Superman's appearance having the attention taken off Luthor (it's actually a plot point of at least one Superman arc), and Luthor choosing to put his resources into fighting Superman rather than into his previous endeavors which were benefiting mankind. Even within the scope of a single movie, this could begin an interesting "I could have done so much for mankind if not for Superman" character line. With an already old Luthor, this wouldn't work considering he would already have had a lot of time to help mankind.
luthor was one of the main villains of the justice league, he will be around for awhile. this movie will probably be more about superman/batman. since they chose a different batman, they better chose a different green lantern too lol.
On August 28 2013 02:12 kwizach wrote: Yeah, I agree that Bryan Cranston's a great actor who can give off a powerful vibe. We'll have to see how they make it work (I have my doubts about make-up managing to make him look just a bit older than Cavill, and I don't think that's what they're going to attempt to do), but what I mentioned still stands - one of the interesting threads of the Luthor-Superman relationship in the comics is Luthor's claims (and probably beliefs) about what he would have done for the world had Superman not existed. With a big age difference between the two, this aspect cannot be kept.
It is also going to be the beginning of their relationship and conflict, so they could never push that part of the dynamic. You are talking about current Superman where he and Lex have had it out for eachother for years. This is proto-superman, where they have not started that relationship yet.
This being the beginning of the Superman-Luthor relationship doesn't change the fact that they could perfectly well use this part of Luthor's character. It could for example be done by featuring it in a second movie with him (if we go by the rumor, they're planning on having Luthor as a significant character in more than one movie), or even in the first movie by showing Luthor as a self-absorbed and ego-driven genius who nevertheless was helping mankind because of how important it made him feel. This would be "disrupted" by Superman's appearance having the attention taken off Luthor (it's actually a plot point of at least one Superman arc), and Luthor choosing to put his resources into fighting Superman rather than into his previous endeavors which were benefiting mankind. Even within the scope of a single movie, this could begin an interesting "I could have done so much for mankind if not for Superman" character line. With an already old Luthor, this wouldn't work considering he would already have had a lot of time to help mankind.
luthor was one of the main villains of the justice league, he will be around for awhile. this movie will probably be more about superman/batman. since they chose a different batman, they better chose a different green lantern too lol.
I'm still hoping for Diniverse style where Bruce Wayne hits on Lois Lane
On August 28 2013 02:12 kwizach wrote: Yeah, I agree that Bryan Cranston's a great actor who can give off a powerful vibe. We'll have to see how they make it work (I have my doubts about make-up managing to make him look just a bit older than Cavill, and I don't think that's what they're going to attempt to do), but what I mentioned still stands - one of the interesting threads of the Luthor-Superman relationship in the comics is Luthor's claims (and probably beliefs) about what he would have done for the world had Superman not existed. With a big age difference between the two, this aspect cannot be kept.
It is also going to be the beginning of their relationship and conflict, so they could never push that part of the dynamic. You are talking about current Superman where he and Lex have had it out for eachother for years. This is proto-superman, where they have not started that relationship yet.
This being the beginning of the Superman-Luthor relationship doesn't change the fact that they could perfectly well use this part of Luthor's character. It could for example be done by featuring it in a second movie with him (if we go by the rumor, they're planning on having Luthor as a significant character in more than one movie), or even in the first movie by showing Luthor as a self-absorbed and ego-driven genius who nevertheless was helping mankind because of how important it made him feel. This would be "disrupted" by Superman's appearance having the attention taken off Luthor (it's actually a plot point of at least one Superman arc), and Luthor choosing to put his resources into fighting Superman rather than into his previous endeavors which were benefiting mankind. Even within the scope of a single movie, this could begin an interesting "I could have done so much for mankind if not for Superman" character line. With an already old Luthor, this wouldn't work considering he would already have had a lot of time to help mankind.
luthor was one of the main villains of the justice league, he will be around for awhile. this movie will probably be more about superman/batman. since they chose a different batman, they better chose a different green lantern too lol.
I agree, it would make sense to keep Luthor around for a while. That's part of the reason why I'm not sure starting off with a relatively old Luthor would be the best idea
they are choosing a new character for batman? i thought christian bale was rly good. showed all parts of being human...everything from up to down. and i mean he acted rly well to portray most of those things that are relevant to humans. btw Equilibrium was a good movie done by him too
Casting rumors are Internet kryptonite, and a recent report that Bryan Cranston had been cast as Lex Luthor in the upcoming "Man of Steel" sequel had Superman fans weak in the knees. Alas, it all seems to be one big fabrication.
Gossip first surfaced in a report on Latino Review earlier this month that Cranston and "Low Winter Sun" actor Mark Strong were being considered for the Superman flick.
Then, Cosmic Book News reported on Aug. 23 that Cranston had been chosen as the villain Luthor opposite Henry Cavill and Ben Affleck, who was officially cast as Batman last week. The site claimed that the "Breaking Bad" star inked a deal for anywhere between six and 10 appearances, comparing it to Samuel L. Jackson's stint as Nick Fury in "The Avengers."
Cosmic Book News also alleged that Affleck's Batman deal was good for 13 appearances and made claims Affleck's pal, Matt Damon, is being considered for either Aquaman or Martian Manhunter.
The Cranston-Luthor news made it onto Rolling Stone and was shared by Buzzfeed, the Daily Beast and Reddit users.
On Tuesday, however, MSN Entertainment's Parallel Universe reporter, Don Kaye, debunked the rumor, writing, "Despite the story getting picked up by numerous mainstream media outlets, there is not one shred of truth to it. It originated with a fan website that has been known for printing sheer fabrications to score hits -- which is why we won't name the site or link to it here."
Kaye highlights the absurd claims made about Cranston's supposed deal and Affleck's 13 Batman appearances, "which would probably make him around 70 by the time he finished playing the role."
The talk is not entirely off base, however. The 57-year-old Cranston does have some experience playing evil as the manipulative meth mastermind, Walter White. And Cranston himself hinted at being up for the role of Luthor when asked by a reporter after the rumors took off.
"Give me a call,” he said, per Metro. “I like Lex Luthor. I think he’s misunderstood. He’s a loveable, sweet man."
Batman just redeemed itself with an awesome trilogy, only to be ruined by superman
Was man of steel bad?
Superman killed Zod .. if the fundamentals of the character was destroyed then consider the franchise destroyed.
I wish people would stop bringing this up :/ he killed Zod at the end of Superman II yet nobody seems to think his character was butchered in that film.
I'm just sad this movie is even going to be made tbh. I would have liked to see a MoS movie without Batman coming in and edging Supes out of his own sequel (why is Batman listed first in the movie title in a Superman sequel?!). And I really don't think they will be able to deal with the power disparity between Batman and Superman in a way that is believable, and without using kryptonite (which is just lame).
Batman just redeemed itself with an awesome trilogy, only to be ruined by superman
Was man of steel bad?
Superman killed Zod .. if the fundamentals of the character was destroyed then consider the franchise destroyed.
I wish people would stop bringing this up :/ he killed Zod at the end of Superman II yet nobody seems to think his character was butchered in that film.
I'm just sad this movie is even going to be made tbh. I would have liked to see a MoS movie without Batman coming in and edging Supes out of his own sequel (why is Batman listed first in the movie title in a Superman sequel?!). And I really don't think they will be able to deal with the power disparity between Batman and Superman in a way that is believable, and without using kryptonite (which is just lame).
Alphabetical order. Also Batman is the bigger name Main stream wise.
Batman just redeemed itself with an awesome trilogy, only to be ruined by superman
Was man of steel bad?
Superman killed Zod .. if the fundamentals of the character was destroyed then consider the franchise destroyed.
I wish people would stop bringing this up :/ he killed Zod at the end of Superman II yet nobody seems to think his character was butchered in that film.
I'm just sad this movie is even going to be made tbh. I would have liked to see a MoS movie without Batman coming in and edging Supes out of his own sequel (why is Batman listed first in the movie title in a Superman sequel?!). And I really don't think they will be able to deal with the power disparity between Batman and Superman in a way that is believable, and without using kryptonite (which is just lame).
I think the flow is better having the two syllable name first and the longer name second.
On August 29 2013 18:25 mdb wrote: If Ben Affleck is the new batman, Kevin Smith should be the director!
Fuck no, he would be terrible. He loves comics, that does not mean he should be allowed make films about them. And his runs of Batman were not good at all.
On August 31 2013 06:19 Nacl(Draq) wrote: Hm. If superman is exposed to kryptonite does that get rid of his bulletproof skin? Can you shoot superman with a gun in that case?
I doubt they'll do a fight scene justice if batman and superman do come to blows.
It does not remove his powers, only weakens him and makes him sick. He is still bullet proof, but you might bruise him. Superman and batman have fought under just such a situation(batman in a sweet power armor) in the Dark Knight Returns. The fight was pretty even(after Batman worked Sups over with a bunch of rockets and tank shells earlier).
MoS was absolute garbage, so i don't have high hopes for this. i honestly think affleck is the least of their worries. he's proven that he's improved since gigli and daredevil.
On August 29 2013 18:25 mdb wrote: If Ben Affleck is the new batman, Kevin Smith should be the director!
Fuck no, he would be terrible. He loves comics, that does not mean he should be allowed make films about them. And his runs of Batman were not good at all.
On August 31 2013 06:19 Nacl(Draq) wrote: Hm. If superman is exposed to kryptonite does that get rid of his bulletproof skin? Can you shoot superman with a gun in that case?
I doubt they'll do a fight scene justice if batman and superman do come to blows.
It does not remove his powers, only weakens him and makes him sick. He is still bullet proof, but you might bruise him. Superman and batman have fought under just such a situation(batman in a sweet power armor) in the Dark Knight Returns. The fight was pretty even(after Batman worked Sups over with a bunch of rockets and tank shells earlier).
And after Sups took a nuclear missile to the face and they fought during the ensuing nuclear winter, cutting him off from the sun (not a huge Superman fan, not sure how much that effects him to be honest).
It takes quite a lot to even things up for Batman. Which might not translate that well to the movie screen.
Except Affleck can't act on his own. Look at all the great movies he has been and notice the scenes that are powerful are the ones he is not alone in, his costars make the scene not him.
bieber is a really good actor, once you see him on screen you'll wonder why it didn't occur to you to cast him as the boy wonder. I'm not saying it's going to be a heath ledger quality surprise but definitely in the same league.
I love how people are saying they cant possibly deal with the power disparity between the two in any believable way when there have been batman superman crossovers many times in the past, hell there's a superman batman animated movie on netflix.
On September 15 2013 05:43 UniversalSnip wrote: bieber is a really good actor, once you see him on screen you'll wonder why it didn't occur to you to cast him as the boy wonder. I'm not saying it's going to be a heath ledger quality surprise but definitely in the same league.
This is literally the highlight of his acting career:
On September 15 2013 05:43 UniversalSnip wrote: bieber is a really good actor, once you see him on screen you'll wonder why it didn't occur to you to cast him as the boy wonder. I'm not saying it's going to be a heath ledger quality surprise but definitely in the same league.
This is literally the highlight of his acting career:
this is why justin bieber, despite being maybe the most talented actor under 20, isn't that known for it. people refuse to take him seriously because they're jealous of his music career.
On September 15 2013 05:43 UniversalSnip wrote: bieber is a really good actor, once you see him on screen you'll wonder why it didn't occur to you to cast him as the boy wonder. I'm not saying it's going to be a heath ledger quality surprise but definitely in the same league.
This is literally the highlight of his acting career:
this is why justin bieber, despite being maybe the most talented actor under 20, isn't that known for it. people refuse to take him seriously because they're jealous of his music career.
I think the guy saying "This is literally the highlight of his acting career:" was being sarcastic.
Vid showed nothing groundbreaking from his persona. He just acts like a total hothead which I'm sure that he is use to act on a daily basis. And he is destroying his career, one cocaine at a time. That's how all the greats descend into the abyss, by getting drunk. Alcohol damages your digestive system which further kills your appetite and ultimately shut down your food intake and thus leading to lack of energy to perform.
If this indeed not a joke and is real. The movie will be a smash hit as his fans will flock to see it as they are mental. Besides I still think this is Jimmy Kimmel attempting to be funny.
tbh I was hoping to get a reaction, bieber as robin is the most obvious and ridiculous troll imaginable. it would be truly hilarious but I give it the same chance as the sun smashing into the earth tomorrow.
Imagine if he weren't actually joking, did play Robin in the new movie then turns out to be such a great actor that he quits his music career and becomes the next Ben Stiller.
I thought Wonder Woman was more Amazon than toothpick... I like how the two runner-ups are also thin as fuck... I haven't read any comics or anything but... come on.
I thought Wonder Woman was more Amazon than toothpick... I like how the two runner-ups are also thin as fuck... I haven't read any comics or anything but... come on.
On December 05 2013 03:24 iPAndi wrote: They're going to buff her up1
Snyder has a close relationship with Gym Jones, the team that is responsible for training the Spartans in 300, Henry Cavill, Antje Traue, etc. People thought Henry Cavill and Tom Hardy didn't really have the look to pull off their respective character, but time passed by enough for them to exercise to fit their role. It is no doubt that Gal will undergo heavy training to fit the role of Diane/Wonder Woman. Gal spent about 2 years in the Israeli Defense Force and is also a sports trainer within their army. She is "skinny" because of her modeling background. There is still plenty of time for her to train. Also, we don't know how big of a role she will have in MoS 2. It can either be a cameo or just her popping up during the mid or after credits.
I'm glad they didn't choose Gina Carano, which is one of the fan favorites. She has the look and physique, but her acting isn't so good. Gal's acting is so so, but most of her roles in movies were small, so who knows how she will do in MoS 2.
Variety reported that Flash is also being cast in the movie, which is making me wonder how this isn't a defacto Justice League movie more so than a Superman sequel. Avengers did a great job giving heroes as wildly fluctuating in power levels as Hawkeye and Black Widow vs Thor and Hulk all have spots to shine. This movie will be tougher to pull off though because Marvel set all the back stories for all the heroes and villains up in prior movies. In this version of the Superman universe there has been no Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, set up, and no setup for who ever the villain will be either. Lots of backstory to fill in or ignore. Good luck to them. On a side note this is a funny batman superman skit:
Very heavily influenced by Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns Batsuit. The Batsuit's material/fabric is similar to the Batman Arkham Asylum/City Batsuit.
This is the most grimdark thing they could have made. I really hope it isn't this as humorless other Snyder films. Part of the fun of Batman and Superman is that they are funny together.
You literally only see his face for like 2 sec, no talking, and then you see him in some heavily armored batman outfit with a robo modular voice standing off vs superman (it's not the same as Bale's smoker voice)
I was never a huge comic fan so maybe that colors my perspective a bit but I like the darker comic revisions.
Sickest teaser I have ever seen, looks very good and some epic lines.
"Demons don't come from the hell beneath us...they come from the sky".
Batman´s voice was incredible, I thought it sounded a lot better than Christian Bale´s.
Take my comment with a grain of salt though since I am a big comic book fan and a huuuge Batman fan, but I can´t remember the last time I was so excited for a movie! :D
Feels good to finally have (or at least I hope so!) an acurrate adaptation from a comic book!
Edit: by the way, when people say things like "Batman could never fight against Superman" or something like that, I understand that it´s hard to believe. But that happens in one of the greatest Batman comics ever and it´s awesome, so it´s really hard to not get excited by seeing it on the big screen!
Batman lasting more than 1 second against Superman will never, ever make sense. I'm a much bigger Marvel fan (Man of Steel was aggressively bad), but I'll admit I'm excited about this movie. It's going to be so stylistically different than every other hero movie and show that it could be pure awesome.
Having said that I never really had doubts about the Superman and Batman characters. What could majorly fail are Lex Luther and Wonder woman, and we didn't see either in there.
I doubt the grimdark will play as well with mass audiences though. That combined with what I expect to be almost no humor (in an attempt to get as different from Marvel as possible) could hurt with the kiddies. Dunno.
As much as the Star Wars trailer hyped me up as much this one confuses me.
Wasnt a part of the Superman character that he is a loner? Like the only one left of his kind, trying to fit in with the Clark Kent as his weak alter ego? The character i imagine would never let them build a giant statue or some poeple worship him. Or am i understanding the character wrong. The first time i watched i thought "Batman sees on TV that Superman saves the world, gets jealous and starts shooting people from a tower".
I am just not sure how Batman will work in a movie with multiple main characters. One reason The Dark Knight is great is that the Joker vs. Batman matchup is maybe the best of all superheros but i am not sure how this will work out here.
Oftentimes in Batman vs Superman confrontations, it's Superman who's going nuts and Batman, as a representative of the human people who's there to call his bullshit out. Wouldn't make much sense the other way: a godlike immortal being trying to stop a... millionaire with a suit and gadgets?
It will probably be about two points of view: one where people believe Superman is a savior/god (the ones who built the statue) and another where people believe he is the one who brought destruction to the world.
If I had to guess I would say Lex and Batman will share the second view, seeing Superman as a threat to the humanity. Of course this can change over the course of the movie (for Batman, at least).
So we have a pretty interesting discussion if Superman brings more good or bad things to the world.
What I think is harder to predict is how Superman will interact and behave when there is such polarizing views about him.
I know this is such a minor - maybe pedantic - detail but why is the logo a combination of both superman and batman? If the premise of the movie is that they are going up against each other, it wouldn't make sense to have the movie's major symbol be both of them joining together. Again, maybe this is just nitpicky.
They always end up fighting on the same side anyway (it's not like one of them IS an actual bad guy :D). I can see it being the end of the movie, so in this case the logo would make sense.
It is not called Dawn of Justice for no reason. The movie will be about forming the Justice League. Wonder Woman and Aqua Man also appear in the movie.
What's nice about this is that they're taking ideas from Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns (Batsuit, Batman using a sniper rifle, Bruce being a weary veteran, the armored batsuit, etc) and Mark Millar's Superman: Red Son (people idolizing Superman).
The only skepticism I really have is Zack Snyder. We can all agree that he is amazing when it comes to visuals and making a cool looking movie. The problem I have is that it's style over substance. Snyder's movies doesn't have that emotional connection from movie to viewer. A big relief is that Ben Affleck brought Chris Terrio to edit and revise David Goyer's script.
On April 19 2015 04:22 ZenithM wrote: They always end up fighting on the same side anyway (it's not like one of them IS an actual bad guy :D). I can see it being the end of the movie, so in this case the logo would make sense.
I really have my doubts about Ben Affleck. I'm sure he will do a fine Batman (especially with a digitalized voice haha), but when he doesn't wear a mask, all I'm thinking is "Well, it's Ben Affleck alright", not "Damn, Bruce Wayne has class". This impression will probably fade off when we see more of him as Bruce in the movie though :D
On April 19 2015 05:05 zoLo wrote: The only skepticism I really have is Zack Snyder. We can all agree that he is amazing when it comes to visuals and making a cool looking movie. The problem I have is that it's style over substance. Snyder's movies doesn't have that emotional connection from movie to viewer. A big relief is that Ben Affleck brought Chris Terrio to edit and revise David Goyer's script.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who really liked the Watchmen film. I never expected a good movie to be made out of that incredible comic book but, man, I re-watch that thing at least a few times a year. I thought he did a fantastic job.
On April 19 2015 05:05 zoLo wrote: The only skepticism I really have is Zack Snyder. We can all agree that he is amazing when it comes to visuals and making a cool looking movie. The problem I have is that it's style over substance. Snyder's movies doesn't have that emotional connection from movie to viewer. A big relief is that Ben Affleck brought Chris Terrio to edit and revise David Goyer's script.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who really liked the Watchmen film. I never expected a good movie to be made out of that incredible comic book but, man, I re-watch that thing at least a few times a year. I thought he did a fantastic job.
The problem is that people tend to blame the director for bad movies even when the problem is clearly the screenplay. Snyder is pretty amazing when it comes to visuals and his casting choice are often very good but he's just a bad screenwriter. This time (like in Watchmen) he has good original material and a competent writer, the basics for a good movie are there.
Making a good movie out of amazing comics is not that hard, even the Wachowski managed to do it and they fucking suck.
