Batman-Online.com

Obviously this is for those that want to discuss the film.

I would ask that any discussion about the film's plot be kept here until April 8th (after which time it will be renamed) - to allow fans wishing to avoid spoilers a decent chance.

Not spoiler material but an early perspective from those who know many critics. Go to time marker 19:30 and let it play from there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afN8Zf8w7gQ

It's all chinese whispers at the moment. I'll be on radio silence and wait this thing out.

For the curious. Nothing major given away, but some praises and teases:

- Batman has the clearest character arc in the film.

- This Batman is heavily influenced by The Dark Knight Returns, right down to lifting imagery and dialogue from the book. He does not, however, come across as insane or reach quite the same extremes as Miller's version. Think of him as a mix of the TDKR Batman and the BTAS Batman.

- The murder of the Waynes is practically ripped from the pages of TDKR. The mustached Thomas Wayne. The Mark of Zorro. The gun caught in Martha's pearl necklace before it goes off. I'd rank it the best adaptation of the murders in terms of comic accuracy, but Burton's version still remains the most haunting to me.

- While the Nolan films gave a ton of prominence to Thomas Wayne and practically zero about Martha, this film goes in a refreshing direction and makes Martha Wayne have the more important presence, of the two parents, through the film.

- For the first time in cinematic history...we finally get to see Bruce visit his parents' resting place. More than once.

- Don't expect much explanation or backstory about the Robin suit in the cave.

- While the tie-in book says that Alfred was the Waynes' bodyguard and is currently Bruce's head of security, none of this is mentioned in the film. On the other hand, Irons's Alfred never serves Bruce food or wears a tux, so he doesn't come across as a butler either.

- Batman unquestionably performs detective work in this film.

- And here's what's going to be controversial about this Batman: he kills people. As hinted in the trailers, the Batwing/Batmobile blows up criminals. He sets out to kill Superman. Thugs die in that warehouse fight from the last trailer. Unlike Nolan's Batman, however, he does not talk about having a vow against killing, so his behavior doesn't come across as hypocritical.

What an epic meltdown to a franchise trying to reboot itself. Somewhere in the world, Christian Bale is saying, "Thank God I didn't take this role again." I have never seen such incredible distain for a film. Batman & Robin never got it this bad when it opened. Current Rotten Tomatoes score at the time of this posting- 36%. Only 10 from Green Lantern. Some already saying they liked Forever and Spider-man 3 much better. Just wow...

Quote from: Wayne49 on Thu, 24 Mar  2016, 00:29
What an epic meltdown to a franchise trying to reboot itself. Somewhere in the world, Christian Bale is saying, "Thank God I didn't take this role again." I have never seen such incredible distain for a film. Batman & Robin never got it this bad when it opened. Current Rotten Tomatoes score at the time of this posting- 36%. Only 10 from Green Lantern. Some already saying they liked Forever and Spider-man 3 much better. Just wow...

The RT score is atrocious indeed. However I do feel we need to see the film first, before writing it off.

Oh it will have big numbers for this weekend. That's a frontloaded lock. And yes, I will form my own opinion for my collection. But as a project that is expected to make a billion worldwide, this film is facing a monster uphill climb. Even steeper than MOS. You have to admit, that is not favorable from a business axiom.

Never would have thought this film would get such a negative reaction that is has been receiving. I don't recall what the initial ratings were for last years Fantastic Four reboot, or Green Lantern for comparison, but this is indeed unfortunate, and doesn't bode well for a slate of planned films that would spin off from this launch pad.

Given the news, it'll be interesting to see how received Suicide Squad turns out to be, especially considering it'll be the first film in DC's cinematic universe NOT directed by Snyder....

I left somewhat disappointed. Not to say it was a bad film, but it wasn't a great one - and that's down to a number of factors.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 24 Mar  2016, 02:35

Never would have thought this film would get such a negative reaction that is has been receiving. I don't recall what the initial ratings were for last years Fantastic Four reboot, or Green Lantern for comparison, but this is indeed unfortunate, and doesn't bode well for a slate of planned films that would spin off from this launch pad.

Given the news, it'll be interesting to see how received Suicide Squad turns out to be, especially considering it'll be the first film in DC's cinematic universe NOT directed by Snyder....

You know I had been offering some strong reserves on this film for the past few months. The trailers looked lifeless to me. It played like an extended video game. But even my most pessimistic side didn't envision this kind of critical collapse. It's interesting how the lessons fully realized in this genre about the need for story and character development have seemingly been discounted with the belief two and half hours of eye candy will suffice. And sadly Warner bros is typically the studio that has to learn the hard lessons. Oh well... This weekend at the box office could be the only good news this film elicits before the collective masses turn in their report card. If it looks anything like what the critics and even some diehard fans are saying, the cliff this film jumps off of may be steep.

Quote from: Paul (ral) on Thu, 24 Mar  2016, 13:51
I left somewhat disappointed. Not to say it was a bad film, but it wasn't a great one - and that's down to a number of factors.

In terms of a Snyder film, does this movie come in better or worse than MOS in your opinion?

Man of Steel had it's problems, but I feel it was better than DoJ.

What are the issues for you, Paul?

Quote from: Paul (ral) on Thu, 24 Mar  2016, 14:48
Man of Steel had it's problems, but I feel it was better than DoJ.

Thanks. Yeah, for me, MOS had a number of issues regarding character motivation and of course Snyder changing the death circumstances for Jonathan Kent. If this movie has similar motivation problems, especially since the very title of the movie suggests that should be a well flushed out idea, then this movie is in trouble with me. What I have heard regarding momma Kent has not sat well with me (both as the root of the problem and the resolution of the conflict).

Zack Snyder has commented on why Batman kills in the film.
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/batman_vs_superman/zack-snyder-reveals-why-the-caped-crusader-kills-in-batman-v-a132507

QuoteI tried to do it in a technical way. There's a great YouTube video that shows all the kills in the Christopher Nolan movies even though we would perceive them as movies where he doesn't kill anyone. I think there's 42 potential kills that Batman does! Also, it goes back and includes even the Tim Burton Batman movies where this reputation as a guy that doesn't kill comes from.

So, I tried to do it by proxy. Shoot the car they're in, the car blows up or the grenade would go off in the guy's hand, or when he shoots the tank and the guy pretty much lights the tank [himself]. I perceive it as him not killing directly, but if the bad guy's are associated with a thing that happens to blow up, he would say that that's not really my problem.

A little more like manslaughter than murder, although I would say that in the Frank Miller comic book that I reference, he kills all the time. There's a scene from the graphic novel where he busts through a wall, takes the guy's machine gun...I took that little vignette from a scene in The Dark Knight Returns, and at the end of that, he shoots the guy right between the eyes with the machine gun. One shot. Of course, I went to the gas tank, and all of the guys I work with were like, 'You've gotta shoot him in the head' because they're all comic book dorks, and I was like, 'I'm not gonna be the guy that does that!'

Burton's Batman is where he got the reputation for being the one who doesn't kill? Does Snyder even know what he's talking about?

I feel like at this point, Snyder shoots what's cool to him (i.e. explosions, superpowered people fighting, etc.) and justifies it later in whatever way he can. He recently compared the destruction of the planets in Star Wars: The Force Awakens to the destruction at the end of Man of Steel, which misses the point of people's criticisms completely.

He claimed that Superman snapped Zod's neck in Man of Steel so that he could learn not to kill, yet nothing in Man of Steel's ending or Batman v Superman show him learning from that at all.

Personally, I don't think that the killcount on Affleck's Batman is much worse than what we've seen of Keaton. It's portrayed in possibly a more brutal way, but Keaton still killed thugs from his vehicles by shooting at them or blowing them up (or lighting the fire breather on fire in Batman Returns).

I'm not really mad that Batman kills in the film 'cause I'm used to it (is George Clooney the only WB live action Batman not to kill anyone?), but I honestly prefer a Batman who avoids lethal force and it almost feels, as this point, that Snyder just likes to stir up controversy with the fans.

I just saw this on another site and was about to post about it. It's hilarious! Let's break it down into a few key points.

QuoteThere's a great YouTube video that shows all the kills in the Christopher Nolan movies even though we would perceive them as movies where he doesn't kill anyone. I think there's 42 potential kills that Batman does!

So he based his interpretation of Batman's ethics on a YouTube video edited from the Nolan films? Ok...

QuoteAlso, it goes back and includes even the Tim Burton Batman movies where this reputation as a guy that doesn't kill comes from.

What the--? Ugh, moving on.

QuoteI perceive it as him not killing directly, but if the bad guy's are associated with a thing that happens to blow up, he would say that that's not really my problem.

So if Batman drops a nuclear bomb on a city, it's the population's fault for being there. Batman was merely nuking the city itself; the innocent victims were merely associated with it. How does that make a shred of sense?

QuoteA little more like manslaughter than murder, although I would say that in the Frank Miller comic book that I reference, he kills all the time.

No. He doesn't.

QuoteThere's a scene from the graphic novel where he busts through a wall, takes the guy's machine gun...I took that little vignette from a scene in The Dark Knight Returns, and at the end of that, he shoots the guy right between the eyes with the machine gun.

I thought Snyder was meant to be this massive TDK fan. Has he even read it? It's amazing how Batman managed to shoot that "guy" (actually a girl) through the eyes without damaging his/her glasses.


Oh, Zack. You're making this too easy. ;D

I'd say Zack's version of that scene is actually more violent than the source material.

I think they only looked at the pictures and not the text of DKR.

That's... disappointing.

Great points raised by a critic whose feelings on the film are similar to mine:
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/03/24/10-questions-batman-v-superman-left-me-asking

Man, I can't believe how strongly I disagree with the critics here. I saw the movie this afternoon, and it's either 8 or 9/10 for me. No joke. Affleck has also unseated Michael Keaton as my favourite Bruce Wayne and Batman. There's so much to discuss and I'm ready to fight my corner. It's sad that the film makers get saddled with a 33% Tomato Meter. It is simply absurd.

I think its worth pointing out that not every critic that tagged it with a rotten score was out to "get" this movie. Many liked chunks of the film but felt it just came up short with the ideas it was juggling. Allot of diehards have felt that way too so it's not like there's this massive split between critics and fans. And I don't think its Marvel "conditioning" because Bale and Nolan had a nice run and their films are not Marvel-like (if there is such a measure). Plus DC has enjoyed allot of success on television and critics have warmed to those projects. So I believe it's worth saying that before people feel the need to "fight" for their opinion, it is, at the end of the day, just an opinion. Snyder enjoys making divisive films. And because he does, he will never find a large positive consensus for movies that normally get widespread approval in their genre. So I don't think it's a brand issue, so much as a director issue.

Plus fans of the film can take a deep breath for right now anyway. The movie is going to break allot of box office records this weekend because of the frontloaded marketing campaign and the curious who need to know what all the fuss is about. Maybe giving it rotten scores will bring in the curious? So all is not lost on this project. How it does in the coming weeks AFTER the hype has died down will speak to it's widespread acceptance or not.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 25 Mar  2016, 09:26
Man, I can't believe how strongly I disagree with the critics here. I saw the movie this afternoon, and it's either 8 or 9/10 for me. No joke. Affleck has also unseated Michael Keaton as my favourite Bruce Wayne and Batman. There's so much to discuss and I'm ready to fight my corner. It's sad that the film makers get saddled with a 33% Tomato Meter. It is simply absurd.

That's encouraging to know, I'm pretty sure of all members here you would be the first to rip it to shreds, mercilessly, if it deserved it. Still some things sound very stupid on paper (like in the article BatmAngelus shared above) but seeing it play out is different than reading. I hope your analysis is finished soon.

It occurred to me this morning that MoS is Batman Beguns and BvS is Nolan's TDK with a sprinkling of Rises. Same story beats, same characters (with Cavill and Affleck adding up to Bale's internal moral struggle)

I got out last night, and man, I cannot tell you how much I disagree with the majority of critics. I absolutely loved this movie. LOVED! Sure, the movie wasn't perfect, but I haven't gotten a single perfect CBM yet. If I had to give it a score, an easy 9/10 for me.

I don't get the negative reactions to this. I really don't.

Watched this last night, and I agree. I don't see where all the negativity is coming from. It has it's issues, but overall it's a solid movie, and speaking as a comic book fan, there's stuff in this that I've been waiting to see for 20 years, and it delivered. Some reviews just kinda seem like they are out to get this movie from the get go. Like actually being grossly incorrect in their review. I recall one review actually stating Wonder Woman shows up out of no where to battle Doomsday. Uh ... no. Quite the contrary, sport.  ::)

I agree (mostly) with the critics for once.  I went into the movie with average to low expectations, and deep down I was hoping it would be good. I wasn't overly impressed with Man Of Steel, but that's another topic. This movie started off clunky and never recovered. For those of you that don't read the comics, much of the script was taken from two major DC Comics storylines (DK Returns and another which I can't name or it'll spoil the film's ending)... and it is a bastardization of those two stories which made this film an overstuffed-butt of a Thanksgiving turkey. Several times I asked myself, okay where's the plot, what's going on right now? Sadly, I think Jeremy Irons was miscast as Alfred also. Great actor, I just think he didn't fit here. And don't even get me started on Lex Luthor. I could rant about him for six more paragraphs. What were the bright spots? Well, Affleck's Bruce Wayne was solid. He's no Michael Keaton, and I will always prefer a more tortured Wayne. Keaton had something behind his eyes that you felt onscreen, and no one has seemed to live up to that for me. But I'd go as far as saying I enjoyed Affleck more than Bale. Gal Gadot as the female lead was pretty fantastic (visually) but wasn't in the film long enough to make the impression I wanted her to make. To sum it up, the main focus of my disappointment is that the filmmakers have every reason to get these movies right, what with everything they have at their disposal. But to deliver what we got? Well, to me, that's not good enough. Then again, it's just a movie.  ;)

Quote from: Nycteris on Fri, 25 Mar  2016, 12:31

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 25 Mar  2016, 09:26
Man, I can't believe how strongly I disagree with the critics here. I saw the movie this afternoon, and it's either 8 or 9/10 for me. No joke. Affleck has also unseated Michael Keaton as my favourite Bruce Wayne and Batman. There's so much to discuss and I'm ready to fight my corner. It's sad that the film makers get saddled with a 33% Tomato Meter. It is simply absurd.

That's encouraging to know, I'm pretty sure of all members here you would be the first to rip it to shreds, mercilessly, if it deserved it. Still some things sound very stupid on paper (like in the article BatmAngelus shared above) but seeing it play out is different than reading. I hope your analysis is finished soon.

You are right. If I didn't like it, I'd say.

Quote from: Travesty on Fri, 25 Mar  2016, 17:20
I got out last night, and man, I cannot tell you how much I disagree with the majority of critics. I absolutely loved this movie. LOVED! Sure, the movie wasn't perfect, but I haven't gotten a single perfect CBM yet. If I had to give it a score, an easy 9/10 for me.

I don't get the negative reactions to this. I really don't.

I completely agree. This is basically everything I wanted it to be. I've settled on 9/10 as well. The level of hate it is receiving is baffling to me. Anyway...glad we both enjoyed it. But hey, because we say we enjoyed it we must be forcing ourselves to like it or something, right?

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 25 Mar  2016, 18:02

Watched this last night, and I agree. I don't see where all the negativity is coming from. It has it's issues, but overall it's a solid movie, and speaking as a comic book fan, there's stuff in this that I've been waiting to see for 20 years, and it delivered. Some reviews just kinda seem like they are out to get this movie from the get go. Like actually being grossly incorrect in their review. I recall one review actually stating Wonder Woman shows up out of no where to battle Doomsday. Uh ... no. Quite the contrary, sport.  ::)

Yep. It seems a section of critics wanted this movie to 'suck' and went in with that mindset, personally. Which is really disappointing. Because it deserves a lot higher score tha what it is getting. I feel sad about the film only because Affleck and Snyder will probably think they failed, and let down the fans. When the complete opposite is true for me.

