Messages

There's been a spate of articles in the last 24-48 questioning the viability of BvS. Frankly the tone I've noticed lately has been a bit of a shift to, son of a son, this movie might turn out okay after all! Who can know?

All I can say for sure is Affleck looks great as Batman, I'm looking forward to more of Cavill as Superman, I've wanted a movie like this my entire life, it's finally happening and the only person I care about this movie impressing is me. I've washed my hands of butt-hurt Prima Donners who will piss and moan until they get put into nursing homes that their beloved Donnerverse is finally gone and Marvel fans pretending to be DC fans castigating everything WB does, even when it's what they once claimed to want.

They deserve nothing better from me. I don't need someone who has never picked up a Superman comic book in his life but has seen Superman- The Movie a thousand freaking times telling me what's what.

MOS wasn't very well done, whether it was by comics or not. I didn't find STM to be very well done either writing wise. Personally I liked Superman Returns myself and to just leave no doubts that I'm not Singer fanboy, I really liked X-Men 1 and 2, but not DOFP, and I'm not really into the look of XMA. And let's just be clear with another thing, I liked TDKT more than MOS and everything Marvel has put out, just to let you know that I'm not a Marvel fanboy. But TWS has come close to that. I also like the Burton/Schumacher Batman movies, Batman the animated series, liked Superman the animated series fine, liked Justice League and Unlimited, The Batman, Batman Brave and the Bold. I was a fan of Smallville. I like The Flash. I liked Arrow, not so much anymore. Agents Of Shield was pretty good last season, but I think it's fallen in writing quality. And I haven't wanted a Batman vs Superman movie. I always thought that rebooting Superman on his own wasn't a very good move and that should have rebooted both Batman and Superman together in a team up movie, introduce Wonder Woman at the end and show her movie later the same summer and pull out a Justice League movie in 2015 with Darksied as the villain. I'm telling you this to let you know that it's not a black and white issue and that those who dislike MOS aren't necessarily Marvel or Donner fanboys and making assumptions on what people deserve and talking about them isn't necessary and doesn't accomplish anything. I'm very sorry if I'm being harsh. Have a very good day.

God bless you! God bless your family and everyone else in your life! God bless everyone!

That puts Dunst/MJ to shame.

Why? What's shameful about not being able to save a superhero as a regular human?

God bless you! God bless everyone!

This series fixed practically everything people hated about the previous series;

-no constant narrating
-no monologues from Aunt May
-Peter Parker not a super nerd
-no crying
-the soap opera with Mary Jane replaced by an interesting dynamic
-the damsel in distress clichee replaced with a heroic love interest
-despite being under developed, the villains are less cartoony

That is basically almost all the opposite of true, except for the narrating which only happened a couple times in the first movie and third and the second has only one instance of it, and the supernerd. Peter cried more in the first movie than he did in any of the Raimi ones. The TASM romance were just soap opera-ish. The villains are mostly more cartoony than the Raimi ones. Gwen's entire purpose was to be a damsel in distress cliche. The heroism is just used to make it seem less sexist, when it makes more. There are also still monologues, just more out of emotional ranting, than calm lesson teaching.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

I'm not convinced, but this guy at 'Forbes' magazine seems to think so: http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/02/12/i-dont-worry-that-batman-v-superman-is-bad-but-rather-that-its-unconventionally-great/#35894efa2e13

By the way, he likes Batman Returns, a lot, and has similarly high expectations for BvS, yet worries that it might turn-off a lot of audience-members the way Batman Returns did.

And for what it's worth, I am also a fan, maybe the only other fan, of Sucker Punch. 

I don't think I dig that implication at the end that Batman & Robin is bad. It rocks. That's an unconventional movie that's disregarded. I like Batman Returns, but I wouldn't call it challenging. It's a gothic movie that has some nonsensical stuff in it, but you just go with it because it kinda fits with the tone.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Hands down this is the best Batman has ever been in combat. It's the Arkham games brought to life. No more goons falling over for no reason ala the Nolan days. There's always going to be Nolan era hardliners, not wanting this new series to be successful. But I'd argue they're not Batman fans to begin with. Because Batman fans should love this trailer.

I've been a Batman fan since I was 4 and I didn't love this trailer. I liked it and thought it was cool in parts, but I didn't love it. It's all a matter of opinion.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

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 wouldn't say that that matters really. It's just differing styles.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

You guys debating the validity to Peter's actions or inaction is the whole point; being a super hero is not supposed to be a glamorous job for Spider-man; it's filled with dillemmas and moral questions and "damned either way situations. The choices of 'the right thing' are not always obvious and decisions have consequences. Super heroes are vigilantes so the law doesn't apply to them, essentially they make their own justice which has a grey area.

The wrestling promoter essentially stole from Peter; Peter survived his encounter with the wrestler in 3 minutes and should have gotten his full reward money. So in essence justice was done to the scammer; he stole from Peter and the thief stole from him. Unfortunately justice was not done to society; a criminal went free and committed another crime which was a negative impact to Peter. That being said had peter stopped him, the wrestling scammer learns nothing and suffers no consequences likely going on to scam more people going forward.

We have no way of knowing if that guy learned something. But Peter didn't do that for a lesson. He did it for revenge. He did it for his own selfish pleasure to get back at him. It was for himself.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[NOT]

Exactly my point, thank you for agreeing with me. In AF #15, Peter did what he did from smug self-absorption. In the movie, it was an act of petty revenge predicated on the promoter screwing Peter out of his prize winnings. The audience subconsciously sympathizes with his decision even if they may not completely agree with it.