On April 19 2015 05:05 zoLo wrote: The only skepticism I really have is Zack Snyder. We can all agree that he is amazing when it comes to visuals and making a cool looking movie. The problem I have is that it's style over substance. Snyder's movies doesn't have that emotional connection from movie to viewer. A big relief is that Ben Affleck brought Chris Terrio to edit and revise David Goyer's script.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who really liked the Watchmen film. I never expected a good movie to be made out of that incredible comic book but, man, I re-watch that thing at least a few times a year. I thought he did a fantastic job.
The problem is that people tend to blame the director for bad movies even when the problem is clearly the screenplay. Snyder is pretty amazing when it comes to visuals and his casting choice are often very good but he's just a bad screenwriter. This time (like in Watchmen) he has good original material and a competent writer, the basics for a good movie are there.
Making a good movie out of amazing comics is not that hard, even the Wachowski managed to do it and they fucking suck.
can't the director turn down the project to protect his reputation?
making a good movie out of an amazing comic is difficult. you have to get a lot of things right while avoiding the problem of "too many cooks in the kitchen".
even in movies that turn out great the "too many cooks in the kitchen" issue is a constant battle.
At 51 seconds of the trailer posted by ArchAngel you see the shadowy figure of a statue and his fingers partially curled up like you know who does before shooting out a web .. i thought great... its Spiderman Versus Superman
ummm so the title "Dawn of Justice" .. is it really going to end up being "Dawn of the Justice League" ?
On April 19 2015 05:05 zoLo wrote: The only skepticism I really have is Zack Snyder. We can all agree that he is amazing when it comes to visuals and making a cool looking movie. The problem I have is that it's style over substance. Snyder's movies doesn't have that emotional connection from movie to viewer. A big relief is that Ben Affleck brought Chris Terrio to edit and revise David Goyer's script.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who really liked the Watchmen film. I never expected a good movie to be made out of that incredible comic book but, man, I re-watch that thing at least a few times a year. I thought he did a fantastic job.
Making a good movie out of amazing comics is not that hard, even the Wachowski managed to do it and they fucking suck.
I'm pretty sure the Wachowski's will be seen as two of the most influencial directors in the world in 50' years. But heh, it's not like people like to bash them for nothing too.
On April 19 2015 05:05 zoLo wrote: The only skepticism I really have is Zack Snyder. We can all agree that he is amazing when it comes to visuals and making a cool looking movie. The problem I have is that it's style over substance. Snyder's movies doesn't have that emotional connection from movie to viewer. A big relief is that Ben Affleck brought Chris Terrio to edit and revise David Goyer's script.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who really liked the Watchmen film. I never expected a good movie to be made out of that incredible comic book but, man, I re-watch that thing at least a few times a year. I thought he did a fantastic job.
The problem is that people tend to blame the director for bad movies even when the problem is clearly the screenplay. Snyder is pretty amazing when it comes to visuals and his casting choice are often very good but he's just a bad screenwriter. This time (like in Watchmen) he has good original material and a competent writer, the basics for a good movie are there.
Making a good movie out of amazing comics is not that hard, even the Wachowski managed to do it and they fucking suck.
can't the director turn down the project to protect his reputation?
making a good movie out of an amazing comic is difficult. you have to get a lot of things right while avoiding the problem of "too many cooks in the kitchen".
even in movies that turn out great the "too many cooks in the kitchen" issue is a constant battle.
At 51 seconds of the trailer posted by ArchAngel you see the shadowy figure of a statue and his fingers partially curled up like you know who does before shooting out a web .. i thought great... its Spiderman Versus Superman
ummm so the title "Dawn of Justice" .. is it really going to end up being "Dawn of the Justice League" ?
In blockbusters, directors are often tied to the project before the script is fully written. If the script end up sucking they generally try to rewrite it mid-shooting (or even after the movie is complete like for example World war Z) but the director pretty much stays on board until the end.
When I said that making a good movie out of an amazing comics was not that hard I meant it in the case where you can just adapt a stand alone series (with a few issues) into a movie like 300, the Watchmen, V for Vendetta (and I think BvS but I might be wrong). Adapting a 1000+ issues comic book is on the other end pretty difficult and that's why most Superhero movies are bad.
On April 19 2015 05:05 zoLo wrote: The only skepticism I really have is Zack Snyder. We can all agree that he is amazing when it comes to visuals and making a cool looking movie. The problem I have is that it's style over substance. Snyder's movies doesn't have that emotional connection from movie to viewer. A big relief is that Ben Affleck brought Chris Terrio to edit and revise David Goyer's script.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who really liked the Watchmen film. I never expected a good movie to be made out of that incredible comic book but, man, I re-watch that thing at least a few times a year. I thought he did a fantastic job.
Making a good movie out of amazing comics is not that hard, even the Wachowski managed to do it and they fucking suck.
I'm pretty sure the Wachowski's will be seen as two of the most influencial directors in the world in 50' years. But heh, it's not like people like to bash them for nothing too.
Why would they be? The only thing they significantly impacted were visuals and special effects, mostly through the slow-motion effect which has already been turned into a gimmick. I give them credit for adapting V for vendetta for James McTeigue and coming up with the matrix which was pretty smart, but the sequels, their other 3 movies and their video games are all absolutely terrible.
On April 19 2015 22:15 Diavlo wrote: In blockbusters, directors are often tied to the project before the script is fully written. If the script end up sucking they generally try to rewrite it mid-shooting (or even after the movie is complete like for example World war Z) but the director pretty much stays on board until the end.
it is a matter of what is more important to the director in question. money or reputation. on the extreme end of the reputation scale is Richard Donner. a director can leave any project any time (s)he wants. when (s)he initially negotiates the deal he/she needs to structure the deal appropriately. and of course, giving him/her multiple outs will cost him/her cash.
same thing happens in video games. Blizzard will cancel a game with 5 years and 4 studios having worked on it and get $0 return. EA will pump out anything half baked. And still, EA apologists keep giving them more chances and accepting their excuses no matter how much mediocre stuff the sell.
Blizzard doesn't do "movie tie in games" or games involving shared IP. They surrender many money making opportunities by doing so. They also keep their brand very strong by doing so.
all that said, i thought Sam Raimi sorta got boned with Spiderman3.
Woooo, vague Andy Warhol references. with a hint of Sex Pistols.
The more I watch this trailer, the more I can't help but feel like Snyder did what Snyder does and made the Watchmen but in the DCU. I mean straight away we get a CG statue that isn't even terribly great CGI, likely by choice, and by the end we have what we assume is a batwing + Show Spoiler +
or whatever they are calling it that isn't tied to something you do with your balls
which always feels a bit shark jumpy to me for Batman, I've never liked them.
Then we get to the voice, Bale's was funny sure, but at least it didn't make him seem like a ventriloquist. I don't know anymore, I want to believe this isn't just Snyder and Miller cashing in again, but I lost a lot of optimism today.
On a scale of The Dark Knight to Batman and Robin, I am about a Batman Returns, but when you're not in the mode for the campiness and 80sness of it.
Finally got around to seeing the HD trailer instead of the shit quality one. Few things.
- Is there a canon basis for all the religion stuff? I've never heard about Supermen cults, statues and guards with his damn logo on their arms. He got a private army or something? - The CGI is distracting at points. I know he is going for the comic book/watchmen thing, but it looks worse than the first Sin City. - Batman looks awesome. - Jesse Eisenberg sounds like Jesse Eisenberg, as I feared. The delivery of that line had no power for me. Imagine how Cranston, or even Spacey/Hackman would have delivered it.
Ultimately I think Man of Steel dug the directors a pretty big hole. When Batman says something about making Superman bleed it just sounds stupid. The first movie saw Superman being hit into buildings and trains at a constant rate and him not even being scratched, let alone bleeding. That plus Superman proved he could basically overpower "kryptonite" in the first movie. There is nothing Batman should be able to do.
I don't see how they can do this without directly contradicting the canon the first movie created. Therein lies the problem of going "Gritty Realism" with Superman; he is inherently too comicbooky (overpowered).
On April 21 2015 06:41 On_Slaught wrote: Finally got around to seeing the HD trailer instead of the shit quality one. Few things.
- Is there a canon basis for all the religion stuff? I've never heard about Supermen cults, statues and guards with his damn logo on their arms. He got a private army or something? - The CGI is distracting at points. I know he is going for the comic book/watchmen thing, but it looks worse than the first Sin City. - Batman looks awesome. - Jesse Eisenberg sounds like Jesse Eisenberg, as I feared. The delivery of that line had no power for me. Imagine how Cranston, or even Spacey/Hackman would have delivered it.
Ultimately I think Man of Steel dug the directors a pretty big hole. When Batman says something about making Superman bleed it just sounds stupid. The first movie saw Superman being hit into buildings and trains at a constant rate and him not even being scratched, let alone bleeding. That plus Superman proved he could basically overpower "kryptonite" in the first movie. There is nothing Batman should be able to do.
I don't see how they can do this without directly contradicting the canon the first movie created.
Still going to see the movie ofc.
I don't think it got religious in the Miller books, which I was led to believe was more that Superman was made to be Luthor's lackey as he had made miniature the last Kryptonian city.
On April 19 2015 05:05 zoLo wrote: The only skepticism I really have is Zack Snyder. We can all agree that he is amazing when it comes to visuals and making a cool looking movie. The problem I have is that it's style over substance. Snyder's movies doesn't have that emotional connection from movie to viewer. A big relief is that Ben Affleck brought Chris Terrio to edit and revise David Goyer's script.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who really liked the Watchmen film. I never expected a good movie to be made out of that incredible comic book but, man, I re-watch that thing at least a few times a year. I thought he did a fantastic job.
Making a good movie out of amazing comics is not that hard, even the Wachowski managed to do it and they fucking suck.
I'm pretty sure the Wachowski's will be seen as two of the most influencial directors in the world in 50' years. But heh, it's not like people like to bash them for nothing too.
Why would they be? The only thing they significantly impacted were visuals and special effects, mostly through the slow-motion effect which has already been turned into a gimmick. I give them credit for adapting V for vendetta for James McTeigue and coming up with the matrix which was pretty smart, but the sequels, their other 3 movies and their video games are all absolutely terrible.
I also don't think the wachowskis are great movie makers, but they are influential for sure. after "the matrix", a lot of action movies tried to find their own visual style which made them "unique". people also got a lot more creative with what they would do. before that we had a lot of "meh" 90s action movies. just look at the JamesBond movies of that era and how bland a lot of them are compared to the matrix. (quality aside)
On April 21 2015 06:41 On_Slaught wrote: Ultimately I think Man of Steel dug the directors a pretty big hole. When Batman says something about making Superman bleed it just sounds stupid. The first movie saw Superman being hit into buildings and trains at a constant rate and him not even being scratched, let alone bleeding. That plus Superman proved he could basically overpower "kryptonite" in the first movie. There is nothing Batman should be able to do.
I don't see how they can do this without directly contradicting the canon the first movie created. Therein lies the problem of going "Gritty Realism" with Superman; he is inherently too comicbooky (overpowered).
Still going to see the movie ofc.
I just think the premise is stupid to begin with. I get the brains vs brawns theme, but the two are just too far apart to think it's a reasonable fight. Superman should crush batman easily, but they'll find a way to either make him a moron, or have many contrived situations to give batman a chance.
It´s not about the movie, but since it´s from the same universe and we don´t have a Suicide Squad thread (I might make one actually)... first official picture from Jared Leto´s Joker!
Personally, I think it´s absolutely insane! I´m really loving where they are going with this and he actually brings this comic book look and feel to the cinema, with the over the top tattoos and teeth (and the awesome green hair of course).
On April 21 2015 06:41 On_Slaught wrote: Ultimately I think Man of Steel dug the directors a pretty big hole. When Batman says something about making Superman bleed it just sounds stupid. The first movie saw Superman being hit into buildings and trains at a constant rate and him not even being scratched, let alone bleeding. That plus Superman proved he could basically overpower "kryptonite" in the first movie. There is nothing Batman should be able to do.
I don't see how they can do this without directly contradicting the canon the first movie created. Therein lies the problem of going "Gritty Realism" with Superman; he is inherently too comicbooky (overpowered).
I sort of agree except for two points. First is the question of how badly Superman will want to fight Batman. Superman was reluctant to kill in MoS and in the Dark Knight Returns, he's trying to incapacitate rather than kill Batman.
I think such a fight also usually emphasizes that Superman is a slob of a fighter who mostly relies on taking his opponents' best punches and then overcoming them nonetheless (hence the iconic letting people shoot him in the chest rather than dodging or blocking). I thought the "do you bleed" line is cool because it goads Superman into a fight but it probably also intrigues him into letting Batman hit him to see what he's got.
Personally, my biggest problem with Superman from MoS is that he has Goku's origin story but it takes him a minimal montage to develop his skills. How many large falling things can he prop up to work out those muscles?
EDIT: It would be funny if the answer to "do you bleed" turns out to be metaphorical and Batman flexes his own superpowers. Yeah, he banged Lois Lane. Yeah, he bought out Superrman's mom's house in Smallville and leveled it for a soulless mall with 15 different Starbucks shops in it. Yeah, he bought the Daily Planet and turned it into a mix of a tabloid and Fox News. Yeah, he dug up Superman's dad out of his grave and...you know what, that WAS kind of fucked up.
It's astonishing how much they are fucking this up, and the movie is a year away. That Joker image is embarrassing. They are going for Frank Millers Batman, they are returning to the comics for the characters, blah, blah, blah... here is your Neo Nazi Joker now!
Leto look more like your standard Joker henchmen than Joker himself. A "damaged" tattoo on the forehead? It's so blunt, juvenile, and lazy I'm shocked that they would let the public see this. Ohhh he has a skull with a jester hat tattoo! My brother is right. This isn't how a badass looks. This is how somebody who thinks they are badass when they aren't looks. All the lazy self-referential art instead of the iconic clown makeup. The fucked up teeth is distracting too.
On April 29 2015 04:55 On_Slaught wrote: It's astonishing how much they are fucking this up, and the movie is a year away. That Joker image is embarrassing. They are going for Frank Millers Batman, they are returning to the comics for the characters, blah, blah, blah... here is your Neo Nazi Joker now!
Leto look more like your standard Joker henchmen than Joker himself. A "damaged" tattoo on the forehead? It's so blunt, juvenile, and lazy I'm shocked that they would let the public see this. Ohhh he has a skull with a jester hat tattoo! My brother is right. This isn't how a badass looks. This is how somebody who thinks they are badass when they aren't looks. All the lazy self-referential art instead of the iconic clown makeup. The fucked up teeth is distracting too.
You do know that the Joker is for Suicide Squad, not BvS right?
isnt this also meant to set up for the justice league movies? kind of like the avengers but DC Batman if he was present during the MoS situation like in gotham and just observing, theres no way he would come out to an open fight before making sure that he knows how strong superman is, some of his traits, his personaility to an extent from what happened in MoS and the events between MoS and this movie (probaby just random heroic saving) and a near sure way of beating him
Alot of the comics mention that batman has always had this "plan" if superman ever did go rogue. I dont see batman actaully wanting to fight superman unless hes gone all injustice or mindcontrolled. If its just a dispute over "superman could go bad,lets take him out now" i dont think batman would take part in it I see him as being super calculating and well planned, thinking through decisions from the best point without emotional doubts or w/e.
Do we know some points of the story line? Lex is in it, wonderwomen is in it. Lex worrying about superman and trying to take him out beforehand or w/e seems pretty normal for him (just not batman imo) unless wonderwomen is invading using her super strength and people thinks its superman, thus sparking batman to be like well shit hes gone rouge take him out*(not even kill) now, but even that doesnt seem right (he would need actual confirmation of superman doing it, and possibly match it with what he thinks superman is as a person) a blur of wonderwomen mistaken as superman wouldnt be enough.
Im really curious to how they are gonna end up fighting each other
edit: theres no way i see batman getting jealous of superman saving the world...thats just feels so wrong
On April 29 2015 08:22 Manit0u wrote: The movie has Ben Affleck in it. No movie with Ben Affleck is good.
Good will hunting notwithstanding.
And the one with the Iranian embassy and probably several more... But its just "cool" to hate him. He is for sure not a "GREAT" actor... But seriously, the amount of shit People throw at him is just unjustified.
On April 29 2015 08:22 Manit0u wrote: The movie has Ben Affleck in it. No movie with Ben Affleck is good.
Good will hunting notwithstanding.
And the one with the Iranian embassy and probably several more... But its just "cool" to hate him. He is for sure not a "GREAT" actor... But seriously, the amount of shit People throw at him is just unjustified.
regarding the Superman cult that shows to look like to be some form of Police Swat team with Superman Logo. The only reference from the comics that I know that is close to it is in the Injustice Gods among Us comics where they are not a cult per se but superman played a part in selecting them and basically making them a powered police force.
I guess in this BvS, it is unlikely they will be a powered group. But maybe part of the half of the world that honestly believes that Superman is the way to world peace even if it means brute forcing their way to achieve it as they would clearly have the bigger stick.
With regards to why they could possibly clash/fight. I would say it takes hint at why they clashed to begin with in the Dark Knight Returns. Superman most likely is communicating with the government in some way shape or form through how they show it in MoS with the army guy. So maybe he tries to float a pact with the US government to help them with their woes and one of them is Batman who is a vigilante. Doing good, but still illegal in the eyes of the government. So Superman is sent to stop him. So Batman doesn't really go up to the plate to challenge Superman but rather Superman is on his turf and stopping him from being Batman. That's a maybe to me that is a possible way of dealing with it.
I am still not sure if they will make Batman go to Metropolis, but most likely just Bruce Wayne doing recon I guess and he goes back to Gotham (base) to try to develop counter measures should he need to clash with Superman.
As for the Joker, that is for Suicide Squad and not BvS as mentioned by others. I don't really know where they are going with it for Suicide Squad or even if that will spillover with just hints/bits & pieces on BvS but I would like to see where it goes. I can't really judge based on the photo.
My favorite Joker is still Hamill and basically how he played the Trickster in the Flash TV series is how it would look like to me if he did play the Joker in a live action movie or show.
On April 29 2015 08:22 Manit0u wrote: The movie has Ben Affleck in it. No movie with Ben Affleck is good.
Good will hunting notwithstanding.
And the one with the Iranian embassy and probably several more... But its just "cool" to hate him. He is for sure not a "GREAT" actor... But seriously, the amount of shit People throw at him is just unjustified.
Agreed, Affleck even brought Chris Terrio to write the screenplay. For those who don´t know, it´s the guy who won the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay for Argo.
Of course these things don´t mean that the movie will be great or whatever, but it´s not like the people involved don´t know what they are doing. I have high hopes.
EDIT: looks like the Joker might not only be in the Suicide Squad, but also on Batman vs Superman.
Looks like there will be a scene where Batman is looking at the old Robin suit and has a flashback of the Joker killing him. Rumours even say that it´s the reason that the Joker is in jail/arkham and Batman "retired" from fighting crime (until Superman arrives).
I don´t really have the source right know, and it´s on portuguese, but I´m sure it´s not hard to find with a quick search.
ps: Ben Affleck was also seen on the set of Suicide Squad.
On April 29 2015 04:55 On_Slaught wrote: It's astonishing how much they are fucking this up, and the movie is a year away. That Joker image is embarrassing. They are going for Frank Millers Batman, they are returning to the comics for the characters, blah, blah, blah... here is your Neo Nazi Joker now!
Leto look more like your standard Joker henchmen than Joker himself. A "damaged" tattoo on the forehead? It's so blunt, juvenile, and lazy I'm shocked that they would let the public see this. Ohhh he has a skull with a jester hat tattoo! My brother is right. This isn't how a badass looks. This is how somebody who thinks they are badass when they aren't looks. All the lazy self-referential art instead of the iconic clown makeup. The fucked up teeth is distracting too.
Guess what? No matter what kind of bullshit comic book nerd argument against the movie you come up with and your veiled threats of boycotting the movie 'cos it's not true enough to the comics, you're going to go see it just 'cos everyone else is. You're going to pay money for it. They're going to make millions of dollars and you're going to be $12 poorer. Who's the sucker now?
I saw a comment online somewhere that explained Joker's new origin story in that he "had an accident and fell into a vat of hot topic." Thought that was pretty funny.
That has got to be some of the weirdest photoshopping I have seen in a while. Batman looks bloated and I can see like 3 sides of his head. I just want to see more movie stills and hopefully that will renew my hope for this film. I’ve been a big fan of Diana for years and hopefully they do a good job with her. Maybe she is the thing that will break up the grim dark.