Quote from: KeatonisBatman on Fri, 25 Mar  2016, 20:20
For those of you that don't read the comics, much of the script was taken from two major DC Comics storylines (DK Returns and another which I can't name or it'll spoil the film's ending)

Dude, this is the spoilers thread. It even says it in the title in all caps lol.

I'll talk about more stuff later but that ending hit me hard. Reading about the death of Superman in a comic is one thing. Seeing it play out in live action, especially since I'm a fan of Henry's Supes, that was tough. Poor Lois. Amy's acting as she begged him not to go and then grieving over his body was perfect. It ripped my heart out. So did Bruce's line that he had failed Clark in life, but he wouldn't in death.

I mentioned it (without being specific) in the other thread but I cried as Bruce realized Clark's humanity when he said he had to "save Martha." It was a beautiful moment. I loved him telling Supes to go to the ship and promising to save his mom. Then he does and the line "I'm a friend of your son's" (which her "I figured" made me giggle lol), it was like a redemption of Bruce's soul. He saw that good was still left and Clark was a shining example. That doesn't mean he was going to treat the bad guys any nicer though. ;)

The very very ending was so awesome, both because of the heartbeat and dirt and those implications and because of the dude two rows in front of me in his Superman PJs jumping up all excited lol.

Supes had a hard time in this film, but I think that worked. People simply don't value the heroes they have, and are always sceptical or jealous. Superman is basically how I feel at times. Not appreciated at work, and spoken to like a dog. People only see one facet of your personality there. They don't know who you truly are, and what amazing things you are capable of. Superman, while having super powers, is at heart a grassroots hero with a humble childhood grounding his belief system. Even though he's treated badly, he's more likely to take everything to heart and feel bad. But despite all this....he still puts his life on the line to save humanity.

Now that's a hero. The ending hurt, but I now love Superman more than ever.

This didn't really shock me or amaze me since you would know he would, but when he saved Lex - who has caused all this sh*t to get out of hand - from getting splattered by Doomsday's swipe. Too bad only that ungrateful bastard was there to see it. But Supes' sacrifice in the end answered everyone's questions about him.

Was the whole Doomsday thing a bit stupid, and Superman's death too premature?

Angry Joe is the one who raises valid points about those things, ignore the deluded masses of critics but this guy is a painted Superman fan who loved The Man of Steel (and is usually spot on with his criticisms in his reviews).

(warning: language)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jyQY_IR9u0

You know, I've read people make snide comments and scoff at the idea that Batman refrained from killing Superman because of Superman saying that Martha needed to be saved. Personally, I thought this was a valid reason Batman WOULD stop from killing Batman. We get that the death of Bruce's parents had a undeniable affect on his life. He trained all his life. Battled Gotham City scum for 20 years. Had to (apparently) endure the loss of a Robin. Is STILL in the game, goes on to take on a God-like being in Superman that Alfred says is suicide, and out of no where during the battle, Superman says that he has to save "Martha". To which Batman is flabbergasted and wants to know why did he say that? In a literal sense, and with Batman's psychology, I would think it would be very OUT OF CHARACTER if he DIDN'T have a emotional response to the name of his mother by a seemingly adversary.

Yeah. His parents are everything to him, so the reaction is understandable in my opinion.

That scene gives me chills every time I think about it. Good chills. It was amazing and the perfect way to bring those two together. I expected it to be a dealio where Diana came in and made them stop fighting or Doomsday was unleashed and they had to work together. The way it turned out was so good.

Ohhhhh one line I forgot to mention, where Lex tells his crony to break the news about Martha being turned into a crispy critter and Batsy replies "I'd rather do the breaking in person." Freaking. Loved. It.

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/03/25/batman-v-superman-jimmy-olsen

I recognized the actor from Smallville and honestly thought, when the terrorists found the tracker, that they were doing a "realistic" version of Jimmy's signal watch from the comics and Superman would arrive at any second, after he told Lois not to worry. Instead... ???

Since the scene that actually identified him as Jimmy was cut and the actor they chose for the role is relatively unknown, the end result to Snyder's "Psycho" idea is just...really odd.

The minute Doomsday first appeared in whatever trailer he first appeared in, it never crossed my mind that Superman would survive BvS. If you want to put Superman up against a big bruiser whose ass he can kick into the middle of next Tuesday, you go with Mongul or Bizarro or something. You put Superman up against Doomsday in a live action film because you're planning to kill Superman off. So that part wasn't a surprise.

What was a surprise was how Snyder handled. He manufactured a situation where vast swathes of the public love and adore Superman... but his appeal is not necessarily universal. He has detractors.

In Doomsday (which is the name of the storyline in which Superman died; the trade paperback has some other fruity name but that isn't what I go by), Superman's sacrificial death confirmed every single assumption and expectation the DCU civilians had about him. In BvS, this was Superman proving his critics wrong.

It was also Superman paying the ultimate price for a mistake of sorts he made in MOS. Strictly speaking, Superman shouldn't kill. But if he does, it should be because there isn't another choice. And if it comes to that, he has to suffer for making that decision.

Killing Zod in MOS is singularly what enables Superman's death in BvS. If there had been a way to trap Zod in the Phantom Zone back in MOS, he and Batman could've arrested Luthor in BvS and gone home more or less in one piece. But things went a different way.

Something else is that Superman's death galvanizes Batman and Wonder Woman. They're both done being solo acts now. The lack of communication between Superman and Batman is what enabled this entire mess. Batman, for sure, is committed to never letting something like this happen again. He will seek the other metas out and make allies out of them precisely so they can avoid being turned against each other.

Never again will they be used as pawns to take each other out.

Big stuff comes from Superman's death. It rehabilitated his public image, it taught him a valuable (and bloody) lesson and it clearly is what inspires the formation of the Justice League.

Plus, let's cut the crap. Superman isn't staying dead. So he'll have his cake and eat it too when the Justice League movie comes around.

What I really dig about BvS is the MYTH. Superman is living Greek god. "God" in the Christian context is the highest of the high, the purest of the pure. But deities in myth have feet of clay. They screw up, they make mistakes and very often they live among us. That's the paradigm with which Snyder is working in BvS. They've built literal monuments to Superman but in today's world, enfranchisement comes from news media. You're not truly accepted on a social level until the news media all write/broadcast nice things about you. And that's where Superman is. He's a Greek god.

Batman and Wonder Woman aren't far behind, and the future is wide open.

I'm VERY interested to see what's coming in the future. On the micro level, I want a solo Affleck Batman film and more solo Superman films. On the macro level, I want the DCEU to build up a mythos of its own. I want to see universe-building, the public reacting to the presence of more Greek gods in their midst. DC is, was and will always be better positioned to deliver on that type of Greek god metaphor than Marvel ever was on their best day. It's who DC has always been and I'm glad that WB is homing in on that.

The future looks... well, not "bright". But definitely awesome!

Yes, DC always had analogues with the Greek Pantheon.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 27 Mar  2016, 07:56
Superman's sacrificial death confirmed every single assumption and expectation the DCU civilians had about him. In BvS, this was Superman proving his critics wrong.

The general public never really saw Doomsday. Unlike the Zod battle, the whole affair happens without much, if any, media coverage. I wish that aspect of the battle had been played out longer. It would have given a more meaning to his death. Heck, they spent more time showing the cannonfire salute at his funeral than they did Superman fighting Doomsday.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 27 Mar  2016, 07:56
The lack of communication between Superman and Batman is what enabled this entire mess.

Another real issue I have. I can get Batman not communicating well. He can be pig-headed, but Superman is against the clock. He's not going to kill Batman. He doesn't even want to fight him.

If anything he should have spent the whole fight pleading with Batman to listen to him, only for Batman to ignore him and attack again before Superman can explain that he needs his help.

Instead we get a situation where the script ignores Superman's plight so they can have Superman push Batman away and through buildings.

I must have been the only one who clearly heard Supes tell Lois he had to go to Gotham to ask Batman for help or he (Bats) had to die. It became quickly evident Batman had no intentions of helping so he had to beat him down even though he didn't want to kill him (the oft heard line from the trailers "If I wanted it you'd be dead already"). Lex had his MOM and was going to burn her alive if you remember. That would screw with the psyche of any man or superman (or woman for that matter, I would have freaked), especially one already wracked with the amount of self doubt Clark had. So he was totally distracted and not thinking clearly.

Something else is the Batman mythos on display here. We see stuff that we've never seen in a Batman film before. I speak here of a dead Robin's outfit.

What works for me is how little these elements are developed in the film. We don't see why Wayne Manor was burned to the ground, how Robin came about dying, which Robin it was, etc. So much was introduced here but not expanded upon. It leaves a lot of fertile ground for a solo Batman franchise to develop.

I was concerned that BvS would unravel a lot of story potential for solo Batman. But that isn't what happened. It's introduced but that's all. If Batman films want to develop those issues, they have the flexibility to do so. But they're not obligated to. They have their own choices to make.

On the one hand, Batman has already had a great run at the box office so it's not the end of the world if his own franchise is a little weakened. But he's now part of a legit shared universe and he should have just as much a chance to shine as the other characters will. And now he does.

I wouldn't change a thing with how Batman's world is shown in BvS. Because I'm a kind of an butt-kicking junkie, I would've welcomed more of Batman beating the crap out of people but I really can't complain about how things played out in this movie. I definitely got a big helping of Batman Butt-Kickery. These are my favorite Batman fight scenes in live action. The bar was arguably set pretty low from previous installments but that's small stuff. Batman kicked butts just the way I've always wanted to see him kick butts in live action.

If I have a lasting regret about anything, it's that there's only one Zack Snyder and he can't direct the entire DCEU. Some other director will have to pick up where Snyder is leaving off (whether it's Affleck or somebody else) and I hope he remembers to make with the Snyder-style butt-kickings.

Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 27 Mar  2016, 17:49I must have been the only one who clearly heard Supes tell Lois he had to go to Gotham to ask Batman for help or he (Bats) had to die. It became quickly evident Batman had no intentions of helping so he had to beat him down even though he didn't want to kill him (the oft heard line from the trailers "If I wanted it you'd be dead already"). Lex had his MOM and was going to burn her alive if you remember. That would screw with the psyche of any man or superman (or woman for that matter, I would have freaked), especially one already wracked with the amount of self doubt Clark had. So he was totally distracted and not thinking clearly.

Lex has his mom and he's going to waste time punching Batman and telling him to stay down instead of telling him that Lex Luthor is threatening his mom to make him do this. Him telling him to save Martha is really unnatural too, as much as I liked that scene a lot, because I can't see how anyone's default phrase to ask someone to save their mother is to call them by their first name. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 27 Mar  2016, 17:49
I must have been the only one who clearly heard Supes tell Lois he had to go to Gotham to ask Batman for help or he (Bats) had to die. It became quickly evident Batman had no intentions of helping so he had to beat him down even though he didn't want to kill him (the oft heard line from the trailers "If I wanted it you'd be dead already").

Agreed.

Bruce abandoned Wayne Manor many years ago because he felt it was distracting him from being Batman. It's stated in an official BvS book.

I'll just re-post what I posted on another site:

Pretty much everybody is praising Affleck and Gadot and I think they're spot-on. Both nailed it. Keaton remains my favourite of the live-action Batmen but Affleck is easily a close second. I'm a lifelong Batman fan but it must be said that I've never had an issue with the character committing murder. If anything, the darker the better so I got a kick out of how brutal and unrelenting he was in this film. It's been a long time since we've seen a Batman on screen so full of rage.

The one casting choice that seems to have everybody split is Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. I loved him but then I do have a shameless knack for hammy, over-the-top performances. He was certainly menacing when he needed to be, though. His interactions with Holly Hunter were fantastic and the tension between his character and her's was one of my favourite aspects of the film. I was disappointed when Senator Finch was killed off halfway through.

Pacing-wise, I do think there were aspects of the film that could've expanded on better, whereas there were others that could've been omitted altogether. I kept getting the impression that they were trying to justify Lois Lane's presence in the film and although I like Amy Adams and the character, I reckon they could've written a stronger sub-plot around her. All things considered, though, they had a lot to get through in the film and I thought they did a decent job of juggling everything.

I've gotta say, I loved the Knightmare sequence and the one that directly follows. It was so left-field and bizarre that I couldn't help but love it. Remember the scene in Fire Walk With Me where Laura wakes to find Annie in bed with her? And Annie's delivering a cryptic message? That's what it reminded me of. It's something only those who'd seen the TV series could even begin to understand and the same could be said for the Knightmare sequence except in relation to diehard DC readers. I'm willing to bet that the majority of the audience were perplexed whilst watching it.

I've seen comparisons to Alien³ and David Lynch's Dune and other films of that ilk and I think the comparison is spot on. They're all films that I'd regard as flawed masterpieces. I may recognise the issues the films have but when everything else about them is so, so good, it's easy enough to overlook the flaws. Dawn of Justice is another of those films for me. I just fell in love with the drama and the scope of it all. Too many superhero films now are so safe and by-the-numbers. This one had more ambition. The execution may not have been perfect but the tone was right up my alley and I'm really excited to see what else the DC Extended Universe will bring.

Here is something I don't get about Lex's council meeting bombing: how come Superman didn't sense that a bomb was ticking? I know he said he didn't see anything when it happened, but I thought that his super hearing would've sensed something. Am I missing something here?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 27 Mar  2016, 21:49Here is something I don't get about Lex's council meeting bombing: how come Superman didn't sense that a bomb was ticking? I know he said he didn't see anything when it happened, but I thought that his super hearing would've sensed something. Am I missing something here?

He may have needed to be on the lookout for it in order to have noticed it.

I read a theory a while ago that I thought had some disco potential.

Originally Batman would've killed Superman, Superman would've come back and basically become Darkseid's viceroy of the planet Earth as his mother was gone and Superman would've been as disillusioned as Batman. The Flash sent that message back in time to tip Batman off that Lois is the key.

Indeed she is. This time Batman listened to her and then listened to Superman, and so decided to toss the Kryptonite spear away. That changes the future from which the Flash sent his message.

Darkseid is still coming but he won't be able to count on having Superman as an ally now. But he's still coming. And when he gets here, he's coming for blood.

I thought it sounded interesting so there you go.

Quote
He may have needed to be on the lookout for it in order to have noticed it.

That sounds a little too convenient for my liking. I do get that Superman wasn't paying attention, but I'm not too convinced it's a good excuse because he was able to hear Zod harassing Martha from a distance in MOS.

Quote
I read a theory a while ago that I thought had some disco potential.

Originally Batman would've killed Superman, Superman would've come back and basically become Darkseid's viceroy of the planet Earth as his mother was gone and Superman would've been as disillusioned as Batman. The Flash sent that message back in time to tip Batman off that Lois is the key.

Indeed she is. This time Batman listened to her and then listened to Superman, and so decided to toss the Kryptonite spear away. That changes the future from which the Flash sent his message.

Darkseid is still coming but he won't be able to count on having Superman as an ally now. But he's still coming. And when he gets here, he's coming for blood.

I thought it sounded interesting so there you go.

Would you compare that scene to the panel from Crisis on Infinite Earths, where Batman sees Flash warning him about the Anti-Monitor and the merging of Earths 1 and 2?

(https://speedforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/1649657-crisis_on_infinite_earths__2_batman_flash.jpg)

Quote
I've seen comparisons to Alien³

That scene with Batman hiding from the cop like he's an Alien Xenomorph was pretty cool. He had this ability to dodge the shotgun as if he transformed into a creature of the night for real.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 28 Mar  2016, 04:45
That sounds a little too convenient for my liking. I do get that Superman wasn't paying attention, but I'm not too convinced it's a good excuse because he was able to hear Zod harassing Martha from a distance in MOS.

I took it as a allusion that Superman actually had to see the bomb to detect it. From what I understand, modern bombs that aren't sanctioned by the government are generally made not to be identified so wont tick, beep or otherwise indicate its true form.

Either way, Superman didn't have his mind on looking out for bombs. He was focused on the hearing.

