Basically don't leave the movie in the hands of people who seem to have contempt for super heroes.
DC Movies Thread - Shazam saves the day
-
-
Don't let objectivists make movies.
Or write anything.
Or speak.
Or live.
-
Also, let Superman be Superman.
Would you consider the Superman Returns( the one with Kevin Spacey) a bad Superman movie. If yes, why?
-
Would you consider the Superman Returns( the one with Kevin Spacey) a bad Superman movie. If yes, why?
It also got the character wrong, in different ways, (he wouldn't leave the earth for five years or be a deadbeat dad) and the actual story itself was pretty bad.
It was also completely beholden to the 70's films, to a fault.
I love the first two Reeves films. But they WERE in the 70's and while reflective of the comics at the time, have aged not so great and are on the campy side. But Superman himself was perfect in those, there's a good reason Reeves' is considered so iconic as the character, in spite of the horrible third and fourth movies.
I only ever watched Returns once. But it didn't make me actively mad like MoS did. So on that scale, it was a better Superman movie… but it still wasn't a good movie.
The Captain America films have been the best Superman movies in the last couple decades.
-
Iron Giant is my favourite Superman movie.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Even if that were to conceivably it wouldn't give his shit any rest.
You're right, he just posted the dip doesn't change the fact the movie is a masterpiece success because of great Monday and Tuesday grosses and that it'll still be #1 this weekend (let's ignore that it's biggest competition this weekend is God's Not Dead 2).
-
It also got the character wrong, in different ways, (he wouldn't leave the earth for five years or be a deadbeat dad) and the actual story itself was pretty bad.
He didn't know he had a kid and I think him leaving had something to do with Krypton. The 5 years was stretching a little I guess.
It was also completely beholden to the 70's films, to a fault.
I love the first two Reeves films. But they WERE in the 70's and while reflective of the comics at the time, have aged not so great and are on the campy side. But Superman himself was perfect in those, there's a good reason Reeves' is considered so iconic as the character, in spite of the horrible third and fourth movies.
I only ever watched Returns once. But it didn't make me actively mad like MoS did. So on that scale, it was a better Superman movie… but it still wasn't a good movie.
I'm not saying the movie was excellent or anything special but I think they did a decent job at updating Superman in it. He kept truth to the costume and truth to the feel of the boy scout. Nothing really memorable but really not a bad movie or superman.I really think the reason the movie disappoint because of the to high expectations and I seriously think making a great live action superman movie isn't that easy.
The Captain America films have been the best Superman movies in the last couple decades.
Sounds the same as the incredibles being the best fantastic four movie. I did made the same comment when discussing Man of Steel with my cousin.
-
I seriously think making a great live action superman movie isn't that easy.
It shouldn't be. There's thousands of comic and animated stories to choose from for a base to go by, that would make excellent live action films. With CGI being what it is now, there's no reason a live action version can't be as good as an average animated outing.
(The animated stuff has its misses too, but has overally generally done decently for the last couple decades.)
Similarly, SUpergirl is nailing it in terms of live action superman, and its a tv show with no real efects budget! The DC shows in general really.
-
It shouldn't be. There's thousands of comic and animated stories to choose from for a base to go by, that would make excellent live action films. With CGI being what it is now, there's no reason a live action version can't be as good as an average animated outing.
(The animated stuff has its misses too, but has overally generally done decently for the last couple decades.)
Similarly, SUpergirl is nailing it in terms of live action superman, and its a tv show with no real efects budget! The DC shows in general really.
Captain america is a soldier. It's simple to transform in some kind of Bourne with superpowers and make him badass.
The problem with superman is the tone. It would probably be easy to take one of his story and make an awesome action but then 90% it would simply be too serious for Superman to feel like superman without being dated or out of touch. Take the opposite direction and most likely you make it to cheesy. I mean can you imagine taking "Superman vs the elite", make it a live action, and not feel off as a superman movie.
Making a good superman live action required a balance between cheesy, conflict, and action that is simply hard to achieve without being tonally off.
TV have a easier putting their audience into the right atmosphere. Supergirl works well has a show embracing the campiness and the universe is treated well enough that the serious tidbits don't get in the way of the light atmosphere. In a movie it would would turn pretty fast into a boring chick you've seen way too often.
-
Captain AMerica got the tone just fine.
Just take a story like All Star Superman, or the tv shows first Justice League story, or Panic in the Sky, or any number of other classic Supes stories and just adapt.
The tone is easy. Having a boy scout as a lead isn't as hard as it sounds, especially once you've thrown him into an ensemble film that he doesn't have to carry on his own.