At least she has the lasso. That shit could be cool if used correctly. The idea of an unbreakable rope in the hands of someone with super strength and flight is an untapped idea of action scenes.
On July 03 2015 01:06 Plansix wrote: That has got to be some of the weirdest photoshopping I have seen in a while. Batman looks bloated and I can see like 3 sides of his head. I just want to see more movie stills and hopefully that will renew my hope for this film. I’ve been a big fan of Diana for years and hopefully they do a good job with her. Maybe she is the thing that will break up the grim dark.
At least she has the lasso. That shit could be cool if used correctly. The idea of an unbreakable rope in the hands of someone with super strength and flight is an untapped idea of action scenes.
Frank Miller's Batman, is comparatively chunkier in the book they are loosely basing this off of, look up Frank Miller, "The Dark Knight," you'll get the jist.
On July 03 2015 01:06 Plansix wrote: That has got to be some of the weirdest photoshopping I have seen in a while. Batman looks bloated and I can see like 3 sides of his head. I just want to see more movie stills and hopefully that will renew my hope for this film. I’ve been a big fan of Diana for years and hopefully they do a good job with her. Maybe she is the thing that will break up the grim dark.
At least she has the lasso. That shit could be cool if used correctly. The idea of an unbreakable rope in the hands of someone with super strength and flight is an untapped idea of action scenes.
Frank Miller's Batman, is comparatively chunkier in the book they are loosely basing this off of, look up Frank Miller, "The Dark Knight," you'll get the jist.
I am a little offended that you told me to read the Dark Knight Returns. /s
I know the look they are going for, its mostly the photo seems to suffer from photoshop for evil. Diana also is in a shitty runway model pose, but I get they are pressed for space.
On July 03 2015 01:06 Plansix wrote: That has got to be some of the weirdest photoshopping I have seen in a while. Batman looks bloated and I can see like 3 sides of his head. I just want to see more movie stills and hopefully that will renew my hope for this film. I’ve been a big fan of Diana for years and hopefully they do a good job with her. Maybe she is the thing that will break up the grim dark.
At least she has the lasso. That shit could be cool if used correctly. The idea of an unbreakable rope in the hands of someone with super strength and flight is an untapped idea of action scenes.
Frank Miller's Batman, is comparatively chunkier in the book they are loosely basing this off of, look up Frank Miller, "The Dark Knight," you'll get the jist.
I am a little offended that you told me to read the Dark Knight Returns. /s
I know the look they are going for, its mostly the photo seems to suffer from photoshop for evil. Diana also is in a shitty runway model pose, but I get they are pressed for space.
On July 03 2015 01:06 Plansix wrote: That has got to be some of the weirdest photoshopping I have seen in a while. Batman looks bloated and I can see like 3 sides of his head. I just want to see more movie stills and hopefully that will renew my hope for this film. I’ve been a big fan of Diana for years and hopefully they do a good job with her. Maybe she is the thing that will break up the grim dark.
At least she has the lasso. That shit could be cool if used correctly. The idea of an unbreakable rope in the hands of someone with super strength and flight is an untapped idea of action scenes.
Frank Miller's Batman, is comparatively chunkier in the book they are loosely basing this off of, look up Frank Miller, "The Dark Knight," you'll get the jist.
I am a little offended that you told me to read the Dark Knight Returns. /s
I know the look they are going for, its mostly the photo seems to suffer from photoshop for evil. Diana also is in a shitty runway model pose, but I get they are pressed for space.
Was not my intention to offend suh.
I am proud about my comic book cred. Plus everyone should read Dark Knight Returns, even if it is sort of dated today.
On July 03 2015 01:06 Plansix wrote: That has got to be some of the weirdest photoshopping I have seen in a while. Batman looks bloated and I can see like 3 sides of his head. I just want to see more movie stills and hopefully that will renew my hope for this film. I’ve been a big fan of Diana for years and hopefully they do a good job with her. Maybe she is the thing that will break up the grim dark.
At least she has the lasso. That shit could be cool if used correctly. The idea of an unbreakable rope in the hands of someone with super strength and flight is an untapped idea of action scenes.
Frank Miller's Batman, is comparatively chunkier in the book they are loosely basing this off of, look up Frank Miller, "The Dark Knight," you'll get the jist.
I am a little offended that you told me to read the Dark Knight Returns. /s
I know the look they are going for, its mostly the photo seems to suffer from photoshop for evil. Diana also is in a shitty runway model pose, but I get they are pressed for space.
Was not my intention to offend suh.
I am proud about my comic book cred. Plus everyone should read Dark Knight Returns, even if it is sort of dated today.
Alan Moore and Frank Miller were the guys that kicked off the entire 90's anti-hero era, in a good way (meaning a serious take at superheroes and villains).
And then, like the 90's anti-hero era, they went bat-shit insane and produced nothing but nonsensical Xtreme garbage.
On July 03 2015 01:06 Plansix wrote: That has got to be some of the weirdest photoshopping I have seen in a while. Batman looks bloated and I can see like 3 sides of his head. I just want to see more movie stills and hopefully that will renew my hope for this film. I’ve been a big fan of Diana for years and hopefully they do a good job with her. Maybe she is the thing that will break up the grim dark.
At least she has the lasso. That shit could be cool if used correctly. The idea of an unbreakable rope in the hands of someone with super strength and flight is an untapped idea of action scenes.
Frank Miller's Batman, is comparatively chunkier in the book they are loosely basing this off of, look up Frank Miller, "The Dark Knight," you'll get the jist.
I am a little offended that you told me to read the Dark Knight Returns. /s
I know the look they are going for, its mostly the photo seems to suffer from photoshop for evil. Diana also is in a shitty runway model pose, but I get they are pressed for space.
Was not my intention to offend suh.
I am proud about my comic book cred. Plus everyone should read Dark Knight Returns, even if it is sort of dated today.
Alan Moore and Frank Miller were the guys that kicked off the entire 90's anti-hero era, in a good way (meaning a serious take at superheroes and villains).
And then, like the 90's anti-hero era, they went bat-shit insane and produced nothing but nonsensical Xtreme garbage.
It is when Punisher reached the height of his popularity, which should tell everyone something. Marvel’s shittiest character was one of their best selling comics.
Thank got that era is over and comics are trying to do new stuff. Everyone has figured out that if you have a large cast of heroes, even in single hero comics like Spiderman, you can tell a lot more stories.
But I am all for this movie because it gets us closer to Batgirl and other spin off characters.
On July 03 2015 01:06 Plansix wrote: That has got to be some of the weirdest photoshopping I have seen in a while. Batman looks bloated and I can see like 3 sides of his head. I just want to see more movie stills and hopefully that will renew my hope for this film. I’ve been a big fan of Diana for years and hopefully they do a good job with her. Maybe she is the thing that will break up the grim dark.
At least she has the lasso. That shit could be cool if used correctly. The idea of an unbreakable rope in the hands of someone with super strength and flight is an untapped idea of action scenes.
Frank Miller's Batman, is comparatively chunkier in the book they are loosely basing this off of, look up Frank Miller, "The Dark Knight," you'll get the jist.
I am a little offended that you told me to read the Dark Knight Returns. /s
I know the look they are going for, its mostly the photo seems to suffer from photoshop for evil. Diana also is in a shitty runway model pose, but I get they are pressed for space.
Was not my intention to offend suh.
I am proud about my comic book cred. Plus everyone should read Dark Knight Returns, even if it is sort of dated today.
Alan Moore and Frank Miller were the guys that kicked off the entire 90's anti-hero era, in a good way (meaning a serious take at superheroes and villains).
And then, like the 90's anti-hero era, they went bat-shit insane and produced nothing but nonsensical Xtreme garbage.
It is when Punisher reached the height of his popularity, which should tell everyone something. Marvel’s shittiest character was one of their best selling comics.
Thank got that era is over and comics are trying to do new stuff. Everyone has figured out that if you have a large cast of heroes, even in single hero comics like Spiderman, you can tell a lot more stories.
But I am all for this movie because it gets us closer to Batgirl and other spin off characters.
It's also the era when heroes and villains got to be more fleshed out than just "heroes and villains", which made stories naturally grittier than the old black-and-white caricatures. But like most corporate driven phases, the wrong lesson was learned and marketers thought it was the guns and blood that people liked.
And I'm pretty sure this is the movie that's going to tank the DC movie experiment all over again.
Man, Batman´s fight scenes look incredible! But even though I can´t wait, I think this is the last trailer I will watch until it comes out. Really want to be surprised.
By the way, since we don´t have a comic con thread, they also announced the name of the new Green Lantern movie: Green Lanter Corps. Rumours say that it will have more than one protagonist.
On July 12 2015 04:37 Rookie6 wrote: Man, Batman´s fight scenes look incredible! But even though I can´t wait, I think this is the last trailer I will watch until it comes out. Really want to be surprised.
By the way, since we don´t have a comic con thread, they also announced the name of the new Green Lantern movie: Green Lanter Corps. Rumours say that it will have more than one protagonist.
Yeah, for some weeks now, there was a rumor that Chris Pine is Hal Jordan, and that the movie will have John Stewart in it too. They're trying to go for a Green Lantern team movie instead of making it a solo movie.
Why are they so mean to superman?! Interesting to see superman's mom doesn't follow uncle ben's with great power comes great responsibility philosophy. She's all, you don't owe this planet anything.....besides the fact he'd be dead if his krypton parents didn't send him to this planet where he could grow up.
On July 12 2015 07:09 Canucklehead wrote: Why are they so mean to superman?! Interesting to see superman's mom doesn't follow uncle ben's with great power comes great responsibility philosophy. She's all, you don't owe this planet anything.....besides the fact he'd be dead if his krypton parents didn't send him to this planet where he could grow up.
Well they had to force Batman and Superman to fight somehow. And they're obviously trying to force this to be Dark Knight Returns where everyone isn't old and the Communism isn't the big threat.
On July 12 2015 07:09 Canucklehead wrote: Why are they so mean to superman?! Interesting to see superman's mom doesn't follow uncle ben's with great power comes great responsibility philosophy. She's all, you don't owe this planet anything.....besides the fact he'd be dead if his krypton parents didn't send him to this planet where he could grow up.
I see it differently because I don't think she said it to be mean. Martha cares about the world, and she knows that Kent can make it a better place. But she cares about HIM even more, as any mother would. She still remembers holding that scared little boy in her arms when his powers began to manifest in Man of Steel. In fact, her saying what she said is more understandable given that current situation. She's basically saying, "Help them or don't. It's your choice, because you don't owe those haters anything." It's a response to people hating Superman. And she's saying it's your choice: Help them, or screw them and don't help.
On July 12 2015 07:09 Canucklehead wrote: Why are they so mean to superman?! Interesting to see superman's mom doesn't follow uncle ben's with great power comes great responsibility philosophy. She's all, you don't owe this planet anything.....besides the fact he'd be dead if his krypton parents didn't send him to this planet where he could grow up.
I would also point out that Spiderman deals with these exact same issues and Uncle Ben is never there to provide feedback. I am sure he would tell Spidy that he needs to make his own decisions and he doesn't need to save people if its ends up ruining his life or making him lose faith in humanity.
Also, people asking why Batman would think he can take out Superman, its because Batman doesn't know he is in a comic book. There is no such thing a invincible or unstoppable in real life. Those are narrative reasons and story choices that they have put in place to create Superman, but that is all they. But Bats doesn't know anything about Superman or what his limits are and can't The idea that he is powerful when he is upholding good and has weaknesses when he is evil is only something we the readers are aware of.
And the Man of Steel Superman is very toned down in the super strength department compared to comic Supes. He seems to get most of his damage through his speed and general immunity to concussive damage. He is much more in line with the animated series, which focused on Superman's speed as well.
I used to read a lot of Superman back in the day, you get used to Lex with hair. Really, he just needs to a rich guy who wants power and Superman can never do anything about.
On July 12 2015 07:09 Canucklehead wrote: Why are they so mean to superman?! Interesting to see superman's mom doesn't follow uncle ben's with great power comes great responsibility philosophy. She's all, you don't owe this planet anything.....besides the fact he'd be dead if his krypton parents didn't send him to this planet where he could grow up.
I see it differently because I don't think she said it to be mean. Martha cares about the world, and she knows that Kent can make it a better place. But she cares about HIM even more, as any mother would. She still remembers holding that scared little boy in her arms when his powers began to manifest in Man of Steel. In fact, her saying what she said is more understandable given that current situation. She's basically saying, "Help them or don't. It's your choice, because you don't owe those haters anything." It's a response to people hating Superman. And she's saying it's your choice: Help them, or screw them and don't help.
Well, I didn't mean his mom is being mean to him. Meant batman and the citizens protesting against him, etc. Sure he doesn't have to help the haters, but with great power comes great responsibility.
On July 12 2015 07:09 Canucklehead wrote: Why are they so mean to superman?! Interesting to see superman's mom doesn't follow uncle ben's with great power comes great responsibility philosophy. She's all, you don't owe this planet anything.....besides the fact he'd be dead if his krypton parents didn't send him to this planet where he could grow up.
People distrust him because he is a demi-god whose peers wanted to wipe out humanity and conveniently showed up at the same time as him. Just as Plansix said, we know Superman is a good guy because of our spectator point of view, we know a million more about him, his purpose and his enemies than the people of that universe or batman.
There is also the fact that people are ungrateful and entitled. I can assure you that if Superman was real, he would get a lot of hate, even when doing the right thing... Could he have saved the world without destroying half of metropolis? Why did he choose to save the people from that collapsing building rather than that one? Why didn't he go to Japan to save the people from that sinking boat instead of going to that burning building in Chicago? Is it because he's racist? Why couldn't he catch that planed before it crashed, was he taking a break?
Superman as a character just doesn't work anymore. His entire shtick is being invincible and being right. Entire universes bend themselves over backward to make sure that whatever Superman does is right. He's like the original and iconic Mary Sue.
The only way to make him remotely interesting nowadays is either to make him weaker and vulnerable (and then he isn't Superman), or to reflect that morality isn't clear cut (which is why I thought him killing Zod in Man of Steel was the best decision they could have ever made).
"Superman doesn't work as a character any more" is something that has been said since the edgy 90s. Just like Captain America. The character is fine and can stand for all the things he normally does. Just read Kingdom Come.
i find myself still enjoying superman with his "invulnerability" he can be hurt, he bleeds tho its much harder and hes weak to magic (not something relatable to reallife but i find it fitting in various storylines in the superman universe)
Also his tendancy to think he's invulnerable also weaks to him just relying on brute force no real tatics opposed to someone is trained to fight, which you then might say how did superman beat Zod (tbh i dont know the real answer or if there is one but i think it was along the lines of superman realising this is his home, everyone he loves and cares about will die and if he should fail his willpower imo is really high to bring out the best/strongest of him when he needs it. Also Zod was super desperate he might not have been thinking too clearly or hadnt had the time to adjust to earth like superman has.
basically I think theres enough story around superman to still be viable for movies (plus its a movie about superheros :D there can be some leeway) hopefully wonderwomen can show clark the difference between fighting with training
On July 13 2015 07:38 Plansix wrote: "Superman doesn't work as a character any more" is something that has been said since the edgy 90s. Just like Captain America. The character is fine and can stand for all the things he normally does. Just read Kingdom Come.
Kingdom Come is literally a blow-back story against the dark and edgy 90's heroes, and really only works because of how stupidly grimdark some (most) of the 90's heroes were. And even then it has to twist things to even further extremes just so Superman can be on the morally right side of things, for the most part.
The Justice League animated series has probably used him best in recent memory, where he's treated as a plot device to bring down the heavy hitters, and left the characterization to all the "lesser" heroes. And of course the only mileage they got from Superman as a character was to tease that he might turn evil.
Captain America has never been in the same boat as Superman because he isn't invincible, and because he's on the lower tier of supers when it comes to power levels. There's a large gap between being a morally righteous character that will stay true to beliefs against the odds, and a morally righteous character that stands above everyone else.
On July 13 2015 06:48 WolfintheSheep wrote: Superman as a character just doesn't work anymore. His entire shtick is being invincible and being right. Entire universes bend themselves over backward to make sure that whatever Superman does is right. He's like the original and iconic Mary Sue.
The only way to make him remotely interesting nowadays is either to make him weaker and vulnerable (and then he isn't Superman), or to reflect that morality isn't clear cut (which is why I thought him killing Zod in Man of Steel was the best decision they could have ever made).
(Or rehash the same "Superman turns evil" story)
Have you seen Watchmen? The glowing blue guy would destroy superman yet he was a really interesting character
On July 13 2015 06:48 WolfintheSheep wrote: Superman as a character just doesn't work anymore. His entire shtick is being invincible and being right. Entire universes bend themselves over backward to make sure that whatever Superman does is right. He's like the original and iconic Mary Sue.
The only way to make him remotely interesting nowadays is either to make him weaker and vulnerable (and then he isn't Superman), or to reflect that morality isn't clear cut (which is why I thought him killing Zod in Man of Steel was the best decision they could have ever made).
(Or rehash the same "Superman turns evil" story)
Have you seen Watchmen? The glowing blue guy would destroy superman yet he was a really interesting character
And Dr. Manhattan's greatest strength as a character was toeing the line behind omniscient but apathetic, and being a hero. That, and he only exists in a single storyline.
The problem with the Superman character (or any character that fits his archetype), is that his entire character is about policing the world (both in power and morality). Which works in singular storylines, if done correctly, but as a long running central story character, generally results in writers creating more and more contrived scenarios just to keep the character going.
Which I guess you can say about any superhero character, but the Superman archetype falls the hardest on it, because the only thing keeping them from being a tyrant is an unquestionable moral stance.
After that newest trailer we get to see why Batman has such a yearning to test Superman, he was there. Optimistic about the movie and how well Affleck does an older Batman/Bruce Wayne. The visuals are spot on imo for what they are trying to copy with Frank Miller's Dark Knight and how the fight goes down, very excited about that and seeing Batman win with confidence. Alfred looks kinda weird though. Also interested how all the other people like Wonder Woman are going to make their appearance and why.
Hopefully the character design and vague motivations of Batman are the only thing they keep from Dark Knight Returns. I am cautiously hopeful for this tan filtered movie.
On July 13 2015 06:48 WolfintheSheep wrote: Superman as a character just doesn't work anymore. His entire shtick is being invincible and being right. Entire universes bend themselves over backward to make sure that whatever Superman does is right. He's like the original and iconic Mary Sue.
The only way to make him remotely interesting nowadays is either to make him weaker and vulnerable (and then he isn't Superman), or to reflect that morality isn't clear cut (which is why I thought him killing Zod in Man of Steel was the best decision they could have ever made).
(Or rehash the same "Superman turns evil" story)
Have you seen Watchmen? The glowing blue guy would destroy superman yet he was a really interesting character
And Dr. Manhattan's greatest strength as a character was toeing the line behind omniscient but apathetic, and being a hero. That, and he only exists in a single storyline.
The problem with the Superman character (or any character that fits his archetype), is that his entire character is about policing the world (both in power and morality). Which works in singular storylines, if done correctly, but as a long running central story character, generally results in writers creating more and more contrived scenarios just to keep the character going.
Which I guess you can say about any superhero character, but the Superman archetype falls the hardest on it, because the only thing keeping them from being a tyrant is an unquestionable moral stance.
Ya I agree, was just playing devil's advocate. Superman is a one-dimensional bore
On July 13 2015 06:48 WolfintheSheep wrote: Superman as a character just doesn't work anymore. His entire shtick is being invincible and being right. Entire universes bend themselves over backward to make sure that whatever Superman does is right. He's like the original and iconic Mary Sue.
The only way to make him remotely interesting nowadays is either to make him weaker and vulnerable (and then he isn't Superman), or to reflect that morality isn't clear cut (which is why I thought him killing Zod in Man of Steel was the best decision they could have ever made).
(Or rehash the same "Superman turns evil" story)
Have you seen Watchmen? The glowing blue guy would destroy superman yet he was a really interesting character
And Dr. Manhattan's greatest strength as a character was toeing the line behind omniscient but apathetic, and being a hero. That, and he only exists in a single storyline.
The problem with the Superman character (or any character that fits his archetype), is that his entire character is about policing the world (both in power and morality). Which works in singular storylines, if done correctly, but as a long running central story character, generally results in writers creating more and more contrived scenarios just to keep the character going.
