Poll
Question:
What did you think of the new trailer?
Option 1: Loved it!
votes: 24
Option 2: Good.
votes: 10
Option 3: Undecided
votes: 1
Option 4: Little disappointing
votes: 6
Option 5: Didn't like it.
votes: 5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yViIi3gie2c
Was I not paying attention, or did this come from out of nowhere? Anyways, this is a great look at the action, as well as the men behind the masks. We see more than a glimpse of the Robin suit, as well as a direct mention of the Joker. We also hear Affleck's normal Bat-voice at the end. Which sounds great; a little gruffer and angrier than his normal voice. Nothing too drastic.
This may only be my opinion, but Wonder Woman may be a little too much. Batman vs. Superman alone is enough for a feature film, plus we're dealing with Lex as well. It's already getting a little busy here. On the other hand, this may be the first Batman film in a long time that only has one villain (not going to count Superman).
Anyways, it's great that we see that Bruce and Clark will be interacting as well, and not just as superheroes. Based on the trailer, I'd love to see more.
I agree on everything, this looks very good to me and an unexpected treat, but I think Wonder Woman would've been better if they had her movie first, like they did with Superman with "MoS". And I don't know how Lex is going to be a great villain in this since he needs some introduction and is up against not one but multiple heroes.
I hope they'll prove me wrong and the movie's going to rock. :)
That trailer felt like a Marvel movie...which to me, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I'm still on the fence over Affleck's Batman voice.
For all the talk about how cheesy Gene Hackman's Lex was, Eisenberg's Lex looks looks just as goofy from what I've seen so far.
So, the worst kept secret is Doomsday is in the movie after all. His face kinda looks like Jeff Goldblum transforming into Brundlefly.
Still keen on seeing this.
Quote from: Slash Man on Thu, 3 Dec 2015, 05:17
https://www.facebook.com/batmanvsuperman/videos/442964285904157/
This may only be my opinion, but Wonder Woman may be a little too much. Batman vs. Superman alone is enough for a feature film, plus we're dealing with Lex as well. It's already getting a little busy here. On the other hand, this may be the first Batman film in a long time that only has one villain (not going to count Superman).
Doesn't Doomsday count as a villain?
Anyway, I still can't get over nerdy laughing boy Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. This is still going to be a major sticking point for me. Each time I see more footage of him or read more about his interpretation of the character it seems worse.
The DCEU can't afford another sub-par film after MOS, and unfortunately I have next to zero faith in Zack Snyder, and even less faith in David Goyer.
Thank goodness for Captain America: Civil War and Doctor Strange next year. :)
Why was Man of Steel sub-par, johnnygobbs? I never got that, sorry, I liked it. :)
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Thu, 3 Dec 2015, 10:21
Why was Man of Steel sub-par, johnnygobbs? I never got that, sorry, I liked it. :)
I suppose I've been spoiled by the MCU, not to mention past DC gems like the Burton Batman films, the first two Christopher Reeve movies, and TDK trilogy.
There were some good things in MOS but for a franchise-opener it fell well short of 1978's Superman, 1989's Batman, 2002's Spider-Man, 2005's Batman Begins, and certainly 2008's Iron Man, with the ridiculous death of Jonathan Kent, a overlong and ultimately tiresome fight through Metropolis, and the almost complete absence of any humour or colour. It just isn't a great foundation to build a cinematic universe IMHO.
I never tried to compare it to other Superman or origin films, I saw no point in that. And I enjoyed the film. So maybe it wasn't what you and many others wanted to see, but for me it worked well.
Nice trailer for the most part. Lot's of stuff going on, and it did an effective enough job in displaying the obvious animosity between Supes and Bats right off. In some ways, particular scenes and especially the opening dialogue between Clark and Bruce at Lex's party, reminds me of how John Byrne handled the first meeting between Supes/Bats in the DCU post-
Crisis on Infinite Earths, where there was a apparent distrust between the two, while outlining the two heroes different methods, and personal viewpoints on the criminal element. Thus, establishing a different tone in their relationship towards one another, that was in stark contrast to what was put forward in the Pre-Crisis DCU, or what casual fans would
assume it to be.
Oh, and the Wonder Woman bit was aces.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 3 Dec 2015, 08:46
For all the talk about how cheesy Gene Hackman's Lex was, Eisenberg's Lex looks looks just as goofy from what I've seen so far.
Agreed. The more I see, the more I wish Eisenberg was instead playing, say, Ultra-Humanite. ;)
I see that a lot of people agree with me about how absolutely awful Jesse Eisenberg seems to be as Luthor (we all saw it coming, folks), so it surprises me that so many of you are so complacent about one of the most fundamental characters of the DC Universe is being presented as a geeky, awkward, anti-social, possibly autistic, nerd with a fright-wing. This is not, and never will be, Lex Luthor, and WB has really dropped the ball with this significant character. It's such a sticking point for me I don't see how the film can possibly recover.
I won't be seeing this at the cinema, because like the ill-fated Fant4stic Four film, I really hope this fails as it might increase the possibility of an early reboot, preferably one that retains Ben Affleck and allows him to start the franchise from scratch without Zack Snyder or David Goyer coming within 500 yards of the set.
Loved every minute of the trailer! I think we're in for a treat come March 2016. You see, we haven't seen anything yet, Roven said that there could possibly be a cut of the film that could be close to four hours!! Four hours people!
It truly is the Dawn of Justice (League)
;D
Quote from: Grissom on Thu, 3 Dec 2015, 15:34
Loved every minute of the trailer! I think we're in for a treat come March 2016. You see, we haven't seen anything yet, Roven said that there could possibly be a cut of the film that could be close to four hours!! Four hours people!
It truly is the Dawn of Justice (League)
;D
Yeah and two hours of that will probably consist of Batman and Superman pummelling one another and destroying half of Metropolis in the process... :-X
Johnny, I'm sorry, but you're just too pessimistic about the movie.
Love the trailer, love even more that we're less than 4 months away. I thought the movie was coming out May 25th since all movies like this seem to have a May or June open and it's March 25th. Totally stoked.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Thu, 3 Dec 2015, 22:03
Johnny, I'm sorry, but you're just too pessimistic about the movie.
Sorry Edd, but I'm just being honest. If it helps, I do like what I've seen of Ben Affleck as Batman/Bruce Wayne, and I look forward to the solo Batman movies, especially if they don't feature Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor.
I'm sorry too Gobbs, but I disagree with you, and I am also honest. :)
Catwoman, that's the way, in fact, I'd like you to handle the promotion of the movie. it's an important job, I need... someone I can trust... ;)
And I don't even have a girlfriend, or named Alicia, just in case.
I added a poll - a bat-poll.....
Thank you, Paul.
To the Bat-poll! :)
I've largely avoided news about this film, so the trailers are all I've got to go on.
I remain, and am likely to remain, completely put off by Snyder's sense of aesthetics. This is one of the most unattractive looking movies I've seen in a while, and I don't consider that a minor nitpick, especially not in a film like this.
With Doomsday and dead Zod now revealed as part of the mix, I'd have to say I'm a bit nervous about overcrowding in this film (well, more nervous - I thought that might be a problem the minute I found out Wonder Woman was gonna pop up). Not thrilled with the way the Bat/Supes conflict seems likely to go down either. Tonally, every trailer so far has given me the impression that this is shaping up to be as serious and weighted as MoS, but with an (unnecessary) sense of self-awareness and self-importance when it comes to the "Supes is JESUS!!!" angle.
No real opinion yet on Eisenberg as Luthor, Affleck as Bats, or Gadot as Diana. And my impressions from (all three) trailers could be completely wrong. But I won't be lining up opening day, let's put it that way.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 3 Dec 2015, 16:47
Quote from: Grissom on Thu, 3 Dec 2015, 15:34
Loved every minute of the trailer! I think we're in for a treat come March 2016. You see, we haven't seen anything yet, Roven said that there could possibly be a cut of the film that could be close to four hours!! Four hours people!
It truly is the Dawn of Justice (League)
;D
Yeah and two hours of that will probably consist of Batman and Superman pummelling one another and destroying half of Metropolis in the process... :-X
If we want to complain about recklessness, then the same thing can always be said about Nolan's Batman, especially his incompetent handling of the no kill policy and framing himself for crimes that did more harm than good to the city. :-\
Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 01:03
With Doomsday and dead Zod now revealed as part of the mix, I'd have to say I'm a bit nervous about overcrowding in this film (well, more nervous - I thought that might be a problem the minute I found out Wonder Woman was gonna pop up). Not thrilled with the way the Bat/Supes conflict seems likely to go down either. Tonally, every trailer so far has given me the impression that this is shaping up to be as serious and weighted as MoS, but with an (unnecessary) sense of self-awareness and self-importance when it comes to the "Supes is JESUS!!!" angle.
If you don't mind me asking, how would you prefer Batman and Superman debut in a film together? I believe they went for the best approach. Batman tends to be more interesting as a character when he's weary and cynical of others, and he's certainly going to be wary of Superman following MOS. The best comics between the two tend to have contrasting ideas and philosophies, and they clash over them before putting their differences. How the conflict between the two gets resolved in the film is going to be interesting. Just hope it doesn't feel contrived.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 00:13
I added a poll - a bat-poll.....
Did Edd "Dick" Grayson get the smaller poll?
Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 07:55
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 00:13
I added a poll - a bat-poll.....
Did Edd "Dick" Grayson get the smaller poll?
It's Batman and Robin, not Robin and Batman... :-\ ;D
I enjoyed the trailer. Looking forward to the movie a great deal.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Thu, 3 Dec 2015, 23:02
I'm sorry too Gobbs, but I disagree with you, and I am also honest. :)
Ah, the direct approach. I admire that in a man with a mask. ;D
Seriously though, I know you're honest Edd. You're always honest. :)
Thanks Gobbs, but I don't want to run for Mayor. I think I'll settle for being Batman's junior partner.
Now, who would be in need of a partner though?Affleck doesn't seem the type... :P
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 02:09If you don't mind me asking, how would you prefer Batman and Superman debut in a film together? I believe they went for the best approach. Batman tends to be more interesting as a character when he's weary and cynical of others, and he's certainly going to be wary of Superman following MOS. The best comics between the two tend to have contrasting ideas and philosophies, and they clash over them before putting their differences. How the conflict between the two gets resolved in the film is going to be interesting. Just hope it doesn't feel contrived.
Can't say I have a specific alternative; I'd just rather see more World's Finest and less DKR smash-up.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 20:08
Now, who would be in need of a partner though?Affleck doesn't seem the type... :P
Especially considering the defaced Robin suit. Probably done with the partner thing.
Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 20:17
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 02:09If you don't mind me asking, how would you prefer Batman and Superman debut in a film together? I believe they went for the best approach. Batman tends to be more interesting as a character when he's weary and cynical of others, and he's certainly going to be wary of Superman following MOS. The best comics between the two tend to have contrasting ideas and philosophies, and they clash over them before putting their differences. How the conflict between the two gets resolved in the film is going to be interesting. Just hope it doesn't feel contrived.
Can't say I have a specific alternative; I'd just rather see more World's Finest and less DKR smash-up.
If all the movie ends up being is them fighting and then they're suddenly on the same side and there isn't a bit of Batman doing things his way and Supes doing things his way, I will be very disappointed.
Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 20:18
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 20:08
Now, who would be in need of a partner though?Affleck doesn't seem the type... :P
Especially considering the defaced Robin suit. Probably done with the partner thing.
That can only mean one thing: Nightwing for me. And I am still disappointed at the lack of Dick and Barbara and Tim too in live-action films after 1997...
The response to Eisenberg's Lex is baffling. I mean it literally makes no sense whatsoever. None. Zero.
The reason Hackman gets crap for his portrayal of Lex Luthor is because CONTEXT MATTERS. He played a version of Lex who was known to be a supervillain. He had nothing to hide from anybody. Everybody knew his true colors.
Eisenberg plays a version of Lex at the top of the heap in the tech corporate world. If he acted like a supervillain all the time no matter the setting, um, HE WOULDN'T BE AT THE TOP OF THE HEAP. Honestly people, what's so difficult to understand about this? The trailer shows him acting silly in one scene and literally everything else is him being a malevolent force for evil as you'd expect.
I mean, I'm not trying to offend anybody here but I truly don't get it.
Anyway, this trailer shows for the first time in live action Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman standing side-by-side with one another. The awesomeness of that should speak for itself. Bring it on! I can't wait!
About Eisenberg: I want a Luthor more like the newer comics and the DCAU. I did not see that from him so far. :-\
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 23:07
The response to Eisenberg's Lex is baffling. I mean it literally makes no sense whatsoever. None. Zero.
The reason Hackman gets crap for his portrayal of Lex Luthor is because CONTEXT MATTERS. He played a version of Lex who was known to be a supervillain. He had nothing to hide from anybody. Everybody knew his true colors.
Eisenberg plays a version of Lex at the top of the heap in the tech corporate world. If he acted like a supervillain all the time no matter the setting, um, HE WOULDN'T BE AT THE TOP OF THE HEAP. Honestly people, what's so difficult to understand about this? The trailer shows him acting silly in one scene and literally everything else is him being a malevolent force for evil as you'd expect.
I mean, I'm not trying to offend anybody here but I truly don't get it.
Anyway, this trailer shows for the first time in live action Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman standing side-by-side with one another. The awesomeness of that should speak for itself. Bring it on! I can't wait!
This.
Eisenlex is a young entrepreneur in a grown ups world. Even if he's putting on an act in public, it's not so difficult to believe this newcomer would be a fish out of water. Wide eyed and enthusiastic against the likes of Wayne. The older, broody guy who largely inherited his fortune. I like the contrast between them, and their age difference actually makes that even greater. And anyway, there's nothing wrong with humour in films. Last time I checked people were saying how everything was all too serious.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 23:09
About Eisenberg: I want a Luthor more like the newer comics and the DCAU. I did not see that from him so far. :-\
Exactly. This
Some people are saying us Eisenberg-sceptics have a problem with humour or we don't get this Luthor.
No, we get it, and there's nothing wrong with humour. We just don't like this version, and we're tired of yet another campy Luthor after Hackman and Spacey.
Where's the ruthless, tough, steely but charismatic, yet
sociopathic, but not flamboyantly
psychopathic, Luthor of the comic-books? You know, the guy who ran for President in the comic-books and could conceivably win. Who's this prancing, cackling, nervy Woody Allen junior we've got in his place? :-\
I stand by what I said, Johnny, and I agree. I am skeptical about Eisenberg. He couldn't be any further from "President Luthor".
Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 20:17
Can't say I have a specific alternative; I'd just rather see more World's Finest and less DKR smash-up.
Do you think the The Dark Knight Returns is overrated, and often referred to as the be-all-end-all of comics? The reason why I ask is a lot of these skeptics towards the film surprisingly declare that they're not very fond of the Frank Miller story. Personally, I find it a stark contrast to when I first read it years ago; I thought it was overrated while it was acclaimed by the majority, but now I've grown to appreciate it - yet I see more people becoming critical of it.
Anyway, we'll definitely be seeing a smash-up and a team-up in the movie. But it depends how it gets executed on screen - hopefully it comes across as natural instead of forced. As Catwoman says, the two should work together but still have their own way of doing things to contrast each other. Grudgingly accept their differences while still working together.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 23:07
The response to Eisenberg's Lex is baffling. I mean it literally makes no sense whatsoever. None. Zero.
The reason Hackman gets crap for his portrayal of Lex Luthor is because CONTEXT MATTERS. He played a version of Lex who was known to be a supervillain. He had nothing to hide from anybody. Everybody knew his true colors.
Eisenberg plays a version of Lex at the top of the heap in the tech corporate world. If he acted like a supervillain all the time no matter the setting, um, HE WOULDN'T BE AT THE TOP OF THE HEAP. Honestly people, what's so difficult to understand about this? The trailer shows him acting silly in one scene and literally everything else is him being a malevolent force for evil as you'd expect.
I mean, I'm not trying to offend anybody here but I truly don't get it.
Anyway, this trailer shows for the first time in live action Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman standing side-by-side with one another. The awesomeness of that should speak for itself. Bring it on! I can't wait!
I do get what you're saying, but I personally side with johnnygobbs and Edd on this one. It's not because I think the proposed character arc is invalid, but it's just a personal preference of mine. But I still haven't seen the film yet, so who knows, Lex could surprise me.
I'll get to another point: even if Eisenberg plays exactly like the comical megalomaniac in the trailers, I'm now suddenly seeing people criticizing the film having jokes. First, people criticized it will be 'too dark and serious'...but now they complain it has humour. And it's not necessarily because they think the jokes are bad, but it's because the film has humour at all.
You really can't win with some people.
Yes, just to back up something The Laughing Fish has said in BvS's defence, I do think a bit of humour in these films is a very good thing (of course it also helps if the humour is genuinely funny), and I do agree that the people who are one moment arguing that the DC Cinematic Universe is too serious and then next arguing that it is now filled with jokes, are being ridiculous.
That however is not my issue with what I've so far seen of the BvS footage.
A few fans did complain that the new trailer was too comedic. I'd say it was just right.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 5 Dec 2015, 01:02
A few fans did complain that the new trailer was too comedic. I'd say it was just right.
Like I said, the humour was not a problem for me. And I certainly don't think the new trailer was 'too comedic'. If anything the film can afford to be a little comedic after Man of Steel and TDK trilogy's ultra-sombre tone.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 5 Dec 2015, 01:04
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 5 Dec 2015, 01:02
A few fans did complain that the new trailer was too comedic. I'd say it was just right.
Like I said, the humour was not a problem for me. And I certainly don't think the new trailer was 'too comedic'. If anything the film can afford to be a little comedic after Man of Steel and TDK trilogy's ultra-sombre tone.
Agreed. :)
I think you Eisenberg naysayers are going to feel a little silly when you see the finished film (or heck, just rewatch the trailer). But to each his own, I guess.
Isn't Eisenberg supposed to be playing Lex Jr? Son of THE Lex Luthor? I thought that was announced a while back?
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 02:09If we want to complain about recklessness, then the same thing can always be said about Nolan's Batman, especially his incompetent handling of the no kill policy and framing himself for crimes that did more harm than good to the city. :-\
There wasn't an incompetent handling of the rule. Him framing himself actually did a lot of good, but it allowed another bad thing to come into play. But that wasn't exactly something someone could automatically forsee.
QuoteIf you don't mind me asking, how would you prefer Batman and Superman debut in a film together? I believe they went for the best approach. Batman tends to be more interesting as a character when he's weary and cynical of others, and he's certainly going to be wary of Superman following MOS. The best comics between the two tend to have contrasting ideas and philosophies, and they clash over them before putting their differences. How the conflict between the two gets resolved in the film is going to be interesting. Just hope it doesn't feel contrived.
I would have preferred they both be close to the same age, wary of eachother, but forced to work together the whole movie. Them fighting is silly to me. The drama of their fight in TDKReturns is that they are friends. That isn't in this.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 5 Dec 2015, 02:47
Isn't Eisenberg supposed to be playing Lex Jr? Son of THE Lex Luthor? I thought that was announced a while back?
Even so Catwoman, I have doubts about him being a good villain. I just don't think he's right for this part, no matter if it's Luthor or his son.
All of this is just down to preference. It doesn't make anything bad.
Yes, you're right Dark Knight. But if I think it's bad, then I won't enjoy the film as much. That's the problem.
It's all a matter of perspective. I also get the feeling some people are setting themselves up to be disappointed.
Don't get me wrong, I won't go into the movie with "Eisenberg will suck!" in mind. I hope he won't. But what I've seen so far does not convince me.
Interesting chatter on Lex Luthor around here as of late. Though at the same time, quite baffling as well. As it seems fairly obvious that the indifferent/unimpressed opinions of Eisenberg's Lex Luthor is that of the notion of how he's portrayed rather than any sort of context the trailer's have provided thus far. We've already seen clips of Eisenberg acting nefariously in the trailers. That's nothing new. Only now,, we've also seen Eisenberg do his best Conan O'Brien impression at a party (Conan really should do a skit of that scene for his show. He would OWN it!). Does that mean everyone's having a knee jerk reaction and thinking he's going to come across like that way thru the entire film? Of course not. That's too much of a generalization. We've already been shown enough footage that that's not going to happen. It really boils down to it being a really simple case of that particular choice of portraying Lex as unsatisfying or disappointing. Choose your poison.
The concept of framing Lex as an unlikable tech magnate by way of the new Silicon Valley magnates, sort of a comment on the tech industry and all that IS a different slant (though if you ask Hollywood, Trump would be seen as a much more plausible threat to a civil society than Zuckerbergs), Eisenberg's portrayal, thus far, comes across with zero gravitas, which I don't find it super-appealing. Hasn't worked very well with cinematic Victor Von Dooms so far, not convinced it'll work here either.
Quote from: The Joker on Sun, 6 Dec 2015, 07:54
Interesting chatter on Lex Luthor around here as of late. Though at the same time, quite baffling as well. As it seems fairly obvious that the indifferent/unimpressed opinions of Eisenberg's Lex Luthor is that of the notion of how he's portrayed rather than any sort of context the trailer's have provided thus far. We've already seen clips of Eisenberg acting nefariously in the trailers. That's nothing new. Only now,, we've also seen Eisenberg do his best Conan O'Brien impression at a party (Conan really should do a skit of that scene for his show. He would OWN it!). Does that mean everyone's having a knee jerk reaction and thinking he's going to come across like that way thru the entire film? Of course not. That's too much of a generalization. We've already been shown enough footage that that's not going to happen. It really boils down to it being a really simple case of that particular choice of portraying Lex as unsatisfying or disappointing. Choose your poison.