And again, the Chris Reeves film got the character perfectly… it was mostly Luthor's plot that was... not so good. SUperman 2 even had real villains and things for him to do that were actual challenges, but the special effects of the time weren't up to par with what can be done now.
It's IS a hard balance, but tons of writers have done it. There's no cal for it to be as incredibly off as the Snyder versions have been, to the point of being a completely different character.
-
You know, the more we talk about how Zack Snyder messed up Superman, the more I'm reminded of "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?".
Basically, it's a story where a group of heroes show up called "The Elite" who are brutal heroes who kill bad guys, Supes doesn't like that and they come into conflict with one another. A pretty decent adaptation of that arc was made as an Animated Movie not too long ago.
I can't help but feel this Superman would have some words to say to Zack Snyder's Superman (And Batman for that matter)
-
Captain AMerica got the tone just fine.
Just take a story like All Star Superman, or the tv shows first Justice League story, or Panic in the Sky, or any number of other classic Supes stories and just adapt.
The tone is easy. Having a boy scout as a lead isn't as hard as it sounds, especially once you've thrown him into an ensemble film that he doesn't have to carry on his own.
In an ensemble cast, he would work fine especially with Batman and other heroes to put his ideals in perspective and show why they are important. I'm talking of the difficulty of making it as his own movie rather than with lots of character to pull the balance.
Superman in a justice league movie shouldn't be hard but a stand alone Superman movie is a totally different thing.
Captain America had to become an action hero(with more strength than a regular one), with his own sense of humor and comebacks line to make his second movie work.
It's IS a hard balance, but tons of writers have done it. There's no call for it to be as incredibly off as the Snyder versions have been, to the point of being a completely different character.
Snyder's superman is a wrong adaption of the character and I wasn't referencing to his depiction of the character at all or trying to excuse it.
I was rather talking about the Superman returns. I think the movie get to much the reputation of a bad movie because people expect such great thing from Superman without realizing how hard it is to transfer Superman into a stand alone live action.
Should they finally go for the justice league I really think a good superman can emerge where neither him or the movie feels wrong, but as long as people keep obsessing on making Superman on his own the odds will be widely stack against them.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
You know, the more we talk about how Zack Snyder messed up Superman, the more I'm reminded of "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?".
Basically, it's a story where a group of heroes show up called "The Elite" who are brutal heroes who kill bad guys, Supes doesn't like that and they come into conflict with one another. A pretty decent adaptation of that arc was made as an Animated Movie not too long ago.
I can't help but feel this Superman would have some words to say to Zack Snyder's Superman (And Batman for that matter)
I love most of DC's animated movies and this one is no exception.
He would probably try to talk with Superman and send Batman to prison after explaining him why he is wrong.
-
You know, the more we talk about how Zack Snyder messed up Superman, the more I'm reminded of "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?".
Basically, it's a story where a group of heroes show up called "The Elite" who are brutal heroes who kill bad guys, Supes doesn't like that and they come into conflict with one another. A pretty decent adaptation of that arc was made as an Animated Movie not too long ago.
I can't help but feel this Superman would have some words to say to Zack Snyder's Superman (And Batman for that matter)
Don't think they'd listen to him…..Batman in particular.
-
@TLC:
Basically don't leave the movie in the hands of people who seem to have contempt for super heroes.
Exactly; it's not just that Snyder doesn't understand Superman as a character, it's that he blatantly doesn't want to and dismisses people that disagree with him.
-
You know, the more we talk about how Zack Snyder messed up Superman, the more I'm reminded of "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?".
Basically, it's a story where a group of heroes show up called "The Elite" who are brutal heroes who kill bad guys, Supes doesn't like that and they come into conflict with one another. A pretty decent adaptation of that arc was made as an Animated Movie not too long ago.
I can't help but feel this Superman would have some words to say to Zack Snyder's Superman (And Batman for that matter)
-
Watch them doubling down on not getting superman and making him a villain of part 1 instead of fixing him, lol. Cause you know…making him pure bad guy is way easier. xD
-
So this is an actual thing on Twitter now
[h=1]#supportDCfilms[/h]
Pfffft -
Is it the true phantom menace phenomenon since episode 1, where people blindly wanna love it?
-
I don't really care about this whole Marvel vs DC thing but seeing people not doing properties justice failing is always sweet.
-
Saw the movie yesterday. Batman was great he really was. I actually like him more then Bale.
The rest was meh.