Which I guess you can say about any superhero character, but the Superman archetype falls the hardest on it, because the only thing keeping them from being a tyrant is an unquestionable moral stance.
Ya I agree, was just playing devil's advocate. Superman is a one-dimensional bore
He is only interesting when the world in conflicted about his existence and he is conflicted about helping them. I will argue that Kingdom Come is the best complete Superman story to date.
I have always hated superman cause he is boring, I do like the fanatic/relegious aspect of how some people would see Superman, not as a hero but a god and one who will bring upon a new age etc.
I swear that movie is being made just so they never have to do a back story for a villain ever again. I am sort of ok with it, since back stories get in the way of real stories.
Looks like Harley is the one being tortured by the Joker, and since she looks normal there (with the glasses and clothes), that´s probably the reason she becomes insane.
Even though I like the original story, I guess this makes more sense than the comics...
And do you guys think it´s better to make a separate thread for the Suicide Squad or we keep all in this one for now?
On July 14 2015 06:18 Rookie6 wrote: And do you guys think it´s better to make a separate thread for the Suicide Squad or we keep all in this one for now?
Seperate thread for sure. People are already confused enough. Even in 1 year some people will go watch Superman vs Batman and wait for the Joker's appearance...
On July 14 2015 06:18 Rookie6 wrote: And do you guys think it´s better to make a separate thread for the Suicide Squad or we keep all in this one for now?
Seperate thread for sure. People are already confused enough. Even in 1 year some people will go watch Superman vs Batman and wait for the Joker's appearance...
Are we sure there won't be Joker in the movie, even if it's only in Batman's flashbacks? We clearly see an old suit vandalized in a way that suggests the Jokers involvement ("the jokes on you"). The red handwriting about letting his parents die could also have been from Joker, theoretically. The latter is less likely since it would imply Joker knows his real identity.
On July 14 2015 06:18 Rookie6 wrote: And do you guys think it´s better to make a separate thread for the Suicide Squad or we keep all in this one for now?
Seperate thread for sure. People are already confused enough. Even in 1 year some people will go watch Superman vs Batman and wait for the Joker's appearance...
Are we sure there won't be Joker in the movie, even if it's only in Batman's flashbacks? We clearly see an old suit vandalized in a way that suggests the Jokers involvement ("the jokes on you"). The red handwriting about letting his parents die could also have been from Joker, theoretically. The latter is less likely since it would imply Joker knows his real identity.
I think it´s almost confirmed that there will be a flashback scene where it shows the Joker killing Robin. Don´t really have the source now though.
On July 14 2015 06:18 Rookie6 wrote: And do you guys think it´s better to make a separate thread for the Suicide Squad or we keep all in this one for now?
Seperate thread for sure. People are already confused enough. Even in 1 year some people will go watch Superman vs Batman and wait for the Joker's appearance...
Are we sure there won't be Joker in the movie, even if it's only in Batman's flashbacks? We clearly see an old suit vandalized in a way that suggests the Jokers involvement ("the jokes on you"). The red handwriting about letting his parents die could also have been from Joker, theoretically. The latter is less likely since it would imply Joker knows his real identity.
I still strongly believe it's Jason Todd that sent the newspaper to Bruce. They're playing with the tease of Red Hood in a solo Batman movie since the character has gotten so popular the past couple of years starting with the animated movie back in 2010.
On July 14 2015 06:18 Rookie6 wrote: And do you guys think it´s better to make a separate thread for the Suicide Squad or we keep all in this one for now?
Seperate thread for sure. People are already confused enough. Even in 1 year some people will go watch Superman vs Batman and wait for the Joker's appearance...
Are we sure there won't be Joker in the movie, even if it's only in Batman's flashbacks? We clearly see an old suit vandalized in a way that suggests the Jokers involvement ("the jokes on you"). The red handwriting about letting his parents die could also have been from Joker, theoretically. The latter is less likely since it would imply Joker knows his real identity.
I still strongly believe it's Jason Todd that sent the newspaper to Bruce. They're playing with the tease of Red Hood in a solo Batman movie since the character has gotten so popular the past couple of years starting with the animated movie back in 2010.
And that old suit is a Robin suit so it's possible. I'd personally love to see Red Hood.
I would also be very excited if they just accepted that Batgirl and Nightwing were out there in the world, doing stuff. If they could make an entire Batfamily movie and not feel the need to do origin stories for all of them it would be so good.
I will also point out that Affleck directing a Batman film is the best thing that could happen to Bats in a while. All of his films that he directed are amazing.
I have faith in our new Batgandpa hope they make it the fight with Superman for bats to give him some real hurting with Kryptonid in some way but in the panel Snyder said this will be different from Dark Knight Returns so my hopes are slim
Not a huge comic book buff. Can someone explain to me how batman can even fight superman? Wouldn't superman just sneeze and the shockwave alone be enough to knock batman out?
On December 01 2015 16:05 Emnjay808 wrote: Not a huge comic book buff. Can someone explain to me how batman can even fight superman? Wouldn't superman just sneeze and the shockwave alone be enough to knock batman out?
batman has historically used sick armor and various forms of kryptonite (superman's vulnerability, a mineral from his homeworld that weakens him)
On December 01 2015 16:05 Emnjay808 wrote: Not a huge comic book buff. Can someone explain to me how batman can even fight superman? Wouldn't superman just sneeze and the shockwave alone be enough to knock batman out?
ur right in that if they were both in enclosed space and had to brawl it out, superman would win hands down. But batman has been shown to be extremely well calculated so its a hard time imaging him ever putting himself in a situation where he doesnt have a winning plan (usually involving kryptonite of course im not sure batman knows of its existance assuming if this is not long after the Zod fight) Which is kinda why i think its a dream sequence, this is different from being trapped by the Joker or something superman attacking him while unprepared is not something he could overcome.
Theres also alot of speculation on how the movie turns out as a whole in terms of plot.
heres a bit from the animated movie series theres no spoiler of the batman vs superman (as the movie seems to have its own storyline aka no comic equivalent) of Superman vs batman + green lantern
On December 01 2015 16:05 Emnjay808 wrote: Not a huge comic book buff. Can someone explain to me how batman can even fight superman? Wouldn't superman just sneeze and the shockwave alone be enough to knock batman out?
Superman does not kill, Batman abuses that knowledge.
On December 01 2015 16:05 Emnjay808 wrote: Not a huge comic book buff. Can someone explain to me how batman can even fight superman? Wouldn't superman just sneeze and the shockwave alone be enough to knock batman out?
Superman does not kill, Batman abuses that knowledge.
tho batman more so than superman (not killing that is)
On December 01 2015 16:05 Emnjay808 wrote: Not a huge comic book buff. Can someone explain to me how batman can even fight superman? Wouldn't superman just sneeze and the shockwave alone be enough to knock batman out?
Superman does not kill, Batman abuses that knowledge.
tho batman more so than superman (not killing that is)
Superman can kill by accident if he loses concentration for a second, Batman must decide to kill to do so. That is very different. That means everything Superman does is way below his true power level.
But Superman does kill, Man of Steel ends with him snapping a dude's neck. If he feels he has to because if he doesn't innocents will perish then Superman will choke a bitch.
the only reason why batman can even be in justice league is more or less only because of his popularity. he is always prepared is such a stupid excuse, there are billions of ways he can get killed by not just batman but every other villain. Imagine him being able to prepare himself for all situation from a total planet destruction by apocalypse to a random food poisoning by joker/average mob
On December 01 2015 19:02 BEARDiaguz wrote: But Superman does kill, Man of Steel ends with him snapping a dude's neck. If he feels he has to because if he doesn't innocents will perish then Superman will choke a bitch.
I mean he has killed, I think it what is being said is more on the most general of curves kind of situations Superman doesn't without getting bogged down in canon vs. non cannon and which superman films "count." No superman expert here though.
On December 01 2015 19:02 BEARDiaguz wrote: But Superman does kill, Man of Steel ends with him snapping a dude's neck. If he feels he has to because if he doesn't innocents will perish then Superman will choke a bitch.
Zod is a special case. And he only did it because Zod threatened innocents. Batman going vs Superman with no innocents in the way is different.
As for this movie, I expect epic story failure. Unless either Batman or Superman are mind controlled Batman has no reason to go after Superman. The reason for their clash in the comic was a stretch but more believable than what was suggested to be a reason in this movie + Show Spoiler +
Batman going after Superman because during clash with Zod one of Wayne Enterprise buildings was demolished with a certain number of people dead as a result
. Batman will be studying Superman, there is no logical way that he can come to a conclusion Superman needs to die when everything Superman did was do his best to save innocents. Superman even surrenders so to save people of Earth until he learns Zod plans to enslave Earth anyways. I really hope the movie manages to sell this reason for Batman actions, but since MoS movie was kind of bad story wise as well I don't expect much.
On December 01 2015 16:05 Emnjay808 wrote: Not a huge comic book buff. Can someone explain to me how batman can even fight superman? Wouldn't superman just sneeze and the shockwave alone be enough to knock batman out?
Superman does not kill, Batman abuses that knowledge.
To be fair, comic book Batman does not kill either. And Superman has limits to his powers, that Batman abuses. Plus he those green rocks that always get employed.
One of the problems with Superman is his power level has varied wildly throughout the years. The Superman from Man of Steel is a very toned down version of comic book Superman, where he can be thrown around and stunned by missiles and chain guns. And really that is the best Superman because he is most interesting when he can be harmed.
And comic book Batman has some crazy shit in cold storage. And the movie will deal with Batman's fear of Superman going bad. Not that he is currently bad, but Batman's complete lack of faith in people to remain good. And someone like Superman going bad is his greatest fear.
On December 02 2015 01:01 -Archangel- wrote: Yes and Batman makes plans upon plans ONCE they go bad, he does not do preemptive strikes. Batman is not George Bush.
Gulf of Tonkin was Batman's idea. Adam West Confirms.
On December 02 2015 01:01 -Archangel- wrote: Yes and Batman makes plans upon plans ONCE they go bad, he does not do preemptive strikes. Batman is not George Bush.
And we all know that Wonder Woman is going to be the one to tell the boys to knock it off and deal with the bigger threat. Because that is how the dynamic of these three characters always works.
I think alot of people are thinking this might be a dream sequence
Most definitely not real. Superman wouldn't employ the use of armed men to do to get Batman. Also they both alrdy knew who each other were. Batman figures it out cause he's the best detective in the world and Superman becomes he has x-ray vision and incredible hearing and just eventually figures it out. Though I figure in this movie they might not know who each other are yet? The movie is taking heavy influences from TDK again though, in that universe they both knew when they fought each other.
On December 02 2015 01:01 -Archangel- wrote: Yes and Batman makes plans upon plans ONCE they go bad, he does not do preemptive strikes. Batman is not George Bush.
And we all know that Wonder Woman is going to be the one to tell the boys to knock it off and deal with the bigger threat. Because that is how the dynamic of these three characters always works.
On December 01 2015 19:02 BEARDiaguz wrote: But Superman does kill, Man of Steel ends with him snapping a dude's neck. If he feels he has to because if he doesn't innocents will perish then Superman will choke a bitch.
Zod is a special case. And he only did it because Zod threatened innocents. Batman going vs Superman with no innocents in the way is different.
As for this movie, I expect epic story failure. Unless either Batman or Superman are mind controlled Batman has no reason to go after Superman. The reason for their clash in the comic was a stretch but more believable than what was suggested to be a reason in this movie + Show Spoiler +
Batman going after Superman because during clash with Zod one of Wayne Enterprise buildings was demolished with a certain number of people dead as a result
. Batman will be studying Superman, there is no logical way that he can come to a conclusion Superman needs to die when everything Superman did was do his best to save innocents. Superman even surrenders so to save people of Earth until he learns Zod plans to enslave Earth anyways. I really hope the movie manages to sell this reason for Batman actions, but since MoS movie was kind of bad story wise as well I don't expect much.
Theres a pretty interesting theory going on about the actual plot of the movie could be, + Show Spoiler [the theory] +
that its lex that believes superman is too dangerous to have around, thus he goes on to construct what he believes is something that can fight superman using zods dead body which was seen in the trailer to be under lex's company.
In the comics Lex does create a "superman" Bizarro which is like a dumb zombie superman, however bizarro isnt exactly a great super villain for the big screen, and with the up coming justice league movie people speculate that this batman superman movie needs to introduce why they need to band together. Doomsday comes to mind (suggested by fans) something that superman currently can not overcome because hes been all brute force and zero fighting technique. So the movie would follow something like lex gives the idea to batman that superman could go rouge, little confrontation, possibly with them parting on not so good terms but not wanting to fight. Lex makes doomsday, some fighting happens causes wonder women, batman to help superman and done. Thats the movie. Theres also lot of cutting of scenes in the trailers where many of the lasers that are shot at batman look too thick to be superman's and thus could be a non-cannon doomsday/bizarro.
On December 01 2015 19:02 BEARDiaguz wrote: But Superman does kill, Man of Steel ends with him snapping a dude's neck. If he feels he has to because if he doesn't innocents will perish then Superman will choke a bitch.
Zod is a special case. And he only did it because Zod threatened innocents. Batman going vs Superman with no innocents in the way is different.
As for this movie, I expect epic story failure. Unless either Batman or Superman are mind controlled Batman has no reason to go after Superman. The reason for their clash in the comic was a stretch but more believable than what was suggested to be a reason in this movie + Show Spoiler +
Batman going after Superman because during clash with Zod one of Wayne Enterprise buildings was demolished with a certain number of people dead as a result
. Batman will be studying Superman, there is no logical way that he can come to a conclusion Superman needs to die when everything Superman did was do his best to save innocents. Superman even surrenders so to save people of Earth until he learns Zod plans to enslave Earth anyways. I really hope the movie manages to sell this reason for Batman actions, but since MoS movie was kind of bad story wise as well I don't expect much.
Theres a pretty interesting theory going on about the actual plot of the movie could be, + Show Spoiler [the theory] +
that its lex that believes superman is too dangerous to have around, thus he goes on to construct what he believes is something that can fight superman using zods dead body which was seen in the trailer to be under lex's company.
In the comics Lex does create a "superman" Bizarro which is like a dumb zombie superman, however bizarro isnt exactly a great super villain for the big screen, and with the up coming justice league movie people speculate that this batman superman movie needs to introduce why they need to band together. Doomsday comes to mind (suggested by fans) something that superman currently can not overcome because hes been all brute force and zero fighting technique. So the movie would follow something like lex gives the idea to batman that superman could go rouge, little confrontation, possibly with them parting on not so good terms but not wanting to fight. Lex makes doomsday, some fighting happens causes wonder women, batman to help superman and done. Thats the movie. Theres also lot of cutting of scenes in the trailers where many of the lasers that are shot at batman look too thick to be superman's and thus could be a non-cannon doomsday/bizarro.
You know who else has lasers? Darkseid. Just saying...
Trailer revealed too much IMO. The tone was a lot more light hearted than the previous trailers though. If you don't want to be spoiled I suggest not watching it. It's not a teaser trailer/hype trailer it's full on spoiler trailer.
Ehh... San Diego Comic-Con trailer was much better than the new one. The positives to take away is that I like the chemistry between Cavill and Affleck, especially their conversation in the beginning. Not sold yet on Eisenberg's Lex Luthor. I'm all for a new interpretation of a character, but I didn't like his personality and attitude too much in this trailer. Not giving up yet since I consider Eisenberg to be a good solid actor. Affleck's Batman voice is okay, but I need to hear more to warm up to it. It's awesome to see Wonder Woman on the big screen finally, but her presence feels way too tacked on. Then again, we all said the same when they announced Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Cyborg to make an appearance in BvS. In the end, I'm still excited, but not as much now. I just want WB/DC to do well with their films. At the end of the day, comic fans win when Marvel and DC are pushing out quality movies.
I didn't like Lex or Batman voice. Even Bale's voice in Nolan movies was better. At least that sounded a bit scary, the new one just sounds bad. Arrow's voice change was done OK, they should do something similar to that
Bat's voice was modulated. They can still fix it in post production. I think it sounded better than Bale's because it wasn't gravely or have a lisp messing up the annunciation of the words. Besides, we only heard a few lines. I think it'll be better once you hear more of it.
It is a spoiler trailer to be nice about it. I'm still super excited to see the movie. I had a pretty good idea already how it was going to play out, so I'm not surprised. I think people are being overly harsh on it because it's Batman and Superman on the same screen finally. We'd make excuses and exceptions for Marvel character's because this is the first time most of them have been on the screen, so there is no reference to go off of. We have enough Batman and Superman precedents to go off of. In the end, we have to trust Snyder to not fondle Miller's nuts and make a TDKR film adaptation.
On December 03 2015 16:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Bat's voice was modulated. They can still fix it in post production. I think it sounded better than Bale's because it wasn't gravely or have a lisp messing up the annunciation of the words. Besides, we only heard a few lines. I think it'll be better once you hear more of it.
It is a spoiler trailer to be nice about it. I'm still super excited to see the movie. I had a pretty good idea already how it was going to play out, so I'm not surprised. I think people are being overly harsh on it because it's Batman and Superman on the same screen finally. We'd make excuses and exceptions for Marvel character's because this is the first time most of them have been on the screen, so there is no reference to go off of. We have enough Batman and Superman precedents to go off of. In the end, we have to trust Snyder to not fondle Miller's nuts and make a TDKR film adaptation.
Who is being harsh?
And I don't trust Snyder :D I would have rather seen a more faithful adaptation of the comic.
We now know the plot to the whole movie: Batman and Superman duke it out because Batman thinks Superman might be a threat, or something along those lines. Then Doomsday comes in, and Wonder Woman? And Batman + Superman + Wonder Woman all get together to defeat Doomsday.
On December 03 2015 18:10 Spaylz wrote: That trailer revealed far too much, imo.
We now know the plot to the whole movie: Batman and Superman duke it out because Batman thinks Superman might be a threat, or something along those lines. Then Doomsday comes in, and Wonder Woman? And Batman + Superman + Wonder Woman all get together to defeat Doomsday.
More like Superman+Wonder Woman while Batman plays cheerleader role :D
Doomsday is not weak to kryptonite, Batman can do shit to him.
At best Batman can lead Doomsday into some spaceship and launch him into space but that takes years of preparation. Just making a spaceship that will survive for x minutes before Doomsday breaks it apart would take effort.
Can you spoiler your post? People can choose to not watch the trailer but you then spoil it.
The trailer for those lazy to find. Kinda weird for it to be first on Jimmy Kimmel channel on youtube but I guess movie promotions tie-in are too important now.
my interpretation of non-comics(I have only watched tv shows/film series) that I know from Lex is that he is an extremely calculated individual who wants to make sure that humanity is free of aliens/etc/whatever(so that we will never be supressed by one). Also he is uh, bald?.
That guy comes across as slightly mad, Jokerish or Riddlerish if you will.
Maybe i'm wrong but that is always the impression I got from Lex from all of the non-comic media I consumed.
On December 03 2015 20:12 Kipsate wrote: wait the skinny guy is Lex
my interpretation of non-comics(I have only watched tv shows/film series) that I know from Lex is that he is an extremely calculated individual who wants to make sure that humanity is free of aliens/etc/whatever(so that we will never be supressed by one). Also he is uh, bald?.
That guy comes across as slightly mad, Jokerish or Riddlerish if you will.
Maybe i'm wrong but that is always the impression I got from Lex from all of the non-comic media I consumed.
This is a younger a bit different version of Lex. I am sure he will lose his hair eventually.
I'm not saying anyone here is being harsh. Just from the comments I've read online. My point is, we're saturated with superhero movies. And this is Bats and Supes!!! They have to get this right! There is less forgiveness for WB/DC because they hold arguably the most recognized and loved comic heroes ever. Now they've brought in the Justice League and you saw how the animated series went. Add all the new comic relaunches and character changes, people are excited.
On December 04 2015 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm not saying anyone here is being harsh. Just from the comments I've read online. My point is, we're saturated with superhero movies. And this is Bats and Supes!!! They have to get this right! There is less forgiveness for WB/DC because they hold arguably the most recognized and loved comic heroes ever. Now they've brought in the Justice League and you saw how the animated series went. Add all the new comic relaunches and character changes, people are excited.
