Messages

People annoy me. *waits for Dagenspear's lecture*

Saying people annoy you isn't insulting them. It's you giving your personal opinion.

Clark sincerely believes Batman's a reckless vigilante with a total disregard for the civil rights of perps. And, um, he's right. But instead of beating the snot out of Batman, he tells him to retire... reminding him that if Superman was the kind of man Batman is, this would've ended physically instead of verbally.

Superman isn't the law and he doesn't have the right to tell Batman to do anything. Even if he was being commisioned by the law, there's a line in response to that from the TDKR animated movie: "They only want me gone because I'm an embarrassment. Because I do what they can't. What kind of authority is that?" Superman needs to learn the difference between the right thing and the law.

God bless you both! God bless everyone!

This is one plot line that gets criminally ignored. I once had an argument with somebody about Batman's loose code in the Nolan films, and he tried to dismiss my complaints by trying to look for faults in Burton/Schumacher's films e.g. accusing Bruce as a hypocrite for trying to discourage Dick in seeking revenge over his family's murders when he killed in B89 and BR. I didn't think about it at the time because I hadn't seen BF in ages, and I actually thought this BS artist might have had a point. 

But when I watched the film again, and particularly this scene in context, I understood and appreciate that Bruce was talking about his own personal experience after he had avenged his parents. He realized that killing Joker failed to put him at peace, and he was looking to protect Dick from making that same mistake. People can complain about Bruce having sidekicks all they want. But there if they're honest, they'd acknowledge that his responsibility and influence in helping Dick here was possibly his greatest achievement.

There isn't an issue here with either the Nolan movies or the Burton movies with that. And Batman didn't kill the Joker in Batman 89.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

But Superman doesn't consider himself scary or a god. He just wants to do the right thing. If he thinks putting Batman in his place keeps peace and order, he'll do it.

But Superman is scary, that's the problem. He's even using fear to try to intimidate Batman here. There isn't order and peace in threatening someone else who is fighting crime. Thank you for your politeness in your responses. I thought it would get a more aggressive reply at first.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

I think Superman is simply being forceful in his beliefs. I don't necessarily support those beliefs all the time, but good on him for not backing down on them.

I feel like it's making him look like a hypocrite. He's threatening Batman to stop being threatening. Superman, the super strong, nearly invincible, heat vision packing, super speed having alien who fought another alien with the exact same powers through buildings, is criticizing Batman for being scary. The whole movie is painting this really twisted picture of Superman from I've seen so far from it.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

I don't know why, but for some reason this movie wants me to dislike Superman. It keeps showing me things that make him look bad to me.

God bless you all! God bless everyone!

This right here. For one thing, as you say, those aren't conflicts I care to watch Superman grapple with. For two things though, again as you say, if Singer was going to introduce those issues, he owed it to the audience to at least explore them. Resolve them or don't resolve them but for crying out loud at least play with those concepts a little.

Very well colors. But I still stand by what I said about Two-Face's part in the film being very contrived, and I don't believe it did the film many favours, no matter what others say. I guess I can compare my distaste for this entire plot line (and the film's entire third act) to how most Superman fans feel about Clark disappearing for five years and having a son in SR. We might get that Bryan Singer had plans to ask if the world would be better off without Superman and make him face fatherhood issues...but it doesn't necessarily mean we think they're good ideas. Especially if neither are really explored.

I'm sorry, but I don't get the impression that it was an issue of fatherhood in that movie or if the world would be better off without Superman. The movie is about, from what I can see, Clark feeling alone and being disconnected from the people he loves, until he finds out that he has a son, he has someone that he can connect to in a world where he can't fully connect with people. That's explored rather nicely in the film from what I can tell. Neither the SR or TDK things are really bad.

Grrrrr, that movie pisses me off to this day and I'm so happy to have MOS rather than floating turd of stinkfest crapola movie stinking everything up.

The day will eventually have to come when fans recognize Singer as the overrated, one trick pony he is. And I hope it's soon.

He isn't a one trick pony. Now, his recent movies haven't been that great, but the early x-movies are good and SR is decent.

God bless you both! God bless everyone!

Quit trying to be this site's moral compass. You're not. I've seen you try this crap with two or three people now, me being one of them. Stop it.

I'm not a moral compass at all. That's absolutely true. In my past I have far worse things to my own family. But that doesn't mean that I have to accept someone being insulted over a movie. It's not right whether I or anyone else does it.

And Dangespear, the problem with B&R wasn't the intention as much as that it wasn't sure what it wanted to be. It didn't try to be as campy as the 60's Batman, which I loved, it did have serious moments in-between. And while Uma Thurman really enjoyed herself, Arnold did the movie more harm than good, as did George Clooney in my opinion.

I don't see how.

God bless you both! God bless everyone!

["intentionally"]

I just found Waldo in that weird version of that trailer. 

Meanwhile, this 'journalist' (and I use the term loosely) conveniently ignored Henry Cavill saying the word "intentionally" when he was asked if BvS addresses the fallout from events in MOS. Why? So she could spin both movies in a negative light. 

http://national.suntimes.com/national-entertainment/7/72/2393347/henry-cavill-batman-v-superman-wrong-problems-man-of-steel

As the Joker says in BTAS, what a maroon!