And what the hell was that one dream sequence? I mean, I presume it was
! the flash time travelling but why did he appear in a dream? And what was even the point of it? Bats didn't even care. You know if you are used to get nightmares at some point you stop caring. At this point it was as irrelevant as
! the giant bat sequence or the strange non fitting insect aliens.Other things that bugged me were all the pointless stuff that happened. Like Lois
! throwing the spear away, just to almost die trying to get it back. I mean, the whole change of mind took 1 minute in the movie or how much drama is been put into the
! death of Sup. What's the point of it, we all know that he'll be back, I can't feel invested into it. But the movie tries to make me feel bad for him.
Oh and don't get me started on Lex. Why did he
! bomb the wheelchair guy and all of the others? I really thought it was a complicated plan to public discredit Sup. But he is obviously to smart for it. and what was his plan? He
! sent Bruce fake letters to make him mad at Sup, to illegally import kryptonite only to have it voluntary stolen by Bats in order to give Bets a chance to win against Sup because he kidnapped Clarks mum and forced him to fight Bats and all this for having time to give birth to a monster in Zods spaceship which he controls because of fingerprints. did I miss something? -
Saw the movie yesterday. Batman was great he really was. I actually like him more then Bale.
The rest was meh.
Edit those to tags to say "spoiler" not "spoil", lol. Some people might not appreciate that.
-
Edit those to tags to say "spoiler" not "spoil", lol. Some people might not appreciate that.
Thanks for making me notice
-
It also got the character wrong, in different ways, (he wouldn't leave the earth for five years or be a deadbeat dad) and the actual story itself was pretty bad.
So, comic book Superman, every single version of him, if learned that there might be remains of Krypton somewhere out there, would never want to try and find his birth home?
Why can't film make slight alternations to a character without being accused of being inaccurate, whereas comic books are seemingly free to do whatever they want.
-
So, comic book Superman, every single version of him, if learned that there might be remains of Krypton somewhere out there, would never want to try and find his birth home?
Not five minutes after saving the world from Zod, and saying to the president "I'll never leave again" and then vanishing without even telling Lois where he was going or how long he might be, no. Yes he'd go look, but not in the manner he did there.
It makes zero sense in the context of "direct sequel to Superman 2". WHich is had to be because of the kid, but really there was no real need to retcon 3 and 4 out of existence otherwise, just don't mention them. Or even have it be a five years later" thing. It coulda been months later, status quo, new actors. The same route Spiderman SHOULD be taking at this point. Didn't need a full blown return/relaunch/retelling/rehash.
-
Film was so disappointing. Walked in to the cinema having heard rumours it was bad, but at least batman was supposed to be good. He was not. I didn't think Affleck did anything particularly good with the character, and he was written as an unlikeable turd.
Keaton still ultimate live action batman. Cavill's again pretty amazing as superman, but he's written really badly in the edgeverse. Gadot was average. Eisenberg was awful
as the Joker.I wish whoever was writing this crap read some decent supes comics. Byrne's Man of Steel, Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, All-Star Superman, For The Man Who Has Everything, Superman for All Seasons…I'd say the same about batman but there are some really bad (and often popular) comics that at one point or another were canon that are as bad as he was characterised here.
-
Is there something rotten about Rotten Tomatoes rating of BvS?
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/something-rotten-rotten-tomatoes-investigating-174613224.html
Good short read.
Now, I for one think Zack Snyder made a pretty good start on Henry Cavill's Superman in MoS. Not just the actor who is great but the character as well. Superman was being transformed into the hero we know him to be albeit with a bit of a rough start and I mean that literally. Everything was all there though from the message of hope to helping others. What Zack did in BvS is take the character and have him reflect on his purpose and role in this world after the Metropolis incident which is understandable…and then Zack dropped the ball. Hard. Nothing was resolved. Like, overall we got the impression the world was receiving Superman with mixed reactions but it was just kinda left like that indefinitely.
Then Zack REALLY dropped the ball at the very end of the film so, yeah, Superman is getting the bum end of the stick on this one. I thought Ben Affleck did great as Bruce Wayne and Batman but the latter would've been a lot more enjoyable without all the needless killing.
-
Seems like that article was written before this weekend seeing as it only mentions the first weekend/monday numbers instead of the 70% free fall it did this weekend. But either way yeah, even adjusting for mediocre ratings as a more favorable approved rating, it doesn't really help its case anyway (spoiler alert for those who didn't get to the end of the article)
Honestly feels like Snyder's vision of DC is that he wants to make a superhero universe without heroes
-
Saw BvS lastnight
! I think it's way better than people give it credit for. Batfleck was spot on and even Superman wasn't that bad. Wonder Woman was good but I wish she had a better reason for being in the movie and Doomsday didn't look as bad as I thought I don't really understand how Luthor knew how to make him though and speaking of Luthor the only real thing I hated was Eisenberg Lex Luthor as he just didn't feel like Lex Luthor he felt like the Riddler. But with all said and done if I had to review BvS I'd give it a solid 8.