I would say there is less forgiveness for DC not because of anytthing most recognizable (that is a nerd can of worms if there ever was one), relative to Marvel, but because DC has been so slow to make decent, entertaining films out of their flagship titles while Marvel can put out Antman and make money.
The last Superman movie was a bit of a womp, and now that Nolan is done with Batman and Snyder is back on board they need to make up the difference. Especially when what you have cooking is Two CW shows (which are fine for what they are, but not exactly giong to stand the test of time) against the whole Marvel Machine.
The last Superman movie was a bit of a womp, and now that Nolan is done with Batman and Snyder is back on board they need to make up the difference. Especially when what you have cooking is Two CW shows (which are fine for what they are, but not exactly giong to stand the test of time) against the whole Marvel Machine.
And those two CW shows are weaker than both Agents of Shield and Netflix two shows.
The last Superman movie was a bit of a womp, and now that Nolan is done with Batman and Snyder is back on board they need to make up the difference. Especially when what you have cooking is Two CW shows (which are fine for what they are, but not exactly giong to stand the test of time) against the whole Marvel Machine.
And those two CW shows are weaker than both Agents of Shield and Netflix two shows.
DC is the underdog on both big and small screens.
Ooo yeah, I forgot those and I watched Jessica Jones not two nights ago. Good point, Arrow and Flash are both kind of Superhero Soaps production wise. I watch the Flash for a bit of fun mid week, but it is difficult to take seriously some time. Not half the production of Daredevil and JJ.
The last Superman movie was a bit of a womp, and now that Nolan is done with Batman and Snyder is back on board they need to make up the difference. Especially when what you have cooking is Two CW shows (which are fine for what they are, but not exactly giong to stand the test of time) against the whole Marvel Machine.
And those two CW shows are weaker than both Agents of Shield and Netflix two shows.
DC is the underdog on both big and small screens.
Ooo yeah, I forgot those and I watched Jessica Jones not two nights ago. Good point, Arrow and Flash are both kind of Superhero Soaps production wise. I watch the Flash for a bit of fun mid week, but it is difficult to take seriously some time. Not half the production of Daredevil and JJ.
I think that is the a big thing there. They didn't give a large budget to those shows because they are probably worried about ratings. If they tank, then they aren't exactly screwed. If the shows gain in popularity (Supergirl, Flash, Arrow, Inhumans, etc), then they might increase the budget and go bigger.
The last Superman movie was a bit of a womp, and now that Nolan is done with Batman and Snyder is back on board they need to make up the difference. Especially when what you have cooking is Two CW shows (which are fine for what they are, but not exactly giong to stand the test of time) against the whole Marvel Machine.
And those two CW shows are weaker than both Agents of Shield and Netflix two shows.
DC is the underdog on both big and small screens.
Ooo yeah, I forgot those and I watched Jessica Jones not two nights ago. Good point, Arrow and Flash are both kind of Superhero Soaps production wise. I watch the Flash for a bit of fun mid week, but it is difficult to take seriously some time. Not half the production of Daredevil and JJ.
I think that is the a big thing there. They didn't give a large budget to those shows because they are probably worried about ratings. If they tank, then they aren't exactly screwed. If the shows gain in popularity (Supergirl, Flash, Arrow, Inhumans, etc), then they might increase the budget and go bigger.
While I was posting before I noticed something interesting about funding. Antman was made for 130 Million and made 180 million. Man of Steel cost 225 Million and made 290 million, The Avengers Age of Ultron was made for 250 Million, and made 450 million. I should note that this was all domestic in the US from what I can tell.
I'm speculating here, but if Marvel can put out an avengers film, for only 25 million more than DC is committing to one Superman Movie that doesn't make as much cash, there are some major organizational issues to overcome for DC to really start the wheels turning.
The CW is just cheap as a network at times, even their more popular shows like Supernatural, to this day have times where it is chintzy and that show has a religious following, not necessarily the biggest but dedicated.
One of the main problems with DC seems confused as to why people like their characters. The Nolan Batman movies did well, but really only the Dark Knight was real show stopper that changed people’s opinions on Batman movies. Man of Steel is a weird mess of a movie that I liked, but OMG does it have flaws.
This movie looks like it has potential, but the latest trailer just tells me they have no confidence in the film itself. And they don’t seem to get that people like the Marvel movies because they are funny and uplifting. Not Grimdark blobs of brooding.
On the other hand if WW sets Superman and Bats straight and makes them stop being big babies, that could be pretty great.
As I stated before, Marvel's characters are new to the big screen and to the average movie goer, they don't really know who they are. Batman and Superman are the main ones people ID with because of the animated series and the many different iterations of the characters. Marvel took a chance, cast spectacularly, and it worked for them. DC is throwing shit at the wall and hoping Snyder can make it stick. I'm not a fan of his by any means, but since he's the one in charge of the DCEU, I'm hoping he doesn't get it wrong and DC can get a good foot in the door. WB/DC isn't going to be funny and uplifting. It's characters aren't meant for that. Especially Batman. So they'll have to rely on WW, Flash, and GL to bring the humor. The trinity are serious characters.
Only modern, grimdark Batman isn’t funny. Animated series Batman made jokes. Comic Batman made jokes and had wit. This new super serious Batman that just says things like “No, he won’t” and “That’s not going to happen” really needs to be put back on the shelf. Batman used to have a lot more dept in this emotional range than Grimdark brood and emo-moopyness. Even Superman is funny at times. He is basically super powers Captain America. They find humor for Captain America.
Its just shitty writing and lack of imagination for the character. Its why I am excited that Affleck is playing the role and working on the new movie for Bats. Affleck knows how to be funny in an action role and has real acting chops in both comedy and drama.
Having wit and making the occasional joke is fine for Batman. I just assumed that you wanted a lot more comedy like Marvel when having two opposing styles could work if they get it right.
It works great for Batman. This whole super serious all the fucking time Batman is the WORST. Even Alfred cracks jokes at Bruce and Bruce gives it back. There is a lot of humor and emotion to be found in Batman, like the line “I thought she was with you.” Superman and him banter about stuff and mock each other.
Sorry, rant off. I’ve been a fan of Batman since before the animated series and the recent direction of the movies and video games have doubled down on just one aspect of what made the character great. And a lot of that isn’t reflected in the comics.
What I don't like, generally speaking, is the many different interpretations of Batman and others. How does a director or studio pick which one to base a movie off of? How can they translate it to the big screen? I hate Frank Miller's TDKR because he made Batman into a senile old man, the worst possible Robin ever, and Superman being an agent of the State. That's just...horrible. But Snyder felt that it needed to be put on the big screen (certain aspects). If they had translated the Arkham games and parts of Injustice, I would be happy. If they used some of the New 52 comics, I wouldn't have a problem. But Snyder is trying to convince us with his unorthodox casting that he is a master. He needs to learn from Nolan, Abrams, and Spielberg on how to craft a world that we can believe in and how not to go insane with CGI. Even Millar and Mad Max shows you can have a great film without any CGI.
Back to topic: I think Batman v Superman will give Civil War a run for its money when it falls.
Batman and Superman are 70 year old characters. The versions people know today are not the only versions of those characters. There are a lot of different versions, takes and short stories about the characters. Read Arkham Asylum from 1989 if you want to see how far those stories can take the character.
And Dark Knight Returns is almost unreadable today, but at the time Batman had never seen seen like that. Same with Daredevil before him. That is where "grimdark" came from.
I agree. And that's my point. Where do you start when you want to bring these two together? How do you "please" everyone? Read some comments on youtube or comic book sites. It's ridiculous the requests and demands they have.
On December 04 2015 04:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I agree. And that's my point. Where do you start when you want to bring these two together? How do you "please" everyone? Read some comments on youtube or comic book sites. It's ridiculous the requests and demands they have.
There is your problem, never read youtube comments ever about anything.
On December 08 2015 00:10 ThomasjServo wrote: So I can't find a link on hand that isn't click baity, but apparently the Flash is due to make an appearance in BvS in some way shape or form.
Basically gonna make a cameo appearance. Thinking he shows up, does something, makes a quick remark regarding them not being able to do everything themselves (hinting they aren't fast enough) and then speeding away to go help more people.
On December 04 2015 01:52 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: As I stated before, Marvel's characters are new to the big screen and to the average movie goer, they don't really know who they are. Batman and Superman are the main ones people ID with because of the animated series and the many different iterations of the characters. Marvel took a chance, cast spectacularly, and it worked for them. DC is throwing shit at the wall and hoping Snyder can make it stick. I'm not a fan of his by any means, but since he's the one in charge of the DCEU, I'm hoping he doesn't get it wrong and DC can get a good foot in the door. WB/DC isn't going to be funny and uplifting. It's characters aren't meant for that. Especially Batman. So they'll have to rely on WW, Flash, and GL to bring the humor. The trinity are serious characters.
Usually it's the other way around, familiarity with characters mean you are more likely gonna go with that because you know what you can expect. This is pretty much why sequels are popular even when the quality is pretty meh. Also i believe marvel has become a solid seal of quality, D.C. relies more on the batman which most would attribute the quality to Nolan directing
I saw it today, feel free to ask questions if you'd like. I'll use spoiler tags for spoilers.
Overall, I felt it wasn't as good as Man of Steel (which I did quite like, for the pretty epic fights). I'd give it a 5,5/10. They tried to do too much, and it all fell a bit flat and felt a bit "empty". Affleck was as good as he could be with what he was given.
I haven't heard a good thing about it, but unfortunately while trolling for reviews I had the entire movie spoiled. Guess I don't need to see it after all.
There is no joker, right? At some point in the movie he says something along the lines of "I've dealt with clowns before" or w/e. Clearly implying the Joker era is past?
First half of the movie was plain bad imo. You need some background knowledge, very little is explained. Then there's a lot of flashbacks/dream sequences, and the plot is a bit all over the place.
Second half, when the actual fighting starts, was a bit better.
I did think it was a lot better than Man of Steel. A lot worse than Nolan's trilogy. I guess I've always been a batman fan.
Also wonderwoman randomly appearing is wtf. You see the trailer and think they'll explain her, haha, nope.
I think they tried to force too much events into one movie which makes it a bit pale imo.
I mean it's an okay movie to go to, but please do not try to compare it to Nolan's trilogy, because you'll be highly disappointed.
edit: oh and there's no post credit scenes for those who intend to stay back :D
edit 2: i hear there is a director cut version where it'll provide a bit more background to each event so perhaps it won't be so awkward then... but anyway i don't think that will matter a lot
First of all, I am a huuuuge comic book fan since I was a kid. I grew up with these characters, in the comic books or the cartoons, so as you can see I am not impartial.
And honestly, I was extremely satisfied with the movie, I really felt that the 3 years waiting were worth it and I had goosebumps for the most part. I will not do a review here, but for the people who are thinking abou seeing it and don´t really follow the characters or comic books, you might have to let go some of the preconceived ideas about Superman and especially Batman, since he is very different from Nolan´s version. In the end, this is NOT a Marvel type of movie, it is not funny, it has a heavier feeling and more violent scenes. If you have an idea about how superheroes should be, let it go, because this one is different from it.
The critics are destroying the movie. Honestly, I can see some of it´s flaws and why some people don´t like it, but it´s better than the 33% rating on RT is telling. In the end, you can love it or hate it, but if you like a Blockbuster kinda of film, I recommend going to the cinema to watch on the big screen to check it out and form an opinion.
the best comic book movies have always been 1 hero versus 1 villian. i'm not surprised this turned into a clusterfuck. its not as bad as the 33% the poster above me mentions though.
one more obvious flaw was that they kinda destroyed the movie by overdoing the trailer... i mean most of the epic scenes were already available on the 5-6 versions of trailer on youtube
On March 25 2016 06:38 nayumi wrote: one more obvious flaw was that they kinda destroyed the movie by overdoing the trailer... i mean most of the epic scenes were already available on the 5-6 versions of trailer on youtube
Its almost like they had zero confidence in the film going in, which makes sense since it is such a train wreck.
On March 25 2016 06:38 nayumi wrote: one more obvious flaw was that they kinda destroyed the movie by overdoing the trailer... i mean most of the epic scenes were already available on the 5-6 versions of trailer on youtube
Honestly, every movie is like this these days. I pretty much only watch the first trailer and avoid most of the material released.
On March 25 2016 06:38 nayumi wrote: one more obvious flaw was that they kinda destroyed the movie by overdoing the trailer... i mean most of the epic scenes were already available on the 5-6 versions of trailer on youtube
Honestly, every movie is like this these days. I pretty much only watch the first trailer and avoid most of the material released.
On March 25 2016 06:38 nayumi wrote: one more obvious flaw was that they kinda destroyed the movie by overdoing the trailer... i mean most of the epic scenes were already available on the 5-6 versions of trailer on youtube
Honestly, every movie is like this these days. I pretty much only watch the first trailer and avoid most of the material released.
The American Sniper trailer was an exception, so good. I wish more took this approach.
I genuinely went into this movie wanting to like it. Even though I prefer Marvel, I have always liked Batman and wanted this to be good. What I got was a complete mess. I have no idea what Warner Brothers was thinking.
A narrative mess is the best way to describe this movie. Overly long (which I wouldn't mind if it wasn't so damn boring for the middle part). HORRRRRIBLE editing. The pacing, especially when compared to a good movie like Deadpool, only hurts the movie. Completely humorless and joyless. This is not a movie for kids, which is mind blowing for a CBM. The ending was hilariously bad and a complete waste of every bodies time.
All 4 dream sequences ranged from confusing to embarrassing and needed to be cut. As expected, JE was a horrible LL.
Overall, they tried to fit too much into the movie. I would have loved to have seen WW/Batman stand alone movies before this one. Too much for 2 and a half hours.
Keep in mind I haven't read the comics so I don't know what he's "supposed" to be like, but I thought in the movie it was a good character? Pretty similar to Ledger's Joker actually. I enjoyed his scenes.
On March 25 2016 17:22 Laurens wrote: What was wrong with Lex Luthor?
Keep in mind I haven't read the comics so I don't know what he's "supposed" to be like, but I thought in the movie it was a good character? Pretty similar to Ledger's Joker actually. I enjoyed his scenes.
Pretty similar to Ledger's Joker actually. I enjoyed his scenes you pointed the problem,for me he was pretty good,proly the best of the movie.but luthor is not like that,(from smallville tv show , and another old tv show about superman )
i was really hyped for the movie i watched the 3d and before going to cinema wanted to watch the digital one but no f*cking way im doing this now.it was a nightmare
Lex Luthor being a tech-bro who is super upset that the most loved person in the world is an alien with super powers, rather than something with "merit", it a pretty good modern take on the villain. Lex is one of the characters that has had to evolve with our ideas of what rich and powerful are.
On March 25 2016 00:41 Rookie6 wrote: First of all, I am a huuuuge comic book fan since I was a kid. I grew up with these characters, in the comic books or the cartoons, so as you can see I am not impartial.
And honestly, I was extremely satisfied with the movie, I really felt that the 3 years waiting were worth it and I had goosebumps for the most part. I will not do a review here, but for the people who are thinking abou seeing it and don´t really follow the characters or comic books, you might have to let go some of the preconceived ideas about Superman and especially Batman, since he is very different from Nolan´s version. In the end, this is NOT a Marvel type of movie, it is not funny, it has a heavier feeling and more violent scenes. If you have an idea about how superheroes should be, let it go, because this one is different from it.
The critics are destroying the movie. Honestly, I can see some of it´s flaws and why some people don´t like it, but it´s better than the 33% rating on RT is telling. In the end, you can love it or hate it, but if you like a Blockbuster kinda of film, I recommend going to the cinema to watch on the big screen to check it out and form an opinion.
Since you said you have been a fan of the comics since you were a kid, how do you feel about Batman killing people?
On March 25 2016 00:41 Rookie6 wrote: First of all, I am a huuuuge comic book fan since I was a kid. I grew up with these characters, in the comic books or the cartoons, so as you can see I am not impartial.
And honestly, I was extremely satisfied with the movie, I really felt that the 3 years waiting were worth it and I had goosebumps for the most part. I will not do a review here, but for the people who are thinking abou seeing it and don´t really follow the characters or comic books, you might have to let go some of the preconceived ideas about Superman and especially Batman, since he is very different from Nolan´s version. In the end, this is NOT a Marvel type of movie, it is not funny, it has a heavier feeling and more violent scenes. If you have an idea about how superheroes should be, let it go, because this one is different from it.
The critics are destroying the movie. Honestly, I can see some of it´s flaws and why some people don´t like it, but it´s better than the 33% rating on RT is telling. In the end, you can love it or hate it, but if you like a Blockbuster kinda of film, I recommend going to the cinema to watch on the big screen to check it out and form an opinion.
Since you said you have been a fan of the comics since you were a kid, how do you feel about Batman killing people?
Batman has killed people before. In the 30s-40s he killed people all the time. And in the Dark Knight Returns(comic) he clearly kills people.
On March 25 2016 00:41 Rookie6 wrote: First of all, I am a huuuuge comic book fan since I was a kid. I grew up with these characters, in the comic books or the cartoons, so as you can see I am not impartial.
And honestly, I was extremely satisfied with the movie, I really felt that the 3 years waiting were worth it and I had goosebumps for the most part. I will not do a review here, but for the people who are thinking abou seeing it and don´t really follow the characters or comic books, you might have to let go some of the preconceived ideas about Superman and especially Batman, since he is very different from Nolan´s version. In the end, this is NOT a Marvel type of movie, it is not funny, it has a heavier feeling and more violent scenes. If you have an idea about how superheroes should be, let it go, because this one is different from it.
The critics are destroying the movie. Honestly, I can see some of it´s flaws and why some people don´t like it, but it´s better than the 33% rating on RT is telling. In the end, you can love it or hate it, but if you like a Blockbuster kinda of film, I recommend going to the cinema to watch on the big screen to check it out and form an opinion.
Since you said you have been a fan of the comics since you were a kid, how do you feel about Batman killing people?
The universe on which they based Batman on is not the "main" DC universe, so it´s not far from his comic book counterpart. It doesn´t really bother me too much, it´s not the classic Batman, but it´s a valid take on the character. I can see why people didn´t understand though.
What I did love about Batman is how he used the environment against his enemies, his gadgets and his overral fighting skills, which is not only what he does in the comics, but it´s also reminiscent of the Arkham gaming series. I think they really nailed him and it´s the best Batman I saw on the big screen.
About Bruce Wayne, it´s more an aging Bruce, who is not the young playboy he once was and grew up bitter because of everything he saw and did in his past. I liked it, but I don´t think we can compare directly with Nolan´s version for exemple.
I ended tallking a little too much, but Batman was actually the highlight of the movie for me. And there are rumours of a Batman trilogy with Aflleck also directing it and adapating the Red Hood arc, probably taking place before BvS, since the were a lot of hints in the movie about things that happened years before.
The other highlight of the movie for me was (spoiler): + Show Spoiler +
Yeah, i haven't read many information about the movie, but it remembered me of the Frank Miller take on Batman, if only slightly. But it is the kind of Batman i do like,
The movie has very weird timing and the music sometimes is totally missplaced and annoying, even tho i enjoyed it, Certainly doesn't deserve the 33% RT is giving it. I would put it on a 7-8 for me. It certainly could get much better with a 4 hour long version withouth the cuts, that's for sure.
If you expect an avengers like movie, you are in for dissappointment. But to be honest, i didn't like the avengers 2, so i am fine with it.
I hated how superman already "died" and returned already. It removes all the stakes. Nobody going to give a shit when he fights brainiac or whatever in possible sequels because he's already died and came back already.
On March 26 2016 02:29 Godwrath wrote: Yeah, i haven't read many information about the movie, but it remembered me of the Frank Miller take on Batman, if only slightly. But it is the kind of Batman i do like,
The movie has very weird timing and the music sometimes is totally missplaced and annoying, even tho i enjoyed it, Certainly doesn't deserve the 33% RT is giving it. I would put it on a 7-8 for me. It certainly could get much better with a 4 hour long version withouth the cuts, that's for sure.
If you expect an avengers like movie, you are in for dissappointment. But to be honest, i didn't like the avengers 2, so i am fine with it.
Keep in mind that from what I remember of RT scores, a 33% doesn't mean that the average reviewer thought it was a 3.3/10. It just means that 67% of reviewers thought it was less than 6/10.
-It took a really long time for the movie to pick up. So much combining of storylines and talking and build up early on, and then not really that much fighting.
