See, I throw them all together. If Marvel puts their name on the front of it (that flappy Marvel intro at the beginning), it's a Marvel movie.
And ultimately, to me, it's about whether it's a comic book movie or not...regardless of company. Ghost World, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Road to Perdition, The Wolverine, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice, Sheena, etc. I'm always interested to see what filmmakers do with a given property, for better or worse.
I agree; if it's Marvel's property, it's a Marvel movie.
M
I agree, whether Marvel likes it or not! (I'm looking at you Fan4stic Four)
And as for the Netflix shows existing in the MCU, you can spot some headlines in Ben Ulrich's office that read "Battle of NY," referring to the events of The Avengers, while another references the Hulk's fight against the Abomination in Harlem.
It even has a subtle Stan Lee cameo
So it's clearly the same universe
I know it's all connected, but then again, I don't move the goalposts to support my opinion like some people do.
I've found 3 new DC hardo fanboy BvS:DoJ reasonings that I thought were cute. One is that the film "suffers from the studio's involvement instead of Snyder's vision." The shortened running time was referenced (supposedly, the studio is now considering releasing the R-rated version in theatres). This is interesting, since that same group referenced WB's policy of letting film-makers do their own thing...supposedly an advantage over Disney/Marvel.
Also, apparently, this film is "for the fans, not the critics or general audience. Fans know how to foil the plotholes." To me, making a film for just the fans to dig doesn't seem like a very business savvy plan.
Finally (and possibly my favorite), "no Marvel movie will ever hold the biggest opening weekend." I'm just hoping no other comic book movie has as big a drop in week two. Opening numbers include people locked in with advanced tickets. The proceeding weeks are a better gauge.
M
That last one makes 0 sense. Avengers and Age of Ultron both have considerably larger opening weekends. Avengers had the record for the largest opening ever before Jurassic World and Stsr Wars came out last year. Even Iron Man 3 had a bigger opening... Are they suggesting future Marvel movies will all fall below BvS's opening?
I read it as the person had a crystal ball and saw no Marvel movie will ever top the opening weekend of BvS:DoJ. It's all ludicrous; unfortunately it's not Ludicrous.
I read it as the person had a crystal ball and saw no Marvel movie will ever top the opening weekend of BvS:DoJ. It's all ludicrous; unfortunately it's not Ludicrous.
I read it as the person had a crystal ball and saw no Marvel movie will ever top the opening weekend of BvS:DoJ. It's all ludicrous; unfortunately it's not Ludicrous.
Anybody ever figure out why Batman, who we're told has been operating for years, is still referred to as "The Bat"?
How can Superman be ignorant that the authorities apparently approve of Batman if they have a bat signal that alerts him when he is needed?
Why would Batman's branding of a criminal result in that criminal being hurt or killed in prison? Wouldn't it mean they had fought Batman? Seems like a badge of courage/honor. Why would other criminals try to hurt a fellow inmate for that?
Why did Superman mail the engagement ring to his mom's house in Smallville for Lois? Wouldn't he just bring the ring with him?
Anybody ever figure out why Batman, who we're told has been operating for years, is still referred to as "The Bat"?
How can Superman be ignorant that the authorities apparently approve of Batman if they have a bat signal that alerts him when he is needed?
Why would Batman's branding of a criminal result in that criminal being hurt or killed in prison? Wouldn't it mean they had fought Batman? Seems like a badge of courage/honor. Why would other criminals try to hurt a fellow inmate for that?
Why did Superman mail the engagement ring to his mom's house in Smallville for Lois? Wouldn't he just bring the ring with him?
Probably best not to think about it too much...
I could see him still being referenced as "The Bat." Not too much of a stretch.
Did they explain why he drove such a high profile car? Seems like that'd be easy for Kent to track.
Anybody ever figure out why Batman, who we're told has been operating for years, is still referred to as "The Bat"?
How can Superman be ignorant that the authorities apparently approve of Batman if they have a bat signal that alerts him when he is needed?
