Thanks for the clarification. Didn't want to judge.
Normally, when I start a tweet, post, or sentence with just "interesting", it's going to be followed with smugness or sarcasm.
When I find something actual interesting, there'll be a couple words that precede it in the sentence.
M
Got it. My wife has actually gotten upset when I respond with the word 'interesting' because I use it so frequently. However, I use it when I truly find something to be rather interesting, but can't quite muster up a different response.
That, and it was something he said eight years ago. I wonder if he still feels that way (and he might...). Eight years ago I figured now that the election's over that'd be the last we'd ever hear about Sarah Palin person. :)
I know someone who's read James Cameron's Spider-man script had he gotten the job instead of Raimi. There's a scene on a rooftop, where after being rescued, Spidey & MJ have sex with webbed bondage.
I recall hearing this and feeling like someone robbed my childhood. Fortunately, it wasn't made...until the porn parody.
I wonder why I thought all during the buildup, and upon a first viewing, that Batman was retired and that the events of Man Of Steel brought him back into the game?
There is ZERO evidence that Bruce ever gave up being Batman. Alfred doesn't hint at anything. Bruce doesn't. Perry White doesn't. Batman just IS. He's a longstanding crimefighter who's managed to maintain a sort of "is he even real in the first place" air about him.
Batman has always existed in this universe, Clark just never heard of him in Kansas (or, if he had, just wasn't close enough to Gotham to do anything about it). So Clarks sudden interest is PURELY a result of his being new to Metropolis/Gotham. Not as a result of Batman suddenly "reappearing" in Gotham.
Seriously, for the life of me I can't figure out why I thought he had retired.
I wonder why I thought all during the buildup, and upon a first viewing, that Batman was retired and that the events of Man Of Steel brought him back into the game?
There is ZERO evidence that Bruce ever gave up being Batman. Alfred doesn't hint at anything. Bruce doesn't. Perry White doesn't. Batman just IS. He's a longstanding crimefighter who's managed to maintain a sort of "is he even real in the first place" air about him.
Batman has always existed in this universe, Clark just never heard of him in Kansas (or, if he had, just wasn't close enough to Gotham to do anything about it). So Clarks sudden interest is PURELY a result of his being new to Metropolis/Gotham. Not as a result of Batman suddenly "reappearing" in Gotham.
Seriously, for the life of me I can't figure out why I thought he had retired.
I want to say early reports were that this Batman was either going to be retired or semi-retired.
I never had the impression that he was retired, but that after so many years of crimefighting, he'd become more of a monster than hero. I'm hoping the Affleck movie will show some of that.
I never had the impression that he was retired, but that after so many years of crimefighting, he'd become more of a monster than hero. I'm hoping the Affleck movie will show some of that.
Again, i haven't seen the movie, so I can only speculate, but what evidence was there that in this version of Batman started off the way we're familiar with? Couldn't it be he was always this way? They already established this version of Batman is heavily influenced by Frank Miller. The same Frank Miller who locked Grayson in the BatCave to eat rats, banged Black Canary as thugs burned, & was "the goddam Batman."
Could very well be that version. I always felt one of the things about Batman was that his presence caused a one-upmanship. He showed up - criminals had to get tougher - as a result he had to get tougher - so the criminals had to get tougher - and by the time we get to where we are now...well, he's shooting people and branding them.
From what I've been learning about Zack Snyder's preferred comic book universe, his Batman is far more sociopathic than Miller's version, but it isn't far off.
Quick question for those who have seen BvS:DoJ. Is the movie really "bold"?
***NOTE- SOME CIVIL WAR SPOILERS FOLLOW***
I've since people claim Civil War was "safe" & BvS was "bold." After inquiring with several people for examples, here's what I was told:
Status quo was restored at the end of Civil War (which I argue isn't the case), Stark returned to his "joking personality" & Cap is still a patriot. The "we good" letter indicated they're still friends.