You're proving my point for me. In AF #15, Peter was motivated by selfishness. You and Raimi both seem to agree that his movie counterpart wanted to stick it to the promoter because the promoter stuck it to him first. Again, different motivations are in play. That's not good and that's not bad; it's simply true.

The very least you can say is that the movie complicates what was inherently simple in the comic. In AF #15, Peter didn't lift a finger to help because "that's not my job". He was a douchebag. It was totally uncalled for especially since he'd been dealt with fairly and honestly as far as the narrative suggests.

In the movie, he'd just gotten screwed out of money and mistreated by the promoter and so as an act of petty vengeance he let the thief escape with the money. He was mildly sympathetic in his decision because he had NOT been dealt with fairly and honestly as the narrative had established just a few seconds earlier.

Your moral quibble seems to be Peter taking petty revenge. And I agree, it is not laudable... but it is sympathetic. Understandable though it cannot be condoned. This complication is specific to the movie and utterly absent from AF #15.

It's not sympathetic at all. It's a vicious, vengeful, evil action. One made specifically to hurt another person, not because he was self-involved. That's far less sympathetic than what happened in AF #15. It's a dark and twisted action. Whether or not the audience subconsciously sympathizes with him, his action is still worse. It's a vindictive action, instead of a careless one. It's made for far more selfish reasons. We would sympathize, because we, humans, are vindictive mean people, devoid of a desire for anything beyond our own selfish fleeting pleasures. That's what makes it worse. Peter took pleasure in letting that dangerous criminal get away because it hurt someone who hurt him. Not because he was self-involved. He took pleasure in it even though it could cause someone else to be hurt. That's worse.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Yes there was. The promoter screwed him out of the prize money. Peter then instantly refused to stop the thief. It's dramatic payback for what the promoter had done just seconds before. It's easy to sympathize with Peter in that moment. "Yeah, that promoter got what was coming to him!" The promoter wronged Peter so Peter wronged him back.

On page 8 of AF #15, the cop said it all. Spider-Man could've just tripped the thief to stop him from escaping. There was no personal grudge between Peter and the cop. But Peter didn't lift a finger to help because "that's not my job". It was uncalled for and totally a jerk thing to do.

It's easy to think that, but we'd all be wrong. It was far worse than what Peter did AF #15, because it wasn't just an action of self-involvement. He allowed a dangerous criminal to get away because he wanted revenge.

I'm too lazy to dig the commentary out but if Raimi really said that, he's not paying attention to his own movie. The promoter screwed Peter over so Peter screwed him over right back just a few seconds later. Was Peter acting like a moral, virtuous hero? No. But I think a lot of people sympathize with his inaction.

And I did. But I was wrong. Peter's action was more evil than selfish, like in the comics. It was a purposeful, vindictive action he made with malice of forethought. The only sympathy comes from us thinking we might do the same thing, but we'd all equally be just as much in the wrong too. I did get his words wrong there. Raimi's actual words were:

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

Rather than show Peter as a total jerk like the comic book did, Raimi gave him that small sliver of sympathy which changes the character arc a bit. Rather than Peter paying the price for his hubris (as he did in AF #15), you could say he that the clearer, more obvious lesson he learns is that two wrongs don't make a right... and can even have unintended consequences.

As I showed in my quote, Raimi didn't give Peter any sympathy, at least he didn't view it that way. If anything he made Peter look far worse, because his action wasn't about self-involvement, it was an action he made with complete malice of forethought to let a dangerous criminal get away because he didn't like the guy he robbed. It was an utterly far more selfish action and one we'd all be in the wrong for making.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Don't misunderstand, that's an interesting moral lesson for Peter to learn in the film... but it's still different from "With great power, there must also come great responsibility", which is the moral lesson he learned in AF #15.

It isn't different, because Peter's action is still about responsibility. He rejects the responsibility in favor of his own selfish desire for revenge.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Yeah that was always one of my biggest issues with Nolan's films. Instead of Batman using his personal tragedy as a motivation to spend his whole life training himself to fight crime, he only begins to entertain the idea thanks to a series of lucky circumstances:

• He was deprived of the chance to kill Joe Chill, and then he only fully realises how corrupt Gotham is thanks to Rachel.
• He only begins to travel around the world in a misguided attempt to learn how the criminal mind works because Falcone taunted him that it's a world he'll never understand.
• He was left to rot in a prison until he meets Ra's al Ghul, who then trains Bruce.
• He meets Fox who gives him all the equipment he needs to go out on duty.

And that's just in the first movie. Seriously, does any of this sound like Batman to you? I wouldn't mind so much if he later becomes more independent as the Batman we're familiar and in love with, but it didn't happen.

It sounds like a version of Batman. Everything that happens in movies is due to a string of lucky circumstances. Peter becomes Spider-Man because of a string of circumstances. Bruce and the Joker's rivalry in Batman 89 happens because of a string of circumstances. It's just something that happens in movies. A big bust just happens to happen during the night of Bruce's casino charity event and Gordon just happens to be told about it in front of a camera Bruce has set up in his house, which leads to Bruce dropping Jack into the chemicals, who just happens to not only become a supervillain because of this, but he also falls for Vicky, who Bruce is dating and just happens to be the murderer of Bruce's parents. It's all a string of crazy coincidences tied together. But Bruce in Batman Begins has already had training before he's trained by Ra's.

What I've noticed is those who mock the black comedy in B89 are normally against the humour in Adam West's TV show too. In fact, they don't seem to be fond comic films having any humour at all.

Being someone who isn't fond of the black comedy of the Burton films, I can say that I good naturedly poke fun at the 66 TV series and like the Schumacher Batman films' ridiculousness as well. It's all in good fun.

God bless you! God bless everyone!