Why would Batman's branding of a criminal result in that criminal being hurt or killed in prison? Wouldn't it mean they had fought Batman? Seems like a badge of courage/honor. Why would other criminals try to hurt a fellow inmate for that?
Why did Superman mail the engagement ring to his mom's house in Smallville for Lois? Wouldn't he just bring the ring with him?
Probably best not to think about it too much...
I could see him still being referenced as "The Bat." Not too much of a stretch.
Did they explain why he drove such a high profile car? Seems like that'd be easy for Kent to track.
M
Hmm. Not sure why his high-profile car would matter. Is there a garage under the destroyed Wayne Manor? Any explanations for the remaining questions?
Anybody ever figure out why Batman, who we're told has been operating for years, is still referred to as "The Bat"?
How can Superman be ignorant that the authorities apparently approve of Batman if they have a bat signal that alerts him when he is needed?
Why would Batman's branding of a criminal result in that criminal being hurt or killed in prison? Wouldn't it mean they had fought Batman? Seems like a badge of courage/honor. Why would other criminals try to hurt a fellow inmate for that?
Why did Superman mail the engagement ring to his mom's house in Smallville for Lois? Wouldn't he just bring the ring with him?
Probably best not to think about it too much...
I could see him still being referenced as "The Bat." Not too much of a stretch.
Did they explain why he drove such a high profile car? Seems like that'd be easy for Kent to track.
M
Hmm. Not sure why his high-profile car would matter. Is there a garage under the destroyed Wayne Manor? Any explanations for the remaining questions?
I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know the context to offer possible reasons.
I was curious about the car because reportedly, this Batman was going to be semi-retired & greatly under the radar. I thought a high profile car didn't make sense for that.
So. So. So many questions and problems w bvs. These are but a couple. And some I've had issue w myself.
I don't remember anything anywhere that eluded to batman going underground or assuming a lower profile (But I could b wrong). Using the batmobile didn't seem out of place imo.
Yeah. The wedding ring bit was lame for numerous reasons.
I had no problem with batman being referred as "the bat" and wouldn't. But didn't even register w me honestly. He was also called "the batman" and "vigilante" etc no?
No, the branding of criminals causing them to be targeted in prison didn't work w me either. But just a minor curiosity imo . Not a big issue for me.
Funniest thing is that superman even cared in the slightest. He didn't appear to care remotely about the atrocities being committed by the African warlords until Lois was threatened, and then he flat out gruesomely kills the guy. There's no implication he cared about the horrible violent crimes being committed by the criminals batman branded (serial kidnapping/murderer). But he hears that same criminal gets marked by batman (the guy actually stopping him), and that mark maybe eventually gets him attacked in prison, and he's now on a mission to stop batman?! That's his concern? That's what upsets him and is worthy of his time and attention? What about the guys who actually did slaughter all those people in the desert? What about the joker or killer croc? What about the fact the Gotham authorities are at least mildly accepting of him? What about the civil liberties of the guy YOU killed!?
Anybody ever figure out why Batman, who we're told has been operating for years, is still referred to as "The Bat"?
How can Superman be ignorant that the authorities apparently approve of Batman if they have a bat signal that alerts him when he is needed?
Why would Batman's branding of a criminal result in that criminal being hurt or killed in prison? Wouldn't it mean they had fought Batman? Seems like a badge of courage/honor. Why would other criminals try to hurt a fellow inmate for that?
Why did Superman mail the engagement ring to his mom's house in Smallville for Lois? Wouldn't he just bring the ring with him?
Probably best not to think about it too much...
That Bat branding thing was weird. It seems sadistic for even a jaded Batman to send crooks to their deaths like that.
I'm thinking there's a Bat movie probably being thought up that'll explain what prompted the Bat branding. I have no problem with it in the context of the movie, but I'd like them to do a movie explaining what drove him to that point.
And on a larger scale, will the Justice League movies bring him back from that precipice?
I can only think of three other masked heroes who branded criminals: The Phantom, who whacked bad guys with his skull ring; the Spider, who branded a spider on the dead bodies of the villains he killed; and Zorro, who slashed a Z into the flesh of his enemies. All, of course, preceded the creation of Batman, and had varying degrees of influence (Zorro obviously being the biggest) in Batman’s creation.