On the flip side; BvS deconstructed its characters. Batman starts out at rock bottom & has no issue kill (apparently since his first 6 appearances in '39, it's the norm), but decided to no longer kill at the end.
They also killed Kent at the end (because the resurrection implication & JL confirmation didn't negate his death).
Am I off my disbelieving BvS was actually "bold" & it's just fanboy spin?
@Matt - Oy, you are lighting some fireworks well before July 4th! :joy: :joy:
Here's how I see it: people who didn't like BvS will not be inclined to yield any ground to it, they see it as a failure in tone, characterization, and character development... while people who did like the film will tell you it did make bold choices, especially as far as tone, characterization, and character development. Truly, the same goes for CW (and perhaps most/all films).
I am lucky enough to have really liked BvS as well as CW. I can see their flaws - but since I genuinely enjoyed watching both, I prefer to appreciate their strengths. So I'd say yeah, BvS was a very bold endeavor. I look forward to seeing the longer cut this summer.
@Matt - Oy, you are lighting some fireworks well before July 4th! :joy: :joy:
Here's how I see it: people who didn't like BvS will not be inclined to yield any ground to it, they see it as a failure in tone, characterization, and character development... while people who did like the film will tell you it did make bold choices, especially as far as tone, characterization, and character development. Truly, the same goes for CW (and perhaps most/all films).
I am lucky enough to have really liked BvS as well as CW. I can see their flaws - but since I genuinely enjoyed watching both, I prefer to appreciate their strengths. So I'd say yeah, BvS was a very bold endeavor. I look forward to seeing the longer cut this summer.
But what makes BvS "bold"? I haven't seen the movie, officially, but it doesn't seem any less "safe" then the other comic book movies. And that's not to knock the movie as any type of failure.
@Matt - I think the easiest way for you to see if BvS is "bold" or not would be for you to see the film lol. Why haven't you seen it? Because of its mixed reviews?
No, I don't base what I see/don't see on reviews. Couple reasons I haven't seen it. By the third trailer, I was lukewarm to what I saw. Our son was about 2 weeks old & I told my wife during her maternity leave, I wouldn't go out without her. She had no interest in the movie.
Once it came out, I read the plot & didn't care for it; Martha?! Death already?! Plus this version of Batman lacks some of the characteristics that have made me a fan of the character.
Finally, I don't see Batman in the clips or any merchandise. I see Ben Affleck. He's too big a celebrity for me to forget reality. I have the same issue with other A-list celebrities.
@Matt - I think the easiest way for you to see if BvS is "bold" or not would be for you to see the film lol. Why haven't you seen it? Because of its mixed reviews?
I watched it & see why people define it as "bold." It was so bold, I actually found myself hating Batman. The more the movie progress, the more I thought this was an Elseworlds story I'd only read once.
It wasn't the disaster critics reported. I think the main issue is it felt like Watchmen with Batman & Kent inserted. Although I cared about Kent, he came off as not that smart. Lex reminded me of Jim Carrey's Riddler, & I just didn't care about Batman.
Some buds of mine have seen the ultimate edition cut with the extra scenes and their take is while it won't likely change anyone's mind (whatever they feel towards it), it does a good job of filling in and explaining the holes the original release left. You get a better feel of Batman's animosity and distrust of Superman, and Luthor's scheming is given a bit more clarity.
I'll be picking it up when the DVD hits. I enjoyed the original, but I'm interested to see if what I'm hearing holds true or not.
Some buds of mine have seen the ultimate edition cut with the extra scenes and their take is while it won't likely change anyone's mind (whatever they feel towards it), it does a good job of filling in and explaining the holes the original release left. You get a better feel of Batman's animosity and distrust of Superman, and Luthor's scheming is given a bit more clarity.
I'll be picking it up when the DVD hits. I enjoyed the original, but I'm interested to see if what I'm hearing holds true or not.