The way Cavill just stands there when the explosion happens is heartbreaking. He can't save anyone because they're already dead, and he's the lone, invulnerable survivor once again. I thought it was well done. 

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 28 Mar  2016, 04:45Would you compare that scene to the panel from Crisis on Infinite Earths, where Batman sees Flash warning him about the Anti-Monitor and the merging of Earths 1 and 2?

Indeed I would, sir.

my goodness did they ever enjoy torturing superman in this one :)

I can't say I've ever seen a film like this where literally the last second was important. It seems as though the easter egg from man of steel of a wayne enterprises tower getting destroyed was turned into a plot point in this one.

I was initially worried that it was too soon for Wonder Woman but she really takes a back seat and didn't feel forced into the film

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-MUzvASr8s

This deleted scene was posted by WB and it's...weird, like a lot of Lex's scenes.

Who is that with Lex? People are saying it's either Steppenwolf or Yuga Khan (both part of Darkseid's world).

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sun, 27 Mar  2016, 04:06
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/03/25/batman-v-superman-jimmy-olsen

I recognized the actor from Smallville and honestly thought, when the terrorists found the tracker, that they were doing a "realistic" version of Jimmy's signal watch from the comics and Superman would arrive at any second, after he told Lois not to worry. Instead... ???

Since the scene that actually identified him as Jimmy was cut and the actor they chose for the role is relatively unknown, the end result to Snyder's "Psycho" idea is just...really odd.

I first thought that "Jimmy Olsen" was a made-up name that the CIA agent took up as a disguise. I didn't realize this was Jimmy for real! It's definitely bizarre.

I'm seeing people on Superhero Hype complaining passionately about this and call it an insult to the Superman mythos. What do other Superman fans feel about this?

To be fair, the character isn't identified as Jimmy in the scene and you can just read him as a random undercover CIA agent, so you can easily ignore it. (It doesn't help make the Africa scenes any better, but that's a whole other issue...)

If we're talking about adapting Superman's supporting cast, I felt what happened to Mercy was worse. Unlike Jimmy, she's identified by name onscreen. She barely says anything. There's very little of her dynamic with Luthor explored. (And hell, the comics implied Mercy was an Amazon and you have the most famous DC Amazon in the same film...potential missed opportunity there for either this or a future film) And then she's just killed off in the bombing 'cause...I don't know, Lex maybe didn't trust her enough to keep his plans secret? Maybe it'll be explained in the director's cut.

I'm fine with Michael Cassidy playing an undercover CIA agent who gets Lois in trouble and gets killed. I'm fine with Lex having a forgettable assistant character and sacrificing her in his schemes. But if you're gonna say they're Jimmy Olsen and Mercy Graves, then do something with them. Otherwise, why bother putting them in at all?

Yea Mercy being killed off annoyed me too. I think it was meant to establish what a bastard he is but we didn't have time to get attached to the character. She wasn't the badass I loved from the Superman cartoon, just eye candy (which yes, Kitty wanted a taste...). Way underused, so yea. I get what you mean.

See, look. I found a complaint with the movie, I'm not a f***ing sheep blindly following DC which is the popular thing to call people who loved this movie by those who didn't. Y'all know I beat to my own drummer, I think most or all of the people here who liked the movie do, so that is a ridiculous tag to put on people but in this day and age that's what you do when someone likes something you don't. Ugh. Society sucks.

Ok, rant over.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Mon, 28 Mar  2016, 17:14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-MUzvASr8s

This deleted scene was posted by WB and it's...weird, like a lot of Lex's scenes.

Who is that with Lex? People are saying it's either Steppenwolf or Yuga Khan (both part of Darkseid's world).

That's.....interesting. lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKRmMQaLZz8

A heartfelt review on the film from documentary filmmaker Brett Culp, bringing a perspective about how the film is about Superman inspiring Batman to become a hero again and Batman's evolution inspiring Superman that he still matters and how these heroes represent today's society.

Quote from: Catwoman on Tue, 29 Mar  2016, 18:44
Yea Mercy being killed off annoyed me too.

There's a scene where Bruce wakes up in his lakeside glasshouse, and there's a woman beside him. Could've that been Mercy?

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 29 Mar  2016, 23:56

Quote from: Catwoman on Tue, 29 Mar  2016, 18:44
Yea Mercy being killed off annoyed me too.

There's a scene where Bruce wakes up in his lakeside glasshouse, and there's a woman beside him. Could've that been Mercy?

That was before the bombing though. Right after that was when he told Alfred he'd been scanning the Russian dude's phone and thought Lex Luthor was the "White Portuguese" which we find out later was a boat. Mercy was definitely in the Capitol, she looks around for him, then a few seconds later BOOM. And we don't see her again which sucks cause like I said, Kitty was appetized by the eye candy...lol

I was thinking if it was Mercy, Lex could've found out and paid her back.

I think it was just some random babe who got lucky....very lucky....ugh. Bitch.

lol

Bruce wakes up next to the woman before he goes to Lex Luthor's house and meets Mercy, so it's not her.

Quote from: Catwoman on Wed, 30 Mar  2016, 00:12
I think it was just some random babe who got lucky....very lucky....ugh. Bitch.

lol

Keaton, Bale and now Affleck are the live action Batmen to....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NV6Rdv1a3I

You really think George didn't say to Elle, "Hey baby, let's..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHEsE9yN2CY

:P

I'm gonna defend the film on one criticism I'm seeing pop up, which is that Thomas Wayne's character was somehow altered into being reckless and idiotic when trying to fight Joe Chill in the opening flashback scene.

Perhaps people are used to the more pacifistic Thomas Wayne that we saw in 1989 and in Batman Begins, but this moment with Thomas is actually directly out of the comics.

Snyder directly lifted the image of Thomas Wayne's fist out of The Dark Knight Returns.

This isn't unique to TDKR either, though.

If you look at the very first take on the origin of Batman in 1939, Thomas Wayne charges at the mugger to try to get him to leave Martha alone. The fact that Thomas attempts to fight him off and fails to is part of the Batman origin. You could even say that Thomas's failure to stop a man with the gun is what subconsciously pushes Bruce into training himself to become one of the greatest martial artists ever.

I think Burton's take is still the most haunting, due to the score and hollow/echo-y sound effects. And Nolan's has a bit more emotional impact on the simple fact that we got to spend some time with Thomas Wayne before he died. But Snyder's take is, hands down, the most comic book faithful.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 30 Mar  2016, 04:46
I'm gonna defend the film on one criticism I'm seeing pop up, which is that Thomas Wayne's character was somehow altered into being reckless and idiotic when trying to fight Joe Chill in the opening flashback scene.

Perhaps people are used to the more pacifistic Thomas Wayne that we saw in 1989 and in Batman Begins, but this moment with Thomas is actually directly out of the comics.

Snyder directly lifted the image of Thomas Wayne's fist out of The Dark Knight Returns.

This isn't unique to TDKR either, though.

If you look at the very first take on the origin of Batman in 1939, Thomas Wayne charges at the mugger to try to get him to leave Martha alone. The fact that Thomas attempts to fight him off and fails to is part of the Batman origin. You could even say that Thomas's failure to stop a man with the gun is what subconsciously pushes Bruce into training himself to become one of the greatest martial artists ever.

I think Burton's take is still the most haunting, due to the score and hollow/echo-y sound effects. And Nolan's has a bit more emotional impact on the simple fact that we got to spend some time with Thomas Wayne before he died. But Snyder's take is, hands down, the most comic book faithful.

Your avatar makes the Burton one that much more haunting lol.

I've only read TDKR once and that's been over a year so some things are fuzzy, wasn't the gun going off and breaking Martha's necklace from that too?

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 30 Mar  2016, 04:46I'm gonna defend the film on one criticism I'm seeing pop up, which is that Thomas Wayne's character was somehow altered into being reckless and idiotic when trying to fight Joe Chill in the opening flashback scene.

Perhaps people are used to the more pacifistic Thomas Wayne that we saw in 1989 and in Batman Begins, but this moment with Thomas is actually directly out of the comics.

Snyder directly lifted the image of Thomas Wayne's fist out of The Dark Knight Returns.

This isn't unique to TDKR either, though.

If you look at the very first take on the origin of Batman in 1939, Thomas Wayne charges at the mugger to try to get him to leave Martha alone. The fact that Thomas attempts to fight him off and fails to is part of the Batman origin. You could even say that Thomas's failure to stop a man with the gun is what subconsciously pushes Bruce into training himself to become one of the greatest martial artists ever.

I think Burton's take is still the most haunting, due to the score and hollow/echo-y sound effects. And Nolan's has a bit more emotional impact on the simple fact that we got to spend some time with Thomas Wayne before he died. But Snyder's take is, hands down, the most comic book faithful.

I think there's a difference in trying to stop someone from hurting your wife and randomly trying to punch a guy pointing a gun at you. It does make him seem kinda stupid though to me, whether from TDKReturns or not. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

I fail to see how Thomas was "randomly trying to punch a guy pointing a gun at him." The mugger was threatening him and his family with that gun and he was trying to defend them. In all versions of the story, Thomas Wayne attempts to leap into action once the mugger threatens his loved ones and he dies when trying to defend his family.

QuoteI've only read TDKR once and that's been over a year so some things are fuzzy, wasn't the gun going off and breaking Martha's necklace from that too?

Yep, not to mention the use of the Mark of Zorro, Thomas Wayne having a mustache, Bruce wearing more casual clothes, the closeups of the gun going off when shooting Thomas, and the whole scene being dialogue-less.

Thought so, thanks hun. It was so eerie and frightening even though of course you know what happens. It was amazingly well done.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 29 Mar  2016, 20:27
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKRmMQaLZz8

A heartfelt review on the film from documentary filmmaker Brett Culp, bringing a perspective about how the film is about Superman inspiring Batman to become a hero again and Batman's evolution inspiring Superman that he still matters and how these heroes represent today's society.

I saw this early yesterday. As much as I can nitpick the way that the scene is set up, I can't deny that Superman calling out his mother's name to get Batman to understand his pleas for his help and the sentimental connection between the two heroes made it effective, and giving Batman the chance to save another Martha. In fact, everything that happened onwards made me forgive any misgivings I had earlier on in the film.

Going back to what TDK said earlier, Superman really proved himself to be such a selfless hero in the end despite how lots of people kept mistrusting him and looked down on him. Admittedly I had problems with plot points involving him beforehand, but he made up for all of it with that heroic sacrifice against Doomsday. One that inspires Batman and Wonder Woman to carry on his legacy. I think it's an uplifting ending than most people are giving it credit for, in my opinion.

I'm curious what made Culp, as well as Kevin Smith and Max Landis, say that Batman wasn't Batman in this movie.

Kevin Smith said he wasn't a detective. Batman was certainly a detective here, trying to figure out who or what the White Portuguese was, as well as discovering what was on it and that the meteor in Lex's possession had the power to take out Superman.

Some critics point out that he was a poor detective because he was manipulated by Lex, but Batman was only being manipulated emotionally. It's not like Batman believed that Superman killed those people in Africa or in the Senate hearing, only to find out he was wrong later. Batman's motivation to fight Superman has nothing to do with his detective work or incorrectly deducing that Superman was behind something that he really wasn't.

He saw the terrible cost of a Kryptonian's power during the Metropolis attack. Heard all the media controversy surrounding what happened in Africa. Found out one of his own employees had gone crazy after the Metropolis attack and blew up the Senate and Superman had the power to stop it, but didn't. And then he got a vision of the future where Superman was ruthless and a figure was warning him that he was "right" about his feelings on him. It's directly after this vision that Bruce shares to Alfred about his plans to steal the Kryptonite and "destroy" Superman.

Do I think it could've been executed better? Absolutely. But the film definitely develops Batman's paranoia over Superman in order to push him into challenging him to the fight.

Another common criticism against this Batman is the branding and the killing. Did we forget that the last time we saw Batman, he shot down Talia and her truck driver? I saw very little outcry about that. And that was the same movie where Batman outright said "No guns, no killing." At least this one didn't claim to have a moral line, only to hypocritically cross it later without much ceremony.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psVIG7YvdjM

This Batman is partially responsible for the deaths of Lex Luthor's thugs. We've seen Batman do this to henchmen, not only in film, but also in the comics. There's a whole thread about it in the forum:
http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=1406.0

This Batman is willing to crash through cars and buildings. We saw that in Begins and Dark Knight too.

This Batman has machine guns on his Batmobile and his Batwing. We saw that with Michael Keaton and Christian Bale (and to be fair to Keaton, his car only used the machine gun to blast through Axis Chemicals, but wasn't used on any people). This is nothing new. If anything, Schumacher should be praised for having vehicles that didn't show machine guns.

And for the record, I'm pretty traditional. I prefer a Batman who avoids lethal force on the thugs. I'd rather not have machine guns on the Bat-vehicles. I'd rather he didn't crash through random cars and buildings.

But other than a slightly more graphic portrayal, I don't see how this Batman is much different from what we've seen before on screen. Does it disappoint me that this version continued the trend? A little bit. But if you're gonna hold it against this film, then hold it against all of them.

If anything, this Batman probably made the most sense in crossing the line. He clearly has gone through the trauma of the Metropolis attack (that Brett Culp in the above video said was comparable, in trauma, to him reliving his parents' deaths) as well as, we can assume, the death of Jason Todd/Robin at Joker's hands. Much like the Batman in Dark Knight Returns and the Batman after Death in the Family, his tactics become more brutal as he takes it out on the criminal element. Alfred points this out that this wasn't always how things were.

At the end, after the death of Superman, Batman visits Lex Luthor. He has the opportunity to brand him and give him a death sentence in that prison (sidenote: I guess I don't understand why the Bat brand causes people to want to kill you. It'd be one thing if he did it to people who ratted out other criminals. But he's only branding the people he captured. Why does that cause other prisoners to want to kill them?). Instead, Batman punches the wall and disappears, refusing to dole out that kind of punishment on Lex.

This, plus his dialogue at Superman's funeral about how "Men are still good," indicate to me that this Batman has found himself again. Fingers crossed that it means this is a Batman who won't kill again and has seen the error of his ways, having been inspired by Superman. We'll just have to see in the Justice League.

I do think it would've helped a bit if we had had a movie or two with this Batman beforehand, to show how things used to be for him. An emotionally healthier Batman who originally avoided lethal force. Then Joker murders Robin by the end. That way, in BvS, you'd see the clear contrast and know this was a Batman who lost his way, rather than a Batman who's always been like this. Maybe the solo Batfleck movie will be a prequel, but I doubt it.

But even without it, Batman was still Batman to me in this movie, from beginning to end.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 30 Mar  2016, 17:49I'm curious what made Culp, as well as Kevin Smith and Max Landis, say that Batman wasn't Batman in this movie.

Kevin Smith said he wasn't a detective. Batman was certainly a detective here, trying to figure out who or what the White Portuguese was, as well as discovering what was on it and that the meteor in Lex's possession had the power to take out Superman.

QuoteAnother common criticism against this Batman is the branding and the killing. Did we forget that the last time we saw Batman, he shot down Talia and her truck driver? I saw very little outcry about that. And that was the same movie where Batman outright said "No guns, no killing." At least this one didn't claim to have a moral line, only to hypocritically cross it later without much ceremony.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psVIG7YvdjM

He didn't shoot Talia or the truck driver on purpose. That was all accidental. There isn't an element of hypocrisy at all. Why would there be ceremony?

QuoteThis Batman is willing to crash through cars and buildings. We saw that in Begins and Dark Knight too.

But that Batman wasn't willing to blow up cars and smash through them into explosions and drag cars with him to slam into other cars and blow them up.

QuoteThis Batman has machine guns on his Batmobile and his Batwing. We saw that with Michael Keaton and Christian Bale (and to be fair to Keaton, his car only used the machine gun to blast through Axis Chemicals, but wasn't used on any people). This is nothing new. If anything, Schumacher should be praised for having vehicles that didn't show machine guns.

