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.
I wouldn't say I think it negates what came before. My dislike of Morrison & Scott Snyder's interpretation has just kept me from reading Batman in a decade. It doesn't negate the 15 years I read him beforehand.
I wouldn't say I think it negates what came before. My dislike of Morrison & Scott Snyder's interpretation has just kept me from reading Batman in a decade. It doesn't negate the 15 years I read him beforehand.
M
But I think for many, it does.
"This isn't how Superman acts!"
Well, which Superman are we talking about here? The one who couldn't fly and was constantly caught up in goofy mishaps with Lois and Jimmy? The Red and Blue Boy Scout? Captain Mullet from the 90s? Christopher Reeve? George Reeves? The Animated Series version? Superman Red? Superman Blue? Dean Cain?
And it gets REALLY crazy if you exchange Batman for Superman in the above statement. I just figure like the versions you do, hate the versions you don't, but I just don't presume that all versions are the same character...
Well, which Superman are we talking about here? The one who couldn't fly and was constantly caught up in goofy mishaps with Lois and Jimmy? The Red and Blue Boy Scout? Captain Mullet from the 90s? Christopher Reeve? George Reeves? The Animated Series version? Superman Red? Superman Blue? Dean Cain?
Remind me again which of these versions killed his enemies and wasn't all that smart?
I wouldn't say I think it negates what came before. My dislike of Morrison & Scott Snyder's interpretation has just kept me from reading Batman in a decade. It doesn't negate the 15 years I read him beforehand.
M
But I think for many, it does.
"This isn't how Superman acts!"
Well, which Superman are we talking about here? The one who couldn't fly and was constantly caught up in goofy mishaps with Lois and Jimmy? The Red and Blue Boy Scout? Captain Mullet from the 90s? Christopher Reeve? George Reeves? The Animated Series version? Superman Red? Superman Blue? Dean Cain?
And it gets REALLY crazy if you exchange Batman for Superman in the above statement. I just figure like the versions you do, hate the versions you don't, but I just don't presume that all versions are the same character...
That's fair.
However-- I do think when the reason you can get nearly $100M worth of people to show up opening weekend because they have an existing relationship to these, some of the most famous characters in the culture there is prior knowledge and expectation on the table to work with. Can you and should you challenge, surprise, and deviate from expectation? Absolutely. I agree that there are a lot of different versions and interpretations of these characters. But I think the onus is on them to justify why the interpretations they are presenting make sense. I think the sale is theirs to make, you know what I mean? Especially when you have people showing up believing they are seeing a story about characters they know. If you want to change that, great, but make sure you are making something out of those changes and making them ring true within the work you are presenting.
(Personally, BvS did not do a good job of that, especially with Batman. But I respect others had their own experience of it.)
Well, which Superman are we talking about here? The one who couldn't fly and was constantly caught up in goofy mishaps with Lois and Jimmy? The Red and Blue Boy Scout? Captain Mullet from the 90s? Christopher Reeve? George Reeves? The Animated Series version? Superman Red? Superman Blue? Dean Cain?
Remind me again which of these versions killed his enemies and wasn't all that smart?
Well, which Superman are we talking about here? The one who couldn't fly and was constantly caught up in goofy mishaps with Lois and Jimmy? The Red and Blue Boy Scout? Captain Mullet from the 90s? Christopher Reeve? George Reeves? The Animated Series version? Superman Red? Superman Blue? Dean Cain?
Remind me again which of these versions killed his enemies and wasn't all that smart?
Movie Superman (Zod and crew) - Superman II (1980) Movie Globus Superman (Nuclear Man - Superman IV (1987) Byrne Superman (Zod and crew) - Superman #22 (1988) Mullet Superman (Doomsday) - Superman #75 (1993) DCAU Superman (Imperium) - "Secret Origins" (2001) DCAU Justice Lords Superman - "A Better World" (2003) Movie Superman (Zod and crew) - Man of Steel (2013)
Look how long he left Mon'El in the Phantom Zone. Look at his patent disregard for cancer, famine, war, plague. With the Kryptonian technology in the Fortress of Solitude, to say nothing of his powerset, there are very few problems that should be left in the world... provided that he actually cares. Aside from his name recognition, the absolute best thing that Warner could do would be to drop him from their cinematic universe. He unravels everything.
However-- I do think when the reason you can get nearly $100M worth of people to show up opening weekend because they have an existing relationship to these, some of the most famous characters in the culture there is prior knowledge and expectation on the table to work with. Can you and should you challenge, surprise, and deviate from expectation? Absolutely. I agree that there are a lot of different versions and interpretations of these characters. But I think the onus is on them to justify why the interpretations they are presenting make sense. I think the sale is theirs to make, you know what I mean? Especially when you have people showing up believing they are seeing a story about characters they know. If you want to change that, great, but make sure you are making something out of those changes and making them ring true within the work you are presenting.
I think the "making sense" part is a loooong game that TimeWarner is playing with the franchise. Disney's doing more short, controlled bursts of movies. While there's a larger story building up, there's still a lot of self-containment in the Marvel movies. I don't get the sense DC's going that route...they're making one MASSIVE movie and just showing us bits and pieces along the way. Whether that works...or doesn't...is up to the individual. I'm pretty used to the long game by now, so I'm willing to see where they're going to take Cavill's Superman.
And to me it's kind of like what Steve Jobs said about the partnership Apple did with Microsoft: "We need to lose this way of thinking that for Apple to succeed Microsoft has to fail." Replace those companies with Marvel and DC. I've read more columns and stories this month about people counting box office receipts as a measure of whether or not the story is any good or not, and how Civil War is going to "beat" BvS in a few weeks.
Well, which Superman are we talking about here? The one who couldn't fly and was constantly caught up in goofy mishaps with Lois and Jimmy? The Red and Blue Boy Scout? Captain Mullet from the 90s? Christopher Reeve? George Reeves? The Animated Series version? Superman Red? Superman Blue? Dean Cain?
Remind me again which of these versions killed his enemies and wasn't all that smart?
Movie Superman (Zod and crew) - Superman II (1980) Movie Globus Superman (Nuclear Man - Superman IV (1987) Byrne Superman (Zod and crew) - Superman #22 (1988) Mullet Superman (Doomsday) - Superman #75 (1993) DCAU Superman (Imperium) - "Secret Origins" (2001) DCAU Justice Lords Superman - "A Better World" (2003) Movie Superman (Zod and crew) - Man of Steel (2013)
I'd argue that at least Superman was smart and joyful in 6 of those 7 referenced iterations.
And I certainly don't believe that casual fans of Superman see him as a clod or a killer. Hardcore DC fans are quick to cite examples of gun toting Batman and neck snapping Supes, but that doesn't change the perception in the minds of most members of the movie-going audience. Maybe Zack Snyder's interpretation will eventually shift people to begin seeing Superman as a loose canon who loses and Batman as a cold-blooded, baddie-branding killer, but as cliched as this may sound "that ain't my DC heroes". Now I'm not saying there ought not be other interpretations of these character, but there should be some in story logic and reason to it (beyond how a man can fly in his underwear).