-I like flashbacks, but do we really need to jump between like 5 different timelines nonstop? There must have been like 50 different switches.
-Wonder Woman's existence in this movie was convenient but made no sense whatsoever. She even said that she left Earth a hundred years ago because humans sucked.
-Good teasers to the Justice League during the movie, especially with the decrypted files. No teaser after the movie was disappointing though.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson cameo was fucking awesome.
-I thought the acting was good overall, and I especially liked Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal of Lex Luthor. I felt like the overall plot/ script wasn't remarkable though, and I'm really easy to please when it comes to movies.
5.5/10 imo, especially since this movie has the misfortune of being the next superhero movie right after Deadpool, which I loved.
P.S.- I feel like Jeremy Irons is exactly what Robert Downey Jr. will look like in 15-20 years.
Saw the movie last night. Not nearly as bad as the reviews make it out to be. But definitely tons of wasted potential and Snyder tried too hard to be "deep" and gritty. Some of the "found footage/pictures" showing the other metahumans was cheesy as all hell too, that was really stupid looking. This movie couldn't been a masterpiece if it was done correctly and he blew it and it's just a setup movie for the Justice League, albeit an ok movie.
Coming from someone whose read pretty much every Batman comic and is fairly knowledgeable with the DC universe.
Watch the movie if you like Batman/ Superman, what else is there to say.
Man the Batman vs Superman fight was really good. It's too bad 80% of it was spoiled by the god damn trailer. I cant wait for batfleck to be in his own movies. That will be a treat to watch.
The fights were really good(the Batman ones were excellent atleast), Lex Luthor was good but not neccesarily in a way I would expect him to. Moreover, too many characters not enough time (what did wonder woman really add?).
Too much shit put into such a tiny timeframe. I'm not complaining that it was too little time for fighting, but I couldn't get my emotion worked up for anything to mean anything.
But I loved the atmosphere, it felt dark as the city. And Ben was enjoyable to watch as Batman, really hope he gets more acting as him. I liked the music also.
Just saw the movie. I'm going to give it around 7/10 and I still liked this movie a lot for what it is.
Really loved the Bruce and Alfred dynamic, still don't see/feel the chemistry between Lois and Clark. The portrayal of Lex was jarring for me everytime he was on screen. But the psychotic schemer does fit the role they made for him in the story they were trying to tell I guess. So I can't really say it failed in that regard. Diana's portrayal was okay but it was more rigid when she was Wonder Woman so that was confusing to me as to why she had to "stiffen" up when she was in that part.
If you dont want to be spoiled, this is the last warning. + Show Spoiler +
1. Bruce basically accepts killing as method in dealing with criminals. I'm not really hating on it, kind of accepting I guess if we treat it as "a reality" of a DC Universe/World. 2. Am I wrong but didn't Lex basically know not only Superman and WW's secret identity, but he also knew who Batman was since he planned his scheme for the BvS match by goading and planting seeds into Wayne Enterprises to get to Bruce. 3. Wayne Manor is in ruins, so does that accept the attack of Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins in the Nolan-verse where Ras al Ghul burned it down? Does that mean that Bruce and Alfred are only staying in the souped up Batcave with accomodations built in basically? 4. Wonder Woman mentions she has fought beings not of this earth so I am just guessing that the Wonder Woman movie will have someone from Apokalips come to Earth and take part in World War 1. But where did she go when she left earth? If she is from this earth then, maybe even reveal the history that their lineage comes from the female krypotonian who crashed on earth the Man of Steel prequel comics. 5. Linking to the thought above, that is the only explanation I can make to justify how their current backstory allows for Dr Silas Stone to even have a Motherbox in his possession from the government. I don't get how Victor stone got to that state though if the Motherbox came from World War 1. 6. I wonder why they picked to call the final "boss" or suggest that it was doomsday when the lore would make him more closely resemble Bizarro rather than doomsday right? It also doesn't explain how a mixture of kryptonian and human genes allow for a being to grow stronger after taking damage. So does it now suggest that Clark and Lois can't make babies as they will create a doomsday baby everytime then? Instead of just a halfbreed. 7. The dream sequences don't make sense to me. How does Bruce even get them? Is it suggesting magic with Dr Fate? But Dr Fate is not part of the current JL lineup right? If Flash is causing it, it doesn't make sense in any lore right? 8. Going back to the possible future dream sequence, Superman mentions you could have saved her to the captured nightmare Batman, and Flash in the dream sequence mentions Lois as the key right? But the person Batman was supposed to save was Martha Kent so I don't follow. It clearly shows it was Martha that needed to be saved when the Russian threatened to kill Martha with a flamethrower and Batman replies with I know so he shifted where to shoot the gun to delay the flames from reaching Martha. 9. Superman's Pa Kent dream sequence didn't make sense to me. Why did it need to happen? Since they couldn't work in an internal monologue? Why not just have it with Martha Kent rather than that sequence to create the dialogue. 10.Why did the Flash in the dream sequence need armor on top of his suit? 11. The death of superman didn't make sense 90% to me. But in a way, since it was night when he died in Gotham which is always gloomy even in the day, then he doesn't get replenished with Solar rays to recharge his cells to heal him back up. But then that wouldnt explain how he would be able to regenerate from inside his now sealed casket? 12. Batman already kills so the ending where he chooses not to brand Lex doesn't make sense. So what now? We will get future Batman movies where he stops killing again after he has already killed criminals up to Dawn of Justice? And Lex isn't in a Gotham jail so his brand wouldn't have the same symbolism right? 13. Diana is not only loaded but also appears to have been updated with her own tech. So is she with her own team? Is she with a blackops government team?
On March 27 2016 17:41 17Sphynx17 wrote: Just saw the movie. I'm going to give it around 7/10 and I still liked this movie a lot for what it is.
Really loved the Bruce and Alfred dynamic, still don't see/feel the chemistry between Lois and Clark. The portrayal of Lex was jarring for me everytime he was on screen. But the psychotic schemer does fit the role they made for him in the story they were trying to tell I guess. So I can't really say it failed in that regard. Diana's portrayal was okay but it was more rigid when she was Wonder Woman so that was confusing to me as to why she had to "stiffen" up when she was in that part.
If you dont want to be spoiled, this is the last warning. + Show Spoiler +
1. Bruce basically accepts killing as method in dealing with criminals. I'm not really hating on it, kind of accepting I guess if we treat it as "a reality" of a DC Universe/World. 2. Am I wrong but didn't Lex basically know not only Superman and WW's secret identity, but he also knew who Batman was since he planned his scheme for the BvS match by goading and planting seeds into Wayne Enterprises to get to Bruce. 3. Wayne Manor is in ruins, so does that accept the attack of Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins in the Nolan-verse where Ras al Ghul burned it down? Does that mean that Bruce and Alfred are only staying in the souped up Batcave with accomodations built in basically? 4. Wonder Woman mentions she has fought beings not of this earth so I am just guessing that the Wonder Woman movie will have someone from Apokalips come to Earth and take part in World War 1. But where did she go when she left earth? If she is from this earth then, maybe even reveal the history that their lineage comes from the female krypotonian who crashed on earth the Man of Steel prequel comics. 5. Linking to the thought above, that is the only explanation I can make to justify how their current backstory allows for Dr Silas Stone to even have a Motherbox in his possession from the government. I don't get how Victor stone got to that state though if the Motherbox came from World War 1. 6. I wonder why they picked to call the final "boss" or suggest that it was doomsday when the lore would make him more closely resemble Bizarro rather than doomsday right? It also doesn't explain how a mixture of kryptonian and human genes allow for a being to grow stronger after taking damage. So does it now suggest that Clark and Lois can't make babies as they will create a doomsday baby everytime then? Instead of just a halfbreed. 7. The dream sequences don't make sense to me. How does Bruce even get them? Is it suggesting magic with Dr Fate? But Dr Fate is not part of the current JL lineup right? If Flash is causing it, it doesn't make sense in any lore right? 8. Going back to the possible future dream sequence, Superman mentions you could have saved her to the captured nightmare Batman, and Flash in the dream sequence mentions Lois as the key right? But the person Batman was supposed to save was Martha Kent so I don't follow. It clearly shows it was Martha that needed to be saved when the Russian threatened to kill Martha with a flamethrower and Batman replies with I know so he shifted where to shoot the gun to delay the flames from reaching Martha. 9. Superman's Pa Kent dream sequence didn't make sense to me. Why did it need to happen? Since they couldn't work in an internal monologue? Why not just have it with Martha Kent rather than that sequence to create the dialogue. 10.Why did the Flash in the dream sequence need armor on top of his suit? 11. The death of superman didn't make sense 90% to me. But in a way, since it was night when he died in Gotham which is always gloomy even in the day, then he doesn't get replenished with Solar rays to recharge his cells to heal him back up. But then that wouldnt explain how he would be able to regenerate from inside his now sealed casket? 12. Batman already kills so the ending where he chooses not to brand Lex doesn't make sense. So what now? We will get future Batman movies where he stops killing again after he has already killed criminals up to Dawn of Justice? And Lex isn't in a Gotham jail so his brand wouldn't have the same symbolism right? 13. Diana is not only loaded but also appears to have been updated with her own tech. So is she with her own team? Is she with a blackops government team?
Trying to answer some of your points here. Some of them are just my opinion and interpretation, not facts of course.
3 - Nolan´s universe is totally different from this one, they are not related. Wayne Manor is indeed destroyed, but probably because of things that happened in that particular universe. There are rumours of a new Batman trilogy with Affleck also as a director, probably taking place before this movie. In BvS we have some references about what we can see in these movies, one being Wayne Manor burned down, but we also see Robin´s suit, we have possibly a reference of the Red Hood in a conversation between Bruce and Alfred, the Joker is mentioned and there is a Batgirl scene that will be included in the Blu Ray version.
4 - The Wonder Woman version that they are going for is the one where she is the daughter of Zeus. So it´s fair to assume that she already fought beings from her world. I am actually really looking forward to have Ares on the big screen.
7 - Theories going around are saying that maybe Flash is sending them through time to warn Bruce. But it´s all theories so far...
8 - Actually, Flash´s encounter with Bruce didn´t really look as a dream to me, but I thought it was real. It´s a reference to the game Injustice. In this game, Lois is killed by Lex and Superman goes out on a killing spree, becoming the enemy. Flash could have come from a reality where this happened, so he went back in time and talked to Bruce, which worked as a reinforcement that Lex is the true villan and making it easier for Batman to start working with Superman against him, thus changing the future and making Flash´s appearance there an easter egg. It can also be from the future Justice League movie and have an impact on the plot, but we will have to wait and see (This scene was actually the highlight of the movie for me, had goosebumps all over me).
9 - Most random scene of the movie for me. It was like... "we have Kevin Costner here, so he has to make a cameo".
10 - It´s his suit from Injustice. I don´t really know if they will use it in the other movies, but if I am not mistaken it´s a form of making it easier to control the Speed Force.
11 - Don´t really have an explanation right now, but the movie took inspiration from 3 things: Injustice (video game), The Dark Knight Returns (comic book) and Death of Superman (comic book), so it could be just they saying "okay, we have Doomsday, so we have to kill Superman like in the comics".
12 - I thought that was more about Batman returning to his older self. After his fight with Clark, when realizing everything that was happening and his parents memories, he realizes that he had actually become what he spent his whole life fighting against, almost being the responsible for Clark´s mother death. Of course he stills kills Lex´s henchmen, but not an unarmed Luthor.
This is the last time I watch trailer for a movie I want to watch I could be more excited if I did not know they are facing Doomsday and so on. Overall way better than most of the MCU movies except Iron Man 1 and Deathpool and the most important thing is this old rough Batman was great I like it cant wait for his scenes with joker in Suicide Squad.
On March 28 2016 18:25 SatsuinoHado wrote: This is the last time I watch trailer for a movie I want to watch I could be more excited if I did not know they are facing Doomsday and so on. Overall way better than most of the MCU movies except Iron Man 1 and Deathpool and the most important thing is this old rough Batman was great I like it cant wait for his scenes with joker in Suicide Squad.
SS isn't really about Batman. I don't think there'll be much involvement on his part in it.
On March 28 2016 18:25 SatsuinoHado wrote: This is the last time I watch trailer for a movie I want to watch I could be more excited if I did not know they are facing Doomsday and so on. Overall way better than most of the MCU movies except Iron Man 1 and Deathpool and the most important thing is this old rough Batman was great I like it cant wait for his scenes with joker in Suicide Squad.
SS isn't really about Batman. I don't think there'll be much involvement on his part in it.
Well he appears in it at some point its enough for me.
TBH I don't know why this movie has gotten such bad reviews. The fight scenes were far more superiorly choreographed compared to the robot fights in the Nolan trilogy, and it really brought back the dark atmosphere of the original Batman movies (including the gay Robin and Carey/Freeze movies). Wonder Woman was so hot I wanted to whip it out and beat it right there in the movie theater.
And I know Bruce is supposed to be a playboy, but in the Nolan films he just came across as an immature dude in his 20s, whereas in the animated series he was a classy playboy who knew how to be a man and act like he owned the room rather than falling into some shitty little pond. The Bruce in Batman vs Superman was cool, the kind of man you'd want to sleep with if you were a hot babe, whereas the Bruce in the Nolan trilogy seemed like the kind of guy who you'd have to get drunk to want to sleep with because he acts like a boy.
On March 28 2016 18:25 SatsuinoHado wrote: This is the last time I watch trailer for a movie I want to watch...
Warcraft trailer is out, by the way.
maybe in the 4th sequel of Warcraft all the DC guys can join the Alliance and the Marvel guys can join the Horde.
and just so that we never have to watch muscular guys cry again... they can take Lois Lane, Mary Jane Watson, Vicky Vail, and all the other gfs of the super heroes and sacrifice them in a fire pit. Every hero can have their 1 long cry about their gf dying and we never have to go through the motions of that type of plot device ever again.
On March 29 2016 10:55 714 wrote: TBH I don't know why this movie has gotten such bad reviews. The fight scenes were far more superiorly choreographed compared to the robot fights in the Nolan trilogy, and it really brought back the dark atmosphere of the original Batman movies (including the gay Robin and Carey/Freeze movies). Wonder Woman was so hot I wanted to whip it out and beat it right there in the movie theater.
And I know Bruce is supposed to be a playboy, but in the Nolan films he just came across as an immature dude in his 20s, whereas in the animated series he was a classy playboy who knew how to be a man and act like he owned the room rather than falling into some shitty little pond. The Bruce in Batman vs Superman was cool, the kind of man you'd want to sleep with if you were a hot babe, whereas the Bruce in the Nolan trilogy seemed like the kind of guy who you'd have to get drunk to want to sleep with because he acts like a boy.
Exactly my thoughts. Ben nailed Batman, and the atmosphere was fantastic. It just severely suffered from too much stuff in such a short time. I think most Hollywood fighting sucks. Would love to have Batman use his brain and environment more in the next movie, and more tech/gadgets since he is Bruce and all.
Please more brewing and stirring of good and evil in the next movie, not just a rushed plot.
And i loved how the "humanize" Superman, it makes the whole world/setting/story... completely believable.
DC movies are way better, its not even close, the amount of symbolism, theories, psychology stuff makes it much more "grown up" than Marvel movies, which are way too simple for their own good.
On March 29 2016 20:15 Faruko wrote: The movies its fucking good, loved it
And i loved how the "humanize" Superman, it makes the whole world/setting/story... completely believable.
DC movies are way better, its not even close, the amount of symbolism, theories, psychology stuff makes it much more "grown up" than Marvel movies, which are way too simple for their own good.
On March 29 2016 20:15 Faruko wrote: The movies its fucking good, loved it
And i loved how the "humanize" Superman, it makes the whole world/setting/story... completely believable.
DC movies are way better, its not even close, the amount of symbolism, theories, psychology stuff makes it much more "grown up" than Marvel movies, which are way too simple for their own good.
What is this I can't even.
Glad you enjoyed the movie though
Ok, maybe i worded that super bad lol (now that i read it) but i meant to say that they are too "joke-y" and kinda "kid friendly", that what i wanted to say lol.
Days of Future of past was an amazing movie that didnt need to rely on jokes every 2 minutes.
On March 29 2016 10:55 714 wrote: TBH I don't know why this movie has gotten such bad reviews. The fight scenes were far more superiorly choreographed compared to the robot fights in the Nolan trilogy, and it really brought back the dark atmosphere of the original Batman movies (including the gay Robin and Carey/Freeze movies). Wonder Woman was so hot I wanted to whip it out and beat it right there in the movie theater.
And I know Bruce is supposed to be a playboy, but in the Nolan films he just came across as an immature dude in his 20s, whereas in the animated series he was a classy playboy who knew how to be a man and act like he owned the room rather than falling into some shitty little pond. The Bruce in Batman vs Superman was cool, the kind of man you'd want to sleep with if you were a hot babe, whereas the Bruce in the Nolan trilogy seemed like the kind of guy who you'd have to get drunk to want to sleep with because he acts like a boy.
#1 How old are you? 12?
#2 Nolan's Bruce Wayne was acting like that on purpose. It is certainly better cover than being brooding both as Batman and as Bruce Wayne.
On March 29 2016 10:55 714 wrote: TBH I don't know why this movie has gotten such bad reviews. The fight scenes were far more superiorly choreographed compared to the robot fights in the Nolan trilogy, and it really brought back the dark atmosphere of the original Batman movies (including the gay Robin and Carey/Freeze movies). Wonder Woman was so hot I wanted to whip it out and beat it right there in the movie theater.
And I know Bruce is supposed to be a playboy, but in the Nolan films he just came across as an immature dude in his 20s, whereas in the animated series he was a classy playboy who knew how to be a man and act like he owned the room rather than falling into some shitty little pond. The Bruce in Batman vs Superman was cool, the kind of man you'd want to sleep with if you were a hot babe, whereas the Bruce in the Nolan trilogy seemed like the kind of guy who you'd have to get drunk to want to sleep with because he acts like a boy.
You aren't allowed to comment on other people being classy or not
On March 29 2016 10:55 714 wrote: TBH I don't know why this movie has gotten such bad reviews. The fight scenes were far more superiorly choreographed compared to the robot fights in the Nolan trilogy, and it really brought back the dark atmosphere of the original Batman movies (including the gay Robin and Carey/Freeze movies). Wonder Woman was so hot I wanted to whip it out and beat it right there in the movie theater.
And I know Bruce is supposed to be a playboy, but in the Nolan films he just came across as an immature dude in his 20s, whereas in the animated series he was a classy playboy who knew how to be a man and act like he owned the room rather than falling into some shitty little pond. The Bruce in Batman vs Superman was cool, the kind of man you'd want to sleep with if you were a hot babe, whereas the Bruce in the Nolan trilogy seemed like the kind of guy who you'd have to get drunk to want to sleep with because he acts like a boy.
#1 How old are you? 12?
#2 Nolan's Bruce Wayne was acting like that on purpose. It is certainly better cover than being brooding both as Batman and as Bruce Wayne.
Picture Nolan's Bruce Wayne. Try picturing Christian Bale without an annoying goofey smile on his face.
Now picture Ben Affleck's Bruce Wayne. Fucking cool. Focused on the mission. Smiles at parties are for pussies. You are a pussy. Ohh, I'm 12? Can you come up with a better insult?
On March 29 2016 10:55 714 wrote: TBH I don't know why this movie has gotten such bad reviews. The fight scenes were far more superiorly choreographed compared to the robot fights in the Nolan trilogy, and it really brought back the dark atmosphere of the original Batman movies (including the gay Robin and Carey/Freeze movies). Wonder Woman was so hot I wanted to whip it out and beat it right there in the movie theater.
And I know Bruce is supposed to be a playboy, but in the Nolan films he just came across as an immature dude in his 20s, whereas in the animated series he was a classy playboy who knew how to be a man and act like he owned the room rather than falling into some shitty little pond. The Bruce in Batman vs Superman was cool, the kind of man you'd want to sleep with if you were a hot babe, whereas the Bruce in the Nolan trilogy seemed like the kind of guy who you'd have to get drunk to want to sleep with because he acts like a boy.
#1 How old are you? 12?
#2 Nolan's Bruce Wayne was acting like that on purpose. It is certainly better cover than being brooding both as Batman and as Bruce Wayne.
Picture Nolan's Bruce Wayne. Try picturing Christian Bale without an annoying goofey smile on his face.