I sat through the first half of that movie waiting for the main event. I really felt my time was wasted up to that point. While I felt after seeing the movie that I did not want to see MORE I can see where seeing the full movie might change my mind. I had always planned to rent it for the end scenes but I might take a flier on the rest of it.
Aw man, just realized that BvS: Ultimate Edition doesn't come out on blu-ray & 4K until 7/19.. which is ONE day before I leave for San Diego Comic-Con! That day is always chaos. Maybe I will just dload off Amazon Video afterall. Grrr
I couldn't wait and bought it on iTunes last night (contains Ultimate Edition and theatrical versions). My wife went to bed early, so I'm watching the Ultimate Edition (woo hoo!). After an hour in, I see why Batman got first name billing on this. Regardless, I'm enjoying it.
Yup, if you go in thinking it's going to be a horrible movie because of what you've heard...and you somewhat enjoyed Man of Steel...you'll probably think this movie is OK at worst. If, on the other hand, you didn't like Man of Steel(because this is more of the same) or you go in with super high hopes then you could be disappointed.
Comments
When I find something actual interesting, there'll be a couple words that precede it in the sentence.
M
That, and it was something he said eight years ago. I wonder if he still feels that way (and he might...). Eight years ago I figured now that the election's over that'd be the last we'd ever hear about Sarah Palin person. :)
M
I recall hearing this and feeling like someone robbed my childhood. Fortunately, it wasn't made...until the porn parody.
M
I wonder why I thought all during the buildup, and upon a first viewing, that Batman was retired and that the events of Man Of Steel brought him back into the game?
There is ZERO evidence that Bruce ever gave up being Batman. Alfred doesn't hint at anything. Bruce doesn't. Perry White doesn't. Batman just IS. He's a longstanding crimefighter who's managed to maintain a sort of "is he even real in the first place" air about him.
Batman has always existed in this universe, Clark just never heard of him in Kansas (or, if he had, just wasn't close enough to Gotham to do anything about it). So Clarks sudden interest is PURELY a result of his being new to Metropolis/Gotham. Not as a result of Batman suddenly "reappearing" in Gotham.
Seriously, for the life of me I can't figure out why I thought he had retired.
M
M
***NOTE- SOME CIVIL WAR SPOILERS FOLLOW***
I've since people claim Civil War was "safe" & BvS was "bold." After inquiring with several people for examples, here's what I was told:
Status quo was restored at the end of Civil War (which I argue isn't the case), Stark returned to his "joking personality" & Cap is still a patriot. The "we good" letter indicated they're still friends.
On the flip side; BvS deconstructed its characters. Batman starts out at rock bottom & has no issue kill (apparently since his first 6 appearances in '39, it's the norm), but decided to no longer kill at the end.
They also killed Kent at the end (because the resurrection implication & JL confirmation didn't negate his death).
Am I off my disbelieving BvS was actually "bold" & it's just fanboy spin?
M
Here's how I see it: people who didn't like BvS will not be inclined to yield any ground to it, they see it as a failure in tone, characterization, and character development... while people who did like the film will tell you it did make bold choices, especially as far as tone, characterization, and character development. Truly, the same goes for CW (and perhaps most/all films).
I am lucky enough to have really liked BvS as well as CW. I can see their flaws - but since I genuinely enjoyed watching both, I prefer to appreciate their strengths. So I'd say yeah, BvS was a very bold endeavor. I look forward to seeing the longer cut this summer.
M
Once it came out, I read the plot & didn't care for it; Martha?! Death already?! Plus this version of Batman lacks some of the characteristics that have made me a fan of the character.
Finally, I don't see Batman in the clips or any merchandise. I see Ben Affleck. He's too big a celebrity for me to forget reality. I have the same issue with other A-list celebrities.
M
M
M
I'll be picking it up when the DVD hits. I enjoyed the original, but I'm interested to see if what I'm hearing holds true or not.