Putting that petty stupidity aside, the part where we see the Bat symbol branded on the crook's chest in the trailers reminds me of Zorro slicing the letter Z on his enemies. It makes sense since Bob Kane cited Zorro as an inspiration when he created Batman, and in this film, it might be possible that the last film that Bruce watched with his parents had a deep psychological impact on him.

Why is insulting that person a response that you give over a movie? That person didn't do anything to you. Please, please be better than that. I'm sure you can be.

Intention is really a key issue here though. If the movie was made without the intention of addressing the issues with the movie, then it leaves a hole in it. There's a reason why in life things are viewed with intention. If you don't intend to kill someone, it's manslaughter, if you did, it's murder. The movie may address the issues unintentionally, but that makes it less direct. It takes away from the weight of the movie. It's one of the reasons why when people say Batman & Robin is a bad movie, they're aren't really correct. The movie was purposefully made to be the way that people bash it for and the reasons they bash it are mainly things they don't like, not really factual reasons. The movie wasn't made poorly. It was made purposefully.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Man...don't take this as an offence, but I would've thought you out of all people would've called bullsh*t on Two-Face's role in TDK.

It's not that Nolan failed to portray Two-Face based on how people prefer him to be as a character; it's that he failed to portray him with a characterization that makes any sense at all. Dent's transformation is so rushed and unbelievably poorly written that it's exactly how that parody I quoted earlier described it.

Before the disfigurement, there's not even a hint of Harvey even having a troubled past. For example, the coin in The Eye of the Beholder comic was a "gift" given to him by his abusive father after it was used in a twisted game to punish Harvey when as a child. It played a significant role in Harvey's psychosis and made his transformation believable. But here – he looks at it with pride. No hints of any emotional abuse or troubled history at all. We know nothing about Harvey other than he's a determined, if rather arrogant, lawyer looking to prosecute crooks.

Fans love to point out that Harvey was psychotic when he threatened that schizophrenic, but I don't agree because A) he freaked out when he learned that Joker was going to make an attempt on Rachel's life (again), and B) he was acting out of desperation rather out of cold-blood. That alone should've motivated Harvey to shoot the Joker right between the eyes as soon as he was given the chance in the hospital!

Instead, he allows his girlfriend's murderer into manipulating him, and takes his anger out at Joker's accomplices and those who failed to stop him. Seriously, what sense does that make? And no, I don't buy that whole "Joker is a mad dog, I'm looking for those who let him of his leash" excuse either. I don't know about anyone else, but if I was driven insane over the murder of my girlfriend, I'd make sure I'd get revenge over everyone who had hurt me, including the perpetrator behind her death. Everything about what makes Two-Face unique such as his duality, pathological obsession over chance is stripped so he could be more of a vigilante...and yet the first thing he does is letting Rachel's killer go?! If the whole point was to dumb Two-Face down so that Joker in this movie could be unstoppable, then I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.

Perhaps the biggest sin of all – Two-Face makes Batman take the blame for everything he did so Gotham doesn't find out; which goes against everything Batman said about people believing in good earlier on. That would be like watching a Superman movie where a rather benevolent President Lex Luthor is suddenly brainwashed into becoming a homicidal maniac, and after Superman kills him, he takes the fall so the rest of the country doesn't find out what really happened. It's not exactly Truth, Justice, and the American Way, is it?

To me, the whole Two-Face ordeal was just a contrived plot point so he could be stuck in the middle of Batman and Joker's flimsy philosophical war with each other. The only way I could ever tolerate it is if we had a different ending where Batman lets the truth come out and prove to the Joker that the city believes in good once again. As it stands, Harvey Two-Face is just another reason why I think this film is a horrible mess to watch for me.

That's false. Harvey did want to kill the Joker, but he listened to the coin, because that's become his source of focus due to his now cracked psyche. He's insane. You can't say that his characterization makes no sense, but then suggest that it make even less sense. You say that he was acting out of desperation in one situation, but imply that he was being cold-blooded in another. His act of not killing the Joker right off shows that he's not being cold blooded. In his fractured mind he's placed the rules of morality off of his shoulders and onto chance. That's become his new justice. Desperation can lead to what Harvey becomes and it does. Desperation is a part of his character in the last part of the movie. He's not a pure cold-blooded monster. He's angry and broken and hurting and vengeful and desperate. He's not cold-blooded. When he murders someone he is, but he would still be whether driven by desperation or not. And, like I've said before, Batman's belief isn't contradicted, because the movie shows him thinking of Batman as a bad thing, as something that brings pain and death onto people. Him thinking that people are ready to believe good is because he thinks they believe in Harvey Dent. He calls him Gotham's true hero in the movie.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

It establishes what we know of Joker. There wasn't much of that side of Jack, just the in for himself number one guy thing.  So it does give you a look into Jack pre-joker. Older jack was rather reserved and in a way hid his craziness. Younger Jack was in a sense more like the Joker and actually seemed more nuts than his pre-joker counterpart.

It doesn't establish what hasn't already been established though. But young Jack I doubt would gased the whole city.

God bless you! God bless everyone!