I still haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm making no judgment on Batman’s use of the brand, but none of the Phantom or Zorro’s opponents were ever killed simply for having the heroes’ brands on them. And the Spider’s opponents were already dead when he branded them.
I can only think of three other masked heroes who branded criminals: The Phantom, who whacked bad guys with his skull ring; the Spider, who branded a spider on the dead bodies of the villains he killed; and Zorro, who slashed a Z into the flesh of his enemies. All, of course, preceded the creation of Batman, and had varying degrees of influence (Zorro obviously being the biggest) in Batman’s creation.
I still haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm making no judgment on Batman’s use of the brand, but none of the Phantom or Zorro’s opponents were ever killed simply for having the heroes’ brands on them. And the Spider’s opponents were already dead when he branded them.
The Phantom also branded (books always use the word "mark") his allies with his "good" ring.
If I recall correctly, it was Charlie Houston that had Moon Knight branding criminals with a crescent.
I haven't seen the movie, but I'd add the branding habit to my list of issues with the DCEU. I know people will try justify it like they have with the killing, gun use, & level of brutality. It sounds more like AzBats is in this movie then Batman.
Even if I could get past the branding itself, which I think is absurd, what I find even more absurd is that inmates would kill another prisoner if he had a Bat-brand. What is the logic that other prisoners would decide to kill someone who had experienced a run-in with Batman?
I can only think of three other masked heroes who branded criminals: The Phantom, who whacked bad guys with his skull ring; the Spider, who branded a spider on the dead bodies of the villains he killed; and Zorro, who slashed a Z into the flesh of his enemies. All, of course, preceded the creation of Batman, and had varying degrees of influence (Zorro obviously being the biggest) in Batman’s creation.
I still haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm making no judgment on Batman’s use of the brand, but none of the Phantom or Zorro’s opponents were ever killed simply for having the heroes’ brands on them. And the Spider’s opponents were already dead when he branded them.
The Phantom also branded (books always use the word "mark") his allies with his "good" ring.
If I recall correctly, it was Charlie Houston that had Moon Knight branding criminals with a crescent.
I haven't seen the movie, but I'd add the branding habit to my list of issues with the DCEU. I know people will try justify it like they have with the killing, gun use, & level of brutality. It sounds more like AzBats is in this movie then Batman.
M
Re: the Phantom, true, and I always found that a little strange even though I got the concept behind it. At least he didn't punch his friends in the jaw to mark them.
Good call on the Moon Knight. I didn't read that one, but I was sure I was missing somebody. Huston’s take was firmly set as MK having multiple personality disorder, right—no ambiguity when it came to the state of his mental health?
I can only think of three other masked heroes who branded criminals: The Phantom, who whacked bad guys with his skull ring; the Spider, who branded a spider on the dead bodies of the villains he killed; and Zorro, who slashed a Z into the flesh of his enemies. All, of course, preceded the creation of Batman, and had varying degrees of influence (Zorro obviously being the biggest) in Batman’s creation.
I still haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm making no judgment on Batman’s use of the brand, but none of the Phantom or Zorro’s opponents were ever killed simply for having the heroes’ brands on them. And the Spider’s opponents were already dead when he branded them.
The Phantom also branded (books always use the word "mark") his allies with his "good" ring.
If I recall correctly, it was Charlie Houston that had Moon Knight branding criminals with a crescent.
I haven't seen the movie, but I'd add the branding habit to my list of issues with the DCEU. I know people will try justify it like they have with the killing, gun use, & level of brutality. It sounds more like AzBats is in this movie then Batman.
M
Re: the Phantom, true, and I always found that a little strange even though I got the concept behind it. At least he didn't punch his friends in the jaw to mark them.
Good call on the Moon Knight. I didn't read that one, but I was sure I was missing somebody. Huston’s take was firmly set as MK having multiple personality disorder, right—no ambiguity when it came to the state of his mental health?