For some folks, slick imagery and a film chocked full of fan-service moments is perfectly suitable as a popcorn movie, and I don't begrudge them for that, but neither of Snyder's DC films has worked for me, and I desperately wanted them to. I loved Donner's Superman films, and Nolan's Batman films - but not Snyder's. His Man of Steel actually made me long for Singer's Superman to return.
However-- I do think when the reason you can get nearly $100M worth of people to show up opening weekend because they have an existing relationship to these, some of the most famous characters in the culture there is prior knowledge and expectation on the table to work with. Can you and should you challenge, surprise, and deviate from expectation? Absolutely. I agree that there are a lot of different versions and interpretations of these characters. But I think the onus is on them to justify why the interpretations they are presenting make sense. I think the sale is theirs to make, you know what I mean? Especially when you have people showing up believing they are seeing a story about characters they know. If you want to change that, great, but make sure you are making something out of those changes and making them ring true within the work you are presenting.
I think the "making sense" part is a loooong game that TimeWarner is playing with the franchise. Disney's doing more short, controlled bursts of movies. While there's a larger story building up, there's still a lot of self-containment in the Marvel movies. I don't get the sense DC's going that route...they're making one MASSIVE movie and just showing us bits and pieces along the way. Whether that works...or doesn't...is up to the individual. I'm pretty used to the long game by now, so I'm willing to see where they're going to take Cavill's Superman.
And to me it's kind of like what Steve Jobs said about the partnership Apple did with Microsoft: "We need to lose this way of thinking that for Apple to succeed Microsoft has to fail." Replace those companies with Marvel and DC. I've read more columns and stories this month about people counting box office receipts as a measure of whether or not the story is any good or not, and how Civil War is going to "beat" BvS in a few weeks.
Honestly I had no idea they were feuding! :)
Sure, but I also think each movie is a world unto itself. I am not trying to make this about a comparison to Marvel movies (and some of them have had this problem as well). I just wanted them to sell me on the Batman that they presented in this world. I was ready to meet him as an entirely new thing. And, despite devoting so much of the opening to introducing him and positioning him as this, certain, sort of post-9/11 Batman, I found he didn't make sense. His motivations and actions (and lack of preparation and skill for fighting Superman when he finally did) just didn't ring true within this film. And I had paid and was there to see this film. This was not part of some discounted subscription to a season of their next 10 movies. Tell me THIS story, and tell it well. I was game, and, for me, they did not deliver.
The main weakness of this movie, for me-- the actual Superman vs. Batman fight just wasn't very good. The Trinity vs. Doomsday fight was actually better. Not great, but better. And I think that is a problem, given what the big hook was for this movie in the first place:
There were too many external, Luthor-created circumstances forcing it ahead (which is to say, Superman is forced to fight Batman because of the damsel in distress, rather than choosing to because of something that was to do with the conflict between he and Batman). So they were fighting each other, but the dramatic tension is the ticking flamethrower (eww) clock elsewhere.
You are telling me that Batman has had, not an hour, but YEARS to prepare for this, and THAT is the best he could do?? Part of his plan for fighting Superman was machine guns. MACHINE GUNS. Against a Superman he has studied for years. I mean, I know this version of Batman loves guns, but, really?
The fight was actually not integral to the plot. It gets arbitrarily interrupted without resolution, nor does it actually unite them. Doomsday attacks, and they fight him instead. Which is something that could and would have happened anyway had Batman and Superman never even met before.
If you are going to call this movie-- even if it is just meant to be an episode in a developing saga-- Superman V Batman. Then you should have that mean something. And, more importantly, you should have that fight be epic. Personally, I feel they did not deliver on that. I wish they had.
For me, it is not about some rivalry between DC and Marvel. This is not sports to me. Neither is my home team. I don't look at either of those corporate entities and use the pronoun "we".
I am a self-interested consumer and I am game to spend money and time on this. The rational market for me is for them to both make movies that are great. I would actually rather be entertained and happily surprised than to have my concerns confirmed. I know some people would rather believe that is not true, and need to feel that those that felt about this movie a different way watched it through a lens of wanting to dislike it, rather than giving it a chance. And, I don't know, maybe I could imagine having that kind of time and energy to spend, to go drop $14 (yep, NYC) to go hate-watch something. But that is just not my life these days. I personally am just to old and tired to be partisan about my entertainment. I get out to few enough movies that I want to see these days. I gave this one a chance, and wanted it to be great.
And to me the fight was spot on, and something I'm hoping they'll expand on in the eventual R-rated Director's Supercut Deluxe DVD they're planning to put out. I like this version of Batman. This is a Batman with flaws. Something happened to him to turn him this way. Thankfully, they're giving Affleck a movie or three that I'm hoping will showcase that, because I want to see that story...and I think Affleck will do it (pardon the pun) justice.
And to me the fight was spot on, and something I'm hoping they'll expand on in the eventual R-rated Director's Supercut Deluxe DVD they're planning to put out. I like this version of Batman. This is a Batman with flaws. Something happened to him to turn him this way. Thankfully, they're giving Affleck a movie or three that I'm hoping will showcase that, because I want to see that story...and I think Affleck will do it (pardon the pun) justice.
Sure. But at 2 hours and 33 minutes, wasn't there already enough room for a more expansive titular fight? I feel like I have already seen a version where the director was given ample time.
I get that if I want more Aquaman I need to see Aquaman, or for more Wonder Woman, see Wonder Woman. But the Superman Batman fight was what it said right on my ticket, you know what I mean?
Well, which Superman are we talking about here? The one who couldn't fly and was constantly caught up in goofy mishaps with Lois and Jimmy? The Red and Blue Boy Scout? Captain Mullet from the 90s? Christopher Reeve? George Reeves? The Animated Series version? Superman Red? Superman Blue? Dean Cain?
Remind me again which of these versions killed his enemies and wasn't all that smart?
Movie Superman (Zod and crew) - Superman II (1980) Movie Globus Superman (Nuclear Man - Superman IV (1987) Byrne Superman (Zod and crew) - Superman #22 (1988) Mullet Superman (Doomsday) - Superman #75 (1993) DCAU Superman (Imperium) - "Secret Origins" (2001) DCAU Justice Lords Superman - "A Better World" (2003) Movie Superman (Zod and crew) - Man of Steel (2013)
I'd argue that at least Superman was smart and joyful in 6 of those 7 referenced iterations.
And I certainly don't believe that casual fans of Superman see him as a clod or a killer. Hardcore DC fans are quick to cite examples of gun toting Batman and neck snapping Supes, but that doesn't change the perception in the minds of most members of the movie-going audience. Maybe Zack Snyder's interpretation will eventually shift people to begin seeing Superman as a loose canon who loses and Batman as a cold-blooded, baddie-branding killer, but as cliched as this may sound "that ain't my DC heroes". Now I'm not saying there ought not be other interpretations of these character, but there should be some in story logic and reason to it (beyond how a man can fly in his underwear).