-
@Purple:
Seems like that article was written before this weekend seeing as it only mentions the first weekend/monday numbers instead of the 70% free fall it did this weekend. But either way yeah, even adjusting for mediocre ratings as a more favorable approved rating, it doesn't really help its case anyway (spoiler alert for those who didn't get to the end of the article)
Honestly feels like Snyder's vision of DC is that he wants to make a superhero universe without heroes
Sounds like a Justice League version of Watchmen. 'Who's serving justice to the Justice League?'
-
Sounds like a Justice League version of Watchmen. 'Who's serving justice to the Justice League?'
[hide]
-
Whoever wants to bounce off assumptions and observations.
! The opening sequence features Zorro poster and Excalibur title on the cinema Marquee(?)
! >!
! 2:30 if the video off! Superman deposes a dangerous African warlord in order to save Lois, chaos ensues with the help of Luthor men, lot of people die in the resulting power vacuum and violent uprising to fill the void, as stated by the woman in Senate. SUPERMAN IS NOT BEING BLAMED FOR SHOOTING PEOPLE WITH BULLETS, but for involving himself in tricky political situation, he states later to Lois that he doesn't kill anybody
! Superman smiles reassuringly to the girl he saved from fires in Mexico, and the smile is gone as people start to reach out to him.
! Alfred's speech implies that Bruce became much more brutal and started branding people only after the events in Metropolis
! When Bruce wakes up after the Flash gives him his message you can see papers flying around, that encounter happened for real
! Piss in a Jar and call it Grandma's peach tea, plan an assassination and call it a deterrence. Is a call-back to let Senator Finch know she's about to die, and it dawns on her as she sees Lex missing. Also let media blame Superman on failing to prevent the bomb from going off or even taking notice. Because that's exactly what some of the movie viewers did. And, no Senator Finch does not drink the pee.
! Kryptonian ship mentions it's vast database as it's booting up, once Lex took control of it he orders it to teach him, thus he gets access to whatever information of interest
-
I saw Batman V Superman a few hours ago. Quite frankly, I thought it was great. I'm really trying to see the criticisms people have in regards to its MOVIE content and I'm having a hard time (as in, content that has nothing to do with people saying they don't like a particular interpretation of a character). It really confuses me how these are such a thing:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/iron_man_3/ 79%
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/thor/ 76% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avengers_age_of_ultron/ 75%
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/iron_man_2/ 72% But somehow people think this movie….barely qualifies as a movie....what? I don't really get it. More critics liked Man of Steel (56%) than this movie! Freakin Superman Returns got a 76! That's one of the most boring movies I've seen!
I really don't see how this movie didn't score in the same range. Honestly, the only DC movies that I think are better are Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Ben was amazing, Gadot was awesome (such much better than I could have imagined), and all the parts people were mocking online (of course I read spoilers) were totally taken out of context in regards to this movie. I am definitely pumped for the next movie (WW? Well, SS but I already wanted to see that). The people in my theatre seemed to like it (mostly an older, non-comic audience I am assuming based on age) and I had a honest discussion with a theatre attendant who asked me my opinion and we had a decent chat about this and The Force Awakens on expectations and people's attitudes going into the movie as well as comparisons with other movies.Honestly, I don't care about what critics think of a particular movie (Happy Gilmore SMH) but when they spew out scores that low I found it nigh-impossible to find anyone who wanted to see the movie with me and I went solo. I'm glad I did because I enjoyed it and there wasn't anyone to feed me negative criticism to ruin my enjoyment.
-
Have you tried reading the last several pages of the thread? There's been lots of lengthy reasons given from people that saw the movie as to why they did or didn't like it.
As someone who absolutely hated MoS and has heard nothing inspiring about this one, I'm pretty sure I'm never going to watch it, so my opinion is moot and only secondhand, but it seems like it has a lot of structure problems, overacting from Eisenburg, and heroes not being terribly heroic, and is oveall a mess that is in the end balanced by some excellent high budget action sequences.
People seem to like the action half the movie, but the other half is enough to completely turn them off. See also the Transformers movies.
But basically they made an R rated Superman movie that you can't take kids to, and that's generally wrong for the character.
-
Have you tried reading the last several pages of the thread? There's been lots of lengthy reasons given from people that saw the movie as to why they did or didn't like it.