In TDKT, those weapons were used for destroying things in his way that were unoccupied and trying to get vehicles to change course, not trying to blow up people in vehicles.

QuoteIf anything, this Batman probably made the most sense in crossing the line. He clearly has gone through the trauma of the Metropolis attack (that Brett Culp in the above video said was comparable, in trauma, to him reliving his parents' deaths) as well as, we can assume, the death of Jason Todd/Robin at Joker's hands. Much like the Batman in Dark Knight Returns and the Batman after Death in the Family, his tactics become more brutal as he takes it out on the criminal element. Alfred points this out that this wasn't always how things were.

Alfred says everything's changed and has no other qualms about it in the movie. The movie gives Alfred so little as a character to go off of that he seems to just shrug his shoulders and allow Bruce to have free reign with whatever, even things that he doesn't like. Alfred says that things have changed, but the movie doesn't treat it like it is. Alfred takes this all as business as usual and Bruce does with little to no fanfare. No one seems to care really and treats it like this is nothing new. I don't think Batman actively killed people after Jason's death in the comics. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

We've argued enough, ad nauseum, months ago about Batman's shooting at the trucks in The Dark Knight Rises. I don't think either of us has much more to add to that, so let's agree to disagree.

QuoteBut that Batman wasn't willing to blow up cars and smash through them into explosions and drag cars with him to slam into other cars and blow them up.

Bale's Batman doesn't drag other cars like Affleck did, but he certainly damaged occupied cars. In addition to the Dark Knight Rises, there's the beat at 02:37 of that video in The Dark Knight. He sends the driver's side up to the ceiling, where it smashes in. Very unlikely the people inside survived.

QuoteAlfred says everything's changed and has no other qualms about it in the movie. The movie gives Alfred so little as a character to go off of that he seems to just shrug his shoulders and allow Bruce to have free reign with whatever, even things that he doesn't like. Alfred says that things have changed, but the movie doesn't treat it like it is. Alfred takes this all as business as usual and Bruce does with little to no fanfare.

Valid point on how Alfred treats Bruce, though more of a critique on Alfred's character than on Batman's.

Also, Gough and Caine still stayed after Batman killed and, with one exception, didn't really call him out on his lethal methods either. The one exception was in Begins where Caine's Alfred criticized Batman for endangering cops and civilians, but at that point, according to the movie, "no one was killed." He said nothing about The Dark Knight chase or incidents where criminals actually died, though.

QuoteNo one seems to care really and treats it like this is nothing new

If that's true, why did the news bother reporting that Batman was branding people or show how disturbed Clark was about the Batman's methods?

QuoteI don't think Batman actively killed people after Jason's death in the comics.

To clarify, I didn't say he killed people after Jason's death, but he was certainly more cold and brutal.

The last chapter of the Death in the Family is a rare occurrence where Batman refuses to save a wounded Joker (the only main difference between this and the end of Batman Begins is that Joker actually survived and came back, while Ra's didn't). Batman got rougher with criminals and needed Dick Grayson and later, Tim Drake to pull him back, as covered in Year Three and A Lonely Place of Dying.

In The Dark Knight Bales Batman blew up parked cars (remember the kids watching?) because they were in his way!

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu, 31 Mar  2016, 00:07We've argued enough, ad nauseum, months ago about Batman's shooting at the trucks in The Dark Knight Rises. I don't think either of us has much more to add to that, so let's agree to disagree.

Lucius says to redirect the truck. That's what happens in the movie.

QuoteBale's Batman doesn't drag other cars like Affleck did, but he certainly damaged occupied cars. In addition to the Dark Knight Rises, there's the beat at 02:37 of that video in The Dark Knight. He sends the driver's side up to the ceiling, where it smashes in. Very unlikely the people inside survived.

Yes, unlikely. But likelihood isn't what I was talking about, but intention in combination with action and overabundance. Batman in BvS wrecks a car, then drags the car with him, then uses it to destroy another car, with people still in it. Then he blows up a car with his guns and then smashes through it, with people still in it. TDKT situation and BvS situation aren't the same.

QuoteValid point on how Alfred treats Bruce, though more of a critique on Alfred's character than on Batman's.

Also, Gough and Caine still stayed after Batman killed and, with one exception, didn't really call him out on his lethal methods either. The one exception was in Begins where Caine's Alfred criticized Batman for endangering cops and civilians, but at that point, according to the movie, "no one was killed." He said nothing about The Dark Knight chase or incidents where criminals actually died, though.

Alfred got too little to do in the Burton movies for my tastes. But I will say that the Burton movies never posed that as out of the ordinary. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. Batman in TDKT never actively kills anyone on purpose and the movie was very avoidy on saying that the people in those trucks were killed, or even showing them be killed with certainty. Like it or don't like it, but the movie doesn't show them die in firey detail.

QuoteIf that's true, why did the news bother reporting that Batman was branding people or show how disturbed Clark was about the Batman's methods?

That wasn't what I meant really. I was talking about how no one views this as an issue that's new. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

QuoteLucius says to redirect the truck. That's what happens in the movie.

And if I shot at someone and they died as a result, I'm responsible for that person's death, regardless of my original intention. Batman could've stopped or redirected the truck without having to resort to using firearms, if he was so against using guns or killing like he says earlier in the film.

QuoteTDKT situation and BvS situation aren't the same.

They both smash the thugs' vehicles to a deadly effect. Affleck does more than Bale in this regard, but both Batmans are destructive in their chases and cause deaths.

QuoteThat wasn't what I meant really. I was talking about how no one views this as an issue that's new.

And my point is that those parts prove that these issues are new. Why would the news even report about the Bat-branding and why would Clark suddenly take interest in Batman's methods, after his 18 months as a reporter, if Batman had been acting that way for a long, long time? If this was a common thing, the news would just say "Batman gave the famous bat brand last night" and not explain it. And Clark would've had an article about it before the time the movie is set.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu, 31 Mar  2016, 09:21And if I shot at someone and they died as a result, I'm responsible for that person's death, regardless of my original intention. Batman could've stopped or redirected the truck without having to resort to using firearms, if he was so against using guns or killing like he says earlier in the film.

He never says he's against guns. He tells Selina not to use guns and not to kill. But he has often, in every adaption, including TDKT, supported police and their use of firearms. That was for Selina and her potential lethal illegal use. But I wasn't talking about being responsible for death. But what the movie says is Batman reason for his actions and that the killing of those driving the vehicle wasn't the intent.

QuoteThey both smash the thugs' vehicles to a deadly effect. Affleck does more than Bale in this regard, but both Batmans are destructive in their chases and cause deaths.

Cause, yes. Outright, purposeful murder that is specifically shown to be happening in detail is what I'm talking about.

QuoteAnd my point is that those parts prove that these issues are new. Why would the news even report about the Bat-branding and why would Clark suddenly take interest in Batman's methods, after his 18 months as a reporter, if Batman had been acting that way for a long, long time? If this was a common thing, the news would just say "Batman gave the famous bat brand last night" and not explain it. And Clark would've had an article about it before the time the movie is set.

Why? Because those involved in the writing process didn't think the character's reactions through of the characters. The news says that the bat brand is death sentence to inmates, showing that this isn't something new. It's happened before. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

I'm only skimming the surface here, but even though I don't have an issue with Batman intentionally killing, instead of accidentally killing ala Bale's Bat, I do think Affleck's incarnation will go through a character arc. The Batmobile turrents are off in Suicide Squad. He seems inspired by Superman after the events of BvS. Batfleck's hard line is a result of being disillusioned and weary after 20 straight years of war. Now he has a bunch of friends. Watch this space.

Now that the film has been out for a week, Zack Snyder teased that the three hour long Director's Cut will include additional shots of the Martha Kent rescue scene, some extra shots of the Doomsday battle, an extended version of the ending, and a "much different" North Africa sequence.

http://www.comingsoon.net/dvd/news/670699-batman-v-superman-ultimate-cut-release-date-and-details#/slide/1

By the way, has anyone else here mentioned that Jena Malone had her role in the theatrical version cut out, and the role is rumoured to be Barbara Gordon?

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Why-Batman-V-Superman-Saving-Jena-Malone-R-Rated-Cut-117687.html

If she's playing Babs, I hope they don't go in a Killing Joke direction. I don't mind the Oracle stuff at all but TKJ is so far over the line that it puts Batman in a position where he's morally irresponsible if he doesn't kill the Joker. It's possible to go too far with these characters and Alan Moore absolutely did, even if other creators did great stuff with turning Babs into Oracle.

Hell, I'd be totally up for bypassing Barbara as Batgirl entirely and setting her up directly as Oracle. But the whole Joker/paralysis thing is just too much in my opinion.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 31 Mar  2016, 13:06
If she's playing Babs, I hope they don't go in a Killing Joke direction. I don't mind the Oracle stuff at all but TKJ is so far over the line that it puts Batman in a position where he's morally irresponsible if he doesn't kill the Joker. It's possible to go too far with these characters and Alan Moore absolutely did, even if other creators did great stuff with turning Babs into Oracle.

Hell, I'd be totally up for bypassing Barbara as Batgirl entirely and setting her up directly as Oracle. But the whole Joker/paralysis thing is just too much in my opinion.

You're like the last person I would have expected to be concerned about going over the line lol. Not that I disagree, I mean I like TKJ (can't wait for the animated version) but it is definitely horrific especially from a woman's perspective.

I have to say, I'm proud to be a DC fan at the moment, even if the perception is BvS is a trainwreck. I really admire that WB have gone for a totally different tone to that of the MCU. It's undeniably darker, deals with the ramifications of actions, comments on society and leaves a lasting impact with the viewer. And, it's still steeped in the comics, and importantly, the comic book world.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 31 Mar  2016, 11:58
Cause, yes. Outright, purposeful murder that is specifically shown to be happening in detail is what I'm talking about.

Look, we keep going around in circles. I say Nolan/Bale's Batman still killed, intent or not. You say he didn't technically kill 'cause he didn't have intent and Affleck showed more intent. I'm not denying that Affleck's Batman feels more brutal (he absolutely does), but I don't see Bale as innocent of wrongdoing either. We'll agree to disagree.

QuoteThe news says that the bat brand is death sentence to inmates, showing that this isn't something new. It's happened before.

Yes, it had to have happened before for them to report it, but it also had to have happened recently for them to bother. If Batman had been doing this during his 20 years of crime fighting, why talk so much about it on the TV or give it a headline ("Bat Brand of Justice")? Why would Clark be so disturbed about Batman's methods now, vs. the previous 18 months that he's been a reporter? If this had been going on for a while, then Clark asking Bruce for his opinion on Batman's tactics must've come across as dated as asking, "So...what do you think of text messaging? Weird that we're typing instead of talking now, huh?"

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 31 Mar  2016, 14:03
I have to say, I'm proud to be a DC fan at the moment, even if the perception is BvS is a trainwreck. I really admire that WB have gone for a totally different tone to that of the MCU. It's undeniably darker, deals with the ramifications of actions, comments on society and leaves a lasting impact with the viewer. And, it's still steeped in the comics, and importantly, the comic book world.

You could honestly argue this was the first time DC/WB truly got it right since the 89 Batman film
Batman Returns; enjoyable movie but it strayed from the comics quite a bit especially with the villains
Batman Forever: They hit it right but of course the interference to make it overly 'family friendly' wrecked what could have been the most faithful batman film
Batman and Robin: well they actually did capture the era of the comics well, it was just horribly executed
The Nolan trilogy/Man of steel; good movies but completely lacking fun and departing the essence of the characters in favour of being more grounded. You get the impression they were almost ashamed to be making movies based on comic books.
Superman Returns; overall fairly faithful but not nearly as daring or action oriented as it could have been
Green Lantern; very faithful to the comics but out of focus and poorly developed.


This one truly felt like a comic book coming to life. 

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu, 31 Mar  2016, 19:05Yes, it had to have happened before for them to report it, but it also had to have happened recently for them to bother. If Batman had been doing this during his 20 years of crime fighting, why talk so much about it on the TV or give it a headline ("Bat Brand of Justice")? Why would Clark be so disturbed about Batman's methods now, vs. the previous 18 months that he's been a reporter? If this had been going on for a while, then Clark asking Bruce for his opinion on Batman's tactics must've come across as dated as asking, "So...what do you think of text messaging? Weird that we're typing instead of talking now, huh?"

It's parallel story construction. Happens all the time. I'm not trying to dismiss your point, you understand. I'm just saying that if we get bothered about that in BvS, well, isn't it a bit convenient that Rick just happened to get the letters of transit the same night his ex-girlfriend and her husband wandered into his bar? Isn't it a bit convenient that Barzini just happened to start making his play against the Corleones right as Michael came back from the war? Isn't it convenient that Lex Luthor decided to hijack a pair of nuclear missiles right as Superman makes his public debut? Isn't it convenient that Harvey Dent was elected DA right as the Joker started his reign of terror in Gotham? So on and so forth.

I'm not saying you're wrong. Because you're not. You're obviously right. I'm just saying there is a mitigating factor going on here, that's all.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu, 31 Mar  2016, 19:05Look, we keep going around in circles. I say Nolan/Bale's Batman still killed, intent or not. You say he didn't technically kill 'cause he didn't have intent and Affleck showed more intent. I'm not denying that Affleck's Batman feels more brutal (he absolutely does), but I don't see Bale as innocent of wrongdoing either. We'll agree to disagree.

I didn't say he didn't kill. I said that the movie never specified that he did in this instance and that the movie never tries to throw it in our faces that's he's deliberately, with malice of forethought and vicious specificity, murdering people, like with this. Intent has always been a part of the legal system of judgement. Killing with malicious intent is labeled as a worse crime and/or sin than being killed without it.

QuoteYes, it had to have happened before for them to report it, but it also had to have happened recently for them to bother. If Batman had been doing this during his 20 years of crime fighting, why talk so much about it on the TV or give it a headline ("Bat Brand of Justice")? Why would Clark be so disturbed about Batman's methods now, vs. the previous 18 months that he's been a reporter? If this had been going on for a while, then Clark asking Bruce for his opinion on Batman's tactics must've come across as dated as asking, "So...what do you think of text messaging? Weird that we're typing instead of talking now, huh?"

The movie never gives the impression that Clark's newly disturbed by Batman's methods, just that he's disturbed. I don't get the impression that this is a new feeling for him. Even the conversation between them comes off as, "That bat vigilante that's been terrorizing Gotham all this time." He doesn't present it as a new development. I didn't say he'd been doing it for twenty years, just that it seems that the movie doesn't present it with the idea that this is a thing that's just started happening. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

The tie-in material argues the case that Batman has only become rougher in recent times. It's entirely possible Affleck's Batman did not kill in the past, and has only recently 'lost his way' due to a high level of frustration and a sense of powerlessness. One of the tie-in comics, I believe, had a pair of goons discussing how Batman changed once Superman arrived on the scene. How he became more brutal.

I think Superman's influence on Bruce will be to bring him back from that level of darkness. To tone his methods down a tad, because he now knows 'men are still good'. Ironically, in some ways, Affleck's Batman described himself when he said 'how many good people are left, and how many stayed that way?'

I think this plays nicely, even though I don't really have an issue with Batfleck killing. It makes sense, considering a murderous Batman raises the attention of Superman tenfold. It's not the same Batman people have been used to.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 23 Mar  2016, 08:51
For the curious. Nothing major given away, but some praises and teases:

- Batman has the clearest character arc in the film.

- This Batman is heavily influenced by The Dark Knight Returns, right down to lifting imagery and dialogue from the book. He does not, however, come across as insane or reach quite the same extremes as Miller's version. Think of him as a mix of the TDKR Batman and the BTAS Batman.

- The murder of the Waynes is practically ripped from the pages of TDKR. The mustached Thomas Wayne. The Mark of Zorro. The gun caught in Martha's pearl necklace before it goes off. I'd rank it the best adaptation of the murders in terms of comic accuracy, but Burton's version still remains the most haunting to me.

