Messages

I was harsh on calling this guy "a hack", I found out he's a BvS fan and is looking forward to ZSJL. He's probably just a big DC fan writing for The Hollywood Reporter, and didn't mean to convey an agenda. I'll take back my earlier distaste.

But come on, one's choice to not see a movie doesn't negate the right to ask for the release of another.

Why does him being a BvS fan and looking forward ZSJL change anything?

I know for certain if Disney made the exact same film, it would've been lauded as "Making Batman fun again", as we saw with a lot of MCU Phase 3 crap getting overpraised. But as it is, any praise for the movie is subdued because of the stigma behind how it spelled the end of the Burton/Schumacher series.

Would it? I think there are complaints about Thor 2.

[HIGHLIGHT FOR SPOILER:]

For anyone who may or may not watch Batwoman, someone has been cast for a role this season finale and it may continue into the next season.

HIGHLIGHT FOR SPOILER: Warren Christie has been cast as the apparent face of Batwoman Bruce Wayne, but on the character of Tommy Elliot AKA Hush.



Thoughts?

No, we missed this one. Good find, TDK. This comic could well have influenced the Nolan Bane's appearance, which in turn influenced the look of the New 52 Bane.

Is that from a comic that came out before TDKR was filming?

RE: Uncle Ben, I've seen people praise Homecoming as an example in how you don't need to "retread old ground" - as they say - and use it as an example to throw shade at BvS for exploring the Wayne murders scene because "we've seen it too many times". Which I find absolutely laughable. Not only do these dumb detractors ignore how the Wayne murders backstory tie into Batman's character arc they love to mock so much, they completely miss the point about Peter Parker as a character. Apparently, the "great power comes great responsibility" theme doesn't really resonate with these people so much after all.

For me, his desire to becoming an Avenger in the first place completely undoes the conflict in Civil War. Not only does he have no idea what the conflict was even about, which ruins Tony Stark as a character too, it goes to show the entire ordeal over the Sokovia Accords was a complete and utter waste of time. What I thought was going to develop into deeply, troubling ramifications on all heroes going forward into the MCU, ended up feeling like a red herring. And Peter Parker was just dumbed down for laughs, and looked up to Tony Stark as his father figure/benefactor. That in particular reminds me of my complaints over the Bondification of Batman in the Nolan era.

What's dumb about that? They can know that and not like it. And the movie can show the Wayne murders, but not do it in slow mo with every detail being emphasized. I think using it for a plot point and not showing it like that can both be done. I wouldn't say the theme is absent from the character as is in MCU's.

It wasn't a waste of time. This conflict is the building point of the movie that builds to the end and is one of reasons the Avengers weren't together in IW with the fight against Thanos. I wouldn't say it ruins Tony's character. That I think had been done in AOU/A1 more than CW. And I don't think it dumbs Peter down that much. Though he's far from the main character and I think is barely a cameo, so to me, it's not a huge issue. Irregardless of the situation, Peter's more or less going after someone under the essential deputization by Tony whose working for the government.

[Sam Raimi:]

It's true that Peter's emotional reason for not stopping the robber is different in the film, but I'd argue the underlying moral message about responsibility is still the same. Both the 2002 movie and Amazing Fantasy #15 present the idea that it's not only wrong to misuse power, but that it's equally wrong to not use it when doing so would help others. This message is repeated by Octavius in the second movie when he speaks of intelligence: "Intelligence is not a privilege, it's a gift. And you use it for the good of mankind." The same principle applies to power. In the first movie, Peter chooses not to exercise his power – and by extension, not to exercise responsibility – for selfish emotional reasons. In doing so, he allows a gun-toting criminal to go free without regard for the other people he might hurt. And the consequences of this irresponsible act are visited back on him in tragic proportion. In the comics his inaction was motivated by hubris, while in the movie it was motivated by spite and a desire for revenge. But in both stories we see Peter's selfish emotional drives overriding his sense of moral obligation. While the emotional context is indeed different, I'd say the moral problem – of refusing to help someone in need for personal reasons – remains the same.