As someone who absolutely hated MoS and has heard nothing inspiring about this one, I'm pretty sure I'm never going to watch it, so my opinion is moot and only secondhand, but it seems like it has a lot of structure problems, overacting from Eisenburg, and heroes not being terribly heroic, and is oveall a mess that is in the end balanced by some excellent high budget action sequences.
People seem to like the action half the movie, but the other half is enough to completely turn them off. See also the Transformers movies.
But basically they made an R rated Superman movie that you can't take kids to, and that's generally wrong for the character.
I will say that part of what you are saying about the half and half deal is an issue I feel DOES represent…Man of Steel. That movie did have pacing issues and there were a lot of abrupt scene transitions. I didn't feel this movie had any of those issues. I was actually surprised I didn't see any issues like that because it is one of Zack Snyder's signature traits (I do not tend to think he is a good director). Issues with Eisenberg ARE interpretation issues. The Lex in this movie is more akin to the crazy scientist Luthor (I will not be surprised if he has a suit in a future movie) than any past iterations. Would this interpretation have been my ideal choice? Not really, however, had any other actor been Lex they likely would have acted the same way which is not indicative of Eisenberg's acting. Issues with people noting that they "believe" that the heroes are not heroes (completely untrue, they act more like heroes in this movie than Thor did in Thor) is related to, again, people not liking a specific interpretation of the characters. I honestly have a hard time believing most of the Marvel heroes (except maybe Cap) could ever be considered heroes or accurate interpretations of the characters they are supposed to be but everyone loves those. Thor does not, ever, remind me of Walt Simonson's Thor. I can't remember Iron Man EVER acting like RDJ (although I do love him) in the comics. How is it that those movies are loved but these movies are not?
I honestly, probably, would tell you not to watch this movie as you would go into it biased (not negative here) because it basically is an exact continuation to Man of Steel. I feel like it improved upon MoS, however, so there is no way it could be considered "worse" than MoS. The trailers and premise "lied" about the subject material of the movie to create a swerve but this only confused the potential audience and reflected negatively on the film. The darker tone of the film is what I see as being the main thing that people are criticizing and, in that case, there is no way watching the movie would change anyone's mind if they found that tone to be a negative (I did not and I do like this Superman. My favorite Superman is the KC Superman and I like him to reflect on his place in the world and his influence on people which is exactly what this movie touched on...).
-
Tony Stark has always been Robert Downey Junior.
Robert Downey Junior has always been Tony Stark.
The only reason he ever didn't act like that in the comics is because the wrtiers weren't good enough to make him a likeable, quippable asshole, but Downey absolutely nailed everything the character was always supposed to be.
Thor is particular is a tough nut to crack, if he was doign the shakespearean English he'd never be taken seriously, the movies hewed closer to the JMS version from a few years back and the Ultimate version.
Any comic character that has lasted through decades is going to vary some here and there, especially as the types of stories in general have changed over the decades, and be in flux with the writer, and have highlights and lowpoints, thats just going to be the case after thousands of iterations. But there is a key CORE to the characters, something that does stay pretty consistent and maintained through decades. And thats something the Marvel versions largely get right. MoS Superman… is an elseworlds superman. Yes you can find instances of a character killing or being an asshole when they first appeared 75 years ago or whatnot, (And Adam West Batman is a completely different creature than Christian Bale Batman) but through reiteration and refinement the characters DO reach a certain way about them, a common core that IS the same in every itteration (except cases where the character is evil and the whole point of the story is "they aren't themselves)... and Snyder's version of the characters totally misses the mark of what they've been 99% of the time.
SNyder sees all the things that make Superman... Superman.... and dismisses them as outdated and dumb.
-
Finally saw the movie.
It wasn't really bad just forgettable as a whole. Considering the product I'm surprise it got such a low rating on tomatoes. It got his flaw but I would have expect more of a 60%.
-
The score is 29%, but the average rating is 5/10.
-
Guess WB is happy with BvS' performance, because they just set two more movies besides the nine other movies that have already been announced.
Maybe Snyder's The Fountainhead will be retooled into a DC movie?
-
Maybe Snyder's The Fountainhead will be retooled into a DC movie?
Get Steve Ditko on the line, they want to make a Mr. A movie.
-
I saw Batman V Superman a few hours ago. Quite frankly, I thought it was great. I'm really trying to see the criticisms people have in regards to its MOVIE content and I'm having a hard time (as in, content that has nothing to do with people saying they don't like a particular interpretation of a character).
This kinda baffles me.
Not that you liked it, it's not like you're not allowed to like it, but It's funny how people defending the film are using two completely opposite explanations for why people are hating it.