For some folks, slick imagery and a film chocked full of fan-service moments is perfectly suitable as a popcorn movie, and I don't begrudge them for that, but neither of Snyder's DC films has worked for me, and I desperately wanted them to. I loved Donner's Superman films, and Nolan's Batman films - but not Snyder's. His Man of Steel actually made me long for Singer's Superman to return.
Smart, possibly, but keep in mind that he received the majority of his education in Kansas, so any expectation needs to be moderated.
I don't think that Superman, can really be anything other than slick imagery and fan service moments - at least not in 2 hours. I've got to believe that it's hard to create a character of nuance and substance that can go back in time by flying around the world to the east really fast, is capable of punching planets and xray peeping at Lois' unmentionables. I think that some of that is the direction that Hollywood has gone, but some is also the way audiences have gone.
You, and many fans harken back to the George Reeves / Chris Reeves Superman, but those stories came at a time when the Punsher was a bad guy and heroes were bright and shiny. Society has gotten more cynical and as it does so, it seems that audience taste has also darkened in a similar fashion to the zombie trend. We see the same thing in genre fiction with the massive success of grimdark.
I get what you want, but I don't think that's what audiences want. I'm also not sure that it's reasonable to say that because you loved earlier works by other directors, you should be offended by the current director... worse still, you've repeatedly complained that it didn't have the music from past iterations. I don't recall you having the same complaints about Nolan's movies skipping the Prince/Elfman musical nods.
My gut is that you spent so much time building fan rage against this before it was ever released that there was no way that it was going to be successful in your eyes.
There are things that I can pull from every iteration that I like. I can pull things from every iteration that I don't like. More importantly, I don't expect any director to cater his vision of a character or world to match my own... something that is true for me in the MCU as well as DC.
And to me the fight was spot on, and something I'm hoping they'll expand on in the eventual R-rated Director's Supercut Deluxe DVD they're planning to put out. I like this version of Batman. This is a Batman with flaws. Something happened to him to turn him this way. Thankfully, they're giving Affleck a movie or three that I'm hoping will showcase that, because I want to see that story...and I think Affleck will do it (pardon the pun) justice.
Sure. But at 2 hours and 33 minutes, wasn't there already enough room for a more expansive titular fight? I feel like I have already seen a version where the director was given ample time.
I get that if I want more Aquaman I need to see Aquaman, or for more Wonder Woman, see Wonder Woman. But the Superman Batman fight was what it said right on my ticket, you know what I mean?
And yet Godot never showed up. :)
/Not Gadot. Go...ah shit, you do plays and stuff you know what I mean... :)
I'm also not sure that it's reasonable to say that because you loved earlier works by other directors, you should be offended by the current director... worse still, you've repeatedly complained that it didn't have the music from past iterations. I don't recall you having the same complaints about Nolan's movies skipping the Prince/Elfman musical nods.
My gut is that you spent so much time building fan rage against this before it was ever released that there was no way that it was going to be successful in your eyes.
Actually, the theme music Zimmer came up with for Nolan's Batman trilogy and what Elfman came up with were iconic themes. Zimmer's Batman and his Superman theme both did a fine job replacing Elfman's and Williams' scores. But my point was that there was NO theme for either character in this movie, and it was the same composer from the last film. No Hans Zimmer flight score existed in this film.
As for fan rage, I have none. Why would I? I'm a fan of the properties, but I thought almost every decision they made leading up to it was a misstep, and that is not based on rage, it's based on a fondness of these characters, whether I grew up with them or not. Was Christopher Nolan's version of Batman so markedly different from this one? Not really, just a different, and I would argue more nuanced and adept, execution.
Well, which Superman are we talking about here? The one who couldn't fly and was constantly caught up in goofy mishaps with Lois and Jimmy? The Red and Blue Boy Scout? Captain Mullet from the 90s? Christopher Reeve? George Reeves? The Animated Series version? Superman Red? Superman Blue? Dean Cain?
Remind me again which of these versions killed his enemies and wasn't all that smart?
Movie Superman (Zod and crew) - Superman II (1980) Movie Globus Superman (Nuclear Man - Superman IV (1987) Byrne Superman (Zod and crew) - Superman #22 (1988) Mullet Superman (Doomsday) - Superman #75 (1993) DCAU Superman (Imperium) - "Secret Origins" (2001) DCAU Justice Lords Superman - "A Better World" (2003) Movie Superman (Zod and crew) - Man of Steel (2013)
I'd argue that at least Superman was smart and joyful in 6 of those 7 referenced iterations.
And I certainly don't believe that casual fans of Superman see him as a clod or a killer. Hardcore DC fans are quick to cite examples of gun toting Batman and neck snapping Supes, but that doesn't change the perception in the minds of most members of the movie-going audience. Maybe Zack Snyder's interpretation will eventually shift people to begin seeing Superman as a loose canon who loses and Batman as a cold-blooded, baddie-branding killer, but as cliched as this may sound "that ain't my DC heroes". Now I'm not saying there ought not be other interpretations of these character, but there should be some in story logic and reason to it (beyond how a man can fly in his underwear).
For some folks, slick imagery and a film chocked full of fan-service moments is perfectly suitable as a popcorn movie, and I don't begrudge them for that, but neither of Snyder's DC films has worked for me, and I desperately wanted them to. I loved Donner's Superman films, and Nolan's Batman films - but not Snyder's. His Man of Steel actually made me long for Singer's Superman to return.
I've actually been thinking about this. I've constantly read "BvS:DoJ is made for fans" (which probably explains some of its box office woes).
I am under no disillusion Batman never killed or used guns or has even been camp. I know those to be facts. The killing & the guns has essentially become an abnormality instead of the norm. It's why the general audience seemed confused.
It's like an expert in cards. The term is actually card sharp, but the average person knows it as card shark. If you use the word sharp instead of shark, it'll cause some confusion by those not in the know.
However-- I do think when the reason you can get nearly $100M worth of people to show up opening weekend because they have an existing relationship to these, some of the most famous characters in the culture there is prior knowledge and expectation on the table to work with. Can you and should you challenge, surprise, and deviate from expectation? Absolutely. I agree that there are a lot of different versions and interpretations of these characters. But I think the onus is on them to justify why the interpretations they are presenting make sense. I think the sale is theirs to make, you know what I mean? Especially when you have people showing up believing they are seeing a story about characters they know. If you want to change that, great, but make sure you are making something out of those changes and making them ring true within the work you are presenting.
I think the "making sense" part is a loooong game that TimeWarner is playing with the franchise. Disney's doing more short, controlled bursts of movies. While there's a larger story building up, there's still a lot of self-containment in the Marvel movies. I don't get the sense DC's going that route...they're making one MASSIVE movie and just showing us bits and pieces along the way. Whether that works...or doesn't...is up to the individual. I'm pretty used to the long game by now, so I'm willing to see where they're going to take Cavill's Superman.
And to me it's kind of like what Steve Jobs said about the partnership Apple did with Microsoft: "We need to lose this way of thinking that for Apple to succeed Microsoft has to fail." Replace those companies with Marvel and DC. I've read more columns and stories this month about people counting box office receipts as a measure of whether or not the story is any good or not, and how Civil War is going to "beat" BvS in a few weeks.