Yup, ol' Charlie started that angle. It's a side bar, but the current notion is that Spector is moon shit crazy. If he wasn't, then he really would be a Marvel Batman. If the current creators took the time to read the original run, they'd understand Moon Knight isn't Batman, but a comic book superhero version of the Shadow. If current creators ran with that, they wouldn't need him to be moon shit crazy.
It's a side bar, but the current notion is that Spector is moon shit crazy. If he wasn't, then he really would be a Marvel Batman. If the current creators took the time to read the original run, they'd understand Moon Knight isn't Batman, but a comic book superhero version of the Shadow. If current creators ran with that, they wouldn't need him to be moon shit crazy.
M
Moon Knight may be the Marvel Batfleck, because from what I saw in BvS, Batman is one crazy mutha. There were fewer fever-dream sequences in Dreamscape.
I can only think of three other masked heroes who branded criminals: The Phantom, who whacked bad guys with his skull ring; the Spider, who branded a spider on the dead bodies of the villains he killed; and Zorro, who slashed a Z into the flesh of his enemies. All, of course, preceded the creation of Batman, and had varying degrees of influence (Zorro obviously being the biggest) in Batman’s creation.
I still haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm making no judgment on Batman’s use of the brand, but none of the Phantom or Zorro’s opponents were ever killed simply for having the heroes’ brands on them. And the Spider’s opponents were already dead when he branded them.
The Phantom also branded (books always use the word "mark") his allies with his "good" ring.
If I recall correctly, it was Charlie Houston that had Moon Knight branding criminals with a crescent.
I haven't seen the movie, but I'd add the branding habit to my list of issues with the DCEU. I know people will try justify it like they have with the killing, gun use, & level of brutality. It sounds more like AzBats is in this movie then Batman.
M
Re: the Phantom, true, and I always found that a little strange even though I got the concept behind it. At least he didn't punch his friends in the jaw to mark them.
Good call on the Moon Knight. I didn't read that one, but I was sure I was missing somebody. Huston’s take was firmly set as MK having multiple personality disorder, right—no ambiguity when it came to the state of his mental health?
Yup, ol' Charlie started that angle. It's a side bar, but the current notion is that Spector is moon shit crazy. If he wasn't, then he really would be a Marvel Batman. If the current creators took the time to read the original run, they'd understand Moon Knight isn't Batman, but a comic book superhero version of the Shadow. If current creators ran with that, they wouldn't need him to be moon shit crazy.
M
Did Brian Wood move away from Ellis' "You're not insane. Your brain has been colonised by an ancient consciousness from beyond space-time" explanation for his different characterisations? I know the current series is on the surface trying to make you question his sanity and Khonshu's existence, but it makes it pretty clear all is not what it seems.
I can only think of three other masked heroes who branded criminals: The Phantom, who whacked bad guys with his skull ring; the Spider, who branded a spider on the dead bodies of the villains he killed; and Zorro, who slashed a Z into the flesh of his enemies. All, of course, preceded the creation of Batman, and had varying degrees of influence (Zorro obviously being the biggest) in Batman’s creation.
I still haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm making no judgment on Batman’s use of the brand, but none of the Phantom or Zorro’s opponents were ever killed simply for having the heroes’ brands on them. And the Spider’s opponents were already dead when he branded them.
The Phantom also branded (books always use the word "mark") his allies with his "good" ring.
If I recall correctly, it was Charlie Houston that had Moon Knight branding criminals with a crescent.
I haven't seen the movie, but I'd add the branding habit to my list of issues with the DCEU. I know people will try justify it like they have with the killing, gun use, & level of brutality. It sounds more like AzBats is in this movie then Batman.
M
Re: the Phantom, true, and I always found that a little strange even though I got the concept behind it. At least he didn't punch his friends in the jaw to mark them.
Good call on the Moon Knight. I didn't read that one, but I was sure I was missing somebody. Huston’s take was firmly set as MK having multiple personality disorder, right—no ambiguity when it came to the state of his mental health?