It's either:
"They made this movie for the COMIC FANS, not the Critics! That's why they hate it, they just don't get it!"
or
"You only hate it because you're a fan of the comics and you don't like that their interpretation is different!"
These two viewpoints feel diametrically opposed to me…
But moreso to the point, I can personally separate the two in my head.
For the reasons Robby gave above, I DO think it's important to adapt these characters properly and respectfully and yeah, I think the movie did well in some areas (Most of Batman's Portrayal for example) and REALLY dropped the ball in others (Batman Kills, Superman is depressing) and the ball dropping happened more often than not I'm afraid, but still, I'd be able to tell if it was a good overall movie despite this stuff.
Perfect example.
I'm not a fan of the Tim Burton Batman films. (Batman 89 and Returns) I like them ok I guess, and even if they bother me a bunch, I can live with most of the changes to the characters (Joker killed Batman's parents, Catwoman has a supernatural origin and isn't just a thief, Penguin is a gross sewer mutant etc) but making Batman kill was a step too far IMO and I tend to not really ever rewatch the films as a result.
However, I still acknowledge they're good, well made films. You'll never hear me say they are outright bad films. They are honestly GREAT films overall. Great acting, great story, Spectacular set design and art direction.
Iron Man 3 is another example I can use. I loved Iron Man 3. It isn't as good as the original or The Avengers, but it's a solid movie and I think a fun movie, and I really enjoy it.
It made a HUGE change to the Mandarin. That is NOT the comic book Mandarin, and I KNOW that in particular rubbed a lot of comic book fans the wrong way.
I think it's fine tho because the movie works well despite that, and RDJ still embodies everything about Tony Stark the same as he always has.
This isn't like the Burton Batman films where they changed up the villains AND a very fundamental thing about the main character got changed.Now, BvS? I legitimately think that's a bad movie. I think there are good parts in the movie. Gal Gadot was great as Wonder Woman, again, Batfleck was overall really good (Save that one big thing), I loved a lot of the supporting cast especially Perry White, The action was REALLY good... the entire final fight was easily the best part of the film...
But that can't save that the overall movie is dour and depressing, it moves at a snails pace until that final act, several of the character motivations are either completely out of left field or take extreme stretches in logic, and even when they have a good idea, the excecution is
often ham-fisted and bad.
Like! I actually like the whole "Martha" thing in theory because I get what they were GOING for. The idea was that Batman hates Superman because of what he did in Metropolis, he thinks he's dangerous and he sees him not as a person as much as he sees him as this alien thing. That's why I actually don't really have a problem with Batman wanting to kill him. Batman has shown willingness to kill animals in extreme cases and will use lethal force on Robots for people he knows can take it. He's killed Solomon Grundy and Ra's Al Ghul or let them die a few times actually, since he knows they can resurrect.
The "Martha" thing was SUPPOSED to snap Batman out of that and make him realize that Clark was raised on earth by a human mother and, at least in spirit, is human. It wasn't just supposed to be "Our mothers have the same name?! We're totes besties now!"
! But the execution was ham-fisted and forced. For example, Martha Wayne's name is shown to us TWICE in the movie, once at the very beginning by Thomas as he dies, and again on that grave in Bruce's dream. Now notice something here for a second. His father Thomas' name? Never appears in the film once. Not ONCE!
This is VERY OBVIOUSLY them setting up the Chekhov's gun of the "Their Moms are both named Martha" and because of that, I called it during that opening scene. To be fair, I'm a comic fan so I knew the Martha/Martha thing, so seeing how big a deal they made of it I was able to put two and two together, but still.
The capper tho is when Superman is screaming "MARTHA!! SAVE MARTHA!!" it came off REALLY forced… like, wow... he starts out the fight with Batman calling him "Bruce", so we know he doesn't care about secret identities here. Also, Batman was going to kill him, and he was aware at this point that Batman could do it. Why is he calling her "Martha" then? Why not "My Mother!"? Because they needed him to say "Martha" specifically, even if that's not the natural way a person would say that.
A Better way to do it would have been if he'd said "My Mother is kidnapped", Batman doesn't believe him, so while he was on the ground, under Batman's boot, he tried to pull out one of the photos Lex gave him. Batman takes it from him and sees "Martha Kent" written on it. Bam. You just did that scene, but without the incredibly forced "MARTHAAAA" Screaming.Also, absolutely NOTHING Lex Luthor does in this movie makes any sense. On several levels.
It's like, they made this character a one-note character who is just crazy and evil for the sake of being crazy and evil and all of his actions only serve THAT goal, not a more complex character.This has nothing to do with it being "Different" from the comics either.