The 616 Peter passively enabled Uncle Ben's death through his inaction, but he didn't actively help bring it about. But in the Raimi film, it was Peter's scheme to make money off his powers that put Uncle Ben in harm's way to begin with. If Peter hadn't lied to him, Ben wouldn't have been sat outside the library in the first place, he wouldn't have been carjacked, and he wouldn't have been shot. Peter lied to his uncle in the pursuit of cash, and that lie got Ben killed. If Peter hadn't been in the studio in Amazing Fantasy #15, the robber still would have ripped off the place, he still would have got away with the loot, and he still would have killed Ben at a later time. Peter's irresponsible actions didn't cause Ben's death in the 616 comics so much as enable it. But in the movie, Peter's selfishness directly facilitated the tragic event, which means his guilt is twofold: it was his fault Ben was in the line of fire in the first place, and he had a chance to stop him from being killed but chose not to for reasons that were entirely selfish and immature. Exacerbating this is the memory of the harsh words he exchanged with Ben during their final conversation; a conversation in which his uncle was trying to teach him the very lesson that might have averted this tragedy, had Peter only heeded what was being said.

I'm not gonna argue whether it's better or not. But Sam Raimi seemed to have a similar mindset, to me, based off of what he says in the commentary for SM1:

Sam Raimi: He's a sinner. He's like, 'Pride and anger rule.' You see a look on his face there that you won't see anywhere else in the picture. He's full of himself. He feels as though his own bitter justice has been served, like the guy deserved it. It's a sin he'll end paying for for the rest of his life.

I think similarly about it not erasing the responsibility lesson.

M.J. getting kidnapped again is one of the issues I have with SM3's final act, but there are other larger problems as well. I think the film is fine up to and including the scene where Peter returns the engagement ring to Aunt May. Following this, there's a sequence of events that is so condensed it almost feels as if the DVD is skipping several chapters. In order for the finale to take place, Peter has to acquire the following pieces of important information:

•   Marko is still alive
•   The Symbiote is also still active
•   There's a new villain in the city called Venom
•   Sandman and Venom have teamed up
•   Mary Jane has been kidnapped... again
•   The villains have issued a public challenge to Spider-Man

Then there's the equally awkward plot device of the Osborn butler revealing the truth about Norman's death to Harry. It hadn't even been established prior to this scene that the butler knew about Norman and Harry's double life. And if he did know, why did he wait until this point to tell Harry a truth that might have spared him so much pain? And his testimony doesn't actually exonerate Peter anyway. So Norman was killed with his own glider – how do Harry and his butler know that Spider-Man didn't use the glider to stab Norman? Again, it's all about repositioning the characters so they can rush to the finale. The film needed at least another 30-40 minutes to set up the final act. Or better yet, they could have split the movie in two.

The only other major problem I have with the rest of the film is that there are too many characters. Gwen Stacy and her father could easily have been cut. Both were underwritten and neither portrayal did justice to the source material (that's the fault of the writing, not the actors). Gwen serves two important functions in the plot: firstly to make M.J. jealous, and secondly to break up with Brock in order to increase his resentment towards Peter. Both of these functions could have been served by Betty Brant. They'd already established Brant as a character in the first two films, and both Brock and Peter are shown flirting with her in SM3. That would have streamlined things quite a bit.

But for every negative thing I could say about SM3, there are plenty of positives. I was very disappointed by it when it first came out. But now, after seeing what the subsequent Spider-Man films were like, I think Raimi's third movie has aged pretty well.

The Harry scene, as far as I know would've played out differently, where MJ, who hadn't been captured in this version, would come to Harry and talk to him. I think the line that was in one of the trailers would've been in this scene, where MJ says: "We've all done terrible things to eachother, but we have to forgive eachother or everything we ever were will mean nothing."

I'm not sure if the butler scene would've remained or not though, but with a different context. But also I think the point of Harry helping isn't necessarily that he 100% accept the truth that his dad killed himself, but more that he'd rather help his friends than obsess over revenge. Though also I think someone who cared about Harry would have a hard time telling him that his dad was insane and became the green goblin and tried to kill his friends and killed himself. And after hearing, Harry could start to think Peter was being truthful before when he told him that his dad killed himself, as I think it's not likely for someone to grab the glider and hit Norman with it.

As was already told to you, Gwen was going to be kidnapped instead of MJ. I think the idea of it being Betty could've been interesting, but I also think Gwen can also serve as a parallel in a way to MJ, with connection to Eddie paralleling Peter. And I actually like her in the movie. I can see your point about many moving parts though.

While I think breaking into 2 parts could've been interesting, as far as I understand it, Sam Raimi was essentially told to do Venom for this movie. And the Gwen shift apparently came in midway through production. And the original version of the script was apparently going to have Vulture and Sandman originally, but supposedly Sam was told to do Venom instead.

Into the Spider-Verse is worth seeing, but make sure your expectations are in check. It's not the masterpiece the critics have made it out to be, any more than the recent MCU films are. But it's good. It puts a fresh spin on the material, it's nicely animated, and it contains lots of Easter egg allusions to older Spider-Man films, comics and TV shows. I don't think it's as good as Spider-Man 2, but I like it a lot more than Homecoming. And it gets bonus points for having Kingpin as the main villain.