- While the Nolan films gave a ton of prominence to Thomas Wayne and practically zero about Martha, this film goes in a refreshing direction and makes Martha Wayne have the more important presence, of the two parents, through the film.

- For the first time in cinematic history...we finally get to see Bruce visit his parents' resting place. More than once.

- Don't expect much explanation or backstory about the Robin suit in the cave.

- While the tie-in book says that Alfred was the Waynes' bodyguard and is currently Bruce's head of security, none of this is mentioned in the film. On the other hand, Irons's Alfred never serves Bruce food or wears a tux, so he doesn't come across as a butler either.

- Batman unquestionably performs detective work in this film.

- And here's what's going to be controversial about this Batman: he kills people. As hinted in the trailers, the Batwing/Batmobile blows up criminals. He sets out to kill Superman. Thugs die in that warehouse fight from the last trailer. Unlike Nolan's Batman, however, he does not talk about having a vow against killing, so his behavior doesn't come across as hypocritical.

Don't forget one other thing that's taken right out of the comics: Bruce referring himself as the third person when speaking to Alfred while discussing his plans to investigate LexCorp's involvement in the White Portuguese case.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri,  1 Apr  2016, 13:25

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 23 Mar  2016, 08:51
For the curious. Nothing major given away, but some praises and teases:

- Batman has the clearest character arc in the film.

- This Batman is heavily influenced by The Dark Knight Returns, right down to lifting imagery and dialogue from the book. He does not, however, come across as insane or reach quite the same extremes as Miller's version. Think of him as a mix of the TDKR Batman and the BTAS Batman.

- The murder of the Waynes is practically ripped from the pages of TDKR. The mustached Thomas Wayne. The Mark of Zorro. The gun caught in Martha's pearl necklace before it goes off. I'd rank it the best adaptation of the murders in terms of comic accuracy, but Burton's version still remains the most haunting to me.

- While the Nolan films gave a ton of prominence to Thomas Wayne and practically zero about Martha, this film goes in a refreshing direction and makes Martha Wayne have the more important presence, of the two parents, through the film.

- For the first time in cinematic history...we finally get to see Bruce visit his parents' resting place. More than once.

- Don't expect much explanation or backstory about the Robin suit in the cave.

- While the tie-in book says that Alfred was the Waynes' bodyguard and is currently Bruce's head of security, none of this is mentioned in the film. On the other hand, Irons's Alfred never serves Bruce food or wears a tux, so he doesn't come across as a butler either.

- Batman unquestionably performs detective work in this film.

- And here's what's going to be controversial about this Batman: he kills people. As hinted in the trailers, the Batwing/Batmobile blows up criminals. He sets out to kill Superman. Thugs die in that warehouse fight from the last trailer. Unlike Nolan's Batman, however, he does not talk about having a vow against killing, so his behavior doesn't come across as hypocritical.

Don't forget one other thing that's taken right out of the comics: Bruce referring himself as the third person when speaking to Alfred while discussing his plans to investigate LexCorp's involvement in the White Portuguese case.

I didn't really take Bruce talking about himself in the 3rd person as cheeky dialogue, it was more discussing whether to go the traditional route and break in as Batman or walk in the front doors as Bruce Wayne.

I've been fighting the flu since last Friday; today was the first day I felt well enough to brave venturing outside and going to the movie theatre. I may have been hasty in that, as I feel pretty wiped, but here's what I can manage for a review:

Even before the reviews started to come out, I expected that I would have problems with this movie. I disliked MoS so much, and Snyder's aesthetic tastes are so far from my own, that I just didn't see how this could be my cup of tea. Each new trailer further drove that feeling home, and the fact that the trailers ended giving away so much just further poisoned a sense of enthusiasm.

Now that I've seen it: this is a very, very overstuffed movie with very, very big problems, and it is by and large not my cup of tea. Zack Snyder and Hans Zimmer both fail yet again to make me come around on their tastes, or in Snyder's case, to think that he doesn't have some serious weaknesses at his craft. I'm not really excited for anything on the slate for DC other than Wonder Woman after seeing this movie. But with all that said, I did like it better that MoS (that one was 5 out of 10 for me; I'd give BvS a 6. High praise, I know.)

I may expand on some of this later when I'm not hacking up a lung, but some quick highs/lows:

- Great work in costume design. Honestly. This is the first time I've been truly charmed by a design element in a DC film since...well, since the Burton/Schumacher days, to be honest. The only thing I missed from wardrobe was longer bat-ears (we got the short stubs with Nolan for three films, bring back some proper ears!)

- I liked Gal Gadot. She did not need to be in the movie.

- Lois Lane barely needed to be in this movie. I've seen people crying "huzzah!" at the "I'm not a lady, I'm a journalist" line, but that line is 1. terrible and 2. doesn't excuse the fact that, like in MoS, she's basically just there to get saved, and doesn't accomplish anything for the plot that couldn't have been handled more logically by another character.

- The JL set-up material didn't need to be in this movie. Other than serving as teasers for future films, what does it accomplish? Was the idea of Batman and Superman coming into conflict not enough to occupy the full run time?

- Eisenberg as Lex: you either love it, or you hate it. I hated it. I'll give him props for trying to take it to a threatening place by the end, but it didn't do it for me. The guy was just too silly.

- As a member of the Burton faithful, I've long come to terms with the idea that people will not enjoy certain elements of his work with Batman due to the wild departures he made from the source material. Would some of these people like to tell me how they handled Snyder's work with Jimmy Olsen? 'Cause I thought that was a load of bull, and Snyder's explanation for it just made it worse. (His tapdances to try and defend his controversial choices are getting old IMO.)

- I liked Ben Affleck as Batman. Branding aside, that scene in the sex dungeon could completely work as a standard Batman take-down. And his Bruce Wayne, at certain points, acted more like I imagine him than any film to-date. But Affleck is too young and too good-looking to totally sell the idea of a Batman who's been in operation for two decades. With everything else Snyder cribbed from TDKR, why not go for an older, more grizzled look?

- I'll give Snyder credit: the "Martha" thing took some guts. I'm impressed with how many people it did it for. I thought it sort of worked; my biggest problem with that moment is that Batman had become so psychotic by the time he was about to use the spear, that while the name "Martha" may make him stop, I didn't buy the wholesale turnaround in attitude that gets made so quickly right after.

- Irons killed it as Alfred.

- Nice to see Thomas Wayne finally get his mustache. Wonder why they couldn't give Alfred his.

- I seem to be a minority on this, but I've never been all that intrigued by "does the world need a Superman" type stories or discussions. As something to do once on a TV show, or for a limited comic run, it's a valid story, but two have two movies now where Supes is emotionally conflicted, often brooding and lonely, unsure of his place in the world, and Congress is holding committees on him as talking head Neil DeGrasse Tyson pontificates on CNN?

I take a view on Superman that I've seen best explained by Mark Waid: Superman was designed to literally do the impossible. He was designed to be better than us, not one of us. He isn't built for no-win scenarios. To take such a clearly unrealistic character and to apply this sort of "does the world need it" type conflicts to him, as his main issue for a film adaptation...I won't say that it's as ridiculous as doing that with Bugs Bunny, but the arguments against it are similar to the ones I could give for doing that with Bugs.

- People always talk about comics being modern American mythology. I've read my fair share of mythology and folklore. Most of it isn't all that preoccupied with trying to prove how deep, timely, and important it is. There is way too much dialogue in this film that's obsessed with explaining and discussing themes and implications, its meaning, and its purpose. I've had this problem since Nolan, but until now, I've never known how to articulate it other than just shoving it under the "too much exposition" banner.

- Doomsday: weak design, weak CGI, weak fight. And felt tossed in.

- "Death of Superman" moment: didn't feel earned. A lot like Jonathan Kent's death from MoS, actually. What reason is there that Wonder Woman can't be the one to wield the spear? It'd give her a more concrete reason to be in this flick.

- Speaking of Jonathan Kent: "Superman was nothing but the dream of a father in Kansas." A father from Krypton, more like. Did you just blank out the fact that Kansas-Dad thought you might be better off letting a busload of kids drown?

That's all I got for now.

Quote
- I liked Ben Affleck as Batman. Branding aside, that scene in the sex dungeon could completely work as a standard Batman take-down. And his Bruce Wayne, at certain points, acted more like I imagine him than any film to-date. But Affleck is too young and too good-looking to totally sell the idea of a Batman who's been in operation for two decades. With everything else Snyder cribbed from TDKR, why not go for an older, more grizzled look?

I thought Affleck looked old enough for the part. Plus, I get the feeling that Hollywood doesn't want to have a leading man or woman looking too old for superhero movies anyway. They probably think it wouldn't be marketable enough.

Quote
- Lois Lane barely needed to be in this movie. I've seen people crying "huzzah!" at the "I'm not a lady, I'm a journalist" line, but that line is 1. terrible and 2. doesn't excuse the fact that, like in MoS, she's basically just there to get saved, and doesn't accomplish anything for the plot that couldn't have been handled more logically by another character.

I thought she served more of a purpose in MOS with her investigation into Clark's trails and how she was the first stranger who trusted him. But I do agree that a lot of her screen-time could've been drastically cut in this movie.

Quote
- I'll give Snyder credit: the "Martha" thing took some guts. I'm impressed with how many people it did it for. I thought it sort of worked; my biggest problem with that moment is that Batman had become so psychotic by the time he was about to use the spear, that while the name "Martha" may make him stop, I didn't buy the wholesale turnaround in attitude that gets made so quickly right after.

I have to disagree. Up until this point, Batman was consumed with paranoia over Superman that he was too blinded to realize that Lex Luthor was manipulating both him and Superman. This was the turning point to understand what was going on.

Quote
- The JL set-up material didn't need to be in this movie. Other than serving as teasers for future films, what does it accomplish? Was the idea of Batman and Superman coming into conflict not enough to occupy the full run time?

Given that the next film is going to be the Justice League, I thought this film did the best it could introduce other characters in this universe. Not ideal perhaps, but I'll take it.

Quote
- "Death of Superman" moment: didn't feel earned. A lot like Jonathan Kent's death from MoS, actually. What reason is there that Wonder Woman can't be the one to wield the spear? It'd give her a more concrete reason to be in this flick.

I had problems with plot points that involved Superman in this movie i.e. leaving myself to wonder why did he take so long to arrive in North Africa, how come he couldn't pay attention when a bomb was about to detonate in the Senate hearing, why he didn't take Batman into custody instead of merely threatening him if he was so disapproving of Batman's methods at the end of the chase scene. Those are my reasons why I thought the movie didn't quite live up to my personal expectations.

But despite all of that, I thought he redeemed all of those issues with paying a sacrifice to stop Doomsday in the end. He still saved the world despite how it kept scrutinizing him and condemning him, and his death inspired Batman and Wonder Woman to carry on his legacy and protect the world from constant danger.

Quote
- Speaking of Jonathan Kent: "Superman was nothing but the dream of a father in Kansas." A father from Krypton, more like. Did you just blank out the fact that Kansas-Dad thought you might be better off letting a busload of kids drown?

This is off-topic, but I never thought Jonathan Kent was actually encouraging Clark to let those kids drown. He was simply scared of the possibility that Clark could expose himself to a world that he's not prepared to cope with, and wanted to protect him from that level of persecution and pressure. Then again, Snyder brought that criticism upon himself by having Pa Kent say the word "maybe". I wouldn't have used it if I was a director.

Pa Kent has a point though. Superman saves people over and over and it's still not appreciated. When you do something for a while, it becomes expected. And soon, criticised. Even the simple act of saving a cat out of a tree would be criticised. To the point you wonder if it's really worth it. The act of letting people die in a bus keeps the status quo, in a sad way. A Superman gives the public someone to rely on, and then blame for 'not doing enough', or whatever gripe they have.

Superman becomes the public whipping boy.

As for Africa, the whole narrative point is that he was late onto the scene. It's about the perception and not the reality. Much like the congress scene, wherever Superman goes, dead bodies follow. He becomes a figure of controversy and people fill in their own gaps. People who don't dig into the ins and out of stories, much like click bait headlines, just see that Superman has attended another crime scene, and 'fled the scene' afterwards.

Quote from: zDBZ on Fri,  1 Apr  2016, 22:51
I've been fighting the flu since last Friday; today was the first day I felt well enough to brave venturing outside and going to the movie theatre. I may have been hasty in that, as I feel pretty wiped, but here's what I can manage for a review:

Hope you feel better soon. I've been dealing with the same sh*t, haven't left my apartment since Saturday morning. Have hardly left my bed. That's why I've been on here so much, I keep looking for stuff to do or talk about while I'm bedridden lol.

This has probably been mentioned before in this thread, or another, but I have to say it really did warm my cold black heart to see the actual credit of "Batman created by Bob Kane & BILL FINGER" during the opening credits for once. Yeah, I know Finger's name wasn't capitalized, but it was a milestone nevertheless.  ;D

Long overdue too.

Yep. And for all the song and dance outrage about a different type of Lex, on multiple viewings he stacks up. I dig it. He's very much the mad scientist, with all the world views of comic Lex in regards to humanity having ownership of its own destiny, and being a shady manipulator. He does a lot in this movie, perhaps more than any other live action Lex.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  2 Apr  2016, 06:14Yep. And for all the song and dance outrage about a different type of Lex, on multiple viewings he stacks up. I dig it. He's very much the mad scientist, with all the world views of comic Lex in regards to humanity having ownership of its own destiny, and being a shady manipulator. He does a lot in this movie, perhaps more than any other live action Lex.

I don't pay incredibly close attention to the Superman fanbase anymore (mostly because a lot of them are so full of you-know-what it's coming out their ears) but the glance or three I've taken at their reaction so far has tellingly glossed over Lex. They may have problems with Superman's depiction in BvS or with Zack Snyder point black or with other things. But Lex? Not really. From what I've seen, it looks like they've rolled with it pretty easily.

The people with the negative reaction to Lex in my observation have mostly been people with the narrowest knowledge of Superman lore. "Needs more Gene Hackman" or "Needs more Clancy Brown" is basically how the criticisms of Lex by non-Superman fans seem to be split up.

If a core Batman fan has problems with Batman's portrayal in BvS... well, I disagree but I won't criticize that guy too much. He's welcome to his opinion. But, all due respect to the members of this forum as you guys mostly aren't the problem, I really don't need to hear what a core Batman fan thinks of Eisenberg's performance. Again, not a slam on anybody here but there are some loudmouth Batman fans out there who need a nice warm glass of STFU.

It's a shame people are so narrow minded.

EisenLex:

Gets access to what he wants, when he wants - Zod's body and the scout ship.
Manipulates a cripple, using his wheelchair to blow up a hearing, along with his secretary and a hated foe.
Makes Bruce feel guilty by sending fake hate mail.
Has private military kill a bunch of people in an effort to frame Superman.
Has Martha kidnapped and is willing to have her burnt alive.
Pushes Lois off a building to her death, banking on Superman to arrive.
Has a bunch of kryptonite shipped and delivered to his business, to take down Superman.
Sets up the Batman and Superman fight, to kill one of the heroes, or both.
Creates a kryptonian mutation to kill Superman and terrorise the world.
Potentially killed his father and took over the company himself.

Sounds like a worthy representation of the character to me.

For all the Dark Knight Returns influence we've been seeing early on, I was surprised by areas where it DIDN'T borrow from the story. The whole basis for the Batman vs. Superman fight was completely different - this time, based on misunderstandings and manipulation. It seemed like they were trying to make Superman more likable, but that turned Batman into a bit of a brute.

Jeremy Irons was great as Alfred (he really had the voice), but it seems weird having an older Bruce paired with a relatively younger Alfred. Either way, it was great to see him have a more hands-on role making gadgets and acting as Bruce's mechanic. Like in TDKR, he questioned a lot of Bruce's choices, but also helped him out every step of the way.

The scenes of the Batmobile and Batwing/plane in action were really slick. Straight out of Burton's films.