Now picture Ben Affleck's Bruce Wayne. Fucking cool. Focused on the mission. Smiles at parties are for pussies. You are a pussy. Ohh, I'm 12? Can you come up with a better insult?
On March 29 2016 10:55 714 wrote: TBH I don't know why this movie has gotten such bad reviews. The fight scenes were far more superiorly choreographed compared to the robot fights in the Nolan trilogy, and it really brought back the dark atmosphere of the original Batman movies (including the gay Robin and Carey/Freeze movies). Wonder Woman was so hot I wanted to whip it out and beat it right there in the movie theater.
And I know Bruce is supposed to be a playboy, but in the Nolan films he just came across as an immature dude in his 20s, whereas in the animated series he was a classy playboy who knew how to be a man and act like he owned the room rather than falling into some shitty little pond. The Bruce in Batman vs Superman was cool, the kind of man you'd want to sleep with if you were a hot babe, whereas the Bruce in the Nolan trilogy seemed like the kind of guy who you'd have to get drunk to want to sleep with because he acts like a boy.
#1 How old are you? 12?
#2 Nolan's Bruce Wayne was acting like that on purpose. It is certainly better cover than being brooding both as Batman and as Bruce Wayne.
Picture Nolan's Bruce Wayne. Try picturing Christian Bale without an annoying goofey smile on his face.
Now picture Ben Affleck's Bruce Wayne. Fucking cool. Focused on the mission. Smiles at parties are for pussies. You are a pussy. Ohh, I'm 12? Can you come up with a better insult?
I can't tell if you are being serious or not
Someone needs to tell him that the role of Joker has already been filled.
On March 29 2016 10:55 714 wrote: TBH I don't know why this movie has gotten such bad reviews. The fight scenes were far more superiorly choreographed compared to the robot fights in the Nolan trilogy, and it really brought back the dark atmosphere of the original Batman movies (including the gay Robin and Carey/Freeze movies). Wonder Woman was so hot I wanted to whip it out and beat it right there in the movie theater.
And I know Bruce is supposed to be a playboy, but in the Nolan films he just came across as an immature dude in his 20s, whereas in the animated series he was a classy playboy who knew how to be a man and act like he owned the room rather than falling into some shitty little pond. The Bruce in Batman vs Superman was cool, the kind of man you'd want to sleep with if you were a hot babe, whereas the Bruce in the Nolan trilogy seemed like the kind of guy who you'd have to get drunk to want to sleep with because he acts like a boy.
#1 How old are you? 12?
#2 Nolan's Bruce Wayne was acting like that on purpose. It is certainly better cover than being brooding both as Batman and as Bruce Wayne.
Picture Nolan's Bruce Wayne. Try picturing Christian Bale without an annoying goofey smile on his face.
Now picture Ben Affleck's Bruce Wayne. Fucking cool. Focused on the mission. Smiles at parties are for pussies. You are a pussy. Ohh, I'm 12? Can you come up with a better insult?
Oh I am sorry I mistook you for a guy. But now I see you are a little girl instead that is in love with Ben Affleck. My bad.
Enter stage left the video of that guy in the Batman outfit yelling “My parents are dead!” while walking around New York City. Broody Batman is no fun at parties. Kinda shitty Dad Batman that tries really hard and means well, thank god all these kids are good spirits by nature or we would all be fucked-Batman is the most fun Batman.
After Adam West Batman, most fun Batman at a party.
I'm not really sure why this movie got so many bad reviews. I watched it the other day and I absolutely loved it. I thought it was very well done and I really enjoyed the viewing experience overall.
I'm not a fan of how they did the "Martha moment". I think the over simplification of kind of the big emotional moment is my biggest problem with the movie.
I'm not a fan of how they did the "Martha moment". I think the over simplification of kind of the big emotional moment is my biggest problem with the movie.
On March 30 2016 07:55 Seeker wrote: I'm not really sure why this movie got so many bad reviews. I watched it the other day and I absolutely loved it. I thought it was very well done and I really enjoyed the viewing experience overall.
There is no way they were actually going to kill Superman. I dunno what the point even was in "killing" him. Just so he could come back from the dead so people can compare him to Jesus even more?
On March 30 2016 07:55 Seeker wrote: I'm not really sure why this movie got so many bad reviews. I watched it the other day and I absolutely loved it. I thought it was very well done and I really enjoyed the viewing experience overall.
There is no way they were actually going to kill Superman. I dunno what the point even was in "killing" him. Just so he could come back from the dead so people can compare him to Jesus even more?
On March 30 2016 07:55 Seeker wrote: I'm not really sure why this movie got so many bad reviews. I watched it the other day and I absolutely loved it. I thought it was very well done and I really enjoyed the viewing experience overall.
So many things could have been better in this movie. Motivation of both Batman and Lex is shaky and even more shaky how it all resolves. + Show Spoiler +
Batman acts all non-batman like and instead of making plans for that 1% like he would in the comics he goes all USA on Superman ass. Then he changes his mind instantly because Superman cares about his mother?! Someone that is willing to kill Superman because of 1% logic cares not for shit like that. Terribly done. Batman was a complete idiot in this movie, nothing like comic book Batman. Lex is all about keeping man as the most powerful being on planet and Man taking down a God. He manufactures a fight between Batman and Superman (in a really stupid way) but then when that fails he unleashes a monster that he cannot control and does opposite of what he preached until that moment. OMG!
In the end Superman does things in most logical manner. + Show Spoiler +
He tries his best, I like seeing him conflicted about what he should be and do and when faced with need to fight Batman (and ignoring that in those 30 minutes he could have found and saved Martha by himself) he goes there to talk to Bruce and basically defends himself only waiting for Bruce to calm down
They could have made a good movie if they somewhat followed the comic. After the aftermath of Man of Steel they could have got an older Lex actor who would run for POTUS and win. Then he would use that power to get Superman to get in line. Then have Batman run down and kill really dangerous criminals that are somewhat connected with some Lex plans (maybe something to do with Lex following metahumans - maybe Batman saves Wonder Woman from some experiments). Lex sends Superman to take down Batman like in comics. We get a cool fight, maybe even Wonder Woman joins Batman. Film ends with Superman beaten by Kryptonite but then presented with some proof of Lex wrongdoings (not enough for courts but enough for next movie with Justice League).
On March 30 2016 17:58 -Archangel- wrote: They could have made a good movie if they somewhat followed the comic. After the aftermath of Man of Steel they could have got an older Lex actor who would run for POTUS and win. Then we would use that power to get Superman to get in line. Then have Batman run down and kill really dangerous criminals that are somewhat connected with some Lex plans (maybe something to do with Lex following metahumans - maybe Batman saves Wonder Woman from some experiments). Lex sends Superman to take down Batman like in comics. We get a cool fight, maybe even Wonder Woman joins Batman. Film ends with Superman beaten by Kryptonite but then presented with some proof of Lex wrongdoings (not enough for courts but enough for next movie with Justice League).
I don't think Donald Trump would have wanted to shave his head though.
I feel like DC is going for the serious/darkerish/gritty/grim style to differ itself from Marvel(Marvel is comparitvely more cheesy, oneliners, comedy etc). Feel like you need to story to back up the first and its more of an afterthought on the latter which is why it didn't really work out or atleast felt like a bigger problem here.
Doomsday and make him fight Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. From a lore standpoint, it's more closer to a Bizarro creation with it being created by Lex but since it had the adaptability after it takes damage so that it could deal with it next time then it did make him Doomsday so to speak.
Anyway, why Doomsday or all villains? It could have been the Kryptonian AI (the startpoint for Brainiac basically) with an initially rudimentary body but maybe they didn't want to make it look like Ultron for the casual movie goer so they scrapped that idea even though that could have made slightly more sense to me.
So if we look at what Flash said that Lois is the key to prevent Superman from going crazy/murderous, then it would be taking pages of Injustice then (by brute forcing it into one of the future JL stories) with a mix of Darkseid War maybe? Because in order for "injustice" to happen where Joker causes Superman to hallucinate about something he fears, then that would be Doomsday who has killed him. It wouldn't be Zod because Superman defeated him so its not really going to cause him to fear. And we get that storyline where Superman blames Batman for not doing anything about Joker then.
It's the only logical explanation I can think of as to why they brute forced Doomsday into this movie.
As for additional thoughts about additional info that is coming out recently + Show Spoiler +
1. If it is true that Bryan Cranston was really supposed to Lex Luthor and Jesse Eisenberg was supposed to be Jimmy Olsen then they decided last minute to do a change in casting and make Jesse Eisenberg Lex Luthor Jr, then they have really kept the possibility open for a Lex Luthor senior to pop up, free his son and maybe show him how its done in a proper Superman/Man of Steel 2 movie. They gave themselves an out to not immediately use Bryan Cranston in their current movie if things don't turn out positive.
2. The nightmare batman/future sequences could really have been done after the fight with Doomsday. Say Bruce takes a real beating that puts him on death's door since he is just a normal human against these "gods amongst men", then he could see those visions and instead of having flash appear in the present, maybe in the same desert sequence, Flash saves Batman from Superman and tells him to save Lois and tries to jump him back (although ala Days of Future Past Movie where it is only the memory of that event/dream is what he takes with him and not his future more worn out self)
3. I still dont understand how they plan to mix up Superman as a tyrant with his Superman Police Force vs Sons of Batman while he seems to be under Darkseid. The only thing I could think of was Earth 2 storyline where Superman "died" in the beginning and was cloned to be Bruutal who was Bizzaro Superman in earth 2 that worked for Darkseid.
4. Since I mentioned Earth 2, the Batman we got was less the regular detective no-kill Batman but a mixture of Batman earth 1 and the 2nd batman of earth 2 or Flashpoint Batman which was Thomas Wayne. So I'm guessing in a future Flash movie, they will really use Flash point as a way to course correct and reboot the franchise to correct mistakes like they did with Xmen DOFP.
On March 30 2016 07:55 Seeker wrote: I'm not really sure why this movie got so many bad reviews. I watched it the other day and I absolutely loved it. I thought it was very well done and I really enjoyed the viewing experience overall.
There is no way they were actually going to kill Superman. I dunno what the point even was in "killing" him. Just so he could come back from the dead so people can compare him to Jesus even more?
Well, looking at how the character has been handled, that doesn't seem unlikely to me.
On March 30 2016 07:55 Seeker wrote: I'm not really sure why this movie got so many bad reviews. I watched it the other day and I absolutely loved it. I thought it was very well done and I really enjoyed the viewing experience overall.
There is no way they were actually going to kill Superman. I dunno what the point even was in "killing" him. Just so he could come back from the dead so people can compare him to Jesus even more?
Well, looking at how the character has been handled, that doesn't seem unlikely to me.
I mean that char is a messianic figure whether DC wants to admit it or not.
On March 29 2016 10:55 714 wrote: TBH I don't know why this movie has gotten such bad reviews. The fight scenes were far more superiorly choreographed compared to the robot fights in the Nolan trilogy, and it really brought back the dark atmosphere of the original Batman movies (including the gay Robin and Carey/Freeze movies). Wonder Woman was so hot I wanted to whip it out and beat it right there in the movie theater.
And I know Bruce is supposed to be a playboy, but in the Nolan films he just came across as an immature dude in his 20s, whereas in the animated series he was a classy playboy who knew how to be a man and act like he owned the room rather than falling into some shitty little pond. The Bruce in Batman vs Superman was cool, the kind of man you'd want to sleep with if you were a hot babe, whereas the Bruce in the Nolan trilogy seemed like the kind of guy who you'd have to get drunk to want to sleep with because he acts like a boy.
#1 How old are you? 12?
#2 Nolan's Bruce Wayne was acting like that on purpose. It is certainly better cover than being brooding both as Batman and as Bruce Wayne.
Picture Nolan's Bruce Wayne. Try picturing Christian Bale without an annoying goofey smile on his face.
Now picture Ben Affleck's Bruce Wayne. Fucking cool. Focused on the mission. Smiles at parties are for pussies. You are a pussy. Ohh, I'm 12? Can you come up with a better insult?
Oh I am sorry I mistook you for a guy. But now I see you are a little girl instead that is in love with Ben Affleck. My bad.
I don't even, are you serious now or just hurt over the opinion that Ben was the better Bat? He has a valid opinion. And I didn't even know there was a DC and Marvel that made movies, I thought it was all Marvel lmao. It makes so much sense now, I thought they were just lucky with Days of Future Past etc. I totally get why I facepalm at all those cheesy as fuck Avengers movies.
On March 30 2016 17:52 -Archangel- wrote: So many things could have been better in this movie. Motivation of both Batman and Lex is shaky and even more shaky how it all resolves. + Show Spoiler +
Batman acts all non-batman like and instead of making plans for that 1% like he would in the comics he goes all USA on Superman ass. Then he changes his mind instantly because Superman cares about his mother?! Someone that is willing to kill Superman because of 1% logic cares not for shit like that. Terribly done. Batman was a complete idiot in this movie, nothing like comic book Batman. Lex is all about keeping man as the most powerful being on planet and Man taking down a God. He manufactures a fight between Batman and Superman (in a really stupid way) but then when that fails he unleashes a monster that he cannot control and does opposite of what he preached until that moment. OMG!
In the end Superman does things in most logical manner. + Show Spoiler +
He tries his best, I like seeing him conflicted about what he should be and do and when faced with need to fight Batman (and ignoring that in those 30 minutes he could have found and saved Martha by himself) he goes there to talk to Bruce and basically defends himself only waiting for Bruce to calm down
My same thoughts when watching the movie. Still liked it, altho it was kinda long.
On March 30 2016 17:52 -Archangel- wrote: So many things could have been better in this movie. Motivation of both Batman and Lex is shaky and even more shaky how it all resolves. + Show Spoiler +
Batman acts all non-batman like and instead of making plans for that 1% like he would in the comics he goes all USA on Superman ass. Then he changes his mind instantly because Superman cares about his mother?! Someone that is willing to kill Superman because of 1% logic cares not for shit like that. Terribly done. Batman was a complete idiot in this movie, nothing like comic book Batman. Lex is all about keeping man as the most powerful being on planet and Man taking down a God. He manufactures a fight between Batman and Superman (in a really stupid way) but then when that fails he unleashes a monster that he cannot control and does opposite of what he preached until that moment. OMG!
In the end Superman does things in most logical manner. + Show Spoiler +
He tries his best, I like seeing him conflicted about what he should be and do and when faced with need to fight Batman (and ignoring that in those 30 minutes he could have found and saved Martha by himself) he goes there to talk to Bruce and basically defends himself only waiting for Bruce to calm down
My same thoughts when watching the movie. Still liked it, altho it was kinda long.
On March 29 2016 10:55 714 wrote: TBH I don't know why this movie has gotten such bad reviews. The fight scenes were far more superiorly choreographed compared to the robot fights in the Nolan trilogy, and it really brought back the dark atmosphere of the original Batman movies (including the gay Robin and Carey/Freeze movies). Wonder Woman was so hot I wanted to whip it out and beat it right there in the movie theater.
And I know Bruce is supposed to be a playboy, but in the Nolan films he just came across as an immature dude in his 20s, whereas in the animated series he was a classy playboy who knew how to be a man and act like he owned the room rather than falling into some shitty little pond. The Bruce in Batman vs Superman was cool, the kind of man you'd want to sleep with if you were a hot babe, whereas the Bruce in the Nolan trilogy seemed like the kind of guy who you'd have to get drunk to want to sleep with because he acts like a boy.
#1 How old are you? 12?
#2 Nolan's Bruce Wayne was acting like that on purpose. It is certainly better cover than being brooding both as Batman and as Bruce Wayne.
Picture Nolan's Bruce Wayne. Try picturing Christian Bale without an annoying goofey smile on his face.
Now picture Ben Affleck's Bruce Wayne. Fucking cool. Focused on the mission. Smiles at parties are for pussies. You are a pussy. Ohh, I'm 12? Can you come up with a better insult?
Oh I am sorry I mistook you for a guy. But now I see you are a little girl instead that is in love with Ben Affleck. My bad.
I don't even, are you serious now or just hurt over the opinion that Ben was the better Bat? He has a valid opinion. And I didn't even know there was a DC and Marvel that made movies, I thought it was all Marvel lmao. It makes so much sense now, I thought they were just lucky with Days of Future Past etc. I totally get why I facepalm at all those cheesy as fuck Avengers movies.
In the movie universes not all of marvel is together. the avengers are Disney F4 and xmen are fox and spider man is owned by sony.
the problem with Ben affleck bruce wayne is that ben affleck isn't an old guy and he doesn't play one well. God forbid he writes the batman movie himself and changes it from the grim dark world svb is.
Grim Dark Loner Batman is literally the worst of all Batmans. Give me shitty, slightly confused, father figure that really cares Batman. And Batgirl and Robin. No origin stories, just let people figure it out.
I am not particularly scared about Ben Affleck writing or directing, it's not like it's his first time. Different genres, yes, but well done it can give some special flavor.
About what batman is better, the discussion is retarded on its own. I hope you all figured it out by yourselves by now.
I think Sony let go Spiderman, i don't know the specifics but he will appear on Captain America civil war and he will have a movie too made by marvel.
I'm not a fan of how they did the "Martha moment". I think the over simplification of kind of the big emotional moment is my biggest problem with the movie.
they did so much so well in BvS. However, two giant errors turned the movie from really good to "meh".
the Martha thing was bad as you noted. the other big strike against this movie in my view is having a dead major character come back to life. they also did it in Superman: The Movie. Once you're dead that should be it. In my ranking of Superman movies the 1977 movie and Batman v. Superman would be ranked #1 and #2 if it weren't for dead people coming back to life.
On April 01 2016 03:45 Quakie wrote: Why do you write in spoilertags??? People that haven't sees the movie shouldn't come in this thread anyways. Dumb imo.
i thought i was doing the right thing by using spoiler tags. now i feel dumb. happy now?
On April 01 2016 02:46 Plansix wrote: Grim Dark Loner Batman is literally the worst of all Batmans. Give me shitty, slightly confused, father figure that really cares Batman. And Batgirl and Robin. No origin stories, just let people figure it out.
as smoking fucking hot as Batgirl is in the 1960s TV series ... i prefer the Christian Bale Batman story the most.
I'm not a fan of how they did the "Martha moment". I think the over simplification of kind of the big emotional moment is my biggest problem with the movie.
they did so much so well in BvS. However, two giant errors turned the movie from really good to "meh".
the Martha thing was bad as you noted. the other big strike against this movie in my view is having a dead major character come back to life. they also did it in Superman: The Movie. Once you're dead that should be it. In my ranking of Superman movies the 1977 movie and Batman v. Superman would be ranked #1 and #2 if it weren't for dead people coming back to life.
Just came back from the viewing, man what a disappointment. 5/10
Spoiler: I have always expected the story to be a mess when they announced it is also a justice league prequel. even if the director cut making it an hour longer, nothing will be fixed but only dragged on even longer.
When I read the reviews that people complain about it being slow, I was expecting that is because the movie trying to sell the batman vs superman ideology difference, just like the beginning where Bruce look up to superman as a powerless man, and general audience would be disappointed because they expect awesome 120mins action.
But it wasn't, it had way too little focus was spent there, the 'god vs man' became just a term for a powerful man vs a human being when it should have been about their ideology of humanity. And not only that, there were hardly any action.
The main reasons why the movie felt slow is not only because of lack of events between superman and batman but also the over used pan shots and slow motions. The prime example is watching lux getting on the helicopter towards the end with a pan shot, it served no purpose but showing he is getting onto the helicopter.
Another extremely poor point is the scene setting, especially three of them: the one with lois lane dropping the spear into the river, only later she realise she needs it, and it was all a set up so that superman can do the kiss good bye scene. The random dream scene WW stealing the USB drive, unable to open it and returning it back to bruce which then finally opened the content and then emailed to WW.
And also some very strange scenes like batman training and lois and kent's talk in the bath tub (why in the bath tub???)
There's more but I think this particular one needs to be looked at. Anyone actually enjoyed the doomsday fight? It felt completely like a video game scene, this is one HUGE issue with DC and their characters on the big screen. Just look at superman in his fight against doomsday, he get knocked back once and flies back right away, no blood no sweat. Same with wonderwoman. These two characters are going to make all the fights very CGI heavy with very little impact and the fights are not intense if you don't know when the characters are hurt and actually hurt bad unlike almost all Marvel cinematic characters so far.