I think it's better than MCU's Spider-Man in ways.

A lot of fans are insistent on the younger and more comedic characterisation these days. You mentioned the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, and I wonder if that's partly to blame. I saw an episode of that on a plane once, and I was surprised at just how far they went with the comedy. Especially compared to the nineties Spider-Man carton, which was far more dramatic. I suppose the popularity of Deadpool might also be a factor. Everyone seems to want Spider-Man to be a fourth-wall-breaking teenage chatterbox, but as you point out, that's not how he was depicted in most of the comics or animated shows prior to this decade. I like humour in my Spider-Man stories too, but I also like a little drama and darkness.

I think similarly with this and it's an issue I've had with the MCU Spider-Man movies. Not necessarily darkness, but more some heaviness. The character doesn't have to mope to develop the weight on the character more.

But I agree with you about M.J. getting engaged to John while stringing Peter along. Her actions at the end of the movie, where she jilts John at the altar, are also extremely selfish. But that's just her characterisation and doesn't make it a bad film for me.

I'm not sure if that's more selfish than marrying someone and consumating that marriage and living with them until they decide to leave them. How does she string Peter along anymore than Peter himself does by trying to woo her with poetry and asking her out to eat with him, while she's engaged?

I guess the randomness of Ben's murder is what works for me in AF #15. It is pretty long odds that Ben would get killed by the very same thief Peter allowed to escape. But for me, that's the entire point. He was always going to kill somebody. Peter was directly affected by his own inaction.

And while I understand your point about Peter's lie in SM1, the fact remains that in AF #15, Peter was a jerk for absolutely no reason whereas he was a jerk in the movie with some justification. In AF #15, Peter had a massive chip on his shoulder and his powers allowed him to act upon that. He wanted to take care of May and Ben in a negative sense and for all the wrong reasons. He was more selfish in SM1, and for no apparent reason. It's been forever since I've seen the movie but I don't remember Peter's school life being so terrible in SM1. Whereas he was rather a social pariah in AF #15.

Idk, I suppose there's room for disagreement here. But so far, I'm not satisfied with ANY of the Uncle Ben/origin stories in the films.

Peter's reason was wrong. There's no justification in him taking revenge.

Peter was made to chase the bus as the busdriver laughed at him along with the students and kept going. He was messed with by Flash in that movie too. This girl wouldn't let him sit down next to her, a guy told him he was lame, someone tripped him.

Peter's action was more evil than selfish, like in the comics. It was a purposeful, vindictive action he made with malice of forethought. The only sympathy comes from us thinking we might do the same thing, but we'd all equally be just as much in the wrong too. And I think Sam Raimi agrees based on what he says in the SM1 commentary:

Sam Raimi: He's a sinner. He's like, 'Pride and anger rule.' You see a look on his face there that you won't see anywhere else in the picture. He's full of himself. He feels as though his own bitter justice has been served, like the guy deserved it. It's a sin he'll end paying for for the rest of his life.

This change right here makes this the worst Rami Spider-Man movie. They badly botched the original Spider-Man No More storyline by not caring about how satisfying it is for Peter to be a hero for someone who needs one other than Mary Jane Watson. These films made Mary Jane Watson someone worth saving, however she isn't with her attitude and truly devious nature of getting engaged to someone she doesn't truly care about. She's the true villain of the trilogy.

I'd say the point of that scene is similar. He walks away and I think we're supposed to get that he feels guilty about and I think that leads into the fire scene.

Truly devious nature? She doesn't marry him and goes to the person she actually does care about at the end of the day. For all intents and purposes she's not trying to hurt the guy as far as I think we're supposed to get. Should she wait for Peter, whose rejected her?

I don't think SnyderLeague would've gone down this direction (not that it matters anymore), but I don't dislike your ideas here. Lots of good material to flesh out in a hypothetical continuation of BvS.

I think that by taking Batman into a darker place, stuff like that has weight for the story. In the movies I think it's too easy.

How do you feel about vigilantism without killing in terms of being a follower of God? Do you think violence against criminals is still a disqualification, or is it tolerated from a good versus evil perspective?

An important thing to always keep in mind as a Christian id forgiveness. The Holy Bible's Old Testament speaks of punishment for crimes, in some cases being put to death, depending on the severity of the crime. The New Testament, as I understand it, speaks toward the forgiveness of everyone, and for us as Christians to treat people as if they've been saved, because Jesus has died for sins, I think whether they've accepted it or not. Jesus Himself forgave a woman of apparent adultery when men brought her to Him for her to be stoned.