Honestly I had no idea they were feuding! :)
Sure, but I also think each movie is a world unto itself. I am not trying to make this about a comparison to Marvel movies (and some of them have had this problem as well). I just wanted them to sell me on the Batman that they presented in this world. I was ready to meet him as an entirely new thing. And, despite devoting so much of the opening to introducing him and positioning him as this, certain, sort of post-9/11 Batman, I found he didn't make sense. His motivations and actions (and lack of preparation and skill for fighting Superman when he finally did) just didn't ring true within this film. And I had paid and was there to see this film. This was not part of some discounted subscription to a season of their next 10 movies. Tell me THIS story, and tell it well. I was game, and, for me, they did not deliver.
The main weakness of this movie, for me-- the actual Superman vs. Batman fight just wasn't very good. The Trinity vs. Doomsday fight was actually better. Not great, but better. And I think that is a problem, given what the big hook was for this movie in the first place:
There were too many external, Luthor-created circumstances forcing it ahead (which is to say, Superman is forced to fight Batman because of the damsel in distress, rather than choosing to because of something that was to do with the conflict between he and Batman). So they were fighting each other, but the dramatic tension is the ticking flamethrower (eww) clock elsewhere.
You are telling me that Batman has had, not an hour, but YEARS to prepare for this, and THAT is the best he could do?? Part of his plan for fighting Superman was machine guns. MACHINE GUNS. Against a Superman he has studied for years. I mean, I know this version of Batman loves guns, but, really?
The fight was actually not integral to the plot. It gets arbitrarily interrupted without resolution, nor does it actually unite them. Doomsday attacks, and they fight him instead. Which is something that could and would have happened anyway had Batman and Superman never even met before.
If you are going to call this movie-- even if it is just meant to be an episode in a developing saga-- Superman V Batman. Then you should have that mean something. And, more importantly, you should have that fight be epic. Personally, I feel they did not deliver on that. I wish they had.
For me, it is not about some rivalry between DC and Marvel. This is not sports to me. Neither is my home team. I don't look at either of those corporate entities and use the pronoun "we".
I am a self-interested consumer and I am game to spend money and time on this. The rational market for me is for them to both make movies that are great. I would actually rather be entertained and happily surprised than to have my concerns confirmed. I know some people would rather believe that is not true, and need to feel that those that felt about this movie a different way watched it through a lens of wanting to dislike it, rather than giving it a chance. And, I don't know, maybe I could imagine having that kind of time and energy to spend, to go drop $14 (yep, NYC) to go hate-watch something. But that is just not my life these days. I personally am just to old and tired to be partisan about my entertainment. I get out to few enough movies that I want to see these days. I gave this one a chance, and wanted it to be great.
I never got that either. "I only saw the movie to prove it was bad." Prove it to whom?!
F4 & Amazing Spider-man 2 didn't look like good movies to me. I decided to not waste my time and any expense to "prove" it. It's also why I don't shred the movie.
And to me the fight was spot on, and something I'm hoping they'll expand on in the eventual R-rated Director's Supercut Deluxe DVD they're planning to put out. I like this version of Batman. This is a Batman with flaws. Something happened to him to turn him this way. Thankfully, they're giving Affleck a movie or three that I'm hoping will showcase that, because I want to see that story...and I think Affleck will do it (pardon the pun) justice.
I don't know how it was portrayed in the movie, but has it been confirmed "something" happened to make Batman more violent? Could it just be like All-Star B&R where he was always violent?
One of the biggest criticisms I've read was the gapping plot holes. I have also read articles the fill those holes or advise the DVD special edition will fill in those holes. That doesn't say much about the storytelling. That seems more damning then the characterizations.
Well, we have a dead Robin (or at least disappeared), for one. I don't know that I needed an article or a special edition to figure out that was probably a contributing factor, particularly given the look he gives the suit in the case before moving on. This not too long, IIRC, after Alfred gives him a bit of a dressing down about how, yes, he's gone nucking futs.
I'm not going to say everyone wants their stories spoon-fed to them, because that just invites people to say "Well *I* don't..." and then we get fifty paragraphs explaining why, but I do feel we've lost the ability to wonder sometimes.
Just from what I saw around him...his actions, Wayne Manor, the nightmares...yeah, something happened to him. I don't need someone from CBR or Bleeding Cool to confirm that. :)
Well, which Superman are we talking about here? The one who couldn't fly and was constantly caught up in goofy mishaps with Lois and Jimmy? The Red and Blue Boy Scout? Captain Mullet from the 90s? Christopher Reeve? George Reeves? The Animated Series version? Superman Red? Superman Blue? Dean Cain?
Remind me again which of these versions killed his enemies and wasn't all that smart?
Movie Superman (Zod and crew) - Superman II (1980) Movie Globus Superman (Nuclear Man - Superman IV (1987) Byrne Superman (Zod and crew) - Superman #22 (1988) Mullet Superman (Doomsday) - Superman #75 (1993) DCAU Superman (Imperium) - "Secret Origins" (2001) DCAU Justice Lords Superman - "A Better World" (2003) Movie Superman (Zod and crew) - Man of Steel (2013)
I'd argue that at least Superman was smart and joyful in 6 of those 7 referenced iterations.
And I certainly don't believe that casual fans of Superman see him as a clod or a killer. Hardcore DC fans are quick to cite examples of gun toting Batman and neck snapping Supes, but that doesn't change the perception in the minds of most members of the movie-going audience. Maybe Zack Snyder's interpretation will eventually shift people to begin seeing Superman as a loose canon who loses and Batman as a cold-blooded, baddie-branding killer, but as cliched as this may sound "that ain't my DC heroes". Now I'm not saying there ought not be other interpretations of these character, but there should be some in story logic and reason to it (beyond how a man can fly in his underwear).
For some folks, slick imagery and a film chocked full of fan-service moments is perfectly suitable as a popcorn movie, and I don't begrudge them for that, but neither of Snyder's DC films has worked for me, and I desperately wanted them to. I loved Donner's Superman films, and Nolan's Batman films - but not Snyder's. His Man of Steel actually made me long for Singer's Superman to return.
Smart, possibly, but keep in mind that he received the majority of his education in Kansas, so any expectation needs to be moderated.
I don't think that Superman, can really be anything other than slick imagery and fan service moments - at least not in 2 hours. I've got to believe that it's hard to create a character of nuance and substance that can go back in time by flying around the world to the east really fast, is capable of punching planets and xray peeping at Lois' unmentionables. I think that some of that is the direction that Hollywood has gone, but some is also the way audiences have gone.
You, and many fans harken back to the George Reeves / Chris Reeves Superman, but those stories came at a time when the Punsher was a bad guy and heroes were bright and shiny. Society has gotten more cynical and as it does so, it seems that audience taste has also darkened in a similar fashion to the zombie trend. We see the same thing in genre fiction with the massive success of grimdark.