The action sequences alone were enough to blow anyone away, it was nonstop thrill. The plot was where it was lacking, but at the same time, the actors really pulled through. In regards to the tone, I think it felt appropriate for a Batman film. Though I can see it being a little too gloomy for a Superman flick. The politics really took a lot of the innocent fun out of it; early Superman comics never really went that deep. Overthinking Superman never really works.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  2 Apr  2016, 06:30It's a shame people are so narrow minded.

EisenLex:

Gets access to what he wants, when he wants - Zod's body and the scout ship.
Manipulates a cripple, using his wheelchair to blow up a hearing, along with his secretary and a hated foe.
Makes Bruce feel guilty by sending fake hate mail.
Has private military kill a bunch of people in an effort to frame Superman.
Has Martha kidnapped and is willing to have her burnt alive.
Pushes Lois off a building to her death, banking on Superman to arrive.
Has a bunch of kryptonite shipped and delivered to his business, to take down Superman.
Sets up the Batman and Superman fight, to kill one of the heroes, or both.
Creates a kryptonian mutation to kill Superman and terrorise the world.
Potentially killed his father and took over the company himself.

Sounds like a worthy representation of the character to me.

Narrow-mindedness isn't the cause. What his character does or can accomplish doesn't change anything about the character that people didn't like. Some of things people even thought were poorly done and in some cases I don't disagree. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

....okay.

I also see people saying Lex's motivations weren't explained in the film. Which is blatantly false. In his opening scene, Lex effectively says if you have a silver bullet, you don't have to hope the monsters play nice. You are giving yourself control over your own destiny. Basically, he's thinking along the same lines as Bruce Wayne. He's arming himself.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  2 Apr  2016, 13:31....okay.

I also see people saying Lex's motivations weren't explained in the film. Which is blatantly false. In his opening scene, Lex effectively says if you have a silver bullet, you don't have to hope the monsters play nice. You are giving yourself control over your own destining. Basically, he's thinking along the same lines as Bruce Wayne. He's arming himself.

That doesn't explain him creating a giant monster or him not just using the kryptonite himself, instead of manipulating Batman for two years, before he got all that kryptonite. Or why he went on a crazy rant about showing the world that Superman is a fraud by having him kill Batman. His basic motives for what would have been a better idea were explained. The other stuff wasn't really. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

He says in the film, if you cared to pay attention, that if man won't kill God, the devil will do it. Thus he had Doomsday in reserve. Lex wasn't going to break cover and use the kryptonite himself while he still had a public image to maintain. The tie-in material states Lex was Metropolis' golden child. The character at heart is a manipulator, using other people to do his dirty work while trying to get through everything looking clean. Ultimately, he's exposed and caught in BvS, so the game is up in that regard. He can now go full mad scientist on the world.

Quote from: Slash Man on Sat,  2 Apr  2016, 06:52The politics really took a lot of the innocent fun out of it; early Superman comics never really went that deep. Overthinking Superman never really works.

Early Golden Age Superman comics clearly portray Superman as a bit of a two-fisted New Dealer. B89 was a tiny bit of an indictment of how media manipulate the idiotic unwashed masses. BR was a bit more of an indictment of how politicians manipulate the idiotic unwashed masses. BF somewhat revisited B89's theme of people being manipulated by media. BB could be viewed as an affirmation of the war on terror. TDK could similarly be viewed as an affirmation of the Patriot Act in one particular sequence. TDKRises has been criticized by a lot of people as an Ayn Randian rant about how the rich and powerful will protect everybody if only they would be allowed to do so.

My point is that injecting political commentary or some sort of social commentary into comics and these types of films isn't a recent thing.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat,  2 Apr  2016, 09:07Narrow-mindedness isn't the cause.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat,  2 Apr  2016, 09:07What his character does or can accomplish doesn't change anything about the character that people didn't like. Some of things people even thought were poorly done and in some cases I don't disagree.

The only opinion I care about when it comes to Lex is from people who are conversant with the character and his history. Eisenberg's Lex has about as much relevance to his comics counterpart as Gene Hackman, John Shea and Michael Rosenbaum.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat,  2 Apr  2016, 13:38That doesn't explain him creating a giant monster or him not just using the kryptonite himself, instead of manipulating Batman for two years, before he got all that kryptonite.

Especially in recent years it's become typical of Lex to play the long game. It's worth mentioning, though, that he created Doomsday at the first opportunity.

Why not use the Kryptonite himself? Gee, let's think. If he tries that and fails, it's his butt on the line. If he can get a patsy to do his dirty work for him, that would be better. Golly, that sounds like a very post-Byrne Lex attitude to me. By the time Lex finally managed to get his hands on Kryptonite, he had Batman wound up so tight he was about to pop. Again, the long game.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat,  2 Apr  2016, 13:38Or why he went on a crazy rant about showing the world that Superman is a fraud by having him kill Batman. His basic motives for what would have been a better idea were explained. The other stuff wasn't really.

Well I will admit there isn't a Nolanesque scene where the character spoon feeds his thoughts to the audience. But his motives are clearly established, his methods are clearly revealed and his psychology is hinted at and/or expressed through the entire film. It isn't didactically explained... which works for some people but not for others. Your unwillingness to accept that approach does not invalidate it. It simply means your preferences are in things being expressed in text rather than depicted through cinematography, performance and other things. Well and good... but that leaves you at a bit of a disadvantage in critiquing Snyder's approach because these issues seem invisible to you even though they're made manifest in the film.

Even Batman struggled to kill Superman with the kryptonite, and he's Batman. Lex didn't kill Superman with the Kryptonite, because he knew he couldn't, so he tricked Bruce/Batman into stealing it, while doing the job for him. He knows Batman is more capable than him.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri,  1 Apr  2016, 23:44
I thought Affleck looked old enough for the part. Plus, I get the feeling that Hollywood doesn't want to have a leading man or woman looking too old for superhero movies anyway. They probably think it wouldn't be marketable enough.

Fair enough. Affleck's looks were only an issue for me; I fully expect that YMMV.

Quote
I thought she served more of a purpose in MOS with her investigation into Clark's trails and how she was the first stranger who trusted him. But I do agree that a lot of her screen-time could've been drastically cut in this movie.

That's actually a good point.

Great. You just brought my whole estimation of this movie lower  :P

QuoteI have to disagree. Up until this point, Batman was consumed with paranoia over Superman that he was too blinded to realize that Lex Luthor was manipulating both him and Superman. This was the turning point to understand what was going on.

Well, as I say, my objection wasn't so much that he stops, it was just how much of a turn-around he made, to the point where he's even describing himself as a friend of Superman.

Quote
Given that the next film is going to be the Justice League, I thought this film did the best it could introduce other characters in this universe. Not ideal perhaps, but I'll take it.

Frankly, I think DC should have planned another movie between this and Justice League, or had the first Justice League movie be a Seven Samurai-style search and gathering, than try and cram so many character introductions into this already-too-busy story.

Quote
I had problems with plot points that involved Superman in this movie i.e. leaving myself to wonder why did he take so long to arrive in North Africa, how come he couldn't pay attention when a bomb was about to detonate in the Senate hearing, why he didn't take Batman into custody instead of merely threatening him if he was so disapproving of Batman's methods at the end of the chase scene. Those are my reasons why I thought the movie didn't quite live up to my personal expectations.

But despite all of that, I thought he redeemed all of those issues with paying a sacrifice to stop Doomsday in the end. He still saved the world despite how it kept scrutinizing him and condemning him, and his death inspired Batman and Wonder Woman to carry on his legacy and protect the world from constant danger.

But my issue is with the logic. Wonder Woman has the strength to hack off limbs from this thing, and she's not vulnerable to Kryptonite. What actual reason is there that Superman has to wield the spear himself, instead of passing it off to Wonder Woman and serving as a distraction?

Quote
This is off-topic, but I never thought Jonathan Kent was actually encouraging Clark to let those kids drown. He was simply scared of the possibility that Clark could expose himself to a world that he's not prepared to cope with, and wanted to protect him from that level of persecution and pressure. Then again, Snyder brought that criticism upon himself by having Pa Kent say the word "maybe". I wouldn't have used it if I was a director.

And I acknowledged the "maybe"  ;)

I'm not the only one who's made that joke, but the larger complaint is what you say here: that, in MoS, Jonathan Kent never wanted Clark to reveal his powers, because Clark - and the world - weren't ready (and apparently, nothing short of "alien invasion" was good enough to count as "ready.") It was Jor-El who encouraged Superman to display his powers, be a bridge between two peoples, lead us to the sun, etc. Which makes that line, and the dream vision of Kevin Costner, a very strange retcon for Snyder to pull in this film. Was Russel Crowe not available for a cameo that they had to change which father they wrote into the script?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  2 Apr  2016, 17:43The only opinion I care about when it comes to Lex is from people who are conversant with the character and his history. Eisenberg's Lex has about as much relevance to his comics counterpart as Gene Hackman, John Shea and Michael Rosenbaum.

People shouldn't have to know the character from other media well to be able to understand it.

QuoteEspecially in recent years it's become typical of Lex to play the long game. It's worth mentioning, though, that he created Doomsday at the first opportunity.

Why not use the Kryptonite himself? Gee, let's think. If he tries that and fails, it's his butt on the line. If he can get a patsy to do his dirty work for him, that would be better. Golly, that sounds like a very post-Byrne Lex attitude to me. By the time Lex finally managed to get his hands on Kryptonite, he had Batman wound up so tight he was about to pop. Again, the long game.

I don't care what this version is inspired by. The character as explored doesn't make sense. And his motivations aren't even explored greatly, because his character is barely explored. He has a single scene of catch up with his goal that doesn't make sense and contradicts his own on screen goals in the movie, even his other stated goal about having a deterrent against Superman. He wants Superman to be killed because he's so powerful. No, he wants Superman to be seen as a fraud. Then he wants Superman to be killed by an even bigger threat that he's created.

QuoteWell I will admit there isn't a Nolanesque scene where the character spoon feeds his thoughts to the audience. But his motives are clearly established, his methods are clearly revealed and his psychology is hinted at and/or expressed through the entire film. It isn't didactically explained... which works for some people but not for others. Your unwillingness to accept that approach does not invalidate it. It simply means your preferences are in things being expressed in text rather than depicted through cinematography, performance and other things. Well and good... but that leaves you at a bit of a disadvantage in critiquing Snyder's approach because these issues seem invisible to you even though they're made manifest in the film.

It's not about approach. It's about execution. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Eh, no. If people want to overly praise the film, and each interpretation to nausem, that's fine. Praise it till you're on the floor sucking wind, but for me, as much as I really liked BvS, it wasn't perfect (I wouldn't say Batman 1989 was perfect either) and Eisenberg's Lex was like nails on a chalk board. I mean, Holy sh*t. It's crazy that after all this time, we have yet to see an accurate portrayal of Lex Luthor on the big screen. For my money, the best live action take goes to Michael Rosenbaum from Smallville, but only by default because everyone else has been extremely lackluster or underused (Shea). But let's narrow it down, with all cinematic Lex Luthor's that we have seen thus far, each one always hams it up and Jesse Eisenberg, clearly, is the worst offender. Not only is he Jesse Eisenberg, but he plays the character as an awkward, crazy, twitchy, oddball type rather than the cold, calm, calculated Lex who steadily hides his dark side. Nothing changed for me about him from the trailers. He's easily the worst thing in the film for me.

Except sadly enough, being overtly "eccentric" isn't anything new for the character in movies. If that works for some people, or they have come to terms with it, great! More power to you. If history has shown us anything, it's a pretty consistent trait when adapting Lex for the big screen. I just happen to think it's worn out it's welcome a long time ago.

Gene Hackman was playing him pretty eccentric in the Donner/Reeve films. Kevin Spacey obviously evoked a lot of the same spirit. This is a different kind of eccentric, but it's not a totally new take, either. It's just twitchier and less consistent. More akin to a messed up little kid who's drunk with money and power. Providing the audiences a touch of light-hearted wackiness that some people who felt the film was 'too dark, too serious' were probably in need of. Whatever. It came across as jarring to me, and unnecessary. I could have lived without that sort of retro performance yet again. It was pretty much all we could expect from Eisenberg really though. I never could imagine him pulling off a performance that would evoke the cold, calculating businessman Lex that alot of people were ideally hoping for. Evidently, and from what I gather in my circles and on the net, what alot of people were wanting to see as well.

But hey, with some people, if this particular interpretation of the character of Lex Luthor and Eisenberg's performance resonates with you and/or comes across the best portrayals of Lex Luthor we've ever had, or hope to see in our lifetimes, that's terrific, and obviously your opinion. Happy to see that works for you (as I like pretty much everyone here), but at the same time, don't try to insinuate to other's who don't find this particular performance of Lex captivating that we're somehow ill informed if we think Eisenberg's overly eccentric portrayal was anything but ill advised for Lex Luthor, and there wasn't a better way to have gone about it.

Lay off the f*cking crack.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  2 Apr  2016, 06:30
It's a shame people are so narrow minded.

EisenLex:

Gets access to what he wants, when he wants - Zod's body and the scout ship.
Manipulates a cripple, using his wheelchair to blow up a hearing, along with his secretary and a hated foe.
Makes Bruce feel guilty by sending fake hate mail.
Has private military kill a bunch of people in an effort to frame Superman.
Has Martha kidnapped and is willing to have her burnt alive.
Pushes Lois off a building to her death, banking on Superman to arrive.
Has a bunch of kryptonite shipped and delivered to his business, to take down Superman.
Sets up the Batman and Superman fight, to kill one of the heroes, or both.
Creates a kryptonian mutation to kill Superman and terrorise the world.
Potentially killed his father and took over the company himself.

Sounds like a worthy representation of the character to me.

For quite a few of us, the issue isn't whether he ticked all the boxes on Lex Luthor Bingo; it's how he did it. And for me, how he did was just too damn annoying. If it worked for you, great.

Speaking of Lex, I have a question for our Lex (if he even reads my posts. Site help indeed...lol).

Was the "Granny's Peach Tea" at the hearing right before the explosion one of the things you cited as being a bit too much? I remember thinking "Holy sh*t, did they actually go there?" as I was watching it.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat,  2 Apr  2016, 22:14
I don't care what this version is inspired by.

That's all I need to see. Let's all shut up shop and not bring any evidence to the table to support our case, because you don't care anyway. I also think some people fail to grasp this is the 'Dawn of Justice'. The beginning of the road. People do realise Batman v Superman isn't a one-off, right? More films are following and all the character's stories will continue. They will grow. Lex included.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  3 Apr  2016, 00:42

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat,  2 Apr  2016, 22:14
I don't care what this version is inspired by.

That's all I need to see. Let's all shut up shop and not bring any evidence to the table to support our case, because you don't care anyway. I also think some people fail to grasp this is the 'Dawn of Justice'. The beginning of the road. People do realise Batman v Superman isn't a one-off, right? More films are following and all the character's stories will continue. They will grow. Lex included.

I've been wondering that same thing.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat,  2 Apr  2016, 22:14People shouldn't have to know the character from other media well to be able to understand it.

Fair enough... except you wrote:

"What his character does or can accomplish doesn't change anything about the character that people didn't like. Some of things people even thought were poorly done and in some cases I don't disagree."

You're the one bringing up consensus here. Not me. If that's a line of inquiry you're not interested in pursuing, don't introduce it into the conversation.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat,  2 Apr  2016, 22:14I don't care what this version is inspired by. The character as explored doesn't make sense.

If you repeat something often enough, it may become true, eh?

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat,  2 Apr  2016, 22:14

Quote from: thecolorsblendYour unwillingness to accept that approach does not invalidate it. It simply means your preferences are in things being expressed in text rather than depicted through cinematography, performance and other things. Well and good... but that leaves you at a bit of a disadvantage in critiquing Snyder's approach because these issues seem invisible to you even though they're made manifest in the film.

It's not about approach. It's about execution.