The concept of framing Lex as an unlikable tech magnate by way of the new Silicon Valley magnates, sort of a comment on the tech industry and all that IS a different slant (though if you ask Hollywood, Trump would be seen as a much more plausible threat to a civil society than Zuckerbergs), Eisenberg's portrayal, thus far, comes across with zero gravitas, which I don't find it super-appealing. Hasn't worked very well with cinematic Victor Von Dooms so far, not convinced it'll work here either.
Very good post in my opinion. We'll see what the finished film's Luthor looks like.
Quote from: The Joker on Sun, 6 Dec 2015, 07:54The concept of framing Lex as an unlikable tech magnate by way of the new Silicon Valley magnates, sort of a comment on the tech industry and all that IS a different slant (though if you ask Hollywood, Trump would be seen as a much more plausible threat to a civil society than Zuckerbergs), Eisenberg's portrayal, thus far, comes across with zero gravitas, which I don't find it super-appealing. Hasn't worked very well with cinematic Victor Von Dooms so far, not convinced it'll work here either.
I've made exactly the same point in bold in very robust, substantive terms on other forums.
Unfortunately, I had to restrain myself from making that point here, even though it is entirely in the context of a Batman movie and relates to creative choices (see and contrast/compare Trump's attitude to illegal aliens and building a wall, with Lex Luthor's similar extreme measures for tackling the 'illegal alien' problem), because of this site's politics embargo and the risk of offending certain posters on this site.
As a side-point, it's quite telling that some of the defenders of the new version of Luthor (i.e. the Zuckerberg-alike Luthor) are exactly the same type of people who would probably take offence at a more 'Trump-like' Luthor. :-\
I don't want to see Trump Luthor or Zuckerberg Luthor, I want Lex Luthor. :)
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 5 Dec 2015, 00:26
Do you think the The Dark Knight Returns is overrated, and often referred to as the be-all-end-all of comics? The reason why I ask is a lot of these skeptics towards the film surprisingly declare that they're not very fond of the Frank Miller story. Personally, I find it a stark contrast to when I first read it years ago; I thought it was overrated while it was acclaimed by the majority, but now I've grown to appreciate it - yet I see more people becoming critical of it.
I think it's a mixed bag, and the Bats/Supes fight was one of the things that didn't click for me.
Quote from: zDBZ on Sun, 6 Dec 2015, 13:04
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 5 Dec 2015, 00:26
Do you think the The Dark Knight Returns is overrated, and often referred to as the be-all-end-all of comics? The reason why I ask is a lot of these skeptics towards the film surprisingly declare that they're not very fond of the Frank Miller story. Personally, I find it a stark contrast to when I first read it years ago; I thought it was overrated while it was acclaimed by the majority, but now I've grown to appreciate it - yet I see more people becoming critical of it.
I think it's a mixed bag, and the Bats/Supes fight was one of the things that didn't click for me.
The Dark Knight Returns is very good. But not the best Batman story I've ever seen. I am glad Snyder is inspired by it, still.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sun, 6 Dec 2015, 12:27
I don't want to see Trump Luthor or Zuckerberg Luthor, I want Lex Luthor. :)
I don't want to see 'Trump Luthor' either, but it's simply a comparison.
I'd prefer to see a Luthor who was more the ruthless, steely, charismatic, alpha-male CEO than a geeky, nervy, cackling whizz-kid (hence the Trump v Zuckerberg comparison). We've already seen that type of villain numerous times before with Ed Nygma in Batman Forever and Aldrich Killian in Iron Man 3. It's funny, but comic-book filmmakers really seem to hate nerds. ;D Stupid really, considering that a large part of their demographic are nerds. :-\
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 6 Dec 2015, 14:07
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sun, 6 Dec 2015, 12:27
I don't want to see Trump Luthor or Zuckerberg Luthor, I want Lex Luthor. :)
I don't want to see 'Trump Luthor' either, but it's simply a comparison.
I'd prefer to see a Luthor who was more the ruthless, steely, charismatic, alpha-male CEO than a geeky, nervy, cackling whizz-kid (hence the Trump v Zuckerberg comparison). We've already seen that type of villain numerous times before with Ed Nygma in Batman Forever and Aldrich Killian in Iron Man 3. It's funny, but comic-book filmmakers really seem to hate nerds. ;D Stupid really, considering that a large part of their demographic are nerds. :-\
I don't disagree. I want more of 'President Luthor' than anything else.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sun, 6 Dec 2015, 14:57I don't disagree. I want more of 'President Luthor' than anything else.
Well, out of Trump and Eisenberg there's only one man standing for or ever likely to become President, hence my stated preference for a businessman/CEO type Luthor over the junior tech-whizz version. :-\
I don't see Lex Luthor as Trump or Zuckerberg, or Eisenberg so far :D but if you want to make that comparison, it's fine by me.
Lex Luthor is perhaps my favourite comic villain apart from The Joker. In some ways, I don't necessarily see him as a villain even though his methods are slimy. He's the perfect encapsulation of the power of words, glib charm and symbolism. Being a salesman. The ability to phrase an argument and tell a story.
Lex Luthor: Man of Steel is a solid representation of what makes the character great. He genuinely has a positive vision for Metropolis and the world. He wants people to see things like him, and it frustrates him when they don't. As such he's a man who thinks the end justifies the means. When he has a strong belief he will pursue it, even if it means lying, cheating and killing.
As for EisenLex, since this is the beginning of his arc, I'm sure we'll see him develop as the franchise goes on. As he begins to lose to Superman, I could see his personality turning darker. He's also going to lose his hair, for starters, moving towards the iconic look associated with the character.
My probably is not so much with how they're supposedly portraying this Lex, but more with the actor they have. Jesse Eisenberg is not a fan of the character and also a pretty awkward person around comic book fans. Surely he wasn't the only one available...
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 7 Dec 2015, 13:11
Lex Luthor is perhaps my favourite comic villain apart from The Joker. In some ways, I don't necessarily see him as a villain even though his methods are slimy. He's the perfect encapsulation of the power of words, glib charm and symbolism. Being a salesman. The ability to phrase an argument and tell a story.
Lex Luthor: Man of Steel is a solid representation of what makes the character great. He genuinely has a positive vision for Metropolis and the world. He wants people to see things like him, and it frustrates him when they don't. As such he's a man who thinks the end justifies the means. When he has a strong belief he will pursue it, even if it means lying, cheating and killing.
As for EisenLex, since this is the beginning of his arc, I'm sure we'll see him develop as the franchise goes on. As he begins to lose to Superman, I could see his personality turning darker. He's also going to lose his hair, for starters, moving towards the iconic look associated with the character.
Trust me, the issues that people have with Eisenberg's casting and apparent performance have absolutely nothing to do with the character's hair.
In fact, my favourite live-action Luther so far, and the only time I think the character has been done right by an actor (as enjoyable as Gene Hackman's version was), is John Shea in "The Adventures of Lois and Clark", and he sported nice looking hair for the first few seasons before going bald.
Also, Donald Trump's recent proposal for a Muslim Register is exactly like something an arch-comic-book villain would come up with. I'm not getting into politics here, or saying whether I personally think Trump is right or wrong. I'm just saying that a Muslim Register sounds very much like the Mutant Registration Act of the X-Men comic-books, hence why I am convinced that a Trump-like Luther would make for a much more timely, interesting and credible antagonist than a Zuckerberg type, especially bearing in mind the recent $45 billion contribution the latter made to charity (and I say that as someone who doesn't even particularly like Mark Zuckerberg).
Luthor was actually popular when he was President because, well, he IS really smart, and an excellent businessman. The point was that Superman had his worst enemy as President of the country that he stood for.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Mon, 7 Dec 2015, 17:33
Luthor was actually popular when he was President because, well, he IS really smart, and an excellent businessman. The point was that Superman had his worst enemy as President of the country that he stood for.
I know. :) And that is such a fascinating dynamic, and raises the stakes for Superman instead of just having him go up against an ordinary mortal with no super-powers. Instead he's going up against an ordinary mortal with no superpowers who also happens to be leader of the free world and thus the most powerful person on earth, with his own army to use as he chooses.
Also imagine how conflicted the public would be in terms of which icon to trust, Superman or the President? Superman would have to respect the electorate and be more canny in how he handled President Luthor.
Unfortunately, I cannot imagine nervy, geeky, stuttering whizz-kid 'EisenLex' ever becoming President, so there goes that potentially fascinating narrative, at least until the reboot. ::)
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 7 Dec 2015, 17:38
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Mon, 7 Dec 2015, 17:33
Luthor was actually popular when he was President because, well, he IS really smart, and an excellent businessman. The point was that Superman had his worst enemy as President of the country that he stood for.
I know. :) And that is such a fascinating dynamic, and raises the stakes for Superman instead of just having him go up against an ordinary mortal with no super-powers. Instead he's going up against an ordinary mortal with no superpowers who also happens to be leader of the free world and thus the most powerful person on earth, with his own army to use as he chooses.
Also imagine how conflicted the public would be in terms of which icon to trust, Superman or the President? Superman would have to respect the electorate and be more canny in how he handled President Luthor.
Unfortunately, I cannot imagine nervy, geeky, stuttering whizz-kid 'EisenLex' ever becoming President, so there goes that potentially fascinating narrative, at least until the reboot. ::)
Yeah. I know. That is my problem as well with this Edward Nygma-Killian wannabe ;D
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 7 Dec 2015, 13:11
Lex Luthor is perhaps my favourite comic villain apart from The Joker. In some ways, I don't necessarily see him as a villain even though his methods are slimy. He's the perfect encapsulation of the power of words, glib charm and symbolism. Being a salesman. The ability to phrase an argument and tell a story.
Lex Luthor: Man of Steel is a solid representation of what makes the character great. He genuinely has a positive vision for Metropolis and the world. He wants people to see things like him, and it frustrates him when they don't. As such he's a man who thinks the end justifies the means. When he has a strong belief he will pursue it, even if it means lying, cheating and killing.
I've gotten use to the idea of Luthor being a randian/kafkaesque villian; Lex Luthor, as a character, is really is one of the most talented and exceptional human beings out there in the DCU, both mentally and (more often than not) physically as well. All things considered, he would give Batman a run one on one, and would have been one of earth's greatest heros, but unfortunately looses it when Superman shows up. I agree
Lex Luthor: Man of Steel is one of the better modern Luthor stories out there, and also a personal favorite villain for me as well. The Joker, Lex Luthor, and Doc Ock are my top 3.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 7 Dec 2015, 17:18
In fact, my favourite live-action Luther so far, and the only time I think the character has been done right by an actor (as enjoyable as Gene Hackman's version was), is John Shea in "The Adventures of Lois and Clark", and he sported nice looking hair for the first few seasons before going bald.
If we're talking about television portrayals, I thought John Shea was a adequate Lex Luthor for television. It's notable that this was probably the first time viewers ever saw a more Post-Crisis John Byrne/Marv Wolfman version of the character in live action, but it's just unfortunate for Shea that Luthor's time as a regular antagonist on the show was cut short following the conclusion of Season 1, followed up with only some sporadic appearances here and there in subsequent seasons.
I can't say I've watched alot of
Smallville, but Michael Rosenbaum earnest portrayal was very significant as well. As I believe more people got familiar with a Lex that could be viewed as a more complex/interesting/sympathetic character. Which I thought was a nice blend of both the Pre-&-Post Crisis versions...
The Lex I wanted to see was the DCAU Clancy Brown version. The deep booming voice and imposing physique and the deep in his heart belief that he can go toe to toe with Superman and bend steel. I thought it would be a no brainer but I guess they had to change it up somehow. Whatever.
Quote from: Catwoman on Mon, 7 Dec 2015, 21:22
The Lex I wanted to see was the DCAU Clancy Brown version. The deep booming voice and imposing physique and the deep in his heart belief that he can go toe to toe with Superman and bend steel. I thought it would be a no brainer but I guess they had to change it up somehow. Whatever.
Hey, we finally agree on something. ;D
I'd definitely have preferred to see that version of Luthor as well. Like you say, a guy who is not just super-smart but is physically imposing and menacing too. Someone who is a bully to pretty much everyone but the one guy who can stop him, Superman.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 7 Dec 2015, 17:18
Also, Donald Trump's recent proposal for a Muslim Register is exactly like something an arch-comic-book villain would come up with.
You're trying to bait me, right?
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 04:08
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 7 Dec 2015, 17:18
Also, Donald Trump's recent proposal for a Muslim Register is exactly like something an arch-comic-book villain would come up with.
You're trying to bait me, right?
I think that's pretty obvious.
And I think that it should be up to Americans to vote for who will be the next President, and not for us from Europe to debate it to death.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 04:08
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 7 Dec 2015, 17:18
Also, Donald Trump's recent proposal for a Muslim Register is exactly like something an arch-comic-book villain would come up with.
You're trying to bait me, right?
No. Not at all.
I'm stating an honestly held belief that I have expressed elsewhere. It's just a shame that I have to be conscious of 'offending' some people here. ::)
And I did state that I wasn't making a judgment one way or another regarding what I thought of Trump's policies, but it doesn't take a genius to see the parallels between Trump's 'Muslim Register' and the X-Men comic-books' 'Mutant Registration Act'.
Quote from: Catwoman on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 08:31
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 04:08
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 7 Dec 2015, 17:18
Also, Donald Trump's recent proposal for a Muslim Register is exactly like something an arch-comic-book villain would come up with.
You're trying to bait me, right?
I think that's pretty obvious.
Indeed. I'll refrain from playing along. Because if I stated my honestly held belief here, unfiltered, you'd have people whinging and complaining to the point of meltdown.
In that case we should probably drop the whole Lex Luthor topic altogether because I find it impossible to discuss Luthor without addressing the elephant in the room, which is the parallels between Luthor running for President, my favourite version of the character, and certain Presidential hopefuls.
And if we are to drop discussing Luthor I suppose that makes discussing Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice redundant too.
Fine with me. I think the film looks rubbish anyway.
But if we are going to censor what people can and can't say about Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice it arguably makes the entire topic pointless to begin with.
It is your slant that Trump's proposal for a register on Muslims and a ban on their entry into the US is vile and the act of a villain. I'll argue the exact opposite and you'll lose the plot, PM Ral, demand the thread be shut down and that I be banned straight away. We've seen this behaviour from you before, so again, I'm not getting into this debate.
I mean, look at you right now. The toys are already out of the pram and I haven't even fired a shot. This version of Lex is not running for President, anyway.
I can see where you're going with the X-Men, Johnny, but you should have said that, because I don't see many similarities between Trump and someone like Lex Luthor. I think Trump is more like Senator Kelly, who became President in the animated series, and who wasn't all bad.
I would like to see this Lex get into politics at some stage, though. It will largely depend on how BvS ends.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 11:06
It is your slant that Trump's proposal for a register on Muslims and a ban on their entry into the US is vile and the act of a villain. I'll argue the exact opposite and you'll lose the plot, PM Ral, demand the thread be shut down and that I be banned straight away. We've seen this behaviour from you before, so again, I'm not getting into this debate.
I mean, look at you right now. The toys are already out of the pram and I haven't even fired a shot. This version of Lex is not running for President, anyway.
I didn't say it was the act of a villain.
But although I realise we're not allowed to discuss politics on this site, bear in mind one very important thing.
For all you, and certain other posters know, there could be Muslims who are members of this site. Likewise, any hate speech of any type, whether it discriminates against Muslims, Christians, Jews, Latinos, Asians, gays, straights, women, men, the disabled, black or white people, has the potential to make some posters here very uncomfortable, possibly because of their own identity.
That's all I have to say on the subject but please bear in mind that anything you or I, or any other poster here for that matter, may have the consequence of discriminating against and making certain minority posters feel alienated. And this site should be a welcome forum for all posters, no matter what their identity.
I'm sorry but I'm getting confused here: is this thread supposed to be about the upcoming Batman v Superman movie, or about politics?
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 11:09
I would like to see this Lex get into politics at some stage, though. It will largely depend on how BvS ends.
No way would anyone would ever vote for a geeky, nerdy, cackling, Zuckerberg-like Lex Luthor like this one. Never. As soon as Jesse 'Comic Con equals genocide' Eisenberg was cast, that potential narrative was thrown completely out of the window.
If you want to see a credible story in which Lex vies for President you better start hoping for a swift reboot.
Even in the movie universe, I could not see a guy like that running for President. But, if they make him go crazier and more ruthless, just maybe... I'm willing to watch the film open-minded and judge EisenLex properly then.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 11:17
Even in the movie universe, I could not see a guy like that running for President. But, if they make him go crazier and more ruthless, just maybe... I'm willing to watch the film open-minded and judge EisenLex properly then.
I'll reply to you, Edd.
I said at some stage. The mentality of reboots in the comic book genre is simplistic and unimaginative. It's clear Eisenberg's Lex is green at the moment. But he's surely capable of character growth. He could 'grow up' and become more of that Lex people seem to crave. I think the end of BvS will be key going forward. If his name is mud, or if he manages to spin his way out of things.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 11:17
Even in the movie universe, I could not see a guy like that running for President. But, if they make him go crazier and more ruthless, just maybe... I'm willing to watch the film open-minded and judge EisenLex properly then.
If they're not going to vote for such a guy when he's (relatively) calm and rational, I don't see how they'll vote for him when he's crazier and more ruthless.
There is absolutely NO precedent for a cackling, weedy, slightly effeminate nerd like Eisenberg's Luthor running for President or even becoming a prominent politician. It would be stretching credibility too far to portray him in this manner.
If the current DCEU is intending Luthor to be a one-shot villain, it's fair enough. But I really don't see how he'll have much mileage beyond Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.
Then again, practically every aspect of the DCEU so far has been utterly misconceived. Thank goodness Marvel and the MCU is still on their game. :)
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 11:22
But he's surely capable of character growth. He could 'grow up' and become more of that Lex people seem to crave.
Only if they cast a different actor, someone who can play more than a nerdy, nervy, awkward, stammering geek in every film.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 11:22
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 11:17
Even in the movie universe, I could not see a guy like that running for President. But, if they make him go crazier and more ruthless, just maybe... I'm willing to watch the film open-minded and judge EisenLex properly then.
I'll reply to you, Edd.
I said at some stage. The mentality of reboots in the comic book genre is simplistic and unimaginative. It's clear Eisenberg's Lex is green at the moment. But he's surely capable of character growth. He could 'grow up' and become more of that Lex people seem to crave. I think the end of BvS will be key going forward. If his name is mud, or if he manages to spin his way out of things.
Maybe. I don't take anything for granted either before seeing the film, even if I hope for the best.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 11:23
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 11:17
Even in the movie universe, I could not see a guy like that running for President. But, if they make him go crazier and more ruthless, just maybe... I'm willing to watch the film open-minded and judge EisenLex properly then.
If they're not going to vote for such a guy when he's (relatively) calm and rational, I don't see how they'll vote for him when he's crazier and more ruthless.
There is absolutely NO precedent for a cackling, weedy, slightly effeminate nerd like Eisenberg's Luthor running for President or even becoming a prominent politician. It would be stretching credibility too far to portray him in this manner.
If the current DCEU is intending Luthor to be a one-shot villain, it's fair enough. But I really don't see how he'll have much mileage beyond Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.
Then again, practically every aspect of the DCEU so far has been utterly misconceived. Thank goodness Marvel and the MCU is still on their game. :)
I don't think comic books are meant to be really credible. But fair enough. Like I said, I am a fan of the MCU and the 90's toons, and an even bigger fan of DC Comics and DCAU. And once again, I don't like Eisenberg in the role, more than anything else. ::)
I'm going to drop the references to Trump and his politics.
But I still stand by my main point: Jesse Eisenberg is completely the wrong fit for Lex Luthor. And his 'Comic Con equals genocide' comments and his disdain for comic-books hardly helps his case.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 11:30
I'm going to drop the references to Trump and his politics.
But I still stand by my main point: Jesse Eisenberg is completely the wrong fit for Lex Luthor. And his 'Comic Con equals genocide' comments and his disdain for comic-books hardly helps his case.
I don't like Eisenberg at all so far, but I won't go into the movie with "He sucks!"in mind, that's all.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 11:27
Maybe. I don't take anything for granted either before seeing the film, even if I hope for the best.
Very well. I respect the fact you're open minded about future possibilities with this Lex.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 11:32
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 11:27
Maybe. I don't take anything for granted either before seeing the film, even if I hope for the best.
Very well. I respect the fact you're open minded about future possibilities with this Lex.
Well, we oughtta think about the future. I want the DCEU to be to best thing since 1992 and Batman Returns and Batman TAS.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 11:30
I'm going to drop the references to Trump and his politics.
But I still stand by my main point: Jesse Eisenberg is completely the wrong fit for Lex Luthor. And his 'Comic Con equals genocide' comments and his disdain for comic-books hardly helps his case.
Yeah if it had been me or TDK that brought him up and mentioned him as much as you have and gave our own opinion on him you'd be running to Ral wanting us banned and posts deleted and giving us a ten post moral lecture. You've done it before you f***ing hypocrite. You can spin it however you want but we know exactly what your intentions were by bringing it up. So you're a liar (and not a very good one) on top of being an ignorant piece of sh*t.
Good job baiting us into saying something though. Now we'd be in more trouble with Ral than you should be. I guess Momma was right. Don't get in a pissing match with a skunk. You'll end up smelling as bad as he does.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 11:35
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 11:32
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 11:27
Maybe. I don't take anything for granted either before seeing the film, even if I hope for the best.