I get what you want, but I don't think that's what audiences want. I'm also not sure that it's reasonable to say that because you loved earlier works by other directors, you should be offended by the current director... worse still, you've repeatedly complained that it didn't have the music from past iterations. I don't recall you having the same complaints about Nolan's movies skipping the Prince/Elfman musical nods.
My gut is that you spent so much time building fan rage against this before it was ever released that there was no way that it was going to be successful in your eyes.
There are things that I can pull from every iteration that I like. I can pull things from every iteration that I don't like. More importantly, I don't expect any director to cater his vision of a character or world to match my own... something that is true for me in the MCU as well as DC.
I'm sure DCEU's Kent detractors will say it's his portrayal, but I think presenting a Chris Reeve type Superman would come off laughable, or cheesy at the very least. The world has change, & although I don't believe a Dark Knight version of Kent is necessary, I'm not convinced a light-hearted version would either.
What's weird, is I do believe the portrayal of Rogers in a modern era does work. I think he can appear "old-fashion", but he also appears less jaded. It just works.
Perhaps a Kent raised in the 40s would've worked better in the DCEU. Maybe he'd get more then 42 lines of dialogue.
What's weird, is I do believe the portrayal of Rogers in a modern era does work. I think he can appear "old-fashion", but he also appears less jaded. It just works.
Said it in another thread - the Cap movies have been the gold standard of all the superhero movies out lately. I'm really hoping Civil War keeps that trend going.
Well, which Superman are we talking about here? The one who couldn't fly and was constantly caught up in goofy mishaps with Lois and Jimmy? The Red and Blue Boy Scout? Captain Mullet from the 90s? Christopher Reeve? George Reeves? The Animated Series version? Superman Red? Superman Blue? Dean Cain?
Remind me again which of these versions killed his enemies and wasn't all that smart?
Movie Superman (Zod and crew) - Superman II (1980) Movie Globus Superman (Nuclear Man - Superman IV (1987) Byrne Superman (Zod and crew) - Superman #22 (1988) Mullet Superman (Doomsday) - Superman #75 (1993) DCAU Superman (Imperium) - "Secret Origins" (2001) DCAU Justice Lords Superman - "A Better World" (2003) Movie Superman (Zod and crew) - Man of Steel (2013)
I'd argue that at least Superman was smart and joyful in 6 of those 7 referenced iterations.
And I certainly don't believe that casual fans of Superman see him as a clod or a killer. Hardcore DC fans are quick to cite examples of gun toting Batman and neck snapping Supes, but that doesn't change the perception in the minds of most members of the movie-going audience. Maybe Zack Snyder's interpretation will eventually shift people to begin seeing Superman as a loose canon who loses and Batman as a cold-blooded, baddie-branding killer, but as cliched as this may sound "that ain't my DC heroes". Now I'm not saying there ought not be other interpretations of these character, but there should be some in story logic and reason to it (beyond how a man can fly in his underwear).
For some folks, slick imagery and a film chocked full of fan-service moments is perfectly suitable as a popcorn movie, and I don't begrudge them for that, but neither of Snyder's DC films has worked for me, and I desperately wanted them to. I loved Donner's Superman films, and Nolan's Batman films - but not Snyder's. His Man of Steel actually made me long for Singer's Superman to return.
Smart, possibly, but keep in mind that he received the majority of his education in Kansas, so any expectation needs to be moderated.
I don't think that Superman, can really be anything other than slick imagery and fan service moments - at least not in 2 hours. I've got to believe that it's hard to create a character of nuance and substance that can go back in time by flying around the world to the east really fast, is capable of punching planets and xray peeping at Lois' unmentionables. I think that some of that is the direction that Hollywood has gone, but some is also the way audiences have gone.
You, and many fans harken back to the George Reeves / Chris Reeves Superman, but those stories came at a time when the Punsher was a bad guy and heroes were bright and shiny. Society has gotten more cynical and as it does so, it seems that audience taste has also darkened in a similar fashion to the zombie trend. We see the same thing in genre fiction with the massive success of grimdark.
I get what you want, but I don't think that's what audiences want. I'm also not sure that it's reasonable to say that because you loved earlier works by other directors, you should be offended by the current director... worse still, you've repeatedly complained that it didn't have the music from past iterations. I don't recall you having the same complaints about Nolan's movies skipping the Prince/Elfman musical nods.
My gut is that you spent so much time building fan rage against this before it was ever released that there was no way that it was going to be successful in your eyes.
There are things that I can pull from every iteration that I like. I can pull things from every iteration that I don't like. More importantly, I don't expect any director to cater his vision of a character or world to match my own... something that is true for me in the MCU as well as DC.
I'm sure DCEU's Kent detractors will say it's his portrayal, but I think presenting a Chris Reeve type Superman would come off laughable, or cheesy at the very least. The world has change, & although I don't believe a Dark Knight version of Kent is necessary, I'm not convinced a light-hearted version would either.
What's weird, is I do believe the portrayal of Rogers in a modern era does work. I think he can appear "old-fashion", but he also appears less jaded. It just works.
Perhaps a Kent raised in the 40s would've worked better in the DCEU. Maybe he'd get more then 42 lines of dialogue.
M
That's the thing, though-- I feel like the beginning of the movie showed up what happened to him: All that destruction in Metropolis. That was his 9/11 (and they certainly helped themselves to a lot of visual references to the attacks on the World Trade Center). So I feel like we got the formative event that was supposed to make Batman into *that* Batman.
I just didn't buy the execution. I feel like, based on what we saw, Batman would start devoting himself to superhuman countermeasures. He would make sure that Gotham was not the next city in ruins due to being ground zero for a battle between godlike aliens. I feel like that was the setup for a Batman V Superman. The first 10 minutes or so, I was in.
But... instead that plot line seemed shifted onto Luthor. And instead we just get a more intense and unhappy Batman who brands human traffickers, and has nightmares about future alien invasion, but is not doing much to prepare for it. And that setup idea of, 'What if Batman had years to get ready to fight Superman' turns into, 'Well. I've got this one bit of Bat Armor, and the day before I am totally gonna hit the gym!'
I don't need to be spoon fed. But I feel like they can execute in the ideas they set up. Make the most out of the story you are telling. I actually didn't mind Eisenberg's performance as Luthor (he and Irons seemed to be the only ones having any fun), but I would have loved to see what this story was like if they had a plot that was totally about Superman and Batman, instead of everything being ginned up by Luthor.
What's weird, is I do believe the portrayal of Rogers in a modern era does work. I think he can appear "old-fashion", but he also appears less jaded. It just works.
Said it in another thread - the Cap movies have been the gold standard of all the superhero movies out lately. I'm really hoping Civil War keeps that trend going.
That post actually was why I posted mine here. Until I read the Civil War event, I didn't care much for Cap. Since he debuted in the MCU, I'm enamored with the character.
Well, which Superman are we talking about here? The one who couldn't fly and was constantly caught up in goofy mishaps with Lois and Jimmy? The Red and Blue Boy Scout? Captain Mullet from the 90s? Christopher Reeve? George Reeves? The Animated Series version? Superman Red? Superman Blue? Dean Cain?