Imo they should have done a batman movie showing why he has changed into this much more violent (after his dealing with the joker), a proper batman vs superman movie without doomsday and then a proper prequel of justice league and go on.
I am a comic book fan and if I wasn't, I don't think I would have the patience to watch through the whole movie in a cinema
On April 04 2016 23:53 ETisME wrote: The main reasons why the movie felt slow is not only because of lack of events between superman and batman but also the over used pan shots and slow motions.
i like a slow moving film because it lets me mull things over in my mind. Monster (2003) moves along slowly. Jackie Brown (1997) is another slow movie. they're both awesome. i didn't mind BvS being slow.
In Monster when Aileen Wournos gets the shit kicked out of her for the first time ... that scene was very slow to come together .. but it was absolutely phenomenal. The slow pace is BvS was fine.
I just saw the movie, bad and boring story about why Batman wanted to take down Superman, bad acting by Affleck (well I didnt expect nothing different from him, I saw another movie at night on tv after BvS, and he "acted" in the same way. Lexy Luthor very much overacting, and the heavy CGI in the last battle didnt make it.
The whole concept of it is bullshit, just to make money they ruin 2 perfectly fantastic stories. Next coming up spiderman vs moneyman? The blob vs the washing machine? humans vs Hummus? But to be serious: why the fuck would they do that? for the money of course. Batman for me is the fucking man, and superman i can respect. But Batman lives in Gothan, and Gothan City is apperently not located on earth, or this reality, while i recall a movie with superman where he lived in a city on earth or travels around earth. So where would these 2 superheroes meet anyway. The things people will do to get money. Except Fury, i havn' t seen anything remotly like a good or okay movie coming out lately. Man, i will never see this movie.
On April 06 2016 10:39 pebble444 wrote: The whole concept of it is bullshit, just to make money they ruin 2 perfectly fantastic stories. Next coming up spiderman vs moneyman? The blob vs the washing machine? humans vs Hummus? But to be serious: why the fuck would they do that? for the money of course. Batman for me is the fucking man, and superman i can respect. But Batman lives in Gothan, and Gothan City is apperently not located on earth, or this reality, while i recall a movie with superman where he lived in a city on earth or travels around earth. So where would these 2 superheroes meet anyway. The things people will do to get money. Except Fury, i havn' t seen anything remotly like a good or okay movie coming out lately. Man, i will never see this movie.
I can't tell if you're trolling or not. Gotham is most definitely located on earth and is modeled after Chicago mostly. It's 100% opposite from Metropolis. What the movie got wrong was how close they are to each other. No way in hell in any universe is Gotham visible from Metropolis or even remotely close.
Superman either lives in his ice fortress in the Antarctic, Metropolis, Smallville or orbiting the planet in the Justice League watchtower. He does have a small miniaturized city of Kandor that Brainiac shrunk in his fortress though.
I think there are somehow two, theoretically good, movies in this that they meshed into one giant clusterfuck.
Superman has nothing to do besides to react to what people throw at him (his superhearing also only works when the Plot wants it, Lois falling from a building or held hostage in a dessert far, far away? --> Hi Sups, awesome ears. His mother being kidnapped by a gang of mercenaries --> Probably very silent ninja Merencaries and Sups never had a chance. WW is in this movie because… Well.. Just because. Girlpower, yay! Lois Lane is there to be rescued (and for her innate knowledge of cryptonite-spears and their effects on Superman). Damsel in distress, yay! Batman is actually the only character with decent reasoning and an agenda but luckily Superman has a saveword that makes Batman rethink everything he tought about Superman and they immediatly become buddies. He then goes off to save supermans Mother because he told Superman, that also used to not like Batman one bit, that he will do it and that Sups has more importnat things to do. Lex has an agenda that is understandable, sadly everything he actually does to follow it is either plain stupid or goes totally against his own Agenda.
Oh, and then there is the WAAAY too bombastic/epic score and the extreme overuse of said score in pointless scenes of people walking somewhere in slowmotion or starring at something…
The more i think about it, the dumber it becomes...
I honestly thought it could have been a great movie with a bit more content, and fixing the glaring pacing issues and transitional issues it had between scenes. Oh, and actual characterization of Superman besides the quarter of a person we have seen.
Coherent story telling was not part of the movie, and that was the biggest issue, while the characters, bar Batman, were kind of boring.
It had some good moments. People are slamming it harder than it deserves to be, just to be part of the gang.
Edit: when I mean more content, I don't mean a longer movie, but some scenes were kinda meh, and could have been tooled to be more contentfilled.
On April 04 2016 23:53 ETisME wrote: The main reasons why the movie felt slow is not only because of lack of events between superman and batman but also the over used pan shots and slow motions.
i like a slow moving film because it lets me mull things over in my mind. Monster (2003) moves along slowly. Jackie Brown (1997) is another slow movie. they're both awesome. i didn't mind BvS being slow.
In Monster when Aileen Wournos gets the shit kicked out of her for the first time ... that scene was very slow to come together .. but it was absolutely phenomenal. The slow pace is BvS was fine.
It's not slow that I mind, it's the poor pacing that felt slow which was the problem.
Slow motion scenes like Bruce going into the cemetery felt pointless to do in slow motion. Over using pan shots like the helicopter scene.
I don't exactly know if there are too many unnecessary cuts (for example, the tracker that batman planted, was it really necessary to show it again in Lux's warehouse when we all know batman is already tracking it).
It just felt unnecessarily slow in many aspect.
I also like slow movies, even ones that scenes that hardly have any explanation like the opening of the movie Mother and Woman in Dunes. But they are brilliantly done.
On April 06 2016 10:39 pebble444 wrote: The whole concept of it is bullshit, just to make money they ruin 2 perfectly fantastic stories. Next coming up spiderman vs moneyman? The blob vs the washing machine? humans vs Hummus? But to be serious: why the fuck would they do that? for the money of course. Batman for me is the fucking man, and superman i can respect. But Batman lives in Gothan, and Gothan City is apperently not located on earth, or this reality, while i recall a movie with superman where he lived in a city on earth or travels around earth. So where would these 2 superheroes meet anyway. The things people will do to get money. Except Fury, i havn' t seen anything remotly like a good or okay movie coming out lately. Man, i will never see this movie.
Like....have you never read comics? Or watched the Justice League TV show? Gotham City is just New York, given a different name in Detective comics.
Wait, what the shit was this? Why didn't the superhuman Amazonian badass just kill him with the spear? What a stupid ending to a shitty film.
I knew I didn't want to see it, the Nolan interpretation of Batman was basically perfect, I loved it.
But this abomination... wow. 4/10, for amazing CGI, the short but sweet Wonderwoman scene, the one funny bit of dialogue and... Oh I don't know, what garbage...
Just saw it the second time, since Bluray is out. I really don't get why people hate on this movie so much. Sure I could pick scenes apart and that I am left with a sense that I wanted more story, but the overall feeling I have, is that this movie left a really good impression, I will most likely see it a 3rd time.
Music, the lovely destructive action (action usually bores me, but this was pure win) and how good the atmosphere was, it just feels so good to watch. Also wonderwoman was nicely introduced with zimmers perfect music for her, such chills.
I think the only thing I didn't like in the movie was the complete "blind hatred to buddy buddy" switch around by Batman. And with a pretty trivial trigger too: their mothers have the same name?
On July 10 2016 20:45 ZenithM wrote: I think the only thing I didn't like in the movie was the complete "blind hatred to buddy buddy" switch around by Batman. And with a pretty trivial trigger too: their mothers have the same name?
Since I didn't touch the comics, I could only guess there was a lot of story left out to make it seem so blind? I found the trigger to be good, they come from different worlds, but was nurtured on earth kind of reminder. It's probably more, point is, the mind only needs one reminder to change it's perspective.
The dvd release apparently fixed a lot of the plot holes, so the only complaint still relevant from the cinema version is how stupid the whole Martha thing is.
Mixed feelings about this movie. I saw the 3h extended edition. CGI soooo good but so many stupid plotholes and dumb dialogs. Didn't like lex luthor either.
So are Superman gonna reappear un Justice League or is he dead by Wonderwomans sword?
On July 11 2016 22:04 InDaHouse wrote: Mixed feelings about this movie. I saw the 3h extended edition. CGI soooo good but so many stupid plotholes and dumb dialogs. Didn't like lex luthor either.
So are Superman gonna reappear un Justice League or is he dead by Wonderwomans sword?
He died by the shard like thingy of doomsday, I think .not ww sword
On May 18 2016 03:53 DickMcFanny wrote: Wait, what the shit was this? Why didn't the superhuman Amazonian badass just kill him with the spear? What a stupid ending to a shitty film.
I knew I didn't want to see it, the Nolan interpretation of Batman was basically perfect, I loved it.
But this abomination... wow. 4/10, for amazing CGI, the short but sweet Wonderwoman scene, the one funny bit of dialogue and... Oh I don't know, what garbage...
Superwoman Amazonian didn't kill him because she was holding doomsday with her lasso..
affleck nailed the role of batman and is getting praised universally for that. Even the critics and people who didn't like the movie thought that this was the best portray of Batman
This movie made no sense even with the extra time added. It doesn't wipe away the awful taste it left the first time. I just can't wrap my head around how you mess up Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman on the big screen. WB/DC have the three best characters in comics, and mess it up. I'm pretty much dead for Justice League. Only SS and WW have my attention now. And I'm super excited for the Batman solo movies.
Saw the 3 hour version today... Didn't see this movie on theaters...
I was right, this movie wasn't a fun movie or a good movie, Luthor's plan its so fucking bad... I liked Batman, he wasn't that bad, but still the freaking Batman vs Superman moment (fight) was awful. Not going to watch Justice League.
Still happy to see that theaters here in my country are going to play The Killing Joke movie.
On May 18 2016 03:53 DickMcFanny wrote: Wait, what the shit was this? Why didn't the superhuman Amazonian badass just kill him with the spear? What a stupid ending to a shitty film.
I knew I didn't want to see it, the Nolan interpretation of Batman was basically perfect, I loved it.
But this abomination... wow. 4/10, for amazing CGI, the short but sweet Wonderwoman scene, the one funny bit of dialogue and... Oh I don't know, what garbage...
Superwoman Amazonian didn't kill him because she was holding doomsday with her lasso..
affleck nailed the role of batman and is getting praised universally for that. Even the critics and people who didn't like the movie thought that this was the best portray of Batman
I dunno about the BEST portrayal of Batman, but it was definitely better than expected, and one of the better parts of the movie.
Wonder woman is the single most cringiest thing ive experienced in my life. Rest of the movie is just bad. I cant think of a single thing i enjoyed about this movie.
Just saw the 3 hour cut and I also saw the theatrical cut.
It's not great still but at least things made more sense overall.
1) How the Africa scene actually played a part to the Senate inquiry 2) The reason behind why the bat branded criminals get killed when in prison 3) It did show more Clark scenes to provide a bit more character relationship/development (just a bit more) 4) Lex was the schemer behind the events that would lead up to Batman and Superman fighting in the movie (still didn't like his portrayal and wish for a Lex Sr to come into the works and claim he wasn't a son but a failed clone which is why he is more insane in how he acts.. HAHA!)
The later half/third is still a really big miss which lets down the whole thing for me. No matter what they added, there really wasn't much of a payoff.
The theatrical cut was a 6 to me. At least I saw glimpses of things that got me excited and I hope they develop those more rather than the nonsense like the extended gotham scene with the 2 cops watching a football game. There was no reason for it in both versions. I don't get why it needed to be there. (Just an extreme example)
I am still okay with this movie and would watch Justice League hoping it is better with the adjustments and renewed focus they are said to have at WB.
Here's hoping.
As the trailer of Sing said voiced by Matthew Mconaughay (did I spell that right?) - "When you are down, there is nowhere to go but up."
Bluray's out? Time to watch the movie for the first time, I hope the haters are wrong and I'll be at least entertained like with riddick chronicles or age of extinction
I still don't get why so many people hate this movie.
Notwithstanding some funny lines by Spiderman and Antman, I was bored by Civil War, and yet it's lauded as one of the best comic adaptations ever.
I went into Batman vs Superman with low expectations, but it was way more intriguing. Sure it had some plot contrivances, but which comic movie hasn't? Batman's motives to fight Superman were far more convincing to me than Iron Man's motivation to fight Captain America. Batman is a control freak and clearly not in a good state of mind at the beginning of the movie. Superman, on the other hand, cannot be controlled, neither by governments nor by other human means.
And while the infamous "Martha" scene could have been handled better, the major point behind it, namely that Batman sees the person behind the Superalien and recognizes that he himself has strayed from the path, is an interesting one.
Also while the seriousness of Civil War seemed rather forced, BvS had a naturally dark atmosphere to it. Complemented by the fantastic visual effects, this is a movie I would watch again, unlike Civil War.
I liked this movie a lot. Sure it has it's flaws but as a whole I found this to be a really good and interesting movie. And Batfleck turned out to be better than I expected
I have only seen the cinema version. Should I watch some other version(s) as well.
And while the infamous "Martha" scene could have been handled better, the major point behind it, namely that Batman sees the person behind the Superalien and recognizes that he himself has strayed from the path, is an interesting one.
Yes this, I didn't think too much off it, it just made sense to me atleast. I guess it's the expectations people have with this movie that it gets slaughtered so much. I go into an Avengers movie expecting some fun moments and some action, while something that involves Batman, you expect something in the lines of Nolan's second Batman movie, which was really good.
On July 14 2016 03:27 WindWolf wrote: I liked this movie a lot. Sure it has it's flaws but as a whole I found this to be a really good and interesting movie. And Batfleck turned out to be better than I expected
I have only seen the cinema version. Should I watch some other version(s) as well.
Watch ultimate cut which includes 30 minutes of extra movie which helps the plot much..u will enjoy it more with coherent plot
It just expands a bit more on already contrived plotlines and characters, so in that sense it didnt really add too much to the enjoyment imo. I know some wanted to believe WB execs were at fault for cutting it short for the cinemas and that if Zack had his way the movie would have been a masterpiece, but that's just not true. The problems in the theatrical cut are still present in the director's cut. If you ask me, they should have cut even more from it and leave out many of the crammed stuff (Jesus stuff, slowmo crap etc) but expand a bit on characters and their motivations, especially Superman and Lex. I still didnt care one bit that Superman died even though there was some extra Clark footage. It didnt add any emotional value for his death to have any meaning imo.
On July 15 2016 07:21 FreakyDroid wrote: It just expands a bit more on already contrived plotlines and characters, so in that sense it didnt really add too much to the enjoyment imo. I know some wanted to believe WB execs were at fault for cutting it short for the cinemas and that if Zack had his way the movie would have been a masterpiece, but that's just not true. The problems in the theatrical cut are still present in the director's cut. If you ask me, they should have cut even more from it and leave out many of the crammed stuff (Jesus stuff, slowmo crap etc) but expand a bit on characters and their motivations, especially Superman and Lex. I still didnt care one bit that Superman died even though there was some extra Clark footage. It didnt add any emotional value for his death to have any meaning imo.
this movie cant be a master piece,but atleast now the chicken is roasted,
I think those few shots after his death clearly made me feel more about his death. I didn't feel anything after his death in theatrical cut. And one more time I felt for him is in courtroom scene where they added more scenes .
Felt like the one I watched at theatre was a batman movie with superman sprinkled in , but this cut was superman movie with Batman sprinkled in.
I think ,if people had problems with characterization in theatrical cut , then this 30 mins won't solve it ,but these 30 minutes add atleast some plotlines to it and makes Clark and lex plot and motivations coherent to say ,at least.
My Batman/Superman knowledge limited to games and movies, not a comic reader. Anyway just watched the 3 hour version and I thought it was great, several times better than Age of Ultron by my standards at least, not seen Civil War yet.
Batman went from trying to kill Superman with everything he got to being BFF in stupid way but other than that I got no complaints. Guess it was kind of convenient to have a Kryptonite Spear all ready for Doomsday too.
Also couldn't buy the idea of Superman actually dying during the movie and of course that didn't end up being the case as teased in the end.
The problem with the Martha save Martha is that Snyder didn't manage to link Batman's dreams/visions to that situation. We knew they shared the name, but we also knew that Batman saw a future where Superman was alive and lost someone due to Batman, which was probably Superman's mother. If i had to speculate, Batman kills superman, Martha dies, superman respawns because he is alien jesus (or by external forces), but he is pretty angry. Snyder could had exploited that vision better imo because it certainly references a pivotal point on the movie. Just a reference of superman "losing his mother" in the vision would had made the whole scene where lois tells batman that's his mothers name more fitting.
And the obvious references for the next movies... + Show Spoiler +
Darkseid is coming references from the vision, Lex Luthors speech after having accessed the computer (one of the deleted scenes, you see the demon, pointing out to apokalips) makes me hyped. That's why he says they already know that God is dead and they are coming...
I mean, you need some knowledge of the comics i guess, but the script is tight enough.
Saw this recently at a friend's house. Definitely was not anything like MoS, and I enoyed MoS. There was so much stuff happening it totally ruined the pacing.
On July 16 2016 03:56 Sentenal wrote: Honestly my favorite thing to come out of this movie are the memes. Sad-Affleck and MARTHA are some pretty funny stuff.
On July 15 2016 11:38 Vaelone wrote: My Batman/Superman knowledge limited to games and movies, not a comic reader. Anyway just watched the 3 hour version and I thought it was great, several times better than Age of Ultron by my standards at least, not seen Civil War yet.
Batman went from trying to kill Superman with everything he got to being BFF in stupid way but other than that I got no complaints. Guess it was kind of convenient to have a Kryptonite Spear all ready for Doomsday too.
Also couldn't buy the idea of Superman actually dying during the movie and of course that didn't end up being the case as teased in the end.
I haven't seen any MCU movie, but after reading the Age of Ultron comic, I don't think that I ever will.
Could the dream like flashback sequence of the hand out of the computer have been the Flash. If so please God don't let this be a slow build up of a Flaspoint movie with Snyder at the helm
i saw this movie with zero expectations... I wasnt dissapointed, the movie is not bad... Ofc batman is a bit out of charachter for me. So-so i gave it a 6 out of 10. But the movie i still cannot watch entirely The Avengers, im on my third try but just fall asleep immediately.
On July 26 2016 03:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So either I am really slow or just hoping for a bit of a clever scene in a shit filled scenes that was this movie:
Could the dream like flashback sequence of the hand out of the computer have been the Flash. If so please God don't let this be a slow build up of a Flaspoint movie with Snyder at the helm
On July 26 2016 03:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So either I am really slow or just hoping for a bit of a clever scene in a shit filled scenes that was this movie:
Could the dream like flashback sequence of the hand out of the computer have been the Flash. If so please God don't let this be a slow build up of a Flaspoint movie with Snyder at the helm
It was pretty obvious it was the Flash, or some variation of him at least. What it means is anybody's guess.
Just saw the movie for the first time and I watched the ultimate edition.
After I everything I read I had low expectations, but I absolutely loved the movie. Maybe the cinema version wasn't that good, but the ultimate cut is absolutely worth watching.
So if anybody didn't even bother watching the movie after all the bad reviews, go watch the ultimate edition and enjoy!
At least 8/10 for me, one of the best super hero movies ever.
On October 17 2016 04:40 Musicus wrote: Just saw the movie for the first time and I watched the ultimate edition.
After I everything I read I had low expectations, but I absolutely loved the movie. Maybe the cinema version wasn't that good, but the ultimate cut is absolutely worth watching.
This and most of ppl do not know the lore, there was a lot of small but canonically precise details which is cool Lex modern interpretation is also interesting, someone who definitly can team up with that joker
Batman's grudge and motivation against Superman had none of the history, time and context from The Dark Knight Returns (which the plot roughly borrows from).
Superman's reason for fighting Batman at the end is just...so stupid. Cheap blackmail excuse that is basically a silver age comic plot.
If they'd properly built Batman's anti-messiah grudge, and Superman's anti-vigilante views, it could've worked much better. Instead it was the typical "Superman is perfect" plot while everyone blames him for stuff, into two super heroes fighting over dumb misunderstandings.
Also the dream sequences were dumb. Fun allusions to other plot lines, which I suppose was supposed to be their point, but it was also just typical Zach Schneider nonsensical cinematography.