Very well. I respect the fact you're open minded about future possibilities with this Lex.
Well, we oughtta think about the future. I want the DCEU to be to best thing since 1992 and Batman Returns and Batman TAS.
I'm with y'all, not really on board with this version of Lex but I'll take an open mind in there. Maybe he'll shock us with a great performance that gives us a good version of Lex. I just hope we don't have Nolanite-type fanboys giving him the "definitive" label (I still say the DCAU version has that title at least over the last couple decades) like they did with a certain grungy anarchist with really bad hygiene back in 2008....
Quote from: Catwoman on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 18:50
Yeah if it had been me or TDK that brought him up and mentioned him as much as you have and gave our own opinion on him you'd be running to Ral wanting us banned and posts deleted and giving us a ten post moral lecture. You've done it before you f***ing hypocrite. You can spin it however you want but we know exactly what your intentions were by bringing it up. So you're a liar (and not a very good one) on top of being an ignorant piece of sh*t.
Good job baiting us into saying something though. Now we'd be in more trouble with Ral than you should be. I guess Momma was right. Don't get in a pissing match with a skunk. You'll end up smelling as bad as he does.
Don't you dare try to provoke me.
After a certain would-be world leader's frankly RACIST and borderline NAZI-like statements, you have got a f***ing nerve trying to assume the higher moral ground.
And speaking as someone who actually lives in an knows London I can state as a FACT that there are no areas in London that police officers are afraid to enter because of radicalisation. I think it's very important for me, speaking as someone who knows the FACTS in this instance to point out where a certain individual is not telling the truth.
The funniest thing about this is your assumption that he is even my candidate. Newsflash, he isn't.
Anyway, this sh*t's gone on long enough. Between the repeating over and over how bad you think the movie is going to be and your political baiting (you telling me not to provoke you? hilarious) maybe you should move on. Run along, Pepe le Pew, the humans are talking.
Warnings issued. Chill.
Back on topic.
"...she with you?"
"I thought she was with you."
;D
This is going to be so freaking sweeeeeeet.
As annoying as "Lex's" interruption of the conversation between Bruce and Clark is, up to that point the fire that is starting to build up between them (not the good kind), ug. It's just a trailer and I'm as drawn into it as if it was March and I was in the movie theater. I love that Bruce is already well aware of Superman AND Clark Kent when Clark is totally ignorant of Bruce. I guess being the Man of Steel gives him the option to not really know who he's dealing with, which is probably why Batman is the far more interesting character. He HAS to know his enemy either out of necessity or obsession. I totally get why Superman has his devotees but I'll keep treading on the darker side ;)
What do people think of Affleck's Bat voice?
Let's say I'm not crazy about the voice, but it could have been worse.
And I think Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot and Henry Cavill will do great as our heroes.
The voice is ok. Its obvious Bale inspiration is a little offputting but so far it's ok.
Quote from: Catwoman on Wed, 9 Dec 2015, 04:44
The voice is ok. Its obvious Bale inspiration is a little offputting but so far it's ok.
Conroy and only Conroy. Adam West and Keaton and Kilmer weren't half bad, and Bale in BB was okay. Clooney was all Clooney, all the time. Lol.
And yeah, I know Kevin was the voice, but he was the best. Same as Mark Hamill for Joker. :)
I think the voice is fine.
I'm liking the voice. I prefer it to Bale's in any case.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 9 Dec 2015, 04:36
And I think Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot and Henry Cavill will do great as our heroes.
I'm sold on Affleck and Cavill. I'm not sure about Gadot yet. I'll have to see more.
Quote from: Catwoman on Tue, 8 Dec 2015, 21:24The funniest thing about this is your assumption that he is even my candidate. Newsflash, he isn't.
Anyway, this sh*t's gone on long enough. Between the repeating over and over how bad you think the movie is going to be and your political baiting (you telling me not to provoke you? hilarious) maybe you should move on. Run along, Pepe le Pew, the humans are talking.
Again? Why is this something that needs to happen? Insulting isn't necessary. I know you all can be better than this.
God bless you all! God bless everyone!
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 9 Dec 2015, 08:17
I'm liking the voice. I prefer it to Bale's in any case.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 9 Dec 2015, 04:36
And I think Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot and Henry Cavill will do great as our heroes.
I'm sold on Affleck and Cavill. I'm not sure about Gadot yet. I'll have to see more.
Gadot in the trailers looked very good for me, and while I wasn't sure of her casting at first, while I was open to Ben Affleck's and I liked MoS and Cavill, I'm on board for all three.
There's no concern about her looks - more so her acting. We haven't seen her say anything in the trailers yet.
True. But I am less concerned about her acting in this film, since she won't be exactly the main character until her solo film.
Time will tell.
She definitely looks the part so far. Like Edd said, her acting won't be a huge issue til her movie unless she's just....bad. lol
Gotta give some love to my man Jeremy Irons as Alfred. I'd like to actually give him some.... ;)
I'll have to get used to the Batman voice. It's still better than Bale's (and hell, probably would've made more sense in that trilogy), but I'll always prefer the Keaton/Kilmer approach.
Might just be me but Affleck's Wayne seems to be channeling a bit of mumbling Josh Brolin here.
Eisenberg seems way more hammy here than in the previous trailer. Odd acting choices in the scene where he interrupts Clark and Bruce.
I think it's still too premature to judge Affleck's Batman voice. The line where he says "It's time to learn what it means to be a man" sounds modulated and it's likely because he's wearing the armored suit during the fight against Superman. The way he spoke in that other line about Wonder Woman sounds more natural, but again, none of these are enough to tell if his voice will sound acceptable or not.
I may not be convinced by Eisenberg's Lex yet, but I smirked when he said "That's a three syllable word for any thought too big for little minds" as soon as Lois called him psychotic, and then he condescendingly patted her forehead with a fingertip. :D
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 10 Dec 2015, 09:10
I may not be convinced by Eisenberg's Lex yet, but I smirked when he said "That's a three syllable word for any thought too big for little minds" as soon as Lois called him psychotic, and then he condescendingly patted her forehead with a fingertip. :D
I actually did like that part.
Quote from: Catwoman on Thu, 10 Dec 2015, 12:27
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 10 Dec 2015, 09:10
I may not be convinced by Eisenberg's Lex yet, but I smirked when he said "That's a three syllable word for any thought too big for little minds" as soon as Lois called him psychotic, and then he condescendingly patted her forehead with a fingertip. :D
I actually did like that part.
Yeah, so he may not be the ruthless Lex from the DCAU, but he shows signs of being the evil genius. I hope they know what they're doing with him, even if I still dislike that Jesse guy.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Thu, 10 Dec 2015, 15:05
Quote from: Catwoman on Thu, 10 Dec 2015, 12:27
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 10 Dec 2015, 09:10
I may not be convinced by Eisenberg's Lex yet, but I smirked when he said "That's a three syllable word for any thought too big for little minds" as soon as Lois called him psychotic, and then he condescendingly patted her forehead with a fingertip. :D
I actually did like that part.
Yeah, so he may not be the ruthless Lex from the DCAU, but he shows signs of being the evil genius. I hope they know what they're doing with him, even if I still dislike that Jesse guy.
I get that he rubbed people the wrong way with those unfluttering comments he made about Comic Con, but there have been other actors who have made negative comments about the genre they starred in. Alec Guinness thought Star Wars was crappy sci-fi and even Heath Ledger expressed his distaste for superhero movies when he was cast as the Joker. But as long as the performance is good, nobody cares...right? :/
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 11 Dec 2015, 07:33
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Thu, 10 Dec 2015, 15:05
Quote from: Catwoman on Thu, 10 Dec 2015, 12:27
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 10 Dec 2015, 09:10
I may not be convinced by Eisenberg's Lex yet, but I smirked when he said "That's a three syllable word for any thought too big for little minds" as soon as Lois called him psychotic, and then he condescendingly patted her forehead with a fingertip. :D
I actually did like that part.
Yeah, so he may not be the ruthless Lex from the DCAU, but he shows signs of being the evil genius. I hope they know what they're doing with him, even if I still dislike that Jesse guy.
I get that he rubbed people the wrong way with those unfluttering comments he made about Comic Con, but there have been other actors who have made negative comments about the genre they starred in. Alec Guinness thought Star Wars was crappy sci-fi and even Heath Ledger expressed his distaste for superhero movies when he was cast as the Joker. But as long as the performance is good, nobody cares...right? :/
I care. :) But yeah, if the performance is good, like Guiness, I've nothing against the actor in the role. Ledger on the other hand, I respect him and his work, but he was not my Joker.
I don't recall Guinness or Ledger ever knocking the sci-fi and comic-book movie genres' fans the way Eisenberg did, and like Edd says, it's ultimately all about the performance, and so far many of us remain very sceptical about what we've seen of Eisenberg's Lex.
Guiness hated Star Wars and Star Wars fans. But I find no fault in his film performance. So, yes.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 11 Dec 2015, 08:42
Guiness hated Star Wars and Star Wars fans. But I find no fault in his film performance. So, yes.
Are you sure he hated the fans?
Oh well, he's still one of my favourite actors of all time, and at least he treated the material with respect in terms of his actual performance across the three original films, even if he secretly viewed it with contempt.
He did. It's a true story that when a boy went to him asking for an autograph, and told him that he watched the 1977 film a big number of times, Guinness replied that he'll give him an autograph if he promises to never watch the movies again.
Again, his performance as Obi-Wan was awesome, and a standard for all Jedi IMHO.
OK, off topic end for now. :)
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 11 Dec 2015, 09:10
He did. It's a true story that when a boy went to him asking for an autograph, and told him that he watched the 1977 film a big number of times, Guinness replied that he'll give him an autograph if he promises to never watch the movies again.
That's kind of funny. ;D
Although I am a fan of the Star Wars films I'm not a die-hard fanboy, and I kind of respect Guinness for saying that.
Yeah, but he also wanted nothing to do with the films that he made, which is funny to me. ;D
I always got the idea Guiness was a little creeped out by the fans. I don't think he disliked them so much as he found them a little freaky.
Some of them could have been. I was not around then, but I can imagine.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 12 Dec 2015, 16:54Some of them could have been. I was not around then, but I can imagine.
I think if Guiness could've interacted with the modern Star Wars fan, he might not have been so weirded out. But unfortunately he had to contend with Star Wars as the zeitgeist of culture. It was bigger and more ubiquitous in 1977 than the Matrix was in 1999. I can see where the experience might have caused discomfort.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 12 Dec 2015, 18:06
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 12 Dec 2015, 16:54Some of them could have been. I was not around then, but I can imagine.
I think if Guiness could've interacted with the modern Star Wars fan, he might not have been so weirded out. But unfortunately he had to contend with Star Wars as the zeitgeist of culture. It was bigger and more ubiquitous in 1977 than the Matrix was in 1999. I can see where the experience might have caused discomfort.
Some people online said that if you were born after 1977, you are a baby and unimportant as a movie fan, or something like that. ;D
;D
That's nice. I'd like to think of myself as still a baby. ;D
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 12 Dec 2015, 18:38
;D
That's nice. I'd like to think of myself as still a baby. ;D
If you're a baby, then what am I? A baby bat? ;)
I read a story about Alec Guinness and a fan encounter just before he died years back. He apparently met this fan who told him he had literally seen Star Wars something like 180 times or more in one whole year. Guinness' response was to say "I pray you never see it again...whereupon the gentleman burst into tears!" lol No idea if it's true but they were his accounts.
I've seen "Batman" and "Batman Returns" many times, but I think that if I watched either of them 180 times, I would be reciting the dialogue in my sleep...
But it is interesting to know just how highly people though of the first movie especially, and many still do, that they say Star Wars is dead to them now... meaning, the films to follow.
Sir Alec apparently hated his dialogue and thought it was completely ridiculous compared to what he was used to during his time, so I guess it makes sense he would think we're all a bunch of idiots lol. I read that the guy who played Wedge feels the same way. Maybe it's a Scottish thing......someone ask Ewan McGregor, quick! lol
Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 12 Dec 2015, 23:52Maybe it's a Scottish thing......someone ask Ewan McGregor, quick! lol
I read somewhere that he's volunteered his services as Obi-Wan if Disney needs him.
Obi-Wan and Padme' were my favorite characters in the prequels... although I've not seen McGregor in any other film, and Natalie Portman in like, two or three others.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 11 Dec 2015, 07:41
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 11 Dec 2015, 07:33
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Thu, 10 Dec 2015, 15:05
Quote from: Catwoman on Thu, 10 Dec 2015, 12:27
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 10 Dec 2015, 09:10
I may not be convinced by Eisenberg's Lex yet, but I smirked when he said "That's a three syllable word for any thought too big for little minds" as soon as Lois called him psychotic, and then he condescendingly patted her forehead with a fingertip. :D
I actually did like that part.
Yeah, so he may not be the ruthless Lex from the DCAU, but he shows signs of being the evil genius. I hope they know what they're doing with him, even if I still dislike that Jesse guy.
I get that he rubbed people the wrong way with those unfluttering comments he made about Comic Con, but there have been other actors who have made negative comments about the genre they starred in. Alec Guinness thought Star Wars was crappy sci-fi and even Heath Ledger expressed his distaste for superhero movies when he was cast as the Joker. But as long as the performance is good, nobody cares...right? :/
I care. :) But yeah, if the performance is good, like Guiness, I've nothing against the actor in the role. Ledger on the other hand, I respect him and his work, but he was not my Joker.
Ledger expressed his love for Jack Nicholson and Burton's films. Which is to be expected, I guess, but nonetheless, he was on the record praising the past. Even though I prefer Jack's Joker, I do find myself tipping my hat to Ledger's performance. Overhyped or not, I admit to being nostalgic about that era of marketing. I don't remember B89's hype, which by all accounts even bigger. But TDK was a perfect storm. BB was well received, people were excited by the trailers, the viral marketing was on point, the Joker was back and then the actor died. The film then became even more of an event, a memorial to a young man's life. And that's now seven years ago.
To me, Nicholson was quintessential, while Ledger was just one aspect of the Joker, but of course not to be underappreciated.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 13 Dec 2015, 08:45
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 11 Dec 2015, 07:41
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 11 Dec 2015, 07:33
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Thu, 10 Dec 2015, 15:05
Quote from: Catwoman on Thu, 10 Dec 2015, 12:27
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 10 Dec 2015, 09:10
I may not be convinced by Eisenberg's Lex yet, but I smirked when he said "That's a three syllable word for any thought too big for little minds" as soon as Lois called him psychotic, and then he condescendingly patted her forehead with a fingertip. :D
I actually did like that part.
Yeah, so he may not be the ruthless Lex from the DCAU, but he shows signs of being the evil genius. I hope they know what they're doing with him, even if I still dislike that Jesse guy.
I get that he rubbed people the wrong way with those unfluttering comments he made about Comic Con, but there have been other actors who have made negative comments about the genre they starred in. Alec Guinness thought Star Wars was crappy sci-fi and even Heath Ledger expressed his distaste for superhero movies when he was cast as the Joker. But as long as the performance is good, nobody cares...right? :/
I care. :) But yeah, if the performance is good, like Guiness, I've nothing against the actor in the role. Ledger on the other hand, I respect him and his work, but he was not my Joker.
Ledger expressed his love for Jack Nicholson and Burton's films. Which is to be expected, I guess, but nonetheless, he was on the record praising the past. Even though I prefer Jack's Joker, I do find myself tipping my hat to Ledger's performance. Overhyped or not, I admit to being nostalgic about that era of marketing. I don't remember B89's hype, which by all accounts even bigger. But TDK was a perfect storm. BB was well received, people were excited by the trailers, the viral marketing was on point, the Joker was back and then the actor died. The film then became even more of an event, a memorial to a young man's life. And that's now seven years ago.
Ledger praised the Burton film's? So what did he say about them?
I can watch him no problem as The Joker but there is always a certain kind of magic missing there for me.
And I was put off by the makeup in Ledger too. Definitely not a fan of that visually.
The thing about Ledger's portrayal, is that, evidently, it was a performance that really mesmerized alot of people to which his performance still draws no end of praise from fans who are very, very infatuated with Ledger's interpretation of the Joker as well as the film itself. In that, Ledger did his job marvelously. I do recall reading some interview with Ledger shortly upon accepting the role, and his stating something to the effect of doing something different with the character, cause attempting to follow-up on Jack's performance as the Joker would be an automatic fail on Ledger...
Quote from: The Joker on Sun, 13 Dec 2015, 15:09
The thing about Ledger's portrayal, is that, evidently, it was a performance that really mesmerized alot of people to which his performance still draws no end of praise from fans who are very, very infatuated with Ledger's interpretation of the Joker as well as the film itself. In that, Ledger did his job marvelously. I do recall reading some interview with Ledger shortly upon accepting the role, and his stating something to the effect of doing something different with the character, cause attempting to follow-up on Jack's performance as the Joker would be an automatic fail on Ledger...
That is true, when it comes to preference, everyone has reasons, that are mostly subjective, and nothing wrong with that. :) Not every discussion has to be a debate of sorts.
With all the references made to the Joker in these trailers, I would honestly be a little surprised if he doesn't appear in a cameo during the film.
Meanwhile, here are three new character posters for the good guys.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets1.ignimgs.com%2F2015%2F12%2F16%2Fwwjpg-19bb22_765w.jpg&hash=4763239ef51cdb670182e63b7e50eb5b3a916b2f)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets1.ignimgs.com%2F2015%2F12%2F16%2Fsmjpg-c73519_765w.jpg&hash=9cf868326060a56f11d5e1ef4845561532f1cf47)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets1.ignimgs.com%2F2015%2F12%2F16%2Fbmjpg-19bb21_765w.jpg&hash=6fb36233a55a0ffab4d26b89f1fe573eb184acdb)
Source: http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/12/16/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-characters-posters-revealed
Gal and Henry look great on the poster. Batman looks like Robocop+Iron Man.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Thu, 17 Dec 2015, 09:15
Gal and Henry look great on the poster.
I was going to say the exact same thing lol.
;)
Quote from: Catwoman on Thu, 17 Dec 2015, 09:33
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Thu, 17 Dec 2015, 09:15
Gal and Henry look great on the poster.
I was going to say the exact same thing lol.
;)
That's not surprising, love. :-*
Hehehe
This is what Ben Affleck said of Batman's personality in this interview.
Quote"He lives that life at full tilt," Affleck said. "He courts many women, owns many cars, and parties a lot. He does that as a way to fill the void in his soul. Moreover, past incarnations dealt with a straightforward search for justice. This time, Batman's reasoning is clouded by frustration, bitterness and anger."
Affleck also spoke to the character's superhero side and how his take differs from Nolan's trilogy, assuring fans the new Batman remains true to the comics. "Christopher Nolan used his Batman to tell a finite story. My version is different, but remains faithful to the Batman mythology and all the themes associated with it," he explained.
Source: http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/12/19/batman-v-superman-ben-afflecks-bruce-wayne-has-a-void-in-his-soul
So, it sounds like we will be seeing even more of Bruce's playboy persona than ever before, perhaps initially to move on from his troubled life as Batman. My guess is he had been dedicated in his crusade for so long that he decides to enjoy his billionaire lifestyle for once...until the whole Superman ordeal comes along. This only fuels speculation that Bruce had retired up till this point, I reckon.
Meanwhile, Henry Cavill says that his Clark Kent will be rather quiet and more nondescript than Christopher Reeve's disguise.
QuoteMy Clark Kent is trying to be as small and invisible as possible. If you're awkward and spilling things constantly, people are going to notice you, and that's not the best way to go unseen. You have to admit, it's not a remarkable disguise, just a pair of glasses. He'd like to think that no one will believe he could be Superman. How could such a delicate flower be a living god? Preposterous.
Source: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/How-Henry-Cavill-Improved-Christopher-Reeves-Clark-Kent-According-Henry-Cavill-100877.html
(https://media.giphy.com/media/8vpeyWA3OWOhG/giphy.gif)
I rather appreciate Cavill's approach. He's totally right. Clark Kent should be able to blend in anywhere he goes. Nobody should ever even remember that he's there half the time. Mild-mannered. The guy is supposed to be forgettable.
Is it only me, or did that Cinema Blend headline I sourced before tried to make Cavill sound like he was disrespecting Reeve's Clark Kent interpretation?
And I can't believe people like that writer still don't know how to spell Reeve's surname correctly. It's Reeve, not Reeves!
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 20 Dec 2015, 07:34
And I can't believe people like that writer still don't know how to spell Reeve's surname correctly. It's Reeve, not Reeves!
On the posters in my country, they spelled his name "Revee" . True story.
I so love the quotes by Ben and Henry. I keep getting more and more excited. Christmas will be 3 months from the opening. Can. Not. Wait.
As much as I'm a Batman girl at heart (and explained why earlier in this thread) I find that I do have feelings for Supes when the character is talked about. I of course love the original with Christopher Reeve and I liked Man of Steel, and Tim Daly's animated version was great too. I just find that he's a bit self righteous when it comes to the Bat and that carries to a lot of his fanboys which is irritating. Heavy-handed holier than thou attitudes just irk me.
I am excited for all DC characters to appear, but most of all Batman and Wonder Woman in the near future, and I like Man of Steel too and the Reeve films and the DCAU.
I liked what I saw of Cavill's Clark in the trailer. Low key, as Cavill suggests, but nonetheless a man with strong opinions and a particular outlook of the world. Just as strong as Bruce in his own way, with his silent glare showing he's not going to back down either. I'm a Batman guy, I make not secret of that. And Affleck has me excited. But I have to admit I'm becoming very eager for Superman's live action depiction with Cavill now carving out a future for the character.