Mandarin in Iron Man 3 was VERY different from the comics, and love it or hate it, if you went in not knowing about the twist, you have to admit it was unexpected and memorable. The character(S) of the Mandarin in IM3 at least have stated motivations and a consistent character that makes sense.
Lex was just BAD.
So…. With the movie being obviously so unfaithful to the comics... why is a common defense of the movie "They made it for the FANS!"?...
Resarching this... I honestly think Kevin Smith of all people MAY have figured it out actually.
He saw the movie twice and actually gave a separate review after each viewing. First on his "Hollywood Babble-On" podcast with Ralph Garman, and again after seeing it the second time on "Fatman on Batman".
In the first review he was.... not a fan.
@Kevin Smith:
Remember before when we were talking about Flash, and that it has heart, humor, and spectacle. The movie I felt like didn't really have a heart. It was certainly f****** humorless, there was nothing funny going on in that world whatsoever, but it had lots of spectacle. Like you can't take that away from Snyder. Boy, he knows how to like compose a frame and how to setup a shot. Beautiful visual stylist but you need more than just the pictures, you need like characterization and these characters seemed off character, particularly Superman.
So… basically what those of us critical of the film have been saying in this thread. It looks pretty, has some great fight scenes, but the tone and character is just really off.
Now, when he saw the movie before this review, he was alone. In his SECOND review however he took his best friend Jason Mewes to see the movie.
His stance changed slightly and he even offers up a reason as to why, which he then summed up on Social Media:@Kevin Smith:
I’d said the film didn’t have any heart, but after the second viewing, I actually found the heart in #batmanvsuperman: it’s in the viewer. And the viewer I watched the blockbuster with the second time was all agog, eyes as big as saucers. During the Knightmare sequence, we shared a moment that even elevated the flick for me: when the winged New Gods nasties attack #Batman and take him down, Jay (age 40) & I (age 45) simultaneously looked at one another and whispered reverently “ParaDemons.” It was a beautiful moment shared by two lifelong fanboys who were delighted to see their childhood flash before their eyes.
I've seen the actual Fatman on Batman podcast where Smith talks about the movie for ~1 hour, and I won't bother transcribing it to quote here, but he does elaborate on what he meant, and basically it's this:
Comic Book Fans have had to put up with studios "Changing" stuff to make it "Appeal" to a mass audience for as long as comic book movies are a thing.
That's why the X-Men have rarely if ever worn their classic costumes for example.
In a more relevant example, let's look at who the villain was in EVERY Superman movie that was released pre-BvS:Luthor with a real estate scheme, Zod, Cheap Luthor Knockoff, Luthor/Generic Muscle character, Luthor with another real estate scheme, Zod.
Notice a Pattern? It's ALWAYS Zod or Luthor (or a cheap facsimilie). For SIX movies, we have TWO villains from the comics make an appearance.
Marvel, to their credit, started giving fans what they REALLY wanted. One of the praises heaped on Marvel and particularly The Avengers is that it's not ashamed that it's a comic book movie. It embraces it and "Feels" like a comic book movie. The characters are changed to some extent, but at their core they're all presented right, and these movies are full of fanservice.
What's more, If you asked comic book fans in the 80s or 90s if we'd EVER actually see The Avengers on screen and together, they might say they'd LOVE that, but I don't think they'd show much confidence in it actually happening.
Marvel has been giving that, along with good stories and strong characters for almost a decade now.Meanwhile DC has failed on quite a few fronts to do so, and as years go by and as Marvel is just knocking it out of the park and doing all this fan pleasing stuff, DC fans have kinda gotten more and more desperate for it.
Enter Batman v. Superman.
It may have been a terrible overall movie, but it DID put several things on screen and reference several things that most DC comics fans probably thought would never be in a movie including:
- Batman and Superman on Screen Together
- Batman and Superman AND WONDER WOMAN on screen together!
- Wonder Woman just being in a movie in general.
- A Cloth-looking Batsuit that looks like it was ripped strait out of a Comic rather than a reinvented rubber thing like we've gotten before.
- Batman's Superman-Fighting Armor ripped straight from The Dark Knight Returns.
- A hint at Jason Todd
- Parademons (the thing Kevin directly referenced)
- The Omega Sanction
- Batman actually fighting Superman
- A villain OTHER Than Lex Luthor or Zod from the comics.
- That Villain happens to be Doomsday
- Flash
- Cyborg
- Aquaman
! - The Death of Superman and how it evoked the comics.