Yup, ol' Charlie started that angle. It's a side bar, but the current notion is that Spector is moon shit crazy. If he wasn't, then he really would be a Marvel Batman. If the current creators took the time to read the original run, they'd understand Moon Knight isn't Batman, but a comic book superhero version of the Shadow. If current creators ran with that, they wouldn't need him to be moon shit crazy.
M
Did Brian Wood move away from Ellis' "You're not insane. Your brain has been colonised by an ancient consciousness from beyond space-time" explanation for his different characterisations? I know the current series is on the surface trying to make you question his sanity and Khonshu's existence, but it makes it pretty clear all is not what it seems.
If I recall, Wood's stories took a couple steps away from Ellis' version. You still got the same feel as what Ellis was doing with the character.
My main issue with that volume of MK was he his alternate identities were basically just masked personas. Instead of Lockley, Grant, & Moon Knight, there was "Mr. Knight", a Khonshu bird based costume, & Moon Knight.
I really don't understand why so many people didn't like this? I wasn't excited going into it because I thought there going to be to many characters in it but Spoiler Alert most of them are small cameos.
I thought maybe there where to many dream scenes but other then that I liked it. I thought the fight between Superman and Batman was awesome I thought the last fight with Doomsday was good.
Seeing Superman,Batman,Wonder Woman the trinity of DC together for the first time was very cool. And I thought Lex was good to.
Another Spoiler. People are upset that Batman murdered someone but news flash this isn't the first movie where Batman has murdered people go watch the first Tim Burton one.
I think the one big negative is they shouldn't have revealed Doomsday in the trailer they should have kept him up there sleeve.
I'd give it an 7/10. It wasn't the greatest movie ever but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as a lot of people think it was.
I really don't understand why so many people didn't like this? I wasn't excited going into it because I thought there going to be to many characters in it but Spoiler Alert most of them are small cameos.
I thought maybe there where to many dream scenes but other then that I liked it. I thought the fight between Superman and Batman was awesome I thought the last fight with Doomsday was good.
Seeing Superman,Batman,Wonder Woman the trinity of DC together for the first time was very cool. And I thought Lex was good to.
Another Spoiler. People are upset that Batman murdered someone but news flash this isn't the first movie where Batman has murdered people go watch the first Tim Burton one.
I think the one big negative is they shouldn't have revealed Doomsday in the trailer they should have kept him up there sleeve.
I'd give it an 7/10. It wasn't the greatest movie ever but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as a lot of people think it was.
I haven't seen the movie (it's not on Netflix yet), so I can only comment on Batman killing aspect.
I've heard about how "any real fan knows he killed in his early years" & about the Burton (some even lumped in Nolan's) movies.
Correct; Burton's movies had a Batman blatantly killing criminals, similar to his pulp era years. Doesn't mean if social media existed then people wouldn't be shredding it. I sure didn't like that part. Also, I haven't seen any interviews where Burton claimed to be presenting a comic book interpretation of the character. Snyder presented his version as being in like the source material.
I'm also going to lump gun use in this next comment. Despite the past of the character, Batman (& Kent) not killing has become the norm. It's why even general audiences seemed thrown off by it.
Snyder claimed Batmsn kills throughout DKR...yet no one has identified just one confirmed kill.
Again, I haven't seen the movie, so I cannot use first hand opinions on the movie. I can, however, voice a dislike for a confirmed interpretation that goes against part of what I like about the character.
@Mihawk ... I'm with you 100%. Was really expecting one of the most epic disasters in movie history based on the reviews. Found myself enjoying it for the most part, dream sequences aside.
Of course it's not a total disaster. There are obviously several people that like Zack Snyder movies and plenty of people who still enjoy Rob Liefeld comics. So this film was bound to please a large category of comic fans, no matter how many people think it's a hot mess.
I'm in for the R-rated version if they release it in theaters, and the DVD is bought the day it comes out.
I'm on the fence on this R-rated stuff. 1.) seeing Batman, Kent, & Diana in an R-rated movie seems...wrong. Even for those hardo, dismissive buffoons who claim the MCU are comedies, the Trinity shouldn't be inaccessible to young fans.