Quote
Henry Cavill Says Dawn of Justice Doesn't Intentionally Address Man of Steel Criticism
When Man of Steel was released, the divide was clear. Many were enthusiastic about the film, others were eager to point out flaws. Even critically the film was divided, sitting at 56% on Rotten Tomatoes. Some of the Man of Steel criticism leveled at the film even influenced the way Marvel Studios made last year's Avengers: Age of Ultron, which spent quite a bit of time showing the heroes actively saving civilians on screen, though the destruction levels remained off the charts.
Now comes Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, the follow-up to the 2013 film and the real kick start of the DCEU on film. It became clear in the second trailer for the film that the destruction of Metropolis would be a focal point of the sequel, but speaking with Cineplex, Henry Cavill claims that "Dawn of Justice" doesn't intentionally address the Man of Steel criticism.
"The reception of my first Superman movie, from what I've read, was fairly mixed," Cavill says. "Everyone I've spoken to enjoyed the movie, but [not] unlike if you're going to meet a stranger in the street, they're not going to badmouth you to your face. There's no intentional move, I don't think, in Batman v Superman to address any issues that people had with Man of Steel. It's just a continuation of that storyline and they continue to develop that world and introduce new characters."
Cavill went on to reveal that he thinks people may look down on characters like Superman, but assures fans he gets a lot to do in Batman v Superman.
"I think maybe people may look down on some popular-culture stuff, but they're actually very complicated and interesting characters. Superman especially, he's just wonderfully rich and one of those things, for me, that's just enjoyable to play. There's so far you can go with it; if you really, really delve deep into the character, there's so much you can do. It's just about exploring it within the vehicles and finding what you want to do. He's going to have some very interesting character development in this one."
Fearing the actions of a god-like Super Hero left unchecked, Gotham City's own formidable, forceful vigilante takes on Metropolis's most revered, modern-day savior, while the world wrestles with what sort of hero it really needs. And with Batman and Superman at war with one another, a new threat quickly arises, putting mankind in greater danger than it's ever known before.
Directed by Zack Snyder and written by Chris Terrio from a screenplay by David S. Goyer, Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice stars Henry Cavill in the role of Clark Kent/Superman and Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman. The film also stars Gal Gadot as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman, with Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne and Diane Lane returning from Man of Steel, joined by Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor, Jeremy Irons as Alfred, and Holly Hunter in a role newly created for the film. Jason Momoa will also be making an appearance as Aquaman.
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/644547-henry-cavill-says-dawn-of-justice-doesnt-intentionally-address-man-of-steel-criticism#LDjxOAP8GTKVm3fD.99
I wonder if people will complain that Superman will have too much character development in this movie, as opposed to allegedly having little to none in MOS. It's bizarre of course, but you never know with some people.
One thing you can definitely noticed with Cavill's Clark Kent/Superman in the trailers is how assertive he is. He's not afraid to express his opinion about Batman being a pest.
I really enjoyed Man of Steel except for the end battle that leveled that whole part of Metropolis. I like Henry's version of Superman even if I'm not a huge fan of the character (I like him when I watch him but I don't seek him out like I do with the Bat) and I'm really excited to see how he develops. I think he's in for some hard lessons in this movie, courtesy of Batman, courtesy of Lex, courtesy of Wonder Woman, and so on. I think the same goes for Batman. They're both going to have to learn and grow beyond what they know and what they think they know, which I can see this Batman resenting a bit like most of the good versions would.
One thing I hope that happens is they're not chummy chummy buddy buddy at the end of this. It's their first round together, let that draw out a bit before you have them being close like in Public Enemies (which I love but is obviously deep into their relationship). I think this movie should (and probably will) end with them having something of a grudging respect and a realization that they're on the same side, but not exactly friends. That should come later. Make sense? lol.
Quote from: Catwoman on Thu, 7 Jan 2016, 08:45
One thing I hope that happens is they're not chummy chummy buddy buddy at the end of this. It's their first round together, let that draw out a bit before you have them being close like in Public Enemies (which I love but is obviously deep into their relationship). I think this movie should (and probably will) end with them having something of a grudging respect and a realization that they're on the same side, but not exactly friends. That should come later. Make sense? lol.
Yes, it does make sense. Some comics I've read fit that description perfectly. In chapter three of the 1986 Man of Steel comic reboot, Superman comes looking for Batman with the intention of bringing him to the police, but he ends up working with Batman to stop a violent thief instead. Superman didn't quite appreciate Batman's way of doing things along the way, but the respect was there.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fifanboy.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F06%2FMan-of-Steel-3-1986-2.jpg&hash=4e19b44322b4420ddf33a75763c620bae1389546)
In the under-rated Batman & Superman: World's Finest (1999), Superman and Batman got off to a very tense start, where they didn't even begin to have a friendship until seven years after they met. Before that, they agreed to work together once a year on the anniversary where a friend of theirs got killed despite stopping his psychotic kidnapper. As you can see in the screenshot below, Superman was completely out of touch with what Batman is capable of and how dangerous Gotham City is. Much to our beloved Caped Crusader's annoyance.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdSkWYKx.jpg&hash=7b0edb82c04cb030c474fee69c0923359d948120)
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 7 Jan 2016, 08:13I wonder if people will complain that Superman will have too much character development in this movie, as opposed to allegedly having little to none in MOS. It's bizarre of course, but you never know with some people.
Wow, really? Guess I missed people saying that. Honestly most of the anti-MOS hysteria comes from butt-hurt fans of Donner and/or Reeve who are all mad because their version just went the way of the dodo. Their opposition is less about MOS and more about their personal preferences. At least in my observation.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 7 Jan 2016, 08:13One thing you can definitely noticed with Cavill's Clark Kent/Superman in the trailers is how assertive he is. He's not afraid to express his opinion about Batman being a pest.
I rather like that, m'self. Clark has a beef against Batman and Bruce has one with Superman.
If you
must play Batman and Superman as virtual adversaries, to me it makes sense to frame their conflict as an ideological clash. Heroes in the Marvel universe beat each other senseless all the time. But if it happens in the DC universe, there needs to be a cause for it. Looks like Snyder and co. have found one. I appreciate this.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 7 Jan 2016, 09:33
Quote from: Catwoman on Thu, 7 Jan 2016, 08:45
One thing I hope that happens is they're not chummy chummy buddy buddy at the end of this. It's their first round together, let that draw out a bit before you have them being close like in Public Enemies (which I love but is obviously deep into their relationship). I think this movie should (and probably will) end with them having something of a grudging respect and a realization that they're on the same side, but not exactly friends. That should come later. Make sense? lol.
Yes, it does make sense. Some comics I've read fit that description perfectly. In chapter three of the 1986 Man of Steel comic reboot, Superman comes looking for Batman with the intention of bringing him to the police, but he ends up working with Batman to stop a violent thief instead. Superman didn't quite appreciate Batman's way of doing things along the way, but the respect was there.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fifanboy.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F06%2FMan-of-Steel-3-1986-2.jpg&hash=4e19b44322b4420ddf33a75763c620bae1389546)
In the under-rated Batman & Superman: World's Finest (1999), Superman and Batman got off to a very tense start, where they didn't even begin to have a friendship until seven years after they met. Before that, they agreed to work together once a year on the anniversary where a friend of theirs got killed despite stopping his psychotic kidnapper. As you can see in the screenshot below, Superman was completely out of touch with what Batman is capable of and how dangerous Gotham City is. Much to our beloved Caped Crusader's annoyance.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdSkWYKx.jpg&hash=7b0edb82c04cb030c474fee69c0923359d948120)
Those were cool. I especially loved Batman's argument against being a public guy.
I guess at that point they wouldn't have known one another's identities but if they did I would have preferred how in private moments they call one another "Bruce" and "Clark."
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 8 Jan 2016, 21:55
Wow, really? Guess I missed people saying that. Honestly most of the anti-MOS hysteria comes from butt-hurt fans of Donner and/or Reeve who are all mad because their version just went the way of the dodo. Their opposition is less about MOS and more about their personal preferences. At least in my observation.
I've been reading people giving their opinions on garbage dumps like Comic Book Movie and Superhero Hype. Although to be fair, I've noticed that more people on SH are beginning to appreciate MOS nowadays.
The most common complaint I've read from these forums is that Superman is too reactive, and never becomes his own man. And you know what is so funny about this? These people praise Batman Begins, despite the fact that the same criticism can easily be applied to that movie too! Of course, the same thing can certainly be said of Superman 78 too, but I notice that people love to compare MOS to BB because of Nolan and Goyer's involvement.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the criticisms toward Clark's reactive nature is fair because most of all live action media (never mind the comics I've read) never show him growing up with the intention to become a hero without any guidance from the Kents or his biological parents. In contrast, Bruce Wayne in BB doesn't become fully aware of how corrupt Gotham is until Rachel brought it up, and only begins a journey to explore the world of crime because Falcone taunted him that he'll never understand it. And from there, he ends up meeting Ra's al Ghul to train him and Lucius Fox much later. To me, this is a massive departure of the comics because the original backstory was simple - Bruce swore an oath to fight crime in Gotham for the rest of his life to honour his dead parents; using his personal tragedy as a motivation to keep his city as safe as he can.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 8 Jan 2016, 21:55
If you must play Batman and Superman as virtual adversaries, to me it makes sense to frame their conflict as an ideological clash. Heroes in the Marvel universe beat each other senseless all the time. But if it happens in the DC universe, there needs to be a cause for it. Looks like Snyder and co. have found one. I appreciate this.
Another common complaint I see from people is that they'd rather see a team-up movie more than a Dark Knight Returns-style beat-up. But I don't quite understand that either because the two will eventually team-up.
Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 8 Jan 2016, 23:12
Those were cool. I especially loved Batman's argument against being a public guy.
I guess at that point they wouldn't have known one another's identities but if they did I would have preferred how in private moments they call one another "Bruce" and "Clark."
Right again. They didn't even know what their backstories were until four years later, when they stopped a gang from Metropolis trying to take over territory in Gotham, as well as dealing with the Metropolis-based vigilante Thorn, who wanted to kill the gangsters. When Batman mentioned his surprise that a "bright and sunny" place like Metropolis could create somebody as dark as Thorn, Superman assumes how anything tragic could have happened to make her vengeful and asks Batman if something like that happened to him too. Of course, Batman halfheartedly answers and suggests he might tell him the story one day. ;)
This is something I expect to see in Batman and Superman's friendship for this new DC film series. If not this upcoming film, it has to be somewhere down the line in the future.
I never had a big problem with MoS, actually. I don't think the "criticism" of the film on the internet is very objective.
I love the Chris. Reeve films, but I didn't expect or demand to see another Superman film like those. MoS worked well for me.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 01:27I've been reading people giving their opinions on garbage dumps like Comic Book Movie and Superhero Hype. Although to be fair, I've noticed that more people on SH are beginning to appreciate MOS nowadays.
I'm no expert on CBM but SHH is a known Singer suckfest site. Their core membership may have changed in the last ten years but in 2006 and 2007, they were one of the major pro-Singer Superman websites to be found anywhere. It eventually came out that a few members had conspired with a mod to provoke anti-Superman Returns types into a foaming rage, they'd do something ban-worthy and then the mod would dutifully ban them.
How petty is that? But it happened.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 01:27The most common complaint I've read from these forums is that Superman is too reactive, and never becomes his own man. And you know what is so funny about this? These people praise Batman Begins, despite the fact that the same criticism can easily be applied to that movie too! Of course, the same thing can certainly be said of Superman 78 too, but I notice that people love to compare MOS to BB because of Nolan and Goyer's involvement.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the criticisms toward Clark's reactive nature is fair because most of all live action media (never mind the comics I've read) never show him growing up with the intention to become a hero without any guidance from the Kents or his biological parents. In contrast, Bruce Wayne in BB doesn't become fully aware of how corrupt Gotham is until Rachel brought it up, and only begins a journey to explore the world of crime because Falcone taunted him that he'll never understand it. And from there, he ends up meeting Ra's al Ghul to train him and Lucius Fox much later. To me, this is a massive departure of the comics because the original backstory was simple - Bruce swore an oath to fight crime in Gotham for the rest of his life to honour his dead parents; using his personal tragedy as a motivation to keep his city as safe as he can.
It's an incomprehensible criticism to begin with. Every character in every movie reacts to what's happening around them.
The entire thrust of MOS is Clark is operating on-the-sly so that he can use his powers to help without really and truly going public. That itself is
action rather than reaction.
And S78 has all kinds of double standards going for it. For example, if
ANY other version of Superman had this big, triumphal moment where Clark finally dons the full Superman outfit... and gets immediately interrupted and made fun of by a pimp, people would burn that thing in effigy. "But, dude, that's
SUCH a classic moment from Superman- The Movie!" Indeed it is. But, again, no other adaptation of Superman would dare try something like that. Fans would riot. But S78 gets a free pass because something something Williams theme. It's just retarded.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 01:27Another common complaint I see from people is that they'd rather see a team-up movie more than a Dark Knight Returns-style beat-up. But I don't quite understand that either because the two will eventually team-up.
That, plus word 'round the water cooler is Superman wins the fight. It's only "close" because he doesn't really fight back much... just like in TDKR, where Superman worked Bruce into a heart attack while barely lifting a finger. It's a brief thing and the rest of the movie either builds up to that moment or moves on to something else after that moment. If that's true, I'm okay with it.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 02:56
I'm no expert on CBM but SHH is a known Singer suckfest site. Their core membership may have changed in the last ten years but in 2006 and 2007, they were one of the major pro-Singer Superman websites to be found anywhere. It eventually came out that a few members had conspired with a mod to provoke anti-Superman Returns types into a foaming rage, they'd do something ban-worthy and then the mod would dutifully ban them.
How petty is that? But it happened.
It does come across as a very cliquey forum. From what I've heard, Batman-On-Film is exactly the same.
Speaking of which, I heard that the head of BOF is now suddenly in favour of Batman co-starring in a Justice League film after spending a long time arguing against it. How convenient.
CBM is a place where man-children go and provoke each other by starting Marvel vs DC flame wars, make sexist remarks towards women and mistake their opinions as facts. They're the same trolls who think a movie is good because it grossed this amount of money at the BO, and how big its Rotten Tomatoes score is. Worse than SH. And that site was often cited in online articles when its members were making offensive remarks against Shailene Woodley for being cast as Mary-Jane in TASM2. Pigs.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 02:56
It's an incomprehensible criticism to begin with. Every character in every movie reacts to what's happening around them.
Indeed.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 02:56
The entire thrust of MOS is Clark is operating on-the-sly so that he can use his powers to help without really and truly going public. That itself is action rather than reaction.
The way you describe that reminds me of John Byrne's MOS mini-series. I recall a scene where the Kents used to keep a newspaper scrapbook archiving Clark's heroics around Smallville while he was keeping a low profile. Although unlike the film, the comic had Clark revealing himself to everyone in Metropolis when he rescued Lois from a crashing spaceship. The closest we got to that kind of scene in the film was Clark rescuing that group of oil rig workers, but it's not the same.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 02:56
That, plus word 'round the water cooler is Superman wins the fight. It's only "close" because he doesn't really fight back much... just like in TDKR, where Superman worked Bruce into a heart attack while barely lifting a finger. It's a brief thing and the rest of the movie either builds up to that moment or moves on to something else after that moment. If that's true, I'm okay with it.
Interesting. We'll see if this is true. How will this go down with people? Will they complain that Superman is too powerful, or use that an excuse to attack Affleck's portrayal?
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 03:49It does come across as a very cliquey forum. From what I've heard, Batman-On-Film is exactly the same.
Were I in a charitable mood, I'd let it go on the grounds that Jett isn't here to defend himself.
I'm not in a charitable mood.
Yeah, BOF is pretty much full of Jett's hangers-on and other lapdogs. It may have improved since the Nolan franchise ended... but I doubt it. That bunch bear a huge amount of responsibility for Nolan fans having such a lousy reputation online. If you don't mind a police state where you obey your Glorious Supreme Leader or else you'll get sent to a re-education center.
Around here if you're not a jerk Paul will probably leave you alone because he has better things to do.
It's just a completely different culture over there, dude. I don't recommend it. To anybody. Ever.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 03:49Speaking of which, I heard that the head of BOF is now suddenly in favour of Batman co-starring in a Justice League film after spending a long time arguing against it. How convenient.
Hadn't heard that, actually. Not surprising though. If there was a cause for which he wasn't willing to shill himself, I never heard of it.
Don't misunderstand me, in his place I'd sell out so fast it'd make your head spin. But what I wouldn't do is pretend I was an independent fansite anymore. He does. That's the difference.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 03:49Interesting. We'll see if this is true. How will this go down with people? Will they complain that Superman is too powerful, or use that an excuse to attack Affleck's portrayal?
Fault will be found. Lacking that it will be created. We both know this.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 04:52Were I in a charitable mood, I'd let it go on the grounds that Jett isn't here to defend himself.
I'm not in a charitable mood.
Yeah, BOF is pretty much full of Jett's hangers-on and other lapdogs. It may have improved since the Nolan franchise ended... but I doubt it. That bunch bear a huge amount of responsibility for Nolan fans having such a lousy reputation online. If you don't mind a police state where you obey your Glorious Supreme Leader or else you'll get sent to a re-education center.
Around here if you're not a jerk Paul will probably leave you alone because he has better things to do.
It's just a completely different culture over there, dude. I don't recommend it. To anybody. Ever.
Every side of the fandom has their less than kind apples.
QuoteFault will be found. Lacking that it will be created. We both know this.
I don't know what Affleck has to do with it. He didn't write the character that I know of.
QuoteIt's an incomprehensible criticism to begin with. Every character in every movie reacts to what's happening around them.
The entire thrust of MOS is Clark is operating on-the-sly so that he can use his powers to help without really and truly going public. That itself is action rather than reaction.
And S78 has all kinds of double standards going for it. For example, if ANY other version of Superman had this big, triumphal moment where Clark finally dons the full Superman outfit... and gets immediately interrupted and made fun of by a pimp, people would burn that thing in effigy. "But, dude, that's SUCH a classic moment from Superman- The Movie!" Indeed it is. But, again, no other adaptation of Superman would dare try something like that. Fans would riot. But S78 gets a free pass because something something Williams theme. It's just retarded.
That's a little unkind, don't you think?
QuoteThat, plus word 'round the water cooler is Superman wins the fight. It's only "close" because he doesn't really fight back much... just like in TDKR, where Superman worked Bruce into a heart attack while barely lifting a finger. It's a brief thing and the rest of the movie either builds up to that moment or moves on to something else after that moment. If that's true, I'm okay with it.
I'm not sure about the comic, but the impression I got from the movie was that that was faked.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 7 Jan 2016, 08:13One thing you can definitely noticed with Cavill's Clark Kent/Superman in the trailers is how assertive he is. He's not afraid to express his opinion about Batman being a pest.
The problem is that the guy who is complaining about Batman being scary in the trailer is also the guy that is a superpowered alien that fought another superpowered through alien through buildings, collapsing, but Batman is the the one who is scary because he brands criminals.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 8 Jan 2016, 21:55Wow, really? Guess I missed people saying that. Honestly most of the anti-MOS hysteria comes from butt-hurt fans of Donner and/or Reeve who are all mad because their version just went the way of the dodo. Their opposition is less about MOS and more about their personal preferences. At least in my observation.
I'm not really a fan of the Donner movies and I don't like MOS. I don't like it because the characters are either thinly written, driven by theme or both.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 01:27I've been reading people giving their opinions on garbage dumps like Comic Book Movie and Superhero Hype. Although to be fair, I've noticed that more people on SH are beginning to appreciate MOS nowadays.
The most common complaint I've read from these forums is that Superman is too reactive, and never becomes his own man. And you know what is so funny about this? These people praise Batman Begins, despite the fact that the same criticism can easily be applied to that movie too! Of course, the same thing can certainly be said of Superman 78 too, but I notice that people love to compare MOS to BB because of Nolan and Goyer's involvement.
Hardly. Bruce is active in the movie. He starts out without the desire to be a hero and reacts to what he's told. But his actions aren't based on what he's told to do, but what he's told he's not. Really, every character is reactive if you use that approach. Clark in MOS, though this isn't really a problem I have with the movie, seeks someone to tell him what he should do several times and does it. He becomes Superman because live action Jor-El AI#3 tells him to put on the suit and become that. He asks the priest what he should do and does what he tells him. Jor-El AI tells him how to defeat Zod and he does. Jonathan tells him not to save him and he doesn't. Even him killing Zod is something that happens because Zod refuses to stop otherwise. At least Batman made the choice the leave Ra's there, although it wasn't really a good thing to do. Clark isn't like this throughout the whole movie yes, but it's still something that happens a lot. But my problem is it's characters are either kinda bland and empty or make choices based on theme or both. Also, that the movie makes big deals about things and then doesn't pay them off.
QuoteCorrect me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the criticisms toward Clark's reactive nature is fair because most of all live action media (never mind the comics I've read) never show him growing up with the intention to become a hero without any guidance from the Kents or his biological parents. In contrast, Bruce Wayne in BB doesn't become fully aware of how corrupt Gotham is until Rachel brought it up, and only begins a journey to explore the world of crime because Falcone taunted him that he'll never understand it. And from there, he ends up meeting Ra's al Ghul to train him and Lucius Fox much later. To me, this is a massive departure of the comics because the original backstory was simple - Bruce swore an oath to fight crime in Gotham for the rest of his life to honour his dead parents; using his personal tragedy as a motivation to keep his city as safe as he can.
