BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion (TAG SPOILERS) - Part 302

[batfreakforever]

Did I just read that some one thinks Zack Snyder went out of his way to deliberately "poison the well" for future film makers? Did I just actually read that? Was that supposed to be serious minded analysis?



Great Rao...

You did. Zac didn't do anything wrong like that he just loves these characters in his own way it's just he wants to put them through a meat grinder and then through non preferred situations and shake them up a bit before getting to what we know and love. Its not everyone's cup of tea but I doubt he things wrong on purpose.

 

[AndrewOz]

Snyder would like Smallville's Lana, the version that stalks people, has people kidnapped (with a bear trap attacked to their arm), learns techniques in resisting torture so she can be Clark's perfect GF, has a better relationship with Clark's evil doppleganger than with Clank, and is just a completely unbalanced nutjob. I could see him really being into her.

Yes, I believe he would be. She'd be perfect for his Fountainhead inspired "welcomed rape" fantasies with Kal.

I've posted somewhere that I think Zack's idea of Superman came from the start of season 3 where he's wearing the red Kryptonite ring and rob banks.
Once he's systematically killed of the supporting cast of characters that may act as a sort of conscience to the man of steel, how is is Kal going to be able get some dollar-dollars and make it rain without a job?

Work in demolition? Construction? Charge a fee per rescue?

This idiot didn't even make Superman likeable, let alone popular, or give him a fortress, before wasting one of the greatest Superman stories ever told.
Which should not even be contemplated before JL2 and preferably MoS2.

And that a canonical version of Lois would have thrown Eisen-Lex of the tower.
I like Amy, but they are not writing her as Lois.
She's far too passive, soft and nice. With no self defense skills.
Just makes me miss Erica Durance, her more canonical Lois was by far the best thing in the show.

Physically, Amy looks like canonical Lana anyway, with her personality more than Lo's as well

 

[AndrewOz]

You did. Zac didn't do anything wrong like that he just loves these characters in his own way it's just he wants to put them through a meat grinder and then through non preferred situations and shake them up a bit before getting to what we know and love. Its not everyone's cup of tea but I doubt he things wrong on purpose.

No he just did wrong things..
You know what they call that, when it has lasting effects that extend well beyond yourself?
Poisoning the well.
Intentional or accidental has nothing to do with it.

Putting them through a meat grinder is fine. My favourite stories with these characters do just that, but you have to make people know and love the characters first for it to have an impact.
Why ruin the characters to start with if the intent is to "eventually" give us what we know and love?
At the end of JL2? Later?
When did Marvel decide to break the Avengers? After Iron Man 1? No, they built up the heroes, made people think of them as heroes first, made the GA like them and feel invested, so the impact of CA:CW will be deeper and more meaningful.
How can you empathise with a fall from grace if the grace has never been seen in this Universe?
The box office tells a pretty clear story.

And he has poisoned the DCEU well.
Or does anyone believe BvS did it's main job of raising the excitement and anticipation of the majority for the DCEU?

Whoever takes over on JL 1 if he doesn't stay on will be locked into certain things. JL2 also.
Flash director? Gone.
James Wan reportedly considering whether Aquaman is worth the potential risk to his reputation.
They are only rumours, but it seems pretty clear and unequivocal that this movie underwhelmed, underperformed and the DCEU is in on shaky ground as a result.
Bearing in mind this is the "comic book guy" that wanted to see Bruce raped in prison in Batman Begins, "he just loves these characters in his own way" makes it sound like he's molesting them.
You may want to change that.
Then again....

 

[AndrewOz]

Im currently re watching The Avengers and it just made me think:

The rationale for Thor fighting Iron Man/Cap is as stupid to me as Batman and Superman fighting in BvS

The main difference is that the Thor vs Iron Man/Cap fight isn't as important of the film

[/IMG]

 

[Supernova]

If zootopia is coming out on june 7th on bluray then this movie should easily be out no later then 4th of july.WB shouldnt wait to long to cash in on home Video.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

[/IMG]

Shakespeare in the house?

 

[javonstokess]

[/IMG]

I disagree with this.

Iron Man captured Loki.

Thor literally barges in and takes Loki out of Cap/IM's custody.

Iron Man, the known hothead, takes off and attacks Thor for "taking his stuff".

Thor, known hothead as well, and IM fight.

Makes sense to me.

Thor attacks Cap because he's basically in a rage at that point (which Thor has a history of flying into).

 

[titansupes]

^ Yup, and Cap stops them because he's the cool, calm and collected one (and they allow themselves to be stopped, because while they're hotheads, they're not imbeciles).

 

[FunkMiller]

This is my 1000th post on this forum, and I just wanted to use it to say thanks to each and every one of you who have engaged with me in a conversation about BvS - whether you agree with me or not.

I'm not surrounded by comic book nerds in my day to day life, so it's great to have an outlet to talk about them with people who know what the hell I'm on about.

 

[shauner111]

I've enjoyed your posts.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

No he just did wrong things..
You know what they call that, when it has lasting effects that extend well beyond yourself?
Poisoning the well.
Intentional or accidental has nothing to do with it.

I still think this mostly explains it.

As he did with Warner Bros.’ Man Of Steel, Zack Snyder is directing Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice. The filmmaker admitted he sought the advice of previous Batman director Christopher Nolan on how to handle the blockbuster, and the Englishman told him to not be so precious about the characters.