2.) it sounds like the extra footage will tighten the plot, but at the expense of heightening what also got negative reactions; the level of violence & undesirable interpretations of these characters.
Going with the notion BvS:DoJ will max out around $900 million, will a theatrical release of the R-rated version greatly increase its box office? How many general audience members that didn't care for it, return for the new edition? What about comic book fans that didn't care for the character interpretations?
Why don't a lot of people like it? Well for me the two heroes and the villain hardly resemble what I've come to expect. Luthor was the worst offender as he was either the Joker in disguise or Frank Gorshin back from the dead playing the Riddler. Batman was brutal, used guns, and branded criminals knowing they'd be killed in jail. Superman was the same sad sack of meat with a furrowed brow we saw in MoS. Again, Supes is portrayed as a big sad dummy..despite the character historically being portrayed as one of the smartest people on the planet. Superman not being able to spot the bomb on the wheelchair or not being able to hear his mother's heartbeat, voice, breathing, etc when she was kidnapped was dreadful. It was a movie about "heroes" that was terrible, dark, and simply not fun.
Going with the notion BvS:DoJ will max out around $900 million, will a theatrical release of the R-rated version greatly increase its box office? How many general audience members that didn't care for it, return for the new edition? What about comic book fans that didn't care for the character interpretations?
M
I think many of them will return to see it again just so they can hate on it all that much more. :) And they will - all - post about how much more they hated it.
I'm curious to see what the R-rating will entail. More violence? To me that was a huge part of what made BvS great. This was the first Batman I've seen in a long time who flat out fought his opponents, not shuffled around in the constraints of armor with cool lines and bat-nipples.
I never worry too much about different interpretations on a character. It doesn't negate what came before. Clooney's goofy Batman (but excellent Bruce Wayne) doesn't make me look at my Jim Aparo books and go "Pfeh! Ruined!" Frank Miller's take on the Dark Knight is embraced and hated by different people, but that doesn't take away from how much I enjoy Adam West's take on the character. In another ten years, there may be some new interpretation that'll have everyone going "Well...he's no Affleck!" :)
Just way too much energy spent on something that can be enjoyed, or hated, and then moved on from, in my book.
Comments
I had to...
But only because I feel like those fanboys are big whiners.
M
Anybody ever figure out why Batman, who we're told has been operating for years, is still referred to as "The Bat"?
How can Superman be ignorant that the authorities apparently approve of Batman if they have a bat signal that alerts him when he is needed?
Why would Batman's branding of a criminal result in that criminal being hurt or killed in prison? Wouldn't it mean they had fought Batman? Seems like a badge of courage/honor. Why would other criminals try to hurt a fellow inmate for that?
Why did Superman mail the engagement ring to his mom's house in Smallville for Lois? Wouldn't he just bring the ring with him?
Probably best not to think about it too much...
Did they explain why he drove such a high profile car? Seems like that'd be easy for Kent to track.
M
I was curious about the car because reportedly, this Batman was going to be semi-retired & greatly under the radar. I thought a high profile car didn't make sense for that.
M
I don't remember anything anywhere that eluded to batman going underground or assuming a lower profile (But I could b wrong). Using the batmobile didn't seem out of place imo.
Yeah. The wedding ring bit was lame for numerous reasons.
I had no problem with batman being referred as "the bat" and wouldn't. But didn't even register w me honestly. He was also called "the batman" and "vigilante" etc no?
No, the branding of criminals causing them to be targeted in prison didn't work w me either. But just a minor curiosity imo . Not a big issue for me.
Funniest thing is that superman even cared in the slightest. He didn't appear to care remotely about the atrocities being committed by the African warlords until Lois was threatened, and then he flat out gruesomely kills the guy. There's no implication he cared about the horrible violent crimes being committed by the criminals batman branded (serial kidnapping/murderer). But he hears that same criminal gets marked by batman (the guy actually stopping him), and that mark maybe eventually gets him attacked in prison, and he's now on a mission to stop batman?! That's his concern? That's what upsets him and is worthy of his time and attention? What about the guys who actually did slaughter all those people in the desert? What about the joker or killer croc? What about the fact the Gotham authorities are at least mildly accepting of him? What about the civil liberties of the guy YOU killed!?