And that's all good. It's not a big deal and presents an interesting idea for the character in the movie, where Bruce is more interested in revenge at first, but realizes at the end that that was wrong. Bruce had already had a lot of training. He already had a goal of fighting criminals though. Ra's just gave him the more fear based tactics theatrical approach he would use. The idea of being taunted about never understanding what it really means to be desperate is actually interesting. I like the idea of Bruce Wayne forcing himself to be a starving alone living on the streets thief so he could understand the kind of environment that creates criminals.
QuoteAnother common complaint I see from people is that they'd rather see a team-up movie more than a Dark Knight Returns-style beat-up. But I don't quite understand that either because the two will eventually team-up.
I would prefer a team up without a beat up personally.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
To be completely honest, I haven't thought about Jett or BoF for a very long time.
I prefer this place, obviously, and Batman-News seems okay to me.
I only visit this forum and IMDb for Batman discussion, and I don't check the BvS board on the latter site.
And on Facebook there are other pages, but the opinions are quite divided and I've no real interest in joining another group. Needless to say I prefer Batman-Online.
Y'all make me glad I've never discovered this "other world" of fans lol. Everyone here, well, for the most part everyone here is really intelligent and fun to talk to. From the sounds of it I'd be banned in like 2 hours from BOF or whatever it's called.
I actually think I remember that site coming up in a discussion during the 20th anniversary celebration of the first Batman (which was when I first joined here) and I thought of going over there and doing my best annoying Ice Princess-type character impression just to be annoying and acting dumb. Which I did a lot of here too for a while since playing cutesy and dumb was more fun (at the time) than trying to be smart and intelligent and showing I knew what I was talking about. Which I think most of y'all probably still think I'm just cutesy and dumb and have no clue what I'm talking about. lol. I don't feel like I get taken very seriously, but that's another argument for another day.
Don't ever go to the other world, then.
We are the light of this fandom. 8)
Quote from: Max Shreck on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 18:29
Don't ever go to the other world, then.
We are the light of this fandom. 8)
Some of you are lit
True, true, but being a darksider, there aren't many things to set me alight...except too much power. ;) ;)
I don't think Superman in this movie will be the "boy scout" we all know, nor will Batman be lenient. SO, no wonder that they're both seen as dangerous by quite a few people in high places, the right climate for a man like Lex to pose as a savior.
New 30 sec TV spot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUN0F5wKbGE
Quote from: Travesty on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 22:43
New 30 sec TV spot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUN0F5wKbGE
So...that robotic voice
is how Batman normally speaks after all. I thought it was only enhanced when he wore that armor for the Superman fight.
A little bit disappointed right now.
I hate to say this but... I expected that about the voice. :-X
Quote from: Max Shreck on Sun, 10 Jan 2016, 01:56
I hate to say this but... I expected that about the voice. :-X
I have been warning you guys... :-\
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 10 Jan 2016, 01:04
Quote from: Travesty on Sat, 9 Jan 2016, 22:43
New 30 sec TV spot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUN0F5wKbGE
So...that robotic voice is how Batman normally speaks after all. I thought it was only enhanced when he wore that armor for the Superman fight.
A little bit disappointed right now.
That's how I felt after the "I thought she was with you" line in the previous trailer.
Still, I like it way better than the last voice we got.
Yes, BatmAngelus, but it's not really the voice I imagined for Batman either. Oh, well. Maybe it won't take too much about from the Batfleck experience.
I think it's an improvement. At least it allows Affleck to speak in an even tone without having the growl reaching ridiculous levels.
It's ok I guess.
The RC car sound of the Bat-buggy though.....ugh. Why can't we go back to Batmobile that looked and sounded cool. Damn you whoever came up with the freaking Tumbler.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 10 Jan 2016, 06:33
I think it's an improvement. At least it allows Affleck to speak in an even tone without having the growl reaching ridiculous levels.
What are the odds that Affleck will growl in some scenes? I hope not. It wasn't intimidating the last three times we saw Batman in live action.
Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 10 Jan 2016, 08:56
It's ok I guess.
The RC car sound of the Bat-buggy though.....ugh. Why can't we go back to Batmobile that looked and sounded cool. Damn you whoever came up with the freaking Tumbler.
I thought the new Batmobile was growing on you? I'm still rather indifferent to it. Don't hate it, nor like it.
It was until I heard it sounds like a freaking RC car.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 10 Jan 2016, 09:41
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 10 Jan 2016, 06:33
I think it's an improvement. At least it allows Affleck to speak in an even tone without having the growl reaching ridiculous levels.
What are the odds that Affleck will growl in some scenes? I hope not. It wasn't intimidating the last three times we saw Batman in live action.
We kind of hear his angry voice when he says "that SOB brought the war to us." To my ears it's a mix of Keaton and Bale. On the whispery side but modulated to sound more aggressive.
As for the vehicle's engine, it's not my favourite, but it's okay. Perhaps the 'wind up toy' sound is deliberate? That the car has been around for a long time. It has seen and done a lot and is barely holding together. An old war horse that keeps on keeping on. I could get on board with that.
I think the voice is alright. I'm not in love with it, but I don't hate it, either. I still think Conroy has the best, while Keaton has the best live action voice. But I much prefer this to Bale's. With this, it's purposefully modulated like in Arrow. So we know that there's a gadget working to make that sound. With Bale's, not only was he straining his voice, but his voice was modulated, even though we're not supposed to think it's modulated, even though it is. And it sounded like sh*t, on top of it. So with Affleck's voice, it's not bad. I'm definitely not rolling my eyes with how laughably bad it is compared to Bale's.
As far as the Batmoible goes, I like it a lot. I like the overall design, and think it looks good in motion.
The voice is not terrible, but I was hoping for more Keaton and Conroy and less Bale in it.
The Batmobile is again better than the last, but not as good as the classics.
However I feel Affleck can really play Batman, those elements aside.
Here's a video of the new Batvoice, and it's all isolated. I gotta say, the more I hear it, the more I like it. But again, I still prefer a natural voice like Conroy or Keaton, but this is growing on me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXM0brV8q-w
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 10 Jan 2016, 17:26
As for the vehicle's engine, it's not my favourite, but it's okay. Perhaps the 'wind up toy' sound is deliberate? That the car has been around for a long time. It has seen and done a lot and is barely holding together. An old war horse that keeps on keeping on. I could get on board with that.
It looks a bit newer than that, and if it sounded like a wind-up toy because of being old and worn out I would think Alfred would have pushed it off one of the Batcave cliffs by now and whistled when Bruce walked by. Besides, my experience with older cars is they still keep their rumbling sound as long as they're taken care of. This is Batman, not some moron who doesn't know the first thing about a car and drives it until it stops one day without maintenance. He would keep his equipment in order, especially his car. It just sounds ridiculously...weak.
The look of it is ok I guess. Yes it looks "cool" I suppose but to me a Batmobile is supposed to be like a vehicle metaphor for the Bat himself. An ordinary man packing a TON of gadgets and power and know how and made to look like a Bat. To me, the car should be an actual car that carries a lot of gadgets, technology, and so forth and is given the Bat look. Something like what, oh, maybe George Barris or Anton Furst would have come up with.
And I know I'm really nitpicking cause it's JUST a car but the Batmobile is a VERY important part of the Bat mythos to this high-octane Kitty. lol. Looks like this one gets destroyed anyway so it doesn't really matter.
It doesn't get destroyed, but damaged and repaired by all accounts.
You say the car is a metaphor to Batman himself, and I'm sticking to my 'old soldier' theory. By all accounts that's what Affleck's Batman is. An old soldier. The car looks on the newer side but I'm assuming they're using artistic licence with the engine's sound to convey that very vibe. Just as Affleck's Batman suit gives the appearance of perfection, but underneath he's living on the edge of burnout, and not as perfect as you think.
If they are trying to convey worn out they missed the mark. I wouldn't drive the 2 miles to the grocery store in something that sounded like that, much less fight crime lol.
Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 10 Jan 2016, 23:44Here's a video of the new Batvoice, and it's all isolated. I gotta say, the more I hear it, the more I like it. But again, I still prefer a natural voice like Conroy or Keaton, but this is growing on me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXM0brV8q-w
Nice find! I've been an advocate for Bruce using a harmonizer as his Batman voice for something like ten years now. So this is a nice little vindication for me.
Now all the next Batman director needs to do is adopt my other suggestions for Batman's costume and we'll be ready to go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T802ywNiYA
HAHAHAHA
Quote from: Catwoman on Mon, 11 Jan 2016, 21:20
If they are trying to convey worn out they missed the mark. I wouldn't drive the 2 miles to the grocery store in something that sounded like that, much less fight crime lol.
I can argue the case for practically anything given my mood at any given time. At the moment I'm liking the new car, suit and movie in general. But you never know. The wind may change and tomorrow I could be Affleck and Snyder's worst enemy. We'll just have to see.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 12 Jan 2016, 18:43
Quote from: Catwoman on Mon, 11 Jan 2016, 21:20
If they are trying to convey worn out they missed the mark. I wouldn't drive the 2 miles to the grocery store in something that sounded like that, much less fight crime lol.
I can argue the case for practically anything given my mood at any given time. At the moment I'm liking the new car, suit and movie in general. But you never know. The wind may change and tomorrow I could be Affleck and Snyder's worst enemy. We'll just have to see.
I may be your worst enemy if you keep trying to tell me that thing sounds cool. lol.
The look has grown on me a lot, especially after I bought the Hot Wheels of it. And I guess the RC car version I may or may not buy will at least sound authentic. :P
I just found Waldo in that weird version of that trailer. ;D
Meanwhile, this 'journalist' (and I use the term loosely) conveniently ignored Henry Cavill saying the word
"intentionally" when he was asked if BvS addresses the fallout from events in MOS. Why? So she could spin both movies in a negative light. ::) ::)
Quote
Henry Cavill says 'Batman v Superman' won't fix problems from 'Man of Steel'
WRITTEN BY KAITLIN MILLER POSTED: 01/07/2016, 07:56AM
Fans optimistic that "Batman v Superman" will address fans' issues with 2013′s "Man of Steel," don't hold your breath.
In an interview with Cineplex, chiseled actor Henry Cavill discussed fans' disappointment over Zack Snyder's directorial choices and the depiction of the Last Son of Kypton in the stand-alone Superman flick.
He said:
"The reception of my first Superman movie, from what I've read, was fairly mixed. Everyone I've spoken to enjoyed the movie, but [not] unlike if you're going to meet a stranger in the street, they're not going to badmouth you to your face. There's no intentional move, I don't think, in Batman v. Superman to address any issues that people had with Man of Steel. It's just a continuation of that storyline and they continue to develop that world and introduce new characters."
Basically, prepare yourself for mass destruction, civilian casualties and the grimmest, least-vibrant onscreen Superman yet.
Despite catching wind of some of the hate the film got, Cavill is still behind Snyder's vision of Superman:
"I think maybe people may look down on some popular-culture stuff, but they're actually very complicated and interesting characters. Superman especially, he's just wonderfully rich and one of those things, for me, that's just enjoyable to play. He's going to have some very interesting character development in this one."
"Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" will either pleasantly surprise or let down fans March 25.
http://national.suntimes.com/national-entertainment/7/72/2393347/henry-cavill-batman-v-superman-wrong-problems-man-of-steel
As the Joker says in BTAS, what a maroon!
Putting that petty stupidity aside, the part where we see the Bat symbol branded on the crook's chest in the trailers reminds me of Zorro slicing the letter Z on his enemies. It makes sense since Bob Kane cited Zorro as an inspiration when he created Batman, and in this film, it might be possible that the last film that Bruce watched with his parents had a deep psychological impact on him.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 13 Jan 2016, 11:36I just found Waldo in that weird version of that trailer. ;D
Meanwhile, this 'journalist' (and I use the term loosely) conveniently ignored Henry Cavill saying the word "intentionally" when he was asked if BvS addresses the fallout from events in MOS. Why? So she could spin both movies in a negative light. ::) ::)
http://national.suntimes.com/national-entertainment/7/72/2393347/henry-cavill-batman-v-superman-wrong-problems-man-of-steel
As the Joker says in BTAS, what a maroon!
Putting that petty stupidity aside, the part where we see the Bat symbol branded on the crook's chest in the trailers reminds me of Zorro slicing the letter Z on his enemies. It makes sense since Bob Kane cited Zorro as an inspiration when he created Batman, and in this film, it might be possible that the last film that Bruce watched with his parents had a deep psychological impact on him.
Why is insulting that person a response that you give over a movie? That person didn't do anything to you. Please, please be better than that. I'm sure you can be.
Intention is really a key issue here though. If the movie was made without the intention of addressing the issues with the movie, then it leaves a hole in it. There's a reason why in life things are viewed with intention. If you don't intend to kill someone, it's manslaughter, if you did, it's murder. The movie may address the issues unintentionally, but that makes it less direct. It takes away from the weight of the movie. It's one of the reasons why when people say Batman & Robin is a bad movie, they're aren't really correct. The movie was purposefully made to be the way that people bash it for and the reasons they bash it are mainly things they don't like, not really factual reasons. The movie wasn't made poorly. It was made purposefully.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 13 Jan 2016, 14:27
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 13 Jan 2016, 11:36I just found Waldo in that weird version of that trailer. ;D
Meanwhile, this 'journalist' (and I use the term loosely) conveniently ignored Henry Cavill saying the word "intentionally" when he was asked if BvS addresses the fallout from events in MOS. Why? So she could spin both movies in a negative light. ::) ::)
http://national.suntimes.com/national-entertainment/7/72/2393347/henry-cavill-batman-v-superman-wrong-problems-man-of-steel
As the Joker says in BTAS, what a maroon!
Putting that petty stupidity aside, the part where we see the Bat symbol branded on the crook's chest in the trailers reminds me of Zorro slicing the letter Z on his enemies. It makes sense since Bob Kane cited Zorro as an inspiration when he created Batman, and in this film, it might be possible that the last film that Bruce watched with his parents had a deep psychological impact on him.
Why is insulting that person a response that you give over a movie? That person didn't do anything to you. Please, please be better than that. I'm sure you can be.
Quit trying to be this site's moral compass. You're not. I've seen you try this crap with two or three people now, me being one of them. Stop it.
I didn't notice a Zorro similarity until someone brought it up on the internet. But yes, it works.
And Dangespear, the problem with B&R wasn't the intention as much as that it wasn't sure what it wanted to be. It didn't try to be as campy as the 60's Batman, which I loved, it did have serious moments in-between. And while Uma Thurman really enjoyed herself, Arnold did the movie more harm than good, as did George Clooney in my opinion.
I have no further comments on MoS.
Quote from: Catwoman on Wed, 13 Jan 2016, 15:36Quit trying to be this site's moral compass. You're not. I've seen you try this crap with two or three people now, me being one of them. Stop it.
I'm not a moral compass at all. That's absolutely true. In my past I have far worse things to my own family. But that doesn't mean that I have to accept someone being insulted over a movie. It's not right whether I or anyone else does it.
Quote from: Max Shreck on Wed, 13 Jan 2016, 15:47And Dangespear, the problem with B&R wasn't the intention as much as that it wasn't sure what it wanted to be. It didn't try to be as campy as the 60's Batman, which I loved, it did have serious moments in-between. And while Uma Thurman really enjoyed herself, Arnold did the movie more harm than good, as did George Clooney in my opinion.
I don't see how.
God bless you both! God bless everyone!
Then we disagree. End of story.
Back to B. v S now. ;D
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 13 Jan 2016, 11:36
Putting that petty stupidity aside, the part where we see the Bat symbol branded on the crook's chest in the trailers reminds me of Zorro slicing the letter Z on his enemies. It makes sense since Bob Kane cited Zorro as an inspiration when he created Batman, and in this film, it might be possible that the last film that Bruce watched with his parents had a deep psychological impact on him.
Interesting thought. I think it would be a nice touch if Batman gave a grin similar to Keaton during the marking scene. Showing that he relishes the act of meting out justice. Also similar to the extreme brutality of All Star Batman and Robin. But allowing for character growth as this Batman develops throughout the new timeline. The effect of Superman on his life. Being dark and mean, but perhaps not so sadistic.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 13 Jan 2016, 19:45
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 13 Jan 2016, 11:36
Putting that petty stupidity aside, the part where we see the Bat symbol branded on the crook's chest in the trailers reminds me of Zorro slicing the letter Z on his enemies. It makes sense since Bob Kane cited Zorro as an inspiration when he created Batman, and in this film, it might be possible that the last film that Bruce watched with his parents had a deep psychological impact on him.
Interesting thought. I think it would be a nice touch if Batman gave a grin similar to Keaton during the marking scene. Showing that he relishes the act of meting out justice. Also similar to the extreme brutality of All Star Batman and Robin. But allowing for character growth as this Batman develops throughout the new timeline. The effect of Superman on his life. Being dark and mean, but perhaps not so sadistic.
That would be excellent if it were true, TDK. We'll see if it turns out similar to that.
http://www.gamespresso.com/2016/01/08/spoiler-alert-zack-snyder-hates-spoilers-and-talks-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-trailer/
I've always felts that there is far more to the movie than what we have seen in the trailers. Remember Charles Roven said that there could possibly be a cut of the movie that approaches 4 hours? If that's the case, we should really get to know the characters and the world they live in.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 13 Jan 2016, 11:36
I just found Waldo in that weird version of that trailer. ;D
Whereeeeeeeeeeeeee? I just tried and couldn't find him. I always sucked at those lol.
Quote from: Catwoman on Thu, 14 Jan 2016, 13:47
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 13 Jan 2016, 11:36
I just found Waldo in that weird version of that trailer. ;D
Whereeeeeeeeeeeeee? I just tried and couldn't find him. I always sucked at those lol.
Pause it at 2:00 where Batman is in the desert. You can see Waldo in the far left corner. 8)
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 14 Jan 2016, 14:10
Quote from: Catwoman on Thu, 14 Jan 2016, 13:47
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 13 Jan 2016, 11:36
I just found Waldo in that weird version of that trailer. ;D
Whereeeeeeeeeeeeee? I just tried and couldn't find him. I always sucked at those lol.
Pause it at 2:00 where Batman is in the desert. You can see Waldo in the far left corner. 8)
Found him!
lol
I've had a few too many Guinnesses, so what I type here may or may not be coherent.
John Williams has a great Superman theme. We all know it, and we are told this all the time. But you know what? We are allowed to like other Superman themes, and others actually exist. So here's my revolutionary comment.
I prefer Hans Zimmer's Superman soundtrack.
Are you spitting out your coffee, or whatever is in your mouth yet?
For me, Zimmer managed to capture different moods of the character in more interesting ways. In 'Earth', we have a humble tune which, to my ears anyway, conveys Clark's country boy upbringing. I can easily visualise him sitting out on a verandah, looking at the stars and yearning for a better tomorrow. I think it's great. Williams never touched upon this rural aspect of the character.
Zimmer also paid tribute to the Americana of Superman in the first half of 'Flight'. It's a hopeful tune and to me, says this man hails from the USA with again, elements of rural upbringing.
'Oil Rig' for some may represent the worst of Zimmer. Loud, aggressive drumming, but hey, that's something Williams didn't touch on. The raw, undiluted power of the character strutting his stuff.
The Clark Kent theme, the piano notes, works well for me too. It's simple and humble. Humbleness is a big part of the character. The contemplative aspect of Clark. What he has gone through in his life before suiting up, and the troubles he still encounters while out and about saving people.
That rising notes we hear in 'Look to the Stars' is simple but to me sounds so right. It seemed to gel with me to the point I could've swore I'd heard it before. But it was all new. Interesting too that this rising note forumula was also used by Zimmer for Batman, but here he creates the opposite mood.
And now we're at the main theme. Sure, we all know Williams has a magnificent theme. We don't need to say it again, do we? But Zimmer did fine with his. The piano notes are there are it morphs into a soaring series of notes. The ending part of the theme also conveys to me moods the Williams theme lacked, other than just being heroic and uplifting. The sound of yearning, and that yes, the dream of a united world may yet still be possible.
So that's my case for Zimmer's Superman score. I enjoy it more than his Batman soundtracks.
To me it's not a case of either/or. It comes down to tone and intent.
The Williams hero theme was basically supposed to communicate the majesty and grandeur of Superman in a fictional world that was nevertheless every bit as affected by Vietnam, Nixon, Watergate and all that stuff. What I've always taken from the Williams theme is an underlying sentimentality intended specifically to Americans. Star Wars was a universal experience but I think STM was something more specifically aimed at (or at least embraced by) Americans. We'd been through a lot and now we had one of our most familiar icons smiling broadly and living up to every ideal we ever had. It was like a voice telling America "You need to dream again." That isn't to say non-Americans can't or shouldn't appreciate STM. I just happen to think it was encouraging at a time to us when my country needed encouragement.
There's this idea that the Williams hero theme can be applied to any version of Superman and it will always match perfectly. I find that to be untrue. Every Superman hero theme matches the tone and style of whatever movie or TV show for which it was intended. But they don't work as well when they're paired up with anything else.
The Zimmer theme is uniquely Zimmer with the thundering drums and whatnot. But what separates it from the Williams theme is that it ultimately represents Kal accepting his place as a strange fusion between the Kryptonian people and the human race. He's not Kryptonian and he's not human. He's both and yet he's somehow more. That's what the Zimmer theme means to me. It's Kal transcending both Kryptonian and human limitations and embracing a third option- Superman. In so doing, it's supposed to show audiences that Superman doesn't have to be "made" cool. He already is cool.