Remind me again which of these versions killed his enemies and wasn't all that smart?
Movie Superman (Zod and crew) - Superman II (1980) Movie Globus Superman (Nuclear Man - Superman IV (1987) Byrne Superman (Zod and crew) - Superman #22 (1988) Mullet Superman (Doomsday) - Superman #75 (1993) DCAU Superman (Imperium) - "Secret Origins" (2001) DCAU Justice Lords Superman - "A Better World" (2003) Movie Superman (Zod and crew) - Man of Steel (2013)
I'd argue that at least Superman was smart and joyful in 6 of those 7 referenced iterations.
And I certainly don't believe that casual fans of Superman see him as a clod or a killer. Hardcore DC fans are quick to cite examples of gun toting Batman and neck snapping Supes, but that doesn't change the perception in the minds of most members of the movie-going audience. Maybe Zack Snyder's interpretation will eventually shift people to begin seeing Superman as a loose canon who loses and Batman as a cold-blooded, baddie-branding killer, but as cliched as this may sound "that ain't my DC heroes". Now I'm not saying there ought not be other interpretations of these character, but there should be some in story logic and reason to it (beyond how a man can fly in his underwear).
For some folks, slick imagery and a film chocked full of fan-service moments is perfectly suitable as a popcorn movie, and I don't begrudge them for that, but neither of Snyder's DC films has worked for me, and I desperately wanted them to. I loved Donner's Superman films, and Nolan's Batman films - but not Snyder's. His Man of Steel actually made me long for Singer's Superman to return.
Smart, possibly, but keep in mind that he received the majority of his education in Kansas, so any expectation needs to be moderated.
I don't think that Superman, can really be anything other than slick imagery and fan service moments - at least not in 2 hours. I've got to believe that it's hard to create a character of nuance and substance that can go back in time by flying around the world to the east really fast, is capable of punching planets and xray peeping at Lois' unmentionables. I think that some of that is the direction that Hollywood has gone, but some is also the way audiences have gone.
You, and many fans harken back to the George Reeves / Chris Reeves Superman, but those stories came at a time when the Punsher was a bad guy and heroes were bright and shiny. Society has gotten more cynical and as it does so, it seems that audience taste has also darkened in a similar fashion to the zombie trend. We see the same thing in genre fiction with the massive success of grimdark.
I get what you want, but I don't think that's what audiences want. I'm also not sure that it's reasonable to say that because you loved earlier works by other directors, you should be offended by the current director... worse still, you've repeatedly complained that it didn't have the music from past iterations. I don't recall you having the same complaints about Nolan's movies skipping the Prince/Elfman musical nods.
My gut is that you spent so much time building fan rage against this before it was ever released that there was no way that it was going to be successful in your eyes.
There are things that I can pull from every iteration that I like. I can pull things from every iteration that I don't like. More importantly, I don't expect any director to cater his vision of a character or world to match my own... something that is true for me in the MCU as well as DC.
I'm sure DCEU's Kent detractors will say it's his portrayal, but I think presenting a Chris Reeve type Superman would come off laughable, or cheesy at the very least. The world has change, & although I don't believe a Dark Knight version of Kent is necessary, I'm not convinced a light-hearted version would either.
What's weird, is I do believe the portrayal of Rogers in a modern era does work. I think he can appear "old-fashion", but he also appears less jaded. It just works.
Perhaps a Kent raised in the 40s would've worked better in the DCEU. Maybe he'd get more then 42 lines of dialogue.
M
That's the thing, though-- I feel like the beginning of the movie showed up what happened to him: All that destruction in Metropolis. That was his 9/11 (and they certainly helped themselves to a lot of visual references to the attacks on the World Trade Center). So I feel like we got the formative event that was supposed to make Batman into *that* Batman.
I just didn't buy the execution. I feel like, based on what we saw, Batman would start devoting himself to superhuman countermeasures. He would make sure that Gotham was not the next city in ruins due to being ground zero for a battle between godlike aliens. I feel like that was the setup for a Batman V Superman. The first 10 minutes or so, I was in.
But... instead that plot line seemed shifted onto Luthor. And instead we just get a more intense and unhappy Batman who brands human traffickers, and has nightmares about future alien invasion, but is not doing much to prepare for it. And that setup idea of, 'What if Batman had years to get ready to fight Superman' turns into, 'Well. I've got this one bit of Bat Armor, and the day before I am totally gonna hit the gym!'
I don't need to be spoon fed. But I feel like they can execute in the ideas they set up. Make the most out of the story you are telling. I actually didn't mind Eisenberg's performance as Luthor (he and Irons seemed to be the only ones having any fun), but I would have loved to see what this story was like if they had a plot that was totally about Superman and Batman, instead of everything being ginned up by Luthor.
I'm not certain if it makes a difference, but didn't he only have months (18) to prep? I keep stressing this for full disclosure; I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know how it's portrayed or if it makes a difference.
Well, which Superman are we talking about here? The one who couldn't fly and was constantly caught up in goofy mishaps with Lois and Jimmy? The Red and Blue Boy Scout? Captain Mullet from the 90s? Christopher Reeve? George Reeves? The Animated Series version? Superman Red? Superman Blue? Dean Cain?
Remind me again which of these versions killed his enemies and wasn't all that smart?
Movie Superman (Zod and crew) - Superman II (1980) Movie Globus Superman (Nuclear Man - Superman IV (1987) Byrne Superman (Zod and crew) - Superman #22 (1988) Mullet Superman (Doomsday) - Superman #75 (1993) DCAU Superman (Imperium) - "Secret Origins" (2001) DCAU Justice Lords Superman - "A Better World" (2003) Movie Superman (Zod and crew) - Man of Steel (2013)
I'd argue that at least Superman was smart and joyful in 6 of those 7 referenced iterations.
And I certainly don't believe that casual fans of Superman see him as a clod or a killer. Hardcore DC fans are quick to cite examples of gun toting Batman and neck snapping Supes, but that doesn't change the perception in the minds of most members of the movie-going audience. Maybe Zack Snyder's interpretation will eventually shift people to begin seeing Superman as a loose canon who loses and Batman as a cold-blooded, baddie-branding killer, but as cliched as this may sound "that ain't my DC heroes". Now I'm not saying there ought not be other interpretations of these character, but there should be some in story logic and reason to it (beyond how a man can fly in his underwear).
For some folks, slick imagery and a film chocked full of fan-service moments is perfectly suitable as a popcorn movie, and I don't begrudge them for that, but neither of Snyder's DC films has worked for me, and I desperately wanted them to. I loved Donner's Superman films, and Nolan's Batman films - but not Snyder's. His Man of Steel actually made me long for Singer's Superman to return.
Smart, possibly, but keep in mind that he received the majority of his education in Kansas, so any expectation needs to be moderated.
I don't think that Superman, can really be anything other than slick imagery and fan service moments - at least not in 2 hours. I've got to believe that it's hard to create a character of nuance and substance that can go back in time by flying around the world to the east really fast, is capable of punching planets and xray peeping at Lois' unmentionables. I think that some of that is the direction that Hollywood has gone, but some is also the way audiences have gone.