Stupid.
And on a larger scale, will the Justice League movies bring him back from that precipice?
*Bat-Brander® is not responsible for any injury or loss of life associated with being branded by this product.
I still haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm making no judgment on Batman’s use of the brand, but none of the Phantom or Zorro’s opponents were ever killed simply for having the heroes’ brands on them. And the Spider’s opponents were already dead when he branded them.
If I recall correctly, it was Charlie Houston that had Moon Knight branding criminals with a crescent.
I haven't seen the movie, but I'd add the branding habit to my list of issues with the DCEU. I know people will try justify it like they have with the killing, gun use, & level of brutality. It sounds more like AzBats is in this movie then Batman.
M
That died a quick death...not sure they ever used that version of her.
Good call on the Moon Knight. I didn't read that one, but I was sure I was missing somebody. Huston’s take was firmly set as MK having multiple personality disorder, right—no ambiguity when it came to the state of his mental health?
M
My main issue with that volume of MK was he his alternate identities were basically just masked personas. Instead of Lockley, Grant, & Moon Knight, there was "Mr. Knight", a Khonshu bird based costume, & Moon Knight.
M
I thought maybe there where to many dream scenes but other then that I liked it. I thought the fight between Superman and Batman was awesome I thought the last fight with Doomsday was good.
Seeing Superman,Batman,Wonder Woman the trinity of DC together for the first time was very cool. And I thought Lex was good to.
Another Spoiler. People are upset that Batman murdered someone but news flash this isn't the first movie where Batman has murdered people go watch the first Tim Burton one.
I think the one big negative is they shouldn't have revealed Doomsday in the trailer they should have kept him up there sleeve.
I'd give it an 7/10. It wasn't the greatest movie ever but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as a lot of people think it was.
I've heard about how "any real fan knows he killed in his early years" & about the Burton (some even lumped in Nolan's) movies.
Correct; Burton's movies had a Batman blatantly killing criminals, similar to his pulp era years. Doesn't mean if social media existed then people wouldn't be shredding it. I sure didn't like that part. Also, I haven't seen any interviews where Burton claimed to be presenting a comic book interpretation of the character. Snyder presented his version as being in like the source material.
I'm also going to lump gun use in this next comment. Despite the past of the character, Batman (& Kent) not killing has become the norm. It's why even general audiences seemed thrown off by it.
Snyder claimed Batmsn kills throughout DKR...yet no one has identified just one confirmed kill.
Again, I haven't seen the movie, so I cannot use first hand opinions on the movie. I can, however, voice a dislike for a confirmed interpretation that goes against part of what I like about the character.
M
2.) it sounds like the extra footage will tighten the plot, but at the expense of heightening what also got negative reactions; the level of violence & undesirable interpretations of these characters.
Going with the notion BvS:DoJ will max out around $900 million, will a theatrical release of the R-rated version greatly increase its box office? How many general audience members that didn't care for it, return for the new edition? What about comic book fans that didn't care for the character interpretations?
M
I'm curious to see what the R-rating will entail. More violence? To me that was a huge part of what made BvS great. This was the first Batman I've seen in a long time who flat out fought his opponents, not shuffled around in the constraints of armor with cool lines and bat-nipples.
I never worry too much about different interpretations on a character. It doesn't negate what came before. Clooney's goofy Batman (but excellent Bruce Wayne) doesn't make me look at my Jim Aparo books and go "Pfeh! Ruined!" Frank Miller's take on the Dark Knight is embraced and hated by different people, but that doesn't take away from how much I enjoy Adam West's take on the character. In another ten years, there may be some new interpretation that'll have everyone going "Well...he's no Affleck!" :)
Just way too much energy spent on something that can be enjoyed, or hated, and then moved on from, in my book.