STM is, intentionally or not, a cultural shot in the arm, a booster injection of Americana. MOS is about the more universal value of wanting to transcend your ordinary limitations and become more than you've been up to now. Both of their hero themes play into those ideas heavily.
As to the remainder of the Williams score, this may be blasphemy to some but I think Ken Thorne took a lot of those themes in more logical and creative directions in Superman II and III. STM's score is enjoyable and a bona fide classic. I'd never say otherwise. But from a creative standpoint, I think Thorne just took those ideas further.
For example, Thorne took the Williams The Planet Krypton theme and made it almost a villainous piece.
As to the remainder of the Zimmer score, I enjoy it. But it doesn't have as many recognizable themes and they're usually not interwoven into other tracks. Zimmer has a composition we could loosely call Superman's Hero Theme and he drops that in periodically but there's no real variation. It's not a theme in the more universal sense; it's a composition that he either uses or doesn't use.
I really enjoyed the Krypton-oriented Zimmer music. It simultaneously has an alien feel to it with a kinda sorta churchy quality going with the choir stuff. Very enjoyable. It reinforces what Goyer and Snyder were shooting for in making Krypton a truly alien civilization. Krypton isn't a more futuristic Earth; they're motivated by and governed by a different set of philosophies and values.
If you were supposed to be drunk TDK, have no fear. It was an insightful post.
I still like the Williams score, but I believe Zimmer's music is appropriate for a modern era and gets the adrenaline pumping. I found his MOS score way more exciting and memorable than his original Batman stuff, which I found to be dull. Except for the Bane theme. I hope Zimmer will come up with a much better theme for Batman in his second try.
You can definitely tell that the MOS music takes a lot of different emotional cues e.g. the poignant piano playing to convey Clark's sense of loneliness, yet it feels warm at the same time because of his parents trying to look after him. The Kryptonian theme is very sci-fi, as it should be. And whether you like it or not, the drumming conveys how high the stakes are.
Quote
As to the remainder of the Williams score, this may be blasphemy to some but I think Ken Thorne took a lot of those themes in more logical and creative directions in Superman II and III. STM's score is enjoyable and a bona fide classic. I'd never say otherwise. But from a creative standpoint, I think Thorne just took those ideas further.
For example, Thorne took the Williams The Planet Krypton theme and made it almost a villainous piece.
That's curious. Are you referring to the beginning of SII where the hopeful music suddenly transforms into this dreaded military drumming beat as soon as Non snaps that guard's neck?
By the way, a new preview was released a couple of days ago from the official BvS score, titled "Their War Here".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjSaBZ-50Gs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjSaBZ-50Gs)
It's mostly the same music from the scene in MOS where Superman violently flies into Zod and shouts "You think you can threaten my mother!".
Ok so I'll admit first off that I have never listened to the MoS score outside of the one time I watched the movie (and obviously then I wasn't paying attention to the music) so I can't really comment on that.
All I know is that I hear this and the majesty and power of it moves me literally to tears and fills me with such......I don't know. When I listen to this I feel like even *I* can be Superman. Well Supergirl. But you get it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zqhm7YD6kg
But trust me TDK I get the idea of liking a different score over the one that is anointed. I actually like Elliot Goldenthal's score for Batman Forever a little better in parts than I do Danny Elfman's scores.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 18 Jan 2016, 11:12I still like the Williams score, but I believe Zimmer's music is appropriate for a modern era and gets the adrenaline pumping. I found his MOS score way more exciting and memorable than his original Batman stuff, which I found to be dull. Except for the Bane theme.
I eventually came to somewhat enjoy the Zimmer scores. They're not as dark and melodic as Elfman's score and they're not as grandiose and sweeping as Goldenthal's scores. They're sort of their own weird little aberration. Zimmer became more and more experimental from an engineering standpoint as the movie's went on and as a result TDKRises sounds different from a technical standpoint and it incorporates a lot of the themes from the previous films. I daresay it's one of the stronger scores.
Plus you get interesting stuff with TDKRises like...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd2B7BVizqM
Underground Army
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 18 Jan 2016, 11:12I hope Zimmer will come up with a much better theme for Batman in his second try.
Apparently he's
NOT trying. I read somewhere that Junkie XL will do Batman's music while Zimmer will do Superman's. Then you'll have Junkie vs. Zimmer in the music while it's Batman vs. Superman on the screen.
Zimmer says he's doing it this way so that he won't have to compete with his own legacy with Batman music.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 18 Jan 2016, 11:12That's curious. Are you referring to the beginning of SII where the hopeful music suddenly transforms into this dreaded military drumming beat as soon as Non snaps that guard's neck?
Somewhat, yeah. You'll hear it there. But the better example might be...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXJ2mET4S1U
Ursa Flies Over the Moon
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 18 Jan 2016, 11:12By the way, a new preview was released a couple of days ago from the official BvS score, titled "Their War Here".
It's mostly the same music from the scene in MOS where Superman violently flies into Zod and shouts "You think you can threaten my mother!".
Yeah, that's a sort of typical Zimmer move. He has a composition that he'll drop in rather than orchestra something new and work in themes organically. It's a bit aggravating, actually.
A good Superman theme came from of all places Smallville...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIdf3WYlatg
Defeating Bizarro
You can hear the build up to it beginning at the 2:00 mark. I rather enjoy it.
This is the footage consisting of quick interviews of Affleck, Cavill, Eisenberg and Snyder promoting the film, with Geoff Johns speaking to Kevin Smith in last night's DC Films special. Contains some info on stuff we mostly knew already though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxdkNUM3RdE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxdkNUM3RdE)
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 19 Jan 2016, 18:47
I eventually came to somewhat enjoy the Zimmer scores. They're not as dark and melodic as Elfman's score and they're not as grandiose and sweeping as Goldenthal's scores. They're sort of their own weird little aberration. Zimmer became more and more experimental from an engineering standpoint as the movie's went on and as a result TDKRises sounds different from a technical standpoint and it incorporates a lot of the themes from the previous films. I daresay it's one of the stronger scores.
You're right, TDKR does sound different than the last two scores that Zimmer did. And despite recycling some bits of music from the previous films at times, Zimmer made the music a lot more operatic, which was something I thought the other two scores severely lacked. For example, the music in the final chase sequence in TDKR is the same one that was used during the fight with Ra's al Ghul on the speeding train, but this time it's a lot more energetic and exciting.
But I still think his MOS score is superior. I like Zod's theme, and I find myself humming to "Arcade" a lot. But I constantly see people complaining that the bass sounds like a car's engine breaking down. Then again, they had no problems with Zimmer's Joker theme, which I regard it as the audio equivalent to nails scratching on chalkboard. Bloody awful!
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 19 Jan 2016, 18:47
Apparently he's NOT trying. I read somewhere that Junkie XL will do Batman's music while Zimmer will do Superman's. Then you'll have Junkie vs. Zimmer in the music while it's Batman vs. Superman on the screen.
Zimmer says he's doing it this way so that he won't have to compete with his own legacy with Batman music.
That's a bloody shame. I always found his Batman theme overrated, and I was hoping he'd improve it. Oh well, I still like the new Superman theme he wrote.
By the way: here is this official concept artwork of the Justice League assembling together.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickeringmyth.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F01%2Fjustice-league-header-1-600x304.png&hash=e4aaafad23e480dc026a914b41d3956df405472a)
http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2016/01/dc-extended-universe-featurettes-for-aquaman-cyborg-and-green-lantern-corps.html
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 20 Jan 2016, 13:04
By the way: here is this official concept artwork of the Justice League assembling together.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickeringmyth.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F01%2Fjustice-league-header-1-600x304.png&hash=e4aaafad23e480dc026a914b41d3956df405472a)
http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2016/01/dc-extended-universe-featurettes-for-aquaman-cyborg-and-green-lantern-corps.html
That looks very good. I can hear the 2001 JL theme song playing in my head. :)
DC is really moving ahead. I love their marketing strategies. Not the usual but more in-depth, more info and more detailed trailers (without giving too much away)
The tide seems to be somewhat turning with the DC extended universe. The Suicide Squad trailer was a bit hit with a lot of the Guardians of the Galaxy fans. The Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 contingents seem a bit more open to Batman v Superman. And, finally, the Wonder Woman sneak peek is being welcomed by Thor and Captain America fans alike.
Maybe one day (gasp) everyone will realize that DC is great and Marvel is great and it's fine to like characters from both or to like just one but respect the other instead trashing the characters, stories, films, and fans constantly.
I know, I know, crazy talk. Sorry.
BvS and SS both look great to me.
I thought the special last night was really good. I loved everything I saw. A the new scenes from BvS looked great. WW blew me away, and I can't wait to see that. I loved the new SS trailer. And I loved all the concept art for JL.
I think DC is in good shape.
I seriously think Affleck, coupled with the gorgeous suit and directorial flair of Snyder, is going to have him neck and neck with Keaton. This is the Batman I've waited so long for.
This is a great-looking Batman and the trailers, bar the voice, made me excited, and as much as I have my doubts about the villains, I won't go in biased.
Affleck, Cavill and Gadot under Snyder will give us the foundation for the Justice League we want to see on film, I'm sure.
And the Suicide Squad is looking great as well.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 21 Jan 2016, 09:32
I seriously think Affleck, coupled with the gorgeous suit and directorial flair of Snyder, is going to have him neck and neck with Keaton. This is the Batman I've waited so long for.
At the very least, he'll definitely be great as Bruce Wayne from what I've seen.
Yep. I buy him as a billionaire playboy, and as a man with a muscular body to fight crime. He's going to nail it.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Jan 2016, 09:42
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 21 Jan 2016, 09:32
I seriously think Affleck, coupled with the gorgeous suit and directorial flair of Snyder, is going to have him neck and neck with Keaton. This is the Batman I've waited so long for.
At the very least, he'll definitely be great as Bruce Wayne from what I've seen.
That's how he won me over. I was totally against the idea of him as Batman until I saw him as Bruce. Those first promo images of him (wait, were there promo images of him as Bruce released before the trailer? or was the trailer released first? lol) as Bruce turned the tide. I still think Ben Affleck is an idiot but he's a great actor and I'm with you and TDK, he's going to do so good unless the snippets we've seen in the trailers are his only good parts and he totally bombs the rest.
I never got all the ridicule for "Batfleck" but then again I never watched many of his work or read much about his personal life.
And yes, he really, really looks the part.
His private life doesn't bother me to be completely honest. My friends joke about it all with me, and I say "yeah, but what's that got to do with the role?"
The whole Batfleck thing has mystified me for a long time too. Affleck is a good actor. I can't help thinking there's a little bit of the Heckler factor going on here where people just talk smack for no good reason. If you guys have never seen Heckler, here's a little clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKiXAm1645U
You know, take this any way you want but I'll just leave my opinion here. I like the fact an American actor is actually playing an American role. We've had Bale from UK origin playing Bruce Wayne. Andrew Garfield, another UK'er playing Peter Parker, and Asa Butterfield now playing Parker as well. Technically Clark Kent is Kryptonian, but of course he's an American institution. He's currently being played by Cavill the Englishman.
Actors are actors, but I like the real world connections Affleck has to the role. It's not essential to be of the same nationality of a fictional character but in my opinion it helps.
With Affleck, he seems to be a free spirit who also happens to be good at his craft and he knows it. He seems to have a real world confidence about him from what I've seen, or it could be read as not caring about public opinion all that much, which translates perfectly into the role. I'm Bruce Wayne and that's that.
Check out the scene where he verbally duels with Clark at the Lex party. That's the kind of demeanour I'm talking about. He says his piece to Clark, leaving nothing unsaid, stares him down and smugly smiles. Effectively saying "take it or leave it, boy. And if you are offended I'm walking away anyway, because you're not in my league."
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 21 Jan 2016, 16:31
His private life doesn't bother me to be completely honest. My friends joke about it all with me, and I say "yeah, but what's that got to do with the role?"
That's why I just say he's an idiot and then gladly give him my money for merchandise and movie tickets for this. lol.
I ran into quite a few Batfleck haters once he was formally announced. My response usually posed the question, "Well, have you seen any of his latest work? The Town? Argo? How about his performance in Hollywoodland?" and fortunately or unfortunately, that would kinda shut them down. Most people wanted to remain thinking of Affleck of what he was in the late 90's/early 2000's, and not what he eventually became. Which, at this stage in his career, is a very respectable actor, and for sure, as a director.
Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 21 Jan 2016, 23:46
I ran into quite a few Batfleck haters once he was formally announced. My response usually posed the question, "Well, have you seen any of his latest work? The Town? Argo? How about his performance in Hollywoodland?" and fortunately or unfortunately, that would kinda shut them down. Most people wanted to remain thinking of Affleck of what he was in the late 90's/early 2000's, and not what he eventually became. Which, at this stage in his career, is a very respectable actor, and for sure, as a director.
It doesn't surprise me that most of these people haven't watched any of Affleck's films post 2003. What I find odd is these people typically refer to Rotten Tomatoes scores and Oscars to justify why a movie is good or bad, but they can't do the same for Affleck when every film he had directed AND starred in was a critical, award-winning success. One idiot on YouTube made a video of himself arguing that Affleck is box office poison and a sore thumb for critics because every movie he starred in as the leading man from the late nineties to 2003 was panned. Yet, he failed to mention any movie from 2006's Hollywoodland and onwards, most likely because he hasn't seen them.
I can believe that there are some people who simply don't rate him as an actor, but I also have a suspicion that there are a few who take it so personally. Maybe it's because his political views annoy them, or maybe he has a bad reputation in the industry that I'm not aware of (but then again, who really isn't a douchebag in Hollywood?).
I remember when Affleck was announced, some wanted Bale back. I was happy that it wasn't Bale again. :P
Zack Snyder was asked if the reaction for MOS made him address its criticisms for BvS, and he claims that anyone who read the comics would know that he didn't change Superman.
Quote
"People are always like 'You changed Superman'. If you're a comic book fan, you know that I didn't change Superman. If you know the true canon, you know that I didn't change Superman. If you're a fan of the old movies, yeah, I changed him a bit," Snyder said. He went on to clarify that he, as a comic book fan, defaulted to Superman's comic origins and not his on-screen incarnation, aiming to have his Superman "set a tone for the world" and "feel consistent for the DC universe".
"My point is that we don't take liberties [from the character's comic origins]...what we've done is create a place where they can really be the mythological characters as designed in the comic books".
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/02/05/zack-snyder-didnt-change-superman
I believe what he meant was that a lot of the critics have been comparing MOS to the Reeve films as the benchmark of what Superman should be.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 6 Feb 2016, 03:38Zack Snyder was asked if the reaction for MOS made him address its criticisms for BvS, and he claims that anyone who read the comics would know that he didn't change Superman.
Quote"People are always like 'You changed Superman'. If you're a comic book fan, you know that I didn't change Superman. If you know the true canon, you know that I didn't change Superman. If you're a fan of the old movies, yeah, I changed him a bit," Snyder said. He went on to clarify that he, as a comic book fan, defaulted to Superman's comic origins and not his on-screen incarnation, aiming to have his Superman "set a tone for the world" and "feel consistent for the DC universe".
"My point is that we don't take liberties [from the character's comic origins]...what we've done is create a place where they can really be the mythological characters as designed in the comic books".
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/02/05/zack-snyder-didnt-change-superman
I believe what he meant was that a lot of the critics have been comparing MOS to the Reeve films as the benchmark of what Superman should be.
I'm going to say this: If Superman in the comics is someone who makes out with Lois in the middle of a war zone surrounded by people covered in ash and rubble that has collapsed on and killed many people, then that's not a Superman you should adapt to screen as a superhero. I just watched the episode of Superman the animated series Apokolips... NOW! Part 2, and when Dan Turpin, a single man is killed by Darkseid, Superman is devastated. He smashes a tank into the ground, yelling out. It's a well done scene.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 22 Jan 2016, 12:27
I remember when Affleck was announced, some wanted Bale back. I was happy that it wasn't Bale again. :P
It wouldn't have made sense for Bale to return, anyway. It's better to leave his era contained in the Nolan trilogy.
Try telling that to Bale's zombies, sorry, fans. :)
Seriously though, I didn't mind his acting as much as the way his character was written especially in the sequels, and how Nolan meddled with the voice. So nothing against Bale personally, just that he was never "my" Batman.
Final trailer just released. :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cle_rKBpZ28
Oh
My
Freaking
GOD!!!!!!!!!
SO FREAKING EPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok now that I'm back under control (lol), that is so awesome. I love the "oh sh*t" look on Supes face at the end. And that bit at the beginning with Alfred, so great! And we finally hear Gal speak! Love it! And that look of anguish on Clark's face as Lois is holding it. And who the hell is that in the bathtub? Bruce and Diana? And...ugh there's too much to process. So amazing. But the best part is totally the badass Batman bit we get at the start. That's what we've all been waiting for sports fans!....isn't it? lol
God this looks so amazing.
This is the best trailer yet.
I still have some misgiving about Lex, but Batman and Superman are more awesome than ever. :) And the fight scene at the beginning of the trailer suggests that this will feature the best Batman action we've ever seen in live-action (none of that Nolan-style whizzing shaky-cam here - this is slick, clear, coherent action).
I'm finally sold on seeing this movie when it comes out. :)
A lot of people forget that Snyder is a huge fan of both Batman and Superman and we are going to see some wonderful comic-realization of both characters on the big screen. Warners has a hit on their hands...there I called it! :)
Just the way I'd imagined it. How much time until the premiere again?
QuoteAnd who the hell is that in the bathtub? Bruce and Diana?
Looked like Clark and Lois to me.
The opening looked like the Arkham game fighting come to life and makes me want to see Affleck and Irons in a standalone Batman film. Hell, if that's how this Batman is like "slow" for his age, can you imagine what he would've been like when he was younger?
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu, 11 Feb 2016, 18:11
Looked like Clark and Lois to me.
That's what I thought.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu, 11 Feb 2016, 18:11
The opening looked like the Arkham game fighting come to life and makes me want to see Affleck and Irons in a standalone Batman film. Hell, if that's how this Batman is like "slow" for his age, can you imagine what he would've been like when he was younger?
Amen to that
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 11 Feb 2016, 16:50And the fight scene at the beginning of the trailer suggests that this will feature the best Batman action we've ever seen in live-action (none of that Nolan-style whizzing shaky-cam here - this is slick, clear, coherent action).
I wouldn't say that that matters really. It's just differing styles.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
It's possible we're looking at the best live action Batman.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 12 Feb 2016, 00:03
It's possible we're looking at the best live action Batman.
Er...no. Tim Burton made them back in 1989 and 1992. >:(
I prefer Keaton's Batman over the others, but if BvS presents a take that I like even more, then I'll happily crown Affleck my new favorite. Depends on what we see in March, but if I end up preferring Affleck's Batman, it won't make me appreciate Keaton any less.
I predict that I will still probably like certain elements of past interpretations more, such as Keaton's voice, the Burton Batmobile, and the Elfman theme song.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Fri, 12 Feb 2016, 21:08
I prefer Keaton's Batman over the others, but if BvS presents a take that I like even more, then I'll happily crown Affleck my new favorite. Depends on what we see in March, but if I end up preferring Affleck's Batman, it won't make me appreciate Keaton any less.
I predict that I will still probably like certain elements of past interpretations more, such as Keaton's voice, the Burton Batmobile, and the Elfman theme song.
Exactly. It's entirely possible the past can be bettered by future interpretations, otherwise what's the point? We may as well shut up shop and keep watching B89 and BR over and over. Which wouldn't be a bad thing, but the show must go on. Liking something else doesn't make the past inferior. In terms of combat and being a billionaire playboy, I can see Affleck being the real deal. Keaton is already revered by the fan base. His legacy is ensured - we all love the guy. Giving Affleck praise isn't going to lessen that. It's good for the character, and I'm sure Keaton would agree.
I have high hopes that the solo Affleck Batman films could, in theory, top Burton's Batman, but I doubt Batman v Superman will simply because Zach Snyder is nowhere near the filmmaker that Burton or Affleck are, and I say that as someone who likes some of Snyder's films (like The Watchmen and the much-maligned Sucker Punch).
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 13 Feb 2016, 00:52
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Fri, 12 Feb 2016, 21:08
I prefer Keaton's Batman over the others, but if BvS presents a take that I like even more, then I'll happily crown Affleck my new favorite. Depends on what we see in March, but if I end up preferring Affleck's Batman, it won't make me appreciate Keaton any less.
I predict that I will still probably like certain elements of past interpretations more, such as Keaton's voice, the Burton Batmobile, and the Elfman theme song.
Exactly. It's entirely possible the past can be bettered by future interpretations, otherwise what's the point? We may as well shut up shop and keep watching B89 and BR over and over. Which wouldn't be a bad thing, but the show must go on. Liking something else doesn't make the past inferior. In terms of combat and being a billionaire playboy, I can see Affleck being the real deal. Keaton is already revered by the fan base. His legacy is ensured - we all love the guy. Giving Affleck praise isn't going to lessen that. It's good for the character, and I'm sure Keaton would agree.
I concur. Whether Affleck can top Keaton is not a concern for me though. All I care is that I'm looking forward to seeing a Batman movie again. I haven't been able to say that for a long time.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 13 Feb 2016, 02:27
I concur. Whether Affleck can top Keaton is not a concern for me though. All I care is that I'm looking forward to seeing a Batman movie again. I haven't been able to say that for a long time.
Yep. I'll call something out if I don't like it - but I really like what I'm seeing with Batfleck.