You, and many fans harken back to the George Reeves / Chris Reeves Superman, but those stories came at a time when the Punsher was a bad guy and heroes were bright and shiny. Society has gotten more cynical and as it does so, it seems that audience taste has also darkened in a similar fashion to the zombie trend. We see the same thing in genre fiction with the massive success of grimdark.
I get what you want, but I don't think that's what audiences want. I'm also not sure that it's reasonable to say that because you loved earlier works by other directors, you should be offended by the current director... worse still, you've repeatedly complained that it didn't have the music from past iterations. I don't recall you having the same complaints about Nolan's movies skipping the Prince/Elfman musical nods.
My gut is that you spent so much time building fan rage against this before it was ever released that there was no way that it was going to be successful in your eyes.
There are things that I can pull from every iteration that I like. I can pull things from every iteration that I don't like. More importantly, I don't expect any director to cater his vision of a character or world to match my own... something that is true for me in the MCU as well as DC.
I'm sure DCEU's Kent detractors will say it's his portrayal, but I think presenting a Chris Reeve type Superman would come off laughable, or cheesy at the very least. The world has change, & although I don't believe a Dark Knight version of Kent is necessary, I'm not convinced a light-hearted version would either.
What's weird, is I do believe the portrayal of Rogers in a modern era does work. I think he can appear "old-fashion", but he also appears less jaded. It just works.
Perhaps a Kent raised in the 40s would've worked better in the DCEU. Maybe he'd get more then 42 lines of dialogue.
M
That's the thing, though-- I feel like the beginning of the movie showed up what happened to him: All that destruction in Metropolis. That was his 9/11 (and they certainly helped themselves to a lot of visual references to the attacks on the World Trade Center). So I feel like we got the formative event that was supposed to make Batman into *that* Batman.
I just didn't buy the execution. I feel like, based on what we saw, Batman would start devoting himself to superhuman countermeasures. He would make sure that Gotham was not the next city in ruins due to being ground zero for a battle between godlike aliens. I feel like that was the setup for a Batman V Superman. The first 10 minutes or so, I was in.
But... instead that plot line seemed shifted onto Luthor. And instead we just get a more intense and unhappy Batman who brands human traffickers, and has nightmares about future alien invasion, but is not doing much to prepare for it. And that setup idea of, 'What if Batman had years to get ready to fight Superman' turns into, 'Well. I've got this one bit of Bat Armor, and the day before I am totally gonna hit the gym!'
I don't need to be spoon fed. But I feel like they can execute in the ideas they set up. Make the most out of the story you are telling. I actually didn't mind Eisenberg's performance as Luthor (he and Irons seemed to be the only ones having any fun), but I would have loved to see what this story was like if they had a plot that was totally about Superman and Batman, instead of everything being ginned up by Luthor.
I'm not certain if it makes a difference, but didn't he only have months (18) to prep? I keep stressing this for full disclosure; I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know how it's portrayed or if it makes a difference.
M
Could be. I don't recall the movie making it very clear how much time had passed. Or, in that time, how much of Metropolis had been rebuilt. They put up a giant Superman statue and monument to the dead, so they had enough time to do that. And there seemed to be less of a ruined downtown full of fallen skyscrapers than those earlier scenes of destruction would lead you to believe. It could be my own bias, remembering how long it took my city to clear the debris from just two skyscrapers, that I imagined that the Metropolis I saw in this movie was years later. But maybe they only say 18 months.
That said... Batman (and I think this is true of any interpretation) seems like the kind of person that could get a lot done in 18 months. And a lot more than this one had done and ready in that time.
It could be my own bias, remembering how long it took my city to clear the debris from just two skyscrapers, that I imagined that the Metropolis I saw in this movie was years later. But maybe they only say 18 months.
Did you have LuthorCorp doing the rebuild? DID YOU!?! :)
Because he rebuilt Gotham from the ground up in a couple issues. :)
I keep wondering where Snyder's comic book cred came from.
M
I'd call that 'repulsive', not 'interesting', but your tastes may be different than mine.
I was using my 'sarcastic style' for that word. I was repulsed when Grant "I try to go for shock value" Morrison initially made it a possibility Bruce was molested in prep school (LotD) & the Wayne's had orgies.
Comments
M
"This isn't how Superman acts!"
Well, which Superman are we talking about here? The one who couldn't fly and was constantly caught up in goofy mishaps with Lois and Jimmy? The Red and Blue Boy Scout? Captain Mullet from the 90s? Christopher Reeve? George Reeves? The Animated Series version? Superman Red? Superman Blue? Dean Cain?
And it gets REALLY crazy if you exchange Batman for Superman in the above statement. I just figure like the versions you do, hate the versions you don't, but I just don't presume that all versions are the same character...
However-- I do think when the reason you can get nearly $100M worth of people to show up opening weekend because they have an existing relationship to these, some of the most famous characters in the culture there is prior knowledge and expectation on the table to work with. Can you and should you challenge, surprise, and deviate from expectation? Absolutely. I agree that there are a lot of different versions and interpretations of these characters. But I think the onus is on them to justify why the interpretations they are presenting make sense. I think the sale is theirs to make, you know what I mean? Especially when you have people showing up believing they are seeing a story about characters they know. If you want to change that, great, but make sure you are making something out of those changes and making them ring true within the work you are presenting.
(Personally, BvS did not do a good job of that, especially with Batman. But I respect others had their own experience of it.)
Movie Globus Superman (Nuclear Man - Superman IV (1987)
Byrne Superman (Zod and crew) - Superman #22 (1988)
Mullet Superman (Doomsday) - Superman #75 (1993)
DCAU Superman (Imperium) - "Secret Origins" (2001)
DCAU Justice Lords Superman - "A Better World" (2003)
Movie Superman (Zod and crew) - Man of Steel (2013)
Look how long he left Mon'El in the Phantom Zone. Look at his patent disregard for cancer, famine, war, plague. With the Kryptonian technology in the Fortress of Solitude, to say nothing of his powerset, there are very few problems that should be left in the world... provided that he actually cares. Aside from his name recognition, the absolute best thing that Warner could do would be to drop him from their cinematic universe. He unravels everything.
And to me it's kind of like what Steve Jobs said about the partnership Apple did with Microsoft: "We need to lose this way of thinking that for Apple to succeed Microsoft has to fail." Replace those companies with Marvel and DC. I've read more columns and stories this month about people counting box office receipts as a measure of whether or not the story is any good or not, and how Civil War is going to "beat" BvS in a few weeks.
Honestly I had no idea they were feuding! :)
And I certainly don't believe that casual fans of Superman see him as a clod or a killer. Hardcore DC fans are quick to cite examples of gun toting Batman and neck snapping Supes, but that doesn't change the perception in the minds of most members of the movie-going audience. Maybe Zack Snyder's interpretation will eventually shift people to begin seeing Superman as a loose canon who loses and Batman as a cold-blooded, baddie-branding killer, but as cliched as this may sound "that ain't my DC heroes". Now I'm not saying there ought not be other interpretations of these character, but there should be some in story logic and reason to it (beyond how a man can fly in his underwear).