Okay. Allow me to rephrase it then. Your unwillingness to accept that execution does not invalidate it. :D

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  3 Apr  2016, 01:02
Okay. Allow me to rephrase it then. Your unwillingness to accept that execution does not invalidate it. :D

Round of applause.

I haven't focused much on EisenLex, due to the obvious excitement on Batman and Superman. But he's going to be getting some lovin' from me. The natural inclination from people is to slam this Lex. But I just find that autopilot laziness. Someone actually sending praise towards Eisenberg takes people aback, as if it's inflammatory and equal to a war cry. There's interesting stuff going on if people want to dig deeper.

As said, I can appreciate what he went with. Someone who is green - recently taking over his father's business. So he's clearly not a pubic speaker. He's an internalised back room tinkerer. A man who wants to get his way, and when he doesn't you die. He's a steamroller of ambition. Even at this raw stage, we see that. His theme 'The Red Capes Are Coming' definitely brings a mad scientist to mind. He's a young upstart wanting to go from 0 to 100, building a massive skyscraper in Metropolis as a big F you to the world.

Going into prison and losing his halo - the opposite of what he intended for Superman, is bound to make him colder and harsher. Just more set in his ways. From what I read, prison doesn't exactly produce fine specimens. Rehab is more of an idea and not much of a consistent reality.

Alrighty then, I see some BvS detractors jumping up and down about the projected drop off in revenue for this weekend which is possibly due to word-of-mouth.

I love the film, but Snyder's biggest mistake, aside of the brain fart he had casting Eisenberg as Luthor, is that from the start he aimed way over the heads of the type of man-children who go see these comic book movies. Which I and a lot of other people say is great, but the response from the plebians has been, unfortunately, predictable as f*ck, right from when he decided to make a actual FILM and not a f*cking cartoon. F*ck those people.

I absolutely think it's a fantastic movie. Not perfect, not without issues, but definitely a worthwhile film nevertheless. Will it lose money BECAUSE it isn't enough like the Disney/Marvel formula where it's light, and accessible for the little kids and spastic man-babies? Well, unfortunately yes.

When you start listening to critics, tailoring your film to please them, you lose. You have to make the film you want to make. Because even if you go out to please the critics, not all are going to be fans anyway.

I saw a preconceived scepticism, or hatred, for lack of a better word, of Snyder and the film itself during the lead-in. Sure, some people genuinely may not like the film, but I do sense a lot of those sceptical viewpoints now want to be validated. Make no mistake, the detractors do NOT want this film to earn a tidy box office. And if it does, they'll say it's still not good enough. They simply will not be convinced or satisfied either way.

To the point sensible defence is dismissed. Even points that are universally praised - namely the combat, all of a sudden becomes a weakness. Everything becomes a weakness, and that RT score is held up as the proof. State why Batfleck kills in BvS and you'll likely hear 'well, it still sucks, it's still not Batman.' This is the narrow mindedness we face.

And let's get real. The Nolan army has their back up. They're feeling the competitive backlash against their brand and will bring down the replacement if given the chance. I find it rich that BvS is called a hollow, boring film devoid of humour or warmth, when that describes TDK Rises perfectly. But hey, that one gets a free pass.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  3 Apr  2016, 01:02Fair enough... except you wrote:

"What his character does or can accomplish doesn't change anything about the character that people didn't like. Some of things people even thought were poorly done and in some cases I don't disagree."

You're the one bringing up consensus here. Not me. If that's a line of inquiry you're not interested in pursuing, don't introduce it into the conversation.

I didn't say anything about people not liking it because it's not like a version of the character.

QuoteIf you repeat something often enough, it may become true, eh?

I said why.

QuoteOkay. Allow me to rephrase it then. Your unwillingness to accept that execution does not invalidate it. :D

Execution isn't something to accept or deny. It's the way something is. Lex can be an annoying Jesse Eisenberg-esque character and still be executed better than he was.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  3 Apr  2016, 01:24Round of applause.

I haven't focused much on EisenLex, due to the obvious excitement on Batman and Superman. But he's going to be getting some lovin' from me. The natural inclination from people is to slam this Lex. But I just find that autopilot laziness. Someone actually sending praise towards Eisenberg takes people aback, as if it's inflammatory and equal to a war cry. There's interesting stuff going on if people want to dig deeper.

As said, I can appreciate what he went with. Someone who is green - recently taking over his father's business. So he's clearly not a pubic speaker. He's an internalised back room tinkerer. A man who wants to get his way, and when he doesn't you die. He's a steamroller of ambition. Even at this raw stage, we see that. His theme 'The Red Capes Are Coming' definitely brings a mad scientist to mind. He's a young upstart wanting to go from 0 to 100, building a massive skyscraper in Metropolis as a big F you to the world.

Going into prison and losing his halo - the opposite of what he intended for Superman, is bound to make him colder and harsher. Just more set in his ways. From what I read, prison doesn't exactly produce fine specimens. Rehab is more of an idea and not much of a consistent reality.

That's fully performance based and isn't the issues I've said the character has.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  3 Apr  2016, 00:42That's all I need to see. Let's all shut up shop and not bring any evidence to the table to support our case, because you don't care anyway.

It's the way it should. Adaption wasn't what we were talking about. Execution was. It can be adapted fifteen different ways that doesn't make it well done. Liking something because it's similar to something else you like or that's been done before is a biased view and not something that can be discussed.

QuoteI also think some people fail to grasp this is the 'Dawn of Justice'. The beginning of the road. People do realise Batman v Superman isn't a one-off, right? More films are following and all the character's stories will continue. They will grow. Lex included.

It doesn't matter what comes after it. It doesn't change this movie. Just like BvS never would have changed MOS. This movie is what it is. It having a sequel won't make up for anything. Have a very great day everyone!

God bless you all! God bless everyone!

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  3 Apr  2016, 02:35And let's get real. The Nolan army has their back up. They're feeling the competitive backlash against their brand and will bring down the replacement if given the chance. I find it rich that BvS is called a hollow, boring film devoid of humour or warmth, when that describes TDK Rises perfectly. But hey, that one gets a free pass.

TDKRises has plenty comedy and warmth. It's a little cold certainly. But yeah, I'd figure devoid of much humor and much warmth fits BvS pretty well. This movie falls short in those areas of every Batman film adaption. Not just the Nolan movies. It seems that there's irony in you saying that people bashing this is because they don't like the idea of it being viewed as better than another version. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

You don't get what I am saying, boy. It's a preconceived hatred of Snyder. Even strengths of BvS are dismissed and turned into products of shame. A section of people simply do NOT want BvS to succeed. This hatred is clear as day, yet some oafs out there turn a blind eye and keep drinking the cool aid with an extra dose of ice blocks. And perhaps with a slice of lemon peel. I quite like Begins, but the other two can swing like a carcass in the breeze as far as I am concerned. I've had a decade to assess the Nolan series and spit it out like a spoonfull of grubs. BvS gets sliced and diced for being a droning bore, yet Rises gets a free pass. It's double standards. TDK Rises should be called A Walk Down Memory Bane: A Series of Nonsensical Speeches. Nolan is a golden child with the critics, and Snyder is not. They make no secret they don't like the guy, and I mean personally too. BvS was effectively dead out of the gate with a section of critics. And now that childish petition to have him sacked is floating around. The usual suspects are licking their lips.

Quote from: The Joker on Sun,  3 Apr  2016, 02:05Alrighty then, I see some BvS detractors jumping up and down about the projected drop off in revenue for this weekend which is possibly due to word-of-mouth.

Let them rant, rave and howl at the moon. Unless things go SERIOUSLY haywire, the movie will be fully in the black in the US as well as internationally by the end of this weekend. Years from now, nobody is likely to remember how much BvS did or didn't drop off during the second weekend... or, for that matter, that it broke attendance records on the Monday and Tuesday following its release. What people will remember was whether they enjoyed the movie and, maybe (and strictly secondarily), that it was profitable.

This is only the second DCEU film and it's kicking ass at the box office while the second MCU film tanked and unfortunately I'm the only one willing to mention that, it seems. The first two DCEU films have far outgrossed the first MCU films. People aren't likely to remember this either so I guess one takes the good with the bad.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  3 Apr  2016, 04:37You don't get what I am saying, boy. It's a preconceived hatred of Snyder. Even strengths of BvS are dismissed and turned into products of shame. A section of people simply do NOT want BvS to succeed. This hatred is clear as day, yet some oafs out there turn a blind eye and keep drinking the cool aid with an extra dose of ice blocks. And perhaps with a slice of lemon peel. I quite like Begins, but the other two can swing like a carcass in the breeze as far as I am concerned. I've had a decade to assess the Nolan series and spit it out like a spoonfull of grubs. BvS gets sliced and diced for being a droning bore, yet Rises gets a free pass. It's double standards. TDK Rises should be called A Walk Down Memory Bane: A Series of Nonsensical Speeches. Nolan is a golden child with the critics, and Snyder is not. They make no secret they don't like the guy, and I mean personally too. BvS was effectively dead out of the gate with a section of critics. And now that childish petition to have him sacked is floating around. The usual suspects are licking their lips.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they just don't think Snyder is a good storyteller. I don't know what nonsensical speeches there are in TDKRises and I don't know why talking and discussing things is boring to you. But you're calling people names. There's no reason for that. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sun,  3 Apr  2016, 03:17Execution isn't something to accept or deny.

Good god damn, do you ever get sick of the god damn semantics?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  3 Apr  2016, 22:29

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sun,  3 Apr  2016, 03:17Execution isn't something to accept or deny.

Good god damn, do you ever get sick of the god damn semantics?

God bless you colors. God bless everyone in your life.

Moving along, I really dig Batman's opening scene in BvS. It's not as iconic as B89's "I'm Batman", but it's very good. Saving a bunch of people, but they prefer to remain in the cage because "he's still here." They're terrified of their rescuer and refer to him as a devil. That's just awesome. And I can't forget Affleckman hiding in the corner of the room like a creepy, old school monster. It struck a nice tone for me.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon,  4 Apr  2016, 11:34
Moving along, I really dig Batman's opening scene in BvS. It's not as iconic as B89's "I'm Batman", but it's very good. Saving a bunch of people, but they prefer to remain in the cage because "he's still here." They're terrified of their rescuer and refer to him as a devil. That's just awesome. And I can't forget Affleckman hiding in the corner of the room like a creepy, old school monster. It struck a nice tone for me.

Affleck did compare that scene to Ridley Scott's Alien in an interview. I can see why, he looked and moved like a Xenomorph! Talk about becoming a creature of the night literally.

The editor from Comic Book Movie compiled a list of "five of the dumbest and most frustrating complaints about BvS".

Source: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/batman_vs_superman/5-dumbest-and-most-frustrating-complaints-about-batman-v-a132841

Well, looking back, I do find it odd that Superman called out his mother's name to make Batman pause. My only guess is there was a deleted scene where Clark found out Batman's true identity and discovered his backstory.

I'm still not completely sold on Superman not sensing the bomb at the Senate hearing, but I agree that the criticism over Lex Luthor's plan makes me roll my eyes.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon,  4 Apr  2016, 12:29

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon,  4 Apr  2016, 11:34
Moving along, I really dig Batman's opening scene in BvS. It's not as iconic as B89's "I'm Batman", but it's very good. Saving a bunch of people, but they prefer to remain in the cage because "he's still here." They're terrified of their rescuer and refer to him as a devil. That's just awesome. And I can't forget Affleckman hiding in the corner of the room like a creepy, old school monster. It struck a nice tone for me.

Affleck did compare that scene to Ridley Scott's Alien in an interview. I can see why, he looked and moved like a Xenomorph! Talk about becoming a creature of the night literally.

I can see how Affleck's Bruce became so cruel and jaded. The world does need a good thrashing.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon,  4 Apr  2016, 13:19

Well, looking back, I do find it odd that Superman called out his mother's name to make Batman pause. My only guess is there was a deleted scene where Clark found out Batman's true identity and discovered his backstory.

I think it's well established that Clark finds out that Bruce is Batman. It is also well established that Clark had been doing quite a bit of detective work on Batman (and thus Bruce Wayne once he finds out). So it's not illogical at all that he finds out Bruces mothers name. An alternative explanation is that even if Batman does kill him, he hopes Batman will go save Martha Kent afterwards (as his next target likely would have been Lex).

Quote from: The Dark KnightGod bless you colors. God bless everyone in your life.

Mocking? And The Laughing Fish says TDK/Rises is nihilistic. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon,  4 Apr  2016, 13:19Well, looking back, I do find it odd that Superman called out his mother's name to make Batman pause. My only guess is there was a deleted scene where Clark found out Batman's true identity and discovered his backstory.

Superman had two options in that scene.

He could've said "Before you kill me, be sure you save my mother." Batman's first logical response to that very well might have been "Okay. What's her name?". Or he could've said "Before you kill me, save Martha." Under the circumstances, I think Superman cut to the chase rather effectively.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon,  4 Apr  2016, 15:14

Quote from: The Dark KnightGod bless you colors. God bless everyone in your life.

Mocking? And The Laughing Fish says TDK/Rises is nihilistic. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

So what if I did?

Mate, if you really don't like my opinions and what I say, ignore me. I told you that seven months ago anyway.

Here - I'll be generous and give you these steps to add me to your ignore list so you'll never have to read my comments whenever you log onto the forum ever again:

• Click on your screen name to open your profile summary.
• Under Modify Profile, click on the Buddies/Ignore List link.
• Click on the Edit Ignore List button, and underneath where it says Add to Ignore List, type in The Laughing Fish in the Member: text-field.
• Finally, click on the Add button - and voila! You've blocked all of my comments from appearing on your screen forever! It's awesome, isn't it? I should know, I just added you to my ignore list as well. Have a very nice day, and God bless!

Grazie Dio! Grazie tutti!


Anyway...

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  4 Apr  2016, 18:08
He could've said "Before you kill me, be sure you save my mother." Batman's first logical response to that very well might have been "Okay. What's her name?". Or he could've said "Before you kill me, save Martha." Under the circumstances, I think Superman cut to the chase rather effectively.

Don't get me wrong, I do get the meaning, and even appreciate the sentimental moment revealing Bruce and Clark's mothers both share the same name. I only think it could've been executed a little better, that's all.

But at least I'm not one of those people complaining about how Cavill called out that name. Apparently, it doesn't occur to some people that having a foot crushing on your throat could distort your voice a little bit. Meh...

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue,  5 Apr  2016, 10:51So what if I did?

Mate, if you really don't like my opinions and what I say, ignore me. I told you that seven months ago anyway.

Here - I'll be generous and give you these steps to add me to your ignore list so you'll never have to read my comments whenever you log onto the forum ever again:

• Click on your screen name to open your profile summary.
• Under Modify Profile, click on the Buddies/Ignore List link.
• Click on the Edit Ignore List button, and underneath where it says Add to Ignore List, type in The Laughing Fish in the Member: text-field.
• Finally, click on the Add button - and voila! You've blocked all of my comments from appearing on your screen forever! It's awesome, isn't it? I should know, I just added you to my ignore list as well. Have a very nice day, and God bless!

Grazie Dio! Grazie tutti!

Why would I ignore? That wouldn't be very nice, for either of us. But my statement was in connection to someone mocking what I say. It wasn't about you really. I'm very sorry for the misunderstanding. Thank you very much! Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue,  5 Apr  2016, 10:51


Mate, if you really don't like my opinions and what I say, ignore me. I told you that seven months ago anyway.

Here - I'll be generous and give you these steps to add me to your ignore list so you'll never have to read my comments whenever you log onto the forum ever again:

• Click on your screen name to open your profile summary.
• Under Modify Profile, click on the Buddies/Ignore List link.
• Click on the Edit Ignore List button, and underneath where it says Add to Ignore List, type in The Laughing Fish in the Member: text-field.
• Finally, click on the Add button - and voila! You've blocked all of my comments from appearing on your screen forever! It's awesome, isn't it? I should know, I just added you to my ignore list as well. Have a very nice day, and God bless!

Grazie Dio! Grazie tutti!