It doesn't necessarily matter how these disparate elements were handled, or whether or not the overall story around them was any good… to a LOT of fans, they've REALLY REALLY Wanted to see these things on screen for so long, that they are blind to or are very forgiving of all the serious flaws the movie has otherwise...
Because damn man, we actually got to see PARADEMONS on an actual wide-release, big budget film...
Whether or not you're one of these "Critics just don't GET IT! They made it for the FANS!" people I think is determined by exactly how much you're willing to let the movie get away with in order to get all those elements DC fans have been desperate to see on screen.
For Me? I recognize these things and DO appreciate them when they happen, that's probably why I love the Third act of the film so much, but It's not enough to forgive the rest of the film its MAJOR flaws.
-
Were people actually wishing for Doomsday to be in this?
Are there really people who like Doomsday?
-
Maybe people who never read the death of superman.
He was fine in JLU I guess, though that was a different take on the character. Most DC properties end up better when bruce timm gets to use them.
-
@Cyan:
Were people actually wishing for Doomsday to be in this?
Are there really people who like Doomsday?
….but, he killed Superman! He's a super important and interesting character!
Said no one ever.
Doomsday would work best if he had remained that one time event instead of being a well they went back to constantly only to beat him more and more consistently. I know, comics, he was't going to go unused for 25 years, but yeesh. Generic tough monster with no personality is generic. If he hadn't killed Superman, and had just been a guy for five issues, absolutely no one would remember him now, like most of the one off villains from the 90's Superman comics.
-
Yeaaaah…but now that they pretty much used Doomsday, doesn't it kinda diminish the threat level of most other superman heroes?
It's like if Marvel used Ultron for Iron Man 2. They pretty much played their card a tad too early? I mean one great thing about Marvel is that it show cased some pretty lower end villains as well which was cool as it gave them some screen time/exposure (and hence, allowed me to appreciate the universe a bit more). I wish they kinda used some of the lesser superman villains rather than just chucking out Doomsday.
-
Yeaaaah…but now that they pretty much used Doomsday, doesn't it kinda diminish the threat level of most other superman heroes?
It's like if Marvel used Ultron for Iron Man 2. They pretty much played their card a tad too early? I mean one great thing about Marvel is that it show cased some pretty lower end villains as well which was cool as it gave them some screen time/exposure (and hence, allowed me to appreciate the universe a bit more). I wish they kinda used some of the lesser superman villains rather than just chucking out Doomsday.
He is a lesser superman villain though. The top tier superman villains are Luthor (written well, as opposed to here), Zod, Brainiac and Darkseid.
And Mxyzptlk, but he would never convert to film.
-
@Cyan:
Were people actually wishing for Doomsday to be in this?
Are there really people who like Doomsday?
Yes…. because that's the main thing from my post worth focusing on....
Death of Superman was overall a good story, and it's certainly popular. Doomsday in particular, represents that story to people, so I DO think people could have been excited about the character purely for that reason.
But ugh, I guess I shouldn't have mentioned that....
-
Uhhhhmmmm I'm pretty sure Cyan was just talking generally without feeling the need to dissect your post
-
Whole lotta great points written down
Thank you for laying it all out perfectly about the positives and (many) negatives about this movie
-
He is a lesser superman villain though. The top tier superman villains are Luthor (written well, as opposed to here), Zod, Brainiac and Darkseid.
And Mxyzptlk, but he would never convert to film.
Those 2 are/can be JL villains, not just Superman.
I wouldn't mind seeing:
Bizarro
Metallo
Parasite
Cyborg Superman
Mongul (can he be considered close to top tier villain?)There were a couple new villains in the new 52 that can be considered top tier:
He'l
The Daxamite King (I don't remember his name)I wouldn't mind seeing Supes throw down with:
Lobo
Black Adam -
And Mxyzptlk, but he would never convert to film.
I'd like to think in some other version of reality, the third Christopher Reeves movie, which was an attempt at comedy to begin with, instead focused on that crazy little guy instead.
The Daxamite King (I don't remember his name)
Truly, the sign of a most worthy and memorable character.
ANyway, while yes, Braniac and Darkseid can be considered villains for the DCU as a whole (Darkseid in fact not actually being in the Superman books much originally, but Jimmy Olsen and then New Gods) they are traditionally, Superman threats. Partly because Supes is the license that gets the screen time and we'll never have a New Gods series on its own merit, but… mostly because with Braniac at least... he's consistently a Superman threat.
Mongul is fine as an enemy in an ongoing franchise, but he's not one that I would pick to go in the top 5 must sees... not when Darkseid does his shtick better. Mongul only works when you have the Death Star style War WOrld to contend with and... that's also something Braniac can do.