Here is a new picture of Bruce Wayne standing by the rubble in Metropolis.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ca5FELkUEAEpQ6U.jpg)
I'm confident that Ben Affleck will be a great Batman.
keep in mind that trailers can be far different than the films themselves and there have been bad films with good trailers. For instance the Dark Knight rises trailer implied Batman would be the main character in the film but as we saw that wasn't the case. :)
On the subject of Affleck vs. Keaton. Let's not act like the Nolanites here and pretend that our favourite version is immortal and nothing can never touch it. If Affleck ends up better, hats off to him. Keatons version stood the test of time and will always have it's place but there's certainly room for improvement.
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 13 Feb 2016, 13:45
keep in mind that trailers can be far different than the films themselves and there have been bad films with good trailers. For instance the Dark Knight rises trailer implied Batman would be the main character in the film but as we saw that wasn't the case. :)
On the subject of Affleck vs. Keaton. Let's not act like the Nolanites here and pretend that our favourite version is immortal and nothing can never touch it. If Affleck ends up better, hats off to him. Keatons version stood the test of time and will always have it's place but there's certainly room for improvement.
I agree. And for me, the trailer only reinforced the positive vibe.
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 13 Feb 2016, 13:45
On the subject of Affleck vs. Keaton. Let's not act like the Nolanites here and pretend that our favourite version is immortal and nothing can never touch it. If Affleck ends up better, hats off to him. Keatons version stood the test of time and will always have it's place but there's certainly room for improvement.
I like your attitude.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 13 Feb 2016, 02:27
Whether Affleck can top Keaton is not a concern for me though. All I care is that I'm looking forward to seeing a Batman movie again.
Pretty much. As of right now, I am not comparing which version is possibly
better, I just want to
see film and get my Batfleck on.
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 13 Feb 2016, 13:45keep in mind that trailers can be far different than the films themselves and there have been bad films with good trailers. For instance the Dark Knight rises trailer implied Batman would be the main character in the film but as we saw that wasn't the case. :)
Yes, he was.
QuoteOn the subject of Affleck vs. Keaton. Let's not act like the Nolanites here and pretend that our favourite version is immortal and nothing can never touch it. If Affleck ends up better, hats off to him. Keatons version stood the test of time and will always have it's place but there's certainly room for improvement.
Nolan fans don't necessarily do that. Some do it's likely, but not all.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sun, 14 Feb 2016, 21:19
QuoteOn the subject of Affleck vs. Keaton. Let's not act like the Nolanites here and pretend that our favourite version is immortal and nothing can never touch it. If Affleck ends up better, hats off to him. Keatons version stood the test of time and will always have it's place but there's certainly room for improvement.
Nolan fans don't necessarily do that. Some do it's likely, but not all.
Thanks for the laugh. I literally choked on my water reading that.
You can't freaking be serious. They do, militantly so, and it's far more than "some." Try to propose to a Nolanite that Jack Nicholson's Joker was superior or even on par with Heath Ledger's and it's like someone rattled a chimp's cage and got it pissed. They go bloody freaking bonkers.
Which by the way, Jack
was superior. Heath had a great performance, but that wasn't the Joker. It was a grungy anarchist with bad hygiene. I went to school with plenty of would-be Heath Jokers.
As for Ben vs Keats, Keats will always probably be my favorite because of the nostalgia factor of my youth and what not and all the other great things that make it part of a memorable time period in my life that I love taking a trip back to in my mind. Ben doesn't have that, he's taking over Batman in a part of my life when I feel suicidal more often than I don't. Not much I really want to remember right now. All that said though, I'm going in there with an open mind and if he hits it out of the park with an amazing performance I will be glad to stand up and say he did. I mean hell, I WANT him to succeed cause I'm a fan of the character. If he tops Michael in my opinion, I won't have problem admitting that either. I already admitted I was very wrong when I was so critical of him being cast. I'm excited to see what he does.
Quote from: Catwoman on Mon, 15 Feb 2016, 05:17Thanks for the laugh. I literally choked on my water reading that.
You can't freaking be serious. They do, militantly so, and it's far more than "some."
It's true.
QuoteTry to propose to a Nolanite that Jack Nicholson's Joker was superior or even on par with Heath Ledger's and it's like someone rattled a chimp's cage and got it pissed. They go bloody freaking bonkers.
Which by the way, Jack was superior. Heath had a great performance, but that wasn't the Joker. It was a grungy anarchist with bad hygiene. I went to school with plenty of would-be Heath Jokers.
I don't know why it bothers you so much. But there are many interpretations of characters. It's not a big deal. They're both viable. I don't see the majority doing that, I'm sorry. But it sounds like both sides aren't really innocent of this.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
A trailer does not a movie make. I think any real praise should be reserved until the house lights come up from seeing it in theaters. I would be a very rich person if I could have a dollar for every time a trailer misled me (for better or worse).
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016, 19:35
A trailer does not a movie make. I think any real praise should be reserved until the house lights come up from seeing it in theaters. I would be a very rich person if I could have a dollar for every time a trailer misled me (for better or worse).
I haven't seen any of your posts on this movie, but are you trying to not like this movie? The trailer was awesome, and it seems you're trying to convince yourself the movie wont be good.
Is Wayne49 hating on the new movie, or is he just saying that he'll reserve his judgment until after the film is released?
Quote from: Travesty on Mon, 15 Feb 2016, 19:47I haven't seen any of your posts on this movie, but are you trying to not like this movie? The trailer was awesome, and it seems you're trying to convince yourself the movie wont be good.
That seems like a bit of a stretch and also it's an opinion that the trailer was awesome. I liked it quite a bit, but if I watched a Batman movie to see him punch things, I'd play the Arkham games. Same with Superman. Fighting isn't really what I'm interested with in these superheroes. I thought him running into the collapsing rubble of Metropolis was far more awesome than any fighting. Being uncertain about a film's quality isn't bad thing.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 15 Feb 2016, 23:41
on this movie, but are you trying to not like this movie? The trailer was awesome, and it seems you're trying to convince yourself the movie wont be good.
That seems like a bit of a stretch and also it's an opinion that the trailer was awesome. I liked it quite a bit, but if I watched a Batman movie to see him punch things, I'd play the Arkham games. Same with Superman. Fighting isn't really what I'm interested with in these superheroes. I thought him running into the collapsing rubble of Metropolis was far more awesome than any fighting. Being uncertain about a film's quality isn't bad thing.
God bless you! God bless everyone![/quote]I do agree that there should be a lot more to these films than action sequences, but, speaking as a non-gamer, the fight sequence featured in the trailer did look great and promises an entertaining Batman film, because the fact is, fight sequences are pretty much a must for a Batman film, and so they should at least be well directed. Even Burton, whose Batman films I adore, was never the best director of fight sequences (apart from, perhaps, the belfry fight between Batman and Clive Curtis' goon towards the end of 'Batman '89').
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 15 Feb 2016, 20:28
Is Wayne49 hating on the new movie, or is he just saying that he'll reserve his judgment until after the film is released?
I'm not hating this movie since I plan on seeing it opening weekend. I'm just saying I can't make a final judgment until I've actually seen the movie. I enjoyed the last trailer, but as I stated previously, trailers can deceive for better or worse. So I'm going to refrain from making any sweeping statements. In my opinion, it's too early for that.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 16 Feb 2016, 00:39
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 15 Feb 2016, 20:28
Is Wayne49 hating on the new movie, or is he just saying that he'll reserve his judgment until after the film is released?
I'm not hating this movie since I plan on seeing it opening weekend. I'm just saying I can't make a final judgment until I've actually seen the movie. I enjoyed the last trailer, but as I stated previously, trailers can deceive for better or worse. So I'm going to refrain from making any sweeping statements. In my opinion, it's too early for that.
Of course. I wasn't criticising you. I was making the point to Travesty that it wasn't clear that you were simply being a hater, not that I think you are. :)
Maybe I'm hyping myself a little too much from the trailers but it just looks freaking epic to me. I know that doesn't always end up the way you hope (coughX3cough) but I'm excited. If I walk out of there disappointed, so be it. At least it's coming out at the end of March and not the end of May like X3, which was supposed to be the start of a big birthday dealio and I was so mad after the movie I said "eff pizza and ice cream" and everybody just went home lol. I'm going in there expecting a good movie though. Individual actors and performances (Ben and Jesse especially) I will wait and see on, but what we've seen is promising.
So...yeah. That's Kitty's take.
Quote from: Catwoman on Tue, 16 Feb 2016, 04:16
Maybe I'm hyping myself a little too much from the trailers but it just looks freaking epic to me.
I think the hype is justified. It's basically everything we've wanted for Batman.
And check these out:
http://imgur.com/a/XAbf0/layout/grid#8
WARNING: POTENTIAL MINOR SPOILERS in discussing the imgur album that TDK posted:
Wow, so many things to like here.
- Batman's tech is confirmed to be made by Bruce and Alfred. No Lucius Fox/Q in this version of the character now. Big thumbs up from me.
- It looks like they took a page out of BF (and Gotham) and had Bruce discover the Batcave after his parents' deaths.
- The text says that Batman tries to avoid killing, so this may prove that the producer's "executioner" comment was an exaggeration.
- Alfred is bodyguard/head of security who lives in a trailer on the Wayne Manor grounds now rather than a butler? Interesting change.
- I forgot that the Daily Planet does have the globe but in the lobby. Just like the Donner movie.
Joe Chill still seems to be alive as well, which I greatly prefer. The idea that Bruce may meet his parent's killer out there on the street, even if it's a remote possibility. Further driving Bruce's crusade. He remains an unfulfilled, angry boy.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 16 Feb 2016, 08:23I think the hype is justified. It's basically everything we've wanted for Batman.
And check these out:
http://imgur.com/a/XAbf0/layout/grid#8
We've? That seems like a large statement. I know I've always gotten what I wanted for the Batman character.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
This forum debates all aspects of Batman's history. But it has it's origins in Burton appreciation. A lot of members here like the aesthetic side of things when it comes to Batman, among other things similar to those first two Burton flicks.
The look of this new Batman is pleasing to me. I was hoping to get a new live-action Batman that I can really enjoy; and in my case using the Burton films as the best, the basis for comparison, I believe that they're on the right path.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 16 Feb 2016, 08:23
Quote from: Catwoman on Tue, 16 Feb 2016, 04:16
Maybe I'm hyping myself a little too much from the trailers but it just looks freaking epic to me.
I think the hype is justified. It's basically everything we've wanted for Batman.
And check these out:
http://imgur.com/a/XAbf0/layout/grid#8
Thanks for these great scans, The Dark Knight.
Where are they from, a Making Of Book or trading cards, or something else?
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 16 Feb 2016, 09:48
Joe Chill still seems to be alive as well, which I greatly prefer. The idea that Bruce may meet his parent's killer out there on the street, even if it's a remote possibility. Further driving Bruce's crusade. He remains an unfulfilled, angry boy.
Can't believe I forgot to mention this, but YES. The aspect that his parents' killer was never caught, when he was a kid, is a huge reason why he chose to become Batman in the first place and I'm glad this element is back.
I'm loving what I'm hearing from that Imgur photo album. My only reservation is Alfred's change of job description.
I saw another rumour claiming that the budget for BvS is $400 million, which I think is a load of crap. When was the last time a blockbuster movie like this got so scrutonised before it even opened?
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 16 Feb 2016, 14:54
Where are they from, a Making Of Book or trading cards, or something else?
A book called Cross Fire apparently:
http://www.amazon.com/Cross-Fire-Original-Companion-Superman/dp/0545916305
Thanks The Dark Knight. :)
I'll check it out.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 16 Feb 2016, 21:09
My only reservation is Alfred's change of job description.
I'm wondering if, in this version, Alfred takes a more active approach in helping Bruce, out of guilt for not being there to save the Waynes that night.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 16 Feb 2016, 23:53
Thanks The Dark Knight. :)
I'll check it out.
No worries. I think it contains an original story taking place before the film as well.
It's going to be interesting to see what the crazy success of Deadpool does regarding the public appetite for something completely different in tone like this.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 16 Feb 2016, 17:15
The aspect that his parents' killer was never caught, when he was a kid, is a huge reason why he chose to become Batman in the first place and I'm glad this element is back.
Yeah, Joe Chill being the killer of the Wayne's and also remaining uncaught during Bruce's childhood and even post his becoming Batman is definitely the classic way of going about it. I remember back when ZERO HOUR was being put out by DC Comics (1994-ish?), one of the many retcons was that the killer of the Wayne's was
not Joe Chill, and that the killer was never caught, or given any distinct identity. This was the case during most of my initial comic book reading as a kid, and thought it was different, I got OK with it for the most part. Though in 2005, during the INFINITE CRISIS event, Joe Chill being re-instated as the Wayne's killer was one of the many continuity elements brought back. I recall Grant Morrison doing a Joe Chill story during his run, and I guess that it remains intact in the present New52 since alot of Morrison's work was
not thrown out...
I always liked the comic-book thread where Bruce finally encountered a down-and-out and broken Joe Chill, a couple of decades into his Bat-career, and discovered that the random robbery was in fact a hit ordered by Lew Moxon, his parents' contemporary and father of his then girlfriend, Mallory.
But I can understand why many other fans would just prefer the murder to be an entirely random mugging and for Chill to remain elusive throughout Bruce's entire Bat-career.
QuoteI guess that it remains intact in the present New52 since alot of Morrison's work was not thrown out...
The New52 actually did a different confrontation in which a young Bruce Wayne confronts Chill with a gun to ask who hired him to kill his parents and finds out that Chill was just a down and out mugger and not out to carry a hit. This leads Bruce to drop his revenge quest and undergo training to become something more. It basically merges the classic Joe Chill confrontation with Batman Begins.
To me, I think it's more important that the cops never caught the killer than anything that happened between Bruce/Batman and Joe Chill later on. It was the fact that the cops weren't able to find him and bring him to justice that motivated Bruce to hunt down criminals himself and become a vigilante. The only version of the story to change this element was Batman Begins, in having the cops arrest Joe Chill that same night (and instead had Bruce motivated by seeing how corrupt the system had become and how ashamed his parents would be if they knew that he was being idle about it).
Zero Hour popularized the idea that the Wayne's killer was never caught or identified and while it seems many fans hold onto this, this version is pretty short-lived in comparison to the rest of Batman's history (much like the idea that Batman is a loner and Joker has no origin, even though Batman hasn't really been a loner since 1940 and Joker has had an origin since 1951).
Plus, I think it's erroneous to think that Bruce Wayne, the World's Greatest Detective, would never have even tried to figure out who was behind the trigger that night or why his parents had to die that night, much less catch the killer himself (though ironically, most accounts show Batman encountering Joe Chill through happenstance rather than seeking him out). Personally, the Joe Chill story from the 1940s is a classic to me and Batman The Brave and the Bold had a perfect adaptation of it, thanks to Paul Dini, in the Chill of the Night episode.
Score samples:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01BORWRP8
Funny enough the sample for the Batman suite is pretty much the Superman theme. Wondering if that's a mistake.
"Is She With You?" seems to contain a variation on the Batman theme that we heard from the other sample. Could easily hear it with Batman soaring over Gotham in the Batwing or even going into battle.
This may be the Batman theme that carries over into the Justice League and future Batman films.
Really liking the score samples. Lots of promise there.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 17 Feb 2016, 20:08
The New52 actually did a different confrontation in which a young Bruce Wayne confronts Chill with a gun to ask who hired him to kill his parents and finds out that Chill was just a down and out mugger and not out to carry a hit. This leads Bruce to drop his revenge quest and undergo training to become something more. It basically merges the classic Joe Chill confrontation with Batman Begins.
To me, I think it's more important that the cops never caught the killer than anything that happened between Bruce/Batman and Joe Chill later on. It was the fact that the cops weren't able to find him and bring him to justice that motivated Bruce to hunt down criminals himself and become a vigilante. The only version of the story to change this element was Batman Begins, in having the cops arrest Joe Chill that same night (and instead had Bruce motivated by seeing how corrupt the system had become and how ashamed his parents would be if they knew that he was being idle about it).
Zero Hour popularized the idea that the Wayne's killer was never caught or identified and while it seems many fans hold onto this, this version is pretty short-lived in comparison to the rest of Batman's history (much like the idea that Batman is a loner and Joker has no origin, even though Batman hasn't really been a loner since 1940 and Joker has had an origin since 1951).
Plus, I think it's erroneous to think that Bruce Wayne, the World's Greatest Detective, would never have even tried to figure out who was behind the trigger that night or why his parents had to die that night, much less catch the killer himself (though ironically, most accounts show Batman encountering Joe Chill through happenstance rather than seeking him out). Personally, the Joe Chill story from the 1940s is a classic to me and Batman The Brave and the Bold had a perfect adaptation of it, thanks to Paul Dini, in the Chill of the Night episode.
Thanks for the info! I'll have to check out that Brave and the Bold episode, as I was unaware that the classic 1940's Joe Chill issue was actually adapted.
Yeah, even though I personally would lean towards the idea of Joe Chill being the murderer of the Wayne's, I can see why people would hold onto the notion of the killer never being found, and essentially remaining faceless. As it essentially re-establishes that impression of Gotham City having been overwhelmed with the criminal element for some time, and that a case like that could possibly remain unsolved, even if Batman himself attempted to solve it, due to those unsavory factors. It's a idea that does have it's merit for sure, and it's probable that some readers found it a more pleasing retcon considering the way "Batman: Year Two" handled the final confrontation with Chill.
As far as Batman #47 from 1948, that to me is the
definitive Joe Chill story. Having been a comic book reader for a number of years now, and having become very familiar with numerous retcons/revamps/reboots during that time, I find myself gravitating more and more towards the original versions of characters as presented by the creators of said characters (and wanting to read those stories as well). Which is not to say other writers/artists thru the years haven't made incredible contributions, as that's certainly not the case, but the fact that Bill Finger himself wrote that 1948 issue, and it being done incredibly well, that to me is the version that will ultimately stand the test of time no matter how many times it's deviated from. Again, I
really now want to check out that Brave and the Bold episode! ;)
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 18 Feb 2016, 05:35
Score samples:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01BORWRP8
Nice.
Definitely check it out, Joker. It has its own twists to the story, but it's a wonderful episode. As a kid, I grew up watching B89 nearly every day and following that up with an audio adaptation of The Untold Legend of the Batman, so the Joe Chill story has always been a part of my life as a fan.
There's a discussion about this in the General Bat-Chat if you want to join:
http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=2788.msg47502#msg47502
Another sample track - The Red Capes Are Coming. This may be the Lex Luthor theme.
https://soundcloud.com/watertowermusic/redcapes
I'm listening to the track "The Red Capes are Coming" right now. Am I the only who thinks it sounds as if it would fit perfectly in an Arkham video game?
Haven't heard that one yet.
But I've heard the full Batman suite. I'm a fan. The beginning has the melody played softly, without the drums. Mournfully. Showing how this theme can be presented in different ways. It's actually reminiscent of Goldenthal's Batman theme in places, which isn't a bad thing. Junkie XL still has enough going on to make this brand new, too.
There's this other motif he's created too. It comes across as sad and reflective. I think it could be Bruce's personal theme. The internal pain he feels over his parents death. Really good stuff. It has an otherwordly feel.
And then the cue ends with the complete theme - what we've already heard. The banging overhead the Goldenthalish melody. I've come to really enjoy this new musical direction for Batman. It's dark, heroic, reflective and defiant. And actually a clear melody you could hum and remember in time. It has choral chanting ala Elfman as well.
If you want to hear it, I can lead you in the right direction via PM's.
Been warming up to the new theme now that I've heard more of it from the suite and definitely becoming more of a fan. I think it emphasizes, more than others, the "monster" persona that Batman has become. I can easily imagine it playing in the full fight scene from the beginning of the last trailer as he tackles two dozen thugs head-on.
Also, check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQjBantIOcw
A Jeep ad which shows Bruce driving into the Metropolis ground zero. Looks impressive to me.
Ha, gotta love the product placement. ;)
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 17 Feb 2016, 01:17
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 16 Feb 2016, 21:09
My only reservation is Alfred's change of job description.
I'm wondering if, in this version, Alfred takes a more active approach in helping Bruce, out of guilt for not being there to save the Waynes that night.
Coming back to this. Your guess reminds me of Batman: Earth One's depiction of Alfred, where he works as a security guard and warned Thomas Wayne not to go out in public on the same night where he and his wife died. As sole guardian of Bruce, Alfred reluctantly co-operates with Bruce as gets older and becomes Batman, and he often gets frustrated with Bruce's stubbornness.
This type of Alfred seems to be the trend. Earth One, Beware The Batman and Gotham all feature gruffer, hands on versions of Alfred. Which I'm not against, to be honest. As long as the actor and character have a degree of warmth - which I think Jeremy Irons has in spades.
Agreed. Even the Batman Live show had a version where Alfred had taught Bruce how to fight. To me, it makes a lot of sense for Alfred to have these skills and be able to help Bruce in this way, aside from bringing him food that he never touches. The rougher version of Alfred from Earth One is just an extension of all this. It's a change in personality, sure, but I do love the character development in Earth One/Gotham's Alfred being forced to become a father figure for a child when he never imagined being one.
My only (extremely) minor issue is that I wish Alfred looked like Alfred again. Michael Gough, Michael Caine, Sean Pertwee, and Jeremy Irons have all been clean shaven and both Caine and Irons seem to have strayed away from the traditional Alfred clothes (with Irons, it might make more sense since his character isn't a butler, but a head of security could still wear a black suit).