About two years late with that info. My warn level would probably be 15% instead of 85% lol

Well I made my contribution to the box office and saw this beast on Sunday afternoon. I'm not going to write a lengthy review or anything, but here's a brief summary of some of my initial thoughts.

Objectively speaking, the film is far from perfect and I can see why the critics have taken issue with it. I think it's a little overstuffed and perhaps tries to do a bit too much. There are some structural problems too; it's very disjointed, there's some sloppy editing, and the intercutting between parallel narratives isn't always as smooth as it needed to be. I think insularity is also an issue. They weren't kidding when they said it was made for the fans, but I think that's one of the things that's perhaps alienated the wider audience who aren't familiar with the comics.

But overall... Honestly? I actually really enjoyed it. Much more than I thought I would.

Batfleck is awesome. I loved the scenes with him and Jeremy Irons and I'm looking forward to seeing them both return in the solo Batman film.

I liked Cavill's Superman a lot more in this one too. I was concerned when I heard there was a scene where he slams a terrorist through a concrete wall. But having seen it, he clearly states in a later scene that he didn't kill any of them. So it didn't bother me. I loved all the montage scenes of Superman saving people across the globe. And it's the first Superman film since 1980 to adapt a villain from the comics besides Lex and Zod! I think he's still a bit too mopey, but I can't deny I had a lump in my throat when he died at the end.  :(

I've got plenty more things to say about it, both good and bad. But for now I just wanted to quickly share my initial reactions. Would I recommend this film to casual cinemagoers who aren't familiar with the comics? To be honest, probably not. Would I recommend it to comic fans? Absolutely. You may not like it, but you should see it at least once and make up your own mind. I'm glad I did. Maybe it's because my expectations weren't as high as everyone else's, but I didn't think it was anywhere near as bad as some people are making it out to be.

Is it deeply flawed? Yes, I think it is. Is it completely devoid of merit? Not by a long shot.

Anyway those are my thoughts. I've begun work on the comic analysis, and hopefully BatmAngelus and myself will have it finished before too long. It might take a while though, as there are a LOT of comic references in this film. But if you're a Batman fan and you haven't seen it yet, give it a try. Trust me, I'm Zack Snyder's harshest critic, but this is nowhere near as bad as some people are saying.

Good to hear that you enjoyed it.

Nice review. I thoroughly enjoyed it, as well as the almost packed theatre I saw it in. Not only did I personally enjoy the film right up to the very end but the audience clapped and cheered in certain scenes (seeing Aquaman, Wonder Woman appearance, Doomsday fight etc) and also got very quiet in those emotional, somber scenes. When Lex is walking down the corridor and his musical theme is playing, a few people exclaimed at how awesome it was. It is a true introduction to as major villain. I actually liked Lex Luthor in this film a bit more than I thought I would. You could see the manic psychopath/sociopath and megalomaniac that he is and also is becoming.

I'm thankful for DC's and WB's vision of their characters and wholeheartedly looking forward to Justice League.

Just came back from seeing it (after trying to for 2 weeks!) and I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. I was very disjointed but over all enjoyable.

I really liked Ben Affleck as Batman and I am looking forward to seeing more of him. Michael Keaton's batman I feel is more internal where Affleck is much more external but I still think Michael Keaton is the definitive Batman for me. I do like seeing a Batman kill again and wasnt bothered by him using guns. I did like (what I suppose was a homage?) when Batman shot the guy though the shoulder with his spear gun!

I liked Superman in this and I think they gave him alot to work with (I got a Spider-man 2 vibe with his arch. Wonder Woman was also a surprise because I was not looking forward to the choice at all.

Overall I'd put this under the Burton films but somewhere in bewteen Batman Forever and Begins (Im not much of a TDK fan for DKR)

I thought it would be a good time to ask what are everybody else's favourite scenes in the movie?

I'll start with my own list:

• The opening montage where Bruce witnesses his parents getting murdered and falling into the cave was a great new interpretation to his backstory - and the most comic accurate to date. Bruce getting lifted up back on the ground by the bats in the end is inspiring stuff I reckon - I don't care if anybody else finds it "cheesy".
• Bruce witnessing the Battle of Metropolis and feeling angry and powerless over the situation. The part where he saves the girl and learns her mother was killed in the building is tragic.
• The montage of Superman's rescue around the world while media personalities debate his presence. My only complaint is I wish we saw more of Superman's rescue.
• The Batmobile chase was great. I pity anyone who complains about this scene because "it relies too much on CGI".
• The Martha Kent rescue scene. Need I say more? People might complain Batman said it so soon after his battle with Superman, but him telling Martha "I'm a friend of your son" is a great way to soothe her nerves and outline the realization for once and for all Supes is not the enemy.
• Despite everything that Lex did to him, Superman saves him by laying the first punch on Doomsday. If that doesn't scream Superman to you, then nothing will.
• Superman's sacrifice to stop Doomsday was a great ending, the best I've seen in a comic book movie for a while. I have my gripes with him in this movie, but the ending works for me, and it was the best way to get the Justice League to form and carry on his legacy.

I'll get something together later in the week. But in terms of ranking the films, BR and B89 remain my two favourites. With BvS taking third spot, right on their heels. I think Affleck is the best Batman so far, but the nostalgic power of Keaton is just too great to fully overcome. I'm happy with how the future looks with Affleck at the helm, because as stated in the past, it's reminiscent of what we had with Burton.

This is one of the rare films i liked the dream sequences. Normally I find them to be lazy writing for films to put scenes they want into the feature without tying them into the plot but here it worked as Bruce was having nightmares about Kent and showed some of his Fears may have been unvalidated and based merely on 'gut feelings'.

I especially liked the dream of Batman using guns. It was a way to show what Bats using guns would look like without actually have him do it. Interesting enough he was swinging with his other hand rather than using the gun.

As far as ranking the films go; IMO this one falls behind the dark knight and the original batman just ahead of Batman forever on my scale.

I would watch an entire movie set in the Knightmare universe, loved it. I don't know if it's me, the sound of Batman's voice when he says "Did you get it? The rock" is different (much deeper) compared to the rest of the film.

Recent reports suggest that that Knightmare sequence might not be until Justice League Part 2. There might be war with Atlantis in Justice League Part 1. I was even thinking that a future controlled by Superman, will be awesome, putting a nice twist to who we know Superman to be. Since we saw the Omega symbol, I was wondering if Darkseid is actually controlling Superman, with Superman being his Number One henchman or as jack would say "My number one guyyy".

I think the Knightmare is the future, but it's not going to happen. The idea is for the JL to avoid it. Because the Knightmare ends with Batman getting his chest impaled by Superman's fist. There could be genuine hints that the Knightmare is still impending, though. But they avoid it at the last second.

Yeah, I think it's the future that Flash tries to warn Bruce about. It'll probably change, though. Or maybe it has already? who knows right now.

I think Bruce could keep this to himself for a while, not telling the other members of the League. And like Tower of Babel, his secret could be a double edged sword, alienating him from certain members.

Quote from: Grissom on Fri, 15 Apr  2016, 21:10
Recent reports suggest that that Knightmare sequence might not be until Justice League Part 2. There might be war with Atlantis in Justice League Part 1.

This kind of reminds of JL: Thrones of Atlantis. But the difference is that Aquaman has seemed to have inherited the role as king judging by the BvS cameo, whereas the animated film/comics storyline (I assume, I haven't read it) was an origin story showing us how he discovers his true heritage and inherited the throne from Ocean Master, after stopping his plans to attack the surface world.

I can see this Aquaman as someone who doesn't like surface dwellers. The images of him we've seen so far, he doesn't look like he likes anybody lol.

I can also see this movie taking a preachy political slant if the water is involved. Hope I'm wrong.

As for the Knightmare, I hope it is just that. A nightmare that doesn't come true. I know there are people who like the whole "Supes being an agent of evil" idea but that's not my cup of tea. I even had a hard time with the Batman Beyond episode where that asshole jellyfish had him trying to kill everybody. There are plenty of real bad guys they can use without turning him bad. And bad girls...Livewire, anyone?

It can be interesting because Batman had a grudge against Superman, and now he's wanting everyone to get along and unite. But Aquaman, as an example, still has to work through that anger and scepticism he holds against Wonder Woman's people and humanity at large. He'll have to convinced.

I was visiting another forum and somebody posted this link to a podcast website from a fan who tackles the most common complaints about the movie, and offers counter-arguments and analysis against these criticisms. I've only heard the podcaster giving answers for plot holes that another blogger had listed on the 'net so far.

Source: http://jluniverse.podomatic.com/

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 16 Apr  2016, 11:30
It can be interesting because Batman had a grudge against Superman, and now he's wanting everyone to get along and unite. But Aquaman, as an example, still has to work through that anger and scepticism he holds against Wonder Woman's people and humanity at large. He'll have to convinced.
[/quote

It's going to be great :)

I have a question though. Not for you, I mean in general. We're supposed to "Unite the Seven." We have six. Who's numero siete?

Obvious choice is Green Lantern but since a certain sect of the fanbase thinks everything that doesn't go just swimmingly at the box office should be abandoned and the GL movie from before was apparently really bad (I never saw it, not a big RR fan) could they be looking another direction even though that was (I think?) separate of what we're doing now? Maybe they could use a different GL like John Stewart or Kyle Rayner. Or say "Screw you idiots, meet the new and improved Hal Jordan" lol.

Or maybe one of two names I haven't seen mentioned. Kartar or Shayera Hol. Hawkman and Hawkgirl!

I'll throw another name out. John Jones. Or J'onn J'onnz if you prefer lol. Martian Manhunter could be super intriguing even though they may want to avoid another alien dealio after that being a huge part of MoS and BvS.

Here's one other name and a potential villain. Shazam and Black Adam. The Black Adam part especially. Ancient Egyptian stuff is always popular I think so that could be a really interesting direction for them to go.

Speaking of villains I read (and LOVED) a rumor that the guy who supervises the krypronite search could be destined to become Metallo. Probably not but oh well.

Ok I will stop throwing names out now lol.

Oops

It'd be interesting if they made all the recruitments difficult, challenging the mortal Batman and showing his problem solving skills. For example, The Flash can be located, but he may not want to stay for a chat. Developing a way to capture or incapacitate the guy, ala Endgame, could be an option. But this doesn't have to be dark and mean, because the two don't have a grudge against each other. It's merely to stop this roadrunner long enough to tell him what's going on, and that he's needed.

Yea recruiting the Flash opens up the options for the "lighter" moments Snyder promised lol.

We might get a homage to the TV show. Bat Rubber Cement!

So, even though we know Superman will be coming back from the dead, where does this leave Clark Kent? He was reported dead in the Daily Planet, and his death was acknowledged and commiserated back in Smallville. Will we see Clark take on different aliases as we saw in the beginning of MOS?

It will be interesting to see how/if the whole Clark Kent being dead thing is resolved. I would expect upon his return, one of the first things, if not first thing he will do, or want to do, is to return back to Lois, so I think that the notion of going thru different odd jobs and aliases like in the beginning of MOS would be a problem since it's apparent that Lois is his world, his love, and thus a high priority to always be near in case she's ever in jeopardy.

The Clark Kent ID question kinda goes along with what's going on with the New52 comics where that Lois actually outed the New52Superman as being Clark Kent. Not sure how that's going to be resolved, and I'm not a big New52 fan to begin with, but perhaps the upcoming DC REBIRTH will address it ...

Quote from: The Joker on Sun, 24 Apr  2016, 06:50
The Clark Kent ID question kinda goes along with what's going on with the New52 comics where that Lois actually outed the New52Superman as being Clark Kent.

I've heard about Lois exposing Clark's identity a few months ago. That's pretty lame, but I realise that this Lois doesn't have a romantic interest in Superman like in other continuity. But I could be wrong, I don't read New 52 comics after all.

I think the public Clark Kent persona is dead, and we'll only get Superman from now on.

Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 24 Apr  2016, 15:36
I think the public Clark Kent persona is dead, and we'll only get Superman from now on.

This is what I think. I wonder how they'll approach it in the future and reconcile that with his relationship with Lois. I hope they aren't lazy with it. Could be very dangerous for her though.

Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 24 Apr  2016, 22:57

Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 24 Apr  2016, 15:36
I think the public Clark Kent persona is dead, and we'll only get Superman from now on.

This is what I think. I wonder how they'll approach it in the future and reconcile that with his relationship with Lois. I hope they aren't lazy with it. Could be very dangerous for her though.

Here's a thought. Clark comes back from the dead and confirms to the people who attended the private Smallville funeral that he is Superman. I think Perry White, Pete Ross, and the pastor, basically know already anyway - they're shown to attend the private funeral in the UC. The Daily Planet then just write another article saying Clark was presumed dead but has since been located, albeit injured. Something like that would work, I think.

I know this may sound odd, but I've had a theory about Superman coming back, and I haven't shared it with anybody online, but I might as well see what you think. It's kinda out there, but I swear, it sticks out to me, and kinda makes sense for some reason:

I think the ring that Lois got at the end has something to do with Clark/Superman coming back to life. Maybe he made a ring out of something Kryptonian? I dunno, but when Lois gets the ring, the camera kinda stays on it, showing its significance. Then when she grabs the dirt, the camera stays on the ring again, and it's the dirt that she was just touching that starts to lift. Maybe that's why The Flash said she's the key?

I know it's pretty stupid and out there, but it was something I've thought of.

Not stupid. Throwing ideas around like this usually generates healthy discussion. I could possibly see the ring coming into play, if it contained a piece of technology of some sort. Kind of like that S key used in Man of Steel. It could be the reverse of Superman giving Batman the kryptonite ring. He gives Lois a ring in the event something dire happens, but never had the chance to explain the procedure.

Looks like Batfleck broke Keaton's record by +1 kill.

Not sure if I would even count the dream sequence, as that didn't really happen, lol.

Cool video, though.

Edit: Ahhh, I was commenting while watching, I didn't know they erased the dream kills. Ha!

Quote from: Travesty on Mon,  4 Jul  2016, 22:59
Not sure if I would even count the dream sequence, as that didn't really happen, lol.

Cool video, though.

Edit: Ahhh, I was commenting while watching, I didn't know they erased the dream kills. Ha!

Hm. Now that's an interesting situation. Because it wasn't actually a dream. Or was it?

I mean, that's the future. And it will happen. Or it would've happened. But then presumably it would've been undone later.

So, are those kills legit?

Regardless of the situation with the Snyderverse and the studio, yes, the Knightmare casualties did legit happen.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 24 Oct  2021, 08:34

Quote from: Travesty on Mon,  4 Jul  2016, 22:59
Not sure if I would even count the dream sequence, as that didn't really happen, lol.

Cool video, though.

Edit: Ahhh, I was commenting while watching, I didn't know they erased the dream kills. Ha!

Hm. Now that's an interesting situation. Because it wasn't actually a dream. Or was it?

I mean, that's the future. And it will happen. Or it would've happened. But then presumably it would've been undone later.

So, are those kills legit?

Is it? I thought it was a different universe. Or was it the future?

I stopped paying attention to what they were. I'm sure there's vids or something that can explain the full story.

Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 24 Oct  2021, 21:45
Is it? I thought it was a different universe. Or was it the future?

I've seen the future and boy it's rough. I'd rather drink six razor blades from a paper cup. The Knightmare is a very real thing, and the game is to try and avoid it from happening. Hence Barry trying to alert Bruce, but being "too soon."

One thing that still isn't super clear is the Knightmare sequences. The other glimpses of the future can sort of be explained. But how does Bruce see the first Knightmare vision in BVS while he and Cyborg see it in ZSJL?

The most that I've been able to figure is that when Mother Box was dropped onto Superman's body, the Kryptonian AI says the future has taken root in the present. Whatever else that might mean, it seems that one byproduct of it is that Bruce occasionally gets glimpses of the Knightmare future in his dreams.

This is one of those plot points which we can be fairly certain would've addressed in subsequent films. But as it stands, it's not entirely clear now.