As far as it relates to Batman, as a fan, I like the idea of Batman being unofficially deputized in a lot of ways. I think Batman has a push and pull to where he seeks to help people but drives himself into pain and anger. Batman, irregardless of my liking of him, is a fictional character. But in this context, it's not justified, but it can happen. Redemption at that stage isn't impossible for him, even in BvS.

In a way, that's one of the things I like about the Martha scene. Bruce gives this big thing where he talks about the lesson his parents taught him, dying in the gutter for no reason at all, only to, by sheer if this were real life I'd call it divine intervention, the person he saw as an alien monster's mom has the same name as his mom that's had such a big impact on his life and I think of it as a wakeup call for his cynicism, the lie that he's believed that his parent's death had no reason, he sees that that's not true and he realizes redemption for himself is possible. Whether all this was planned in film, I don't know, but I like it.

So I think, in particular for Batman, there's an idea of potential redemption. I think Batman himself isn't against the idea either. I think back to BTAS/TNBA and there being a few episodes where Bruce showed kindness to criminals and/or maybe supervillains.

I'm coming back to my earlier post.

I just love how these worthless critics love to put Nolan on such a pedestal for supposedly creating "dark, high concept, cerebral cinema that elevated superheroes" while blatantly ignoring every f***ing fault that overrated hack does; and yet, not only do they ignore the fact he co-wrote MOS, but the moody tone they cherished so much is suddenly not suitable for a Superman movie.

How is it hypocrisy to think one tone can fit for one character and another tone can fit for another?

I think an argument can be made in the idea that tone can come from how a director interpret's what the script does in some ways. But I think Nolan wasn't a match for this material in the first place.

If this is what the detractor said, then yes, it is idiotic indeed. I could go in depth by recapping how Clark and Lois showing compassion for each other slowly develops into their romance ever since MOS and continues in the sequel, but that would be redundant to mention in great detail. You just need to watch the movies, and pay attention. If people like this Steven think any of that was underdeveloped, then I'd hate to imagine what would constitute a good onscreen relationship.

I wouldn't call it toxic, though I do think it's underdeveloped. They don't really have any real personal conversations about themselves or eachother as people. Clark really talks at her about his dad's death and that's it. I don't think they have a relationship much at all. Saying that it happens off screen I think doesn't work, for me, and maybe some others. We don't see their relationship build, I think, even to justify their kiss at the end of MOS, in consideration to the tone of the scene and in BvS justify their relationship being as important to Clark as is described.

As for questioning Superman's love for Lois, I guess this Steve putz would take issue with Crisis on Infinite Earths because it showed Earth-Two Superman momentarily losing the will to live because he thought his wife Lois had vanished for good, along with the rest of his world. I suppose you could say Superman's grief is "horribly toxic" and "overly infatuated".



So, here we are three years later. The DCEU is in disarray, we've lost Affleck and we're very likely to lose Cavill, because of Warner deciding to cater to morons like Alessandro is calling out.

Pathetic.

The rest of his world is a component there I think. But if he momentarily did that, I think that's something that can happen if the relationship has been developed more. Giving up entirely, I'd think be a bit much.

I don't think WB thinks their in disaray, with what their doing, and with Matt Reeves Batman seeming to come together now.

I think it would've worked, considering Bruce still had to be a functional human being in recruiting various League members. Batman keeps secrets and burdens, such as the Knightmare vision. Having a death wish wouldn't be out of character.

I think they could've had Bruce not be able to recruit them, because they don't like him for what he's done and/or don't trust him, and they come together out of necessity. I wouldn't argue it's out of character, more an easy out for Bruce's character having consequences for his actions, in that he feels guilty enough to try and get himself killed. Instead of dealing with the outward consequences more directly. I think that's more structuring the story to fit around Bruce's character.

I want Gordon to be against him. The league members to be untrusting of him and what he says. Diana to be apprehensive about his issues and his goals. Alfred to be angry about Bruce thinking he can just go back to the way things were without strong consequences for his actions. I think that's a realistic set of consequences for Bruce's actions. Maybe even Bruce can truly find God and get some help in his issues.

I think SnyderLeague would’ve had a more psychologically tormented Bruce than what we were given. Being trusted but having functional depression, with it culminating in the finale.

Attracting the parademons being his good death, ala burning up his race car at the beginning of TDK Returns. Whereas in the released version Batman seems overly ambitious to the point of being stupid.

From what I've heard/read, that basically matches up, but it seems like an easier way out in the story to me than I'd have preferred.