Zack Snyder told Empire, via Coming Soon, that, after revealing that he was going to pit Superman against Batman, Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises) "found it a little bit hard" to consider. But he ultimately told Snyder:

"Well, we don’t own these characters. When you’re done making Batman movies, someone else will [make them].

It's totally intentional. Snyder and Nolan don't really give a crap about these characters. They're just another property in the WB toybox to play with. And when they're done with them, they go back in the box for a few years, then someone else will come along and reboot the whole thing. And so on and so on.

This is why I believe that all the talk of a "DCEU" at WB is mostly marketing fluff for the shareholders, a way to signal that, "hey, we're going to make Avengers money too!" There is no long-term plan. They're just going to burn through the DC lineup until they get bored or they stop making money. Then it will be someone else's turn and everything that has gone before will be forgotten.

 

[djsunyc]

it's interesting for folks to bring up some marvel movies and try to point holes in the logic in some scenes/fights. there's gonna be holes everywhere in movies, especially comic book ones. but the difference is that most of the viewing public will overlook some of them if the movie is entertaining and enjoyable. avengers was, bvs wasn't - which is why the plot holes/etc are magnified b/c alot of the public didn't enjoy the movie.

 

[shauner111]

Welcome to the real world SomeOldGuy. WB isn't a DC studio. Batman will go on like Bond. One director does their take, then it's over. A new director does their version. It doesn't mean they don't care about the characters. Chris is being realistic. They don't own the character.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Difference is Chris Nolan knows how to tell an original story. He can get away with liberties more, because his movies are strong.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah, I don't get what's wrong with what Nolan said. That's just a fact.

I took Nolan's comment as pretty much, "hey emotionally this is tough for me, and I'm a bit taken aback that you want to reboot Batman immediately after I just finished my trilogy last year (this happened in 2013) and pit him against this brand new version of Superman we just put out but...one day when you're done and someone else takes over, you'll know how I feel. Good luck."

I mean it's not like this isn't true for the MCU. Jon Favreau for instance helped lay the foundation for the whole thing Iron Man, but the character of Tony Stark has since gone off in all these directions that he didn't have a thing to do with. He doesn't own the character.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

Welcome to the real world SomeOldGuy. WB isn't a DC studio. Batman will go on like Bond. One director does their take, then it's over. A new director does their version. It doesn't mean they don't care about the characters. Chris is being realistic. They don't own the character.

Never said he wasn't being realistic. When I say they don't care about the characters, I mean they don't care what they do with them or how they portray them. So go ahead and blow Jimmy Olsen away or make Batman a psycho killer, who cares? In 2020 (or whenever) someone will just start all over. No wonder the actual comics guys are said to hate the movies.

 

[BatLobster]

Nolan saying "don't be precious with these characters" is actually a bit of editorializing in that article. In the original quote from Snyder where he was talking about his initial conversation with Nolan, that was not what the conversation was about. It was simply about Nolan feeling surprised that Snyder wanted to reintroduce Batman and Nolan coming to terms with it.

Lest we forget, Nolan tried to argue against Superman killing Zod. This is also somebody that changed the identity of the character of Montoya to Ramirez specifically because he didn't want to mess with the moral integrity of the Montoya character. That's quite the difference from just killing off Jimmy Olsen because "eh, we're not using him anyway it'll be fun!" and actually a sign of respect for even a minor supporting character in the mythos.

I think Nolan's philosophy is be true to your story while being as respectful to the mythos as you can. NOT "just do whatever you can to be different and piss off the fans cause it's all gonna get rebooted anyway"...

 

[GreenKToo]

You cant really blame snyder. What he did is no different than what singer did with SR, ie, told it and did it the way he wanted. Thing is tho, it missed with most of the fans and public. If you want to blame anyone, blame WB for thinking all this was ok.
As a fan, I can honestly say I don't have a whole lot of excitement for JL at THIS point.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

You can blame Snyder, but you can also blame WB. That's not mutually exclusive.

Snyder's films don't make much money to WB, yet WB insists on keeping him.

 

[javonstokess]

it's interesting for folks to bring up some marvel movies and try to point holes in the logic in some scenes/fights. there's gonna be holes everywhere in movies, especially comic book ones. but the difference is that most of the viewing public will overlook some of them if the movie is entertaining and enjoyable. avengers was, bvs wasn't - which is why the plot holes/etc are magnified b/c alot of the public didn't enjoy the movie.

There are plot holes you forgive and plot holes you don't. Plus, if the movie is entertaining, you'll be more than likely willing to forgive some plot holes.

More likely than not, Marvel moves are entertaining AT LEAST.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

When I say they don't care about the characters, I mean they don't care what they do with them or how they portray them

It's not that Nolan doesn't care about how they portray these characters, he objected to Superman killing after all, it's about these properties existing beyond them because they are bigger than any one filmmaker.

Or did you want Nolan to buy the rights to Batman/Superman and hold them hostage in the name of 'caring'?

 

[Kanon]

There are plot holes you forgive and plot holes you don't. Plus, if the movie is entertaining, you'll be more than likely willing to forgive some plot holes.

More likely than not, Marvel moves are entertaining AT LEAST.

DoFP for example, had huge holes in logic that would normally make me wanna destroy mankind (like Kitty's power somehow related to time travel), but the movie was such a delight that I willingly turned my eye blind on that (as well as continuity issues). Same thing with