Sure, the original Alfred (Alfred Beagle) was clean shaven, but he was also heavyset and bumbling and wanted to become a detective. So unless they're casting Stephen Fry in the role and writing him that way, I don't think that's the Alfred that filmmakers were going for.
Considering how close everyone else looks to the comics (even Eisenberg looks like he's from the flashbacks in Birthright and we know he'll be bald later on), it would've been nice to see Irons in a moustache and the suit.
In the meantime, poor Henry Cavill finds himself up against "brutally honest" comic book fans in asking who's better: Batman or Superman...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaZhwaddrUM
So apparently BvS will be rated PG13 for cinemas, but a Director's Cut will be planned for Blu-ray release that is rated R. That's okay with me, because it's optional. I imagine the R rating would be because of Doomsday's carnage and Batman's rough style of justice.
Love that interview with Henry Cavill and the kids!
As for an R-rated Batman v Superman on home video? Not feeling it. The movie doesn't need to increase the gore factor to be "edgy". Besides, I think it will only give people another reason to hate on Zack Snyder.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 24 Feb 2016, 13:03
Love that interview with Henry Cavill and the kids!
As for an R-rated Batman v Superman on home video? Not feeling it. The movie doesn't need to increase the gore factor to be "edgy". Besides, I think it will only give people another reason to hate on Zack Snyder.
Isn't it good to have the choice though? Not that I personally care for gore, but I'd always prefer to see a filmmaker's full, undiluted personal vision in some type of capacity.
If only special editions had been more the range when Tim Burton made Batman and Batman Returns. I'd love to have seen what Burton had to cut out or entirely omit from those films.
R rated BvS? Maybe even an R rated Wolverine movie now? Looks like Deadpool really started something that Watchmen didn't back in '09. I'm good with choice, but some comic book properties, in order to adapt it atleast somewhat faithfully, lend itself to R while most superheroes under the DC/Marvel umbrella honestly do not. A filmmaker, any filmmaker, can do alot with a PG-13 rating. That's been pretty clear for a long time now.
Did you see that article James Gunn wrote about studios learning the wrong lessons from Deadpool's success? I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but it might be relevant.
However I think it's more likely the R-rating arose by accident from Snyder going overboard in one or two particular scenes, similar to how The Avengers (2012) was originally rated R by the MPAA because of the Coulson stabbing scene. It wouldn't have made much difference if they'd released an R-rated cut of The Avengers with that few extra seconds of gore, and I doubt the extended version of BvS will be any more substantially improved over the theatrical cut.
I've objected strongly to the toning down of certain R-rated film franchises in recent years (Terminator, RoboCop, Die Hard, etc), but I don't think turning PG-13 franchises R-rated is necessarily the right way to redress the balance. That said, Gobbs makes a valid point about the greater freedom afforded filmmakers when they're unencumbered by studio-mandated content restrictions. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if there's a worthwhile difference between the two versions. But for now, instinct tells me the PG-13 cut will be adequate.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 24 Feb 2016, 23:12
Did you see that article James Gunn wrote about studios learning the wrong lessons from Deadpool's success? I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but it might be relevant.
However I think it's more likely the R-rating arose by accident from Snyder going overboard in one or two particular scenes, similar to how The Avengers (2012) was originally rated R by the MPAA because of the Coulson stabbing scene. It wouldn't have made much difference if they'd released an R-rated cut of The Avengers with that few extra seconds of gore, and I doubt the extended version of BvS will be any more substantially improved over the theatrical cut.
I've objected strongly to the toning down of certain R-rated film franchises in recent years (Terminator, RoboCop, Die Hard, etc), but I don't think turning PG-13 franchises R-rated is necessarily the right way to redress the balance. That said, Gobbs makes a valid point about the greater freedom afforded filmmakers when they're unencumbered by studio-mandated content restrictions. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if there's a worthwhile difference between the two versions. But for now, instinct tells me the PG-13 cut will be adequate.
Good points Silver Nemesis.
I also agree with the posters who have argued that PG-13 rating gives a filmmaker more than adequate scope to include all the gore and profanity that could possibly be necessary for a Batman film (unless one is particularly looking for a panel-by-panel adaptation of one of Frank Miller's graphic novels, although I realise Zack Snyder has past form here).
Personally, I prefer comic-book movies that are pitched at a relatively sophisticated audience but not necessarily one that is restricted only to adults. I also prefer the Marvel Cinematic Universe's relatively bright and breezy, and family-friendly, tone, as well as 90s CBMs like The Rocketeer and The Mask, not to mention the Donner Superman and Burton Batman films, to many of the darker, grittier and more violent CBM offerings of recent years (although there are exceptions like Watchmen and the underrated 30 Days of Night, both of which I like), but I have yet to see the highly praised Deadpool movie that is currently blazing the box-office.
However, ultimately I want each filmmaker to feel free to put their own vision of a CBM on-screen without becoming too shackled by non-artistic considerations. I don't think a large amount of gore and profanity particularly benefits CBMs but ultimately I'd rather the individual filmmakers came to that decision, on an
artistic basis, rather than see the studios or rating board dictate the final cut, or whether audiences will ultimately be able to see a 'director's cut'.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 24 Feb 2016, 23:12
Did you see that article James Gunn wrote about studios learning the wrong lessons from Deadpool's success? I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but it might be relevant.
However I think it's more likely the R-rating arose by accident from Snyder going overboard in one or two particular scenes, similar to how The Avengers (2012) was originally rated R by the MPAA because of the Coulson stabbing scene. It wouldn't have made much difference if they'd released an R-rated cut of The Avengers with that few extra seconds of gore, and I doubt the extended version of BvS will be any more substantially improved over the theatrical cut.
Haven't read the article, no. But from what I can guess it might detail, it's probably the idea of movie studios, in light of the success of Deadpool, optioning that R rating for superhero films like never before. Classic Hollywood.
Snyder with BvS and Whedon with Avengers perhaps pushing the envelop too much sounds right. I think any filmmaker, especially with these projects, probably will shoot a scene or two that just might go over that PG-13 rating, and if so, adjustments were always made. To me, a commercially released R rated Avengers movie seems just as odd as a R rated BvS movie. I mean, other than it coming across as extremely gimmicky, it also seems like a not-so-subtle attempt to train audiences into thinking R means more "edgy". Which, with the superhero genre, is a trap.
New clip:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GqsDwASsGN8&ebc=ANyPxKqKVnP82GN4iDCHxNxwvJoSBKx6Q-dRQGIN6u8qnRJuq1CcLkWXblW6skeBGJyYrNEazEdpUb6DOfS08xkJr5xmhzaOpg&time_continue=1
I'm going to do a BvS review after I see the film. I'm not completely sure how long it'll take to write, but I'll get it done. In fact, I'd like to do a few more features. But I'll need the right topics, because it needs to be something I'm passionate about. But I'll start with the BvS review for starters.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnoyouare.lixlink.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F10%2Fbatman_thumbs_up.gif&hash=fc21679cb86fa0768146f1433de6243d65fd9eea)
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 29 Feb 2016, 12:17
I'm going to do a BvS review after I see the film. I'm not completely sure how long it'll take to write, but I'll get it done. In fact, I'd like to do a few more features. But I'll need the right topics, because it needs to be something I'm passionate about. But I'll start with the BvS review for starters.
That sounds great, TDK. It seems like everyone on this site has a specialist area of knowledge or interesting new perspective on some aspect of the Batman franchise. It's awesome when they share that knowledge/insight in the forums, but it can be even better if they present their ideas as features. I'll look forward to seeing what you come up with.
Meanwhile I've got some more ideas for features lined up too. I'll try and post a few over the next few months, provided I get the time to finish them. Hopefully between us all we can keep a steady stream of features coming throughout 2016.
Check this out.
https://youtu.be/0Y8iRvQdSGA
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 29 Feb 2016, 20:43
That sounds great, TDK. It seems like everyone on this site has a specialist area of knowledge or interesting new perspective on some aspect of the Batman franchise. It's awesome when they share that knowledge/insight in the forums, but it can be even better if they present their ideas as features. I'll look forward to seeing what you come up with.
Meanwhile I've got some more ideas for features lined up too. I'll try and post a few over the next few months, provided I get the time to finish them. Hopefully between us all we can keep a steady stream of features coming throughout 2016.
I've read your Batman Forever feature, and it's a good one. I've thought about doing a Batman Forever themed article, given my appreciation for it has risen over the years. But as said, I'll do the BvS one first. I'm waiting for the Tech Manual and art books to arrive.
My idea is to review the film from my perspective, but to also give a detailed rundown as to Batfleck's background. Outlining just who this new Batman is. And obviously splicing my opinions in there too.
These are my other two features. It's been a while between drinks.
http://www.batman-online.com/features/2012/5/22/batman-returns-novelization-analysis
http://www.batman-online.com/features/2010/12/10/la-la-records-batman-returns-1992-expanded-score-review-thedarkknight#sthash.IRg6xB6e.dpbs
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 1 Mar 2016, 03:23
My idea is to review the film from my perspective, but to also give a detailed rundown as to Batfleck's background. Outlining just who this new Batman is. And obviously splicing my opinions in there too.
That sounds like an excellent idea for a feature. Batman v Superman articles should prove useful in attracting new fans to the site, and I suspect Affleck's Batman is going to be the breakout character in the film. A feature detailing his background and equipment would be ace.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 1 Mar 2016, 03:23These are my other two features. It's been a while between drinks.
http://www.batman-online.com/features/2012/5/22/batman-returns-novelization-analysis
http://www.batman-online.com/features/2010/12/10/la-la-records-batman-returns-1992-expanded-score-review-thedarkknight#sthash.IRg6xB6e.dpbs
I remember reading these when they were first posted. The novel analysis in particular was fascinating for the insight it gave into possible deleted scenes. Both were great reads. We need more features like them.
Quote from: THE BAT-MAN on Mon, 29 Feb 2016, 22:36
Check this out.
https://youtu.be/0Y8iRvQdSGA
Loved the Arnett cameo. Also funny that Eisenberg was more understated as Lex in this sketch than in the footage from the trailer.
That Jimmy Kimmel skit was hilarious.
Here's Ben Affleck surprising fans at WB studios by popping out of the Batmobile every time someone says Superman is better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLmSUSqjC-k
After seeing all the BvS Omaze videos, Affleck seems to have had the most fun, out of the three actors, in interacting with the fans. Would've loved to go on that tour, only for him to pop out of the Batmobile.
And now that I've rewatched that Kimmel clip, I wouldn't have minded if Affleck used that voice under the cowl as Batman. I don't hate the voice changer, but my preference has always been for a more natural voice that still disguised him from sounding like Wayne.
Bale has said he's disappointed with his Batman performances.
Quote"I didn't quite manage what I hoped I would throughout the trilogy," Bale told Yahoo Movies. "Chris did, but my own sense of self is like, 'I didn't quite nail it.'"
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/christian-bale-disappointed-in-his-batman-234504252.html
Is Bale bracing himself for the incoming Affleck hype?
Adam West did call Bale overrated recently too, albeit on a TV show.
It's a shame he feels that way about himself, but I agree with his feelings about not quite nailing it. After The Dark Knight, most people I knew talked about how great Ledger was and how unintentionally funny Bale was in the Batsuit. He was pretty much upstaged by his villain co-stars in two out of his three movies.
Ironically, it looks like Affleck's Batman will upstage Cavill's Superman in the new film.
Speaking of which, here's one reviewer's reaction:
Quote
1. If you loved Man of Steel, you'll love BvS
2. If you loved Man of Steel, but not the end -- BvS may redeem that
3. If you hated Man of Steel and the whole grim/dark thing, okay, probably not for you
4. Wonder Woman is fearsome
5. There's a moment between Batman and Superman that'll even make the most cynical eye tear-up a little.
6. Fans will have a lot to discuss (and fight over)
http://comicbook.com/2016/03/03/first-batman-v-superman-review-feedback-surfaces/
I wouldn't say I hated Man of Steel, but I felt pretty let down about it the whole way through, so this comment kinda worries me. Will try to stay optimistic, though.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 3 Mar 2016, 10:44
Bale has said he's disappointed with his Batman performances.
Quote"I didn't quite manage what I hoped I would throughout the trilogy," Bale told Yahoo Movies. "Chris did, but my own sense of self is like, 'I didn't quite nail it.'"
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/christian-bale-disappointed-in-his-batman-234504252.html
Is Bale bracing himself for the incoming Affleck hype?
Possibly. It's a regrettable characteristic of the fanboy mentality that they can't express preference for something new without bashing something old. They bashed the sixties Batman in 1989, they bashed Burton's Batman in 2005, and now they'll bash Nolan's Batman in 2016.
It's sad that Bale himself came away from the experience with a sense of failure. It's debatable whether he was the best Batman, but I thought he was a damn good one. Especially in Batman Begins.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu, 3 Mar 2016, 19:00I wouldn't say I hated Man of Steel, but I felt pretty let down about it the whole way through, so this comment kinda worries me. Will try to stay optimistic, though.
Same here. While it's interesting to monitor these early reactions, I'm trying not to attach too much importance to them. I'm not a fan of Man of Steel or Zack Snyder in general, but I want to like
this film. I really do. So I'm willing to give it every benefit of the doubt and go in with an unprejudiced and open mind. I'm hoping it'll fix the problems from Man of Steel and deliver a really amazing movie that all of us will enjoy.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 3 Mar 2016, 19:13Possibly. It's a regrettable characteristic of the fanboy mentality that they can't express preference for something new without bashing something old. They bashed the sixties Batman in 1989, they bashed Burton's Batman in 2005, and now they'll bash Nolan's Batman in 2016.
It's sad that Bale himself came away from the experience with a sense of failure. It's debatable whether he was the best Batman, but I thought he was a damn good one. Especially in Batman Begins.
I think Bale is brilliant throughout the entire trilogy and gave us a psychologically rich Batman/Bruce Wayne on par with Michael Keaton's and yet far closer to the comic-book source material.
I chalk Bale's comments up to the fact that he's clearly a very self-demanding, even perfectionist, actor and unless a performance is 100% spot-on for him he's going to regard it as a disappointment. From my POV, and that I suspect of most audience members, he did a sterling job in the part.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu, 3 Mar 2016, 19:00
Speaking of which, here's one reviewer's reaction:
Quote
1. If you loved Man of Steel, you'll love BvS
2. If you loved Man of Steel, but not the end -- BvS may redeem that
3. If you hated Man of Steel and the whole grim/dark thing, okay, probably not for you
4. Wonder Woman is fearsome
5. There's a moment between Batman and Superman that'll even make the most cynical eye tear-up a little.
6. Fans will have a lot to discuss (and fight over)
Hmm... Well, let's just say, for arguments sakes, that those opinions are on the money, it seems like BvS will be just as controversial as MOS was. As a guy who really liked MOS, BvS may be to my liking according to this reviewer but we'll see. The whole "Wonder Woman is fearsome" point kinda raises an eyebrow though. I'm sure she'll be conveyed as a very powerful, kick ass character during the Doomsday battle, but hopefully Snyder's direction, and Gadot's acting, conveys much more than a mysterious amazonian warrior during her initial introduction. I come from the William Marston, George Perez, John Byrne, Phil Jimenez school of Wonder Woman, where she's conveyed as being alot more than just fierce, and in Marston's original interpretation,
amazonian warrior would be in contrast to what he was attempting to convey in the WW books in first place.
Batcave concept art:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CczF8S6WwAAcjva.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CczF9QpXIAMkIOr.jpg)
It sure beats a basic platform and computer in a bare cave, ala TDK Rises.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 6 Mar 2016, 03:28
Batcave concept art:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CczF8S6WwAAcjva.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CczF9QpXIAMkIOr.jpg)
It sure beats a basic platform and computer in a bare cave, ala TDK Rises.
Honestly, I've preferred the batcave to be more of a cave, so Burton/Shumacher and Nolan batcaves for the win in this area. This just kinda looks like the batpatio.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
There is a cave outside of this area, complete with an underground lake. Bruce has stored his arsenal away from the elements. So we have the best of both worlds.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.comicbook.com%2Fuploads1%2F2015%2F07%2Fbvs-batcave-143723.jpg&hash=6ba30534ad70b1045ccdac982668ba02c6491016)
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 6 Mar 2016, 23:44
There is a cave outside of this area, complete with an underground lake. Bruce has stored his arsenal away from the elements. So we have the best of both worlds.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.comicbook.com%2Fuploads1%2F2015%2F07%2Fbvs-batcave-143723.jpg&hash=6ba30534ad70b1045ccdac982668ba02c6491016)
That sounds more like half of the best of one world for me personally. It could be stored away and not look like a patio.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
When I first saw that shot in the trailer, I honestly thought it was part of Wayne Manor or Wayne Enterprises, more than the Batcave. Shots of Bruce looking at the Batsuit and the Robin suit all felt more like he was in an office building than the Batcave. It feels more like the Bat bunker under the Wayne Tower in the 1970s to me, but I'll wait to see more of how it looks in the film.
It's clearly a cave.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmightymega.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F12%2Fbatman_v_superman_batcave_2-620x276.jpg&hash=fcf532a8d8b30f0169bf6c896e13e4e6c8b98487)
And based on the concept arts, that's a swanky, hi-tech patio...
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Mon, 7 Mar 2016, 01:24It feels more like the Bat bunker under the Wayne Tower in the 1970s to me, but I'll wait to see more of how it looks in the film.
I got the Bat-bunker vibe too. The overall impression is of a man-made facility built within the natural hollow of a cave. It's an interesting new take on the concept and one that reflects the advanced stage of this Batman's career. It probably started out simple in the early years before evolving into the more advanced hideout we see here, with Batman adding more man-made components as time went by.
One detail I like is the presence of water. In the comics there's meant to be an underground river by which the Batboat can be launched. Schumacher and Nolan got that detail right, but it was missing from Burton's cave.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 7 Mar 2016, 01:29
It's clearly a cave.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmightymega.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F12%2Fbatman_v_superman_batcave_2-620x276.jpg&hash=fcf532a8d8b30f0169bf6c896e13e4e6c8b98487)
And based on the concept arts, that's a swanky, hi-tech patio...
Kitty likey. Kitty must test security.
Quote from: THE BAT-MAN on Mon, 29 Feb 2016, 22:36
Check this out.
https://youtu.be/0Y8iRvQdSGA
Ok Jimmy Kimmel makes me ill but that was freaking hilarious.
I read the Cross Fire story recently. Not a bad read for a children's book.
Basically, a young boy's mother goes missing after the Metropolis attack, and he decides to keep it a secret after other orphans are being relocated and rehoused. His crazed uncle escapes Arkham Asylum, and arrives at his house one day under the guise of assisting the search for his mother. Though the boy is unaware of his uncle's recent past.
Uncle Aesop is a bitter Wayne Enterprises employee who wants revenge on Bruce Wayne. The young boy created a drone during a school project, and Aesop asks the boy to break into Wayne Enterprises to steal a AI chip. This is all under the false pretence the drone chip will assist in the search for his mother.
However, as the story develops, we see Aesop has developed an army of drones which he plans to unleash on Metropolis and Gotham. During the course of the story, Clark Kent interviews Aesop and finds something off about him. He later returns to save the boy and his mother, who was being held hostage in a warehouse. Batman had arrived at the scene too, and deals with Aesop, dragging him away back to Arkham, and destroys all the drones. Batman and Superman don't meet.
Clark and Lois write a story, which Bruce reads, about how Superman saved a mother and son, which Bruce finds slightly annoying, but Alfred tells him not to worry about it. All in all, not a bad little story. There's some details which I'll add in my Batfleck/BvS review and analysis.
The rivalry's heating up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj1mYq03Pfc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maX-ObiJB3o
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 10 Mar 2016, 00:02
The rivalry's heating up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj1mYq03Pfc
lol that was good. Jesse Eisenberg is growing on me.
As I suspected, early reactions are saying EisenLex is an evil SOB people will hate.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 10 Mar 2016, 13:22
As I suspected, early reactions are saying EisenLex is an evil SOB people will hate.
This bothers me. The best villains are usually those that have an element of pathos. If they'd made Lex a working-class self-made man, or a charismatic type rather than a sneering nerd, it might make him a more appealing villain. If he's just going to be an ultra-evil rich kid, I'm not interested I'm afraid. :-\
Being an evil villain doesn't have to equal one note characterisation. If they tap into comic book Lex, his beliefs and viewpoints about humanity taking ownership of its own fate, then I don't think there's an issue.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 10 Mar 2016, 23:26
Being an evil villain doesn't have to equal one note characterisation. If they tap into comic book Lex, his beliefs and viewpoints about humanity taking ownership of its own fate, then I don't think there's an issue.
Perhaps. I'd just prefer if the rumour about young Lex being a clone of his 'father' turned out to be true.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 10 Mar 2016, 00:02
The rivalry's heating up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj1mYq03Pfc
With a little practice, Eisenberg could audition to be the spokesman for a new line of Micro Machines. :(
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 10 Mar 2016, 21:40
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 10 Mar 2016, 13:22
As I suspected, early reactions are saying EisenLex is an evil SOB people will hate.
This bothers me. The best villains are usually those that have an element of pathos. If they'd made Lex a working-class self-made man, or a charismatic type rather than a sneering nerd, it might make him a more appealing villain. If he's just going to be an ultra-evil rich kid, I'm not interested I'm afraid. :-\
Are these reactions from people seeing the trailers or someone who has actually seen the movie? I would think (and hope) the studio is showing this to people now. The critics should be next.