For some folks, slick imagery and a film chocked full of fan-service moments is perfectly suitable as a popcorn movie, and I don't begrudge them for that, but neither of Snyder's DC films has worked for me, and I desperately wanted them to. I loved Donner's Superman films, and Nolan's Batman films - but not Snyder's. His Man of Steel actually made me long for Singer's Superman to return.
The main weakness of this movie, for me-- the actual Superman vs. Batman fight just wasn't very good. The Trinity vs. Doomsday fight was actually better. Not great, but better. And I think that is a problem, given what the big hook was for this movie in the first place:
There were too many external, Luthor-created circumstances forcing it ahead (which is to say, Superman is forced to fight Batman because of the damsel in distress, rather than choosing to because of something that was to do with the conflict between he and Batman). So they were fighting each other, but the dramatic tension is the ticking flamethrower (eww) clock elsewhere.
You are telling me that Batman has had, not an hour, but YEARS to prepare for this, and THAT is the best he could do?? Part of his plan for fighting Superman was machine guns. MACHINE GUNS. Against a Superman he has studied for years. I mean, I know this version of Batman loves guns, but, really?
The fight was actually not integral to the plot. It gets arbitrarily interrupted without resolution, nor does it actually unite them. Doomsday attacks, and they fight him instead. Which is something that could and would have happened anyway had Batman and Superman never even met before.
If you are going to call this movie-- even if it is just meant to be an episode in a developing saga-- Superman V Batman. Then you should have that mean something. And, more importantly, you should have that fight be epic. Personally, I feel they did not deliver on that. I wish they had.
For me, it is not about some rivalry between DC and Marvel. This is not sports to me. Neither is my home team. I don't look at either of those corporate entities and use the pronoun "we".
I am a self-interested consumer and I am game to spend money and time on this. The rational market for me is for them to both make movies that are great. I would actually rather be entertained and happily surprised than to have my concerns confirmed. I know some people would rather believe that is not true, and need to feel that those that felt about this movie a different way watched it through a lens of wanting to dislike it, rather than giving it a chance. And, I don't know, maybe I could imagine having that kind of time and energy to spend, to go drop $14 (yep, NYC) to go hate-watch something. But that is just not my life these days. I personally am just to old and tired to be partisan about my entertainment. I get out to few enough movies that I want to see these days. I gave this one a chance, and wanted it to be great.
I get that if I want more Aquaman I need to see Aquaman, or for more Wonder Woman, see Wonder Woman. But the Superman Batman fight was what it said right on my ticket, you know what I mean?
I don't think that Superman, can really be anything other than slick imagery and fan service moments - at least not in 2 hours. I've got to believe that it's hard to create a character of nuance and substance that can go back in time by flying around the world to the east really fast, is capable of punching planets and xray peeping at Lois' unmentionables. I think that some of that is the direction that Hollywood has gone, but some is also the way audiences have gone.
You, and many fans harken back to the George Reeves / Chris Reeves Superman, but those stories came at a time when the Punsher was a bad guy and heroes were bright and shiny. Society has gotten more cynical and as it does so, it seems that audience taste has also darkened in a similar fashion to the zombie trend. We see the same thing in genre fiction with the massive success of grimdark.
I get what you want, but I don't think that's what audiences want. I'm also not sure that it's reasonable to say that because you loved earlier works by other directors, you should be offended by the current director... worse still, you've repeatedly complained that it didn't have the music from past iterations. I don't recall you having the same complaints about Nolan's movies skipping the Prince/Elfman musical nods.
My gut is that you spent so much time building fan rage against this before it was ever released that there was no way that it was going to be successful in your eyes.
There are things that I can pull from every iteration that I like. I can pull things from every iteration that I don't like. More importantly, I don't expect any director to cater his vision of a character or world to match my own... something that is true for me in the MCU as well as DC.
/Not Gadot. Go...ah shit, you do plays and stuff you know what I mean... :)
As for fan rage, I have none. Why would I? I'm a fan of the properties, but I thought almost every decision they made leading up to it was a misstep, and that is not based on rage, it's based on a fondness of these characters, whether I grew up with them or not. Was Christopher Nolan's version of Batman so markedly different from this one? Not really, just a different, and I would argue more nuanced and adept, execution.
I am under no disillusion Batman never killed or used guns or has even been camp. I know those to be facts. The killing & the guns has essentially become an abnormality instead of the norm. It's why the general audience seemed confused.
It's like an expert in cards. The term is actually card sharp, but the average person knows it as card shark. If you use the word sharp instead of shark, it'll cause some confusion by those not in the know.
M
F4 & Amazing Spider-man 2 didn't look like good movies to me. I decided to not waste my time and any expense to "prove" it. It's also why I don't shred the movie.
M
One of the biggest criticisms I've read was the gapping plot holes. I have also read articles the fill those holes or advise the DVD special edition will fill in those holes. That doesn't say much about the storytelling. That seems more damning then the characterizations.
M
I'm not going to say everyone wants their stories spoon-fed to them, because that just invites people to say "Well *I* don't..." and then we get fifty paragraphs explaining why, but I do feel we've lost the ability to wonder sometimes.
Just from what I saw around him...his actions, Wayne Manor, the nightmares...yeah, something happened to him. I don't need someone from CBR or Bleeding Cool to confirm that. :)
What's weird, is I do believe the portrayal of Rogers in a modern era does work. I think he can appear "old-fashion", but he also appears less jaded. It just works.
Perhaps a Kent raised in the 40s would've worked better in the DCEU. Maybe he'd get more then 42 lines of dialogue.
M
I just didn't buy the execution. I feel like, based on what we saw, Batman would start devoting himself to superhuman countermeasures. He would make sure that Gotham was not the next city in ruins due to being ground zero for a battle between godlike aliens. I feel like that was the setup for a Batman V Superman. The first 10 minutes or so, I was in.
But... instead that plot line seemed shifted onto Luthor. And instead we just get a more intense and unhappy Batman who brands human traffickers, and has nightmares about future alien invasion, but is not doing much to prepare for it. And that setup idea of, 'What if Batman had years to get ready to fight Superman' turns into, 'Well. I've got this one bit of Bat Armor, and the day before I am totally gonna hit the gym!'
I don't need to be spoon fed. But I feel like they can execute in the ideas they set up. Make the most out of the story you are telling. I actually didn't mind Eisenberg's performance as Luthor (he and Irons seemed to be the only ones having any fun), but I would have loved to see what this story was like if they had a plot that was totally about Superman and Batman, instead of everything being ginned up by Luthor.
M
M
That said... Batman (and I think this is true of any interpretation) seems like the kind of person that could get a lot done in 18 months. And a lot more than this one had done and ready in that time.
Because he rebuilt Gotham from the ground up in a couple issues. :)
http://screencrush.com/zack-snyder-watchmen-interview-batman-superman/
I keep wondering where Snyder's comic book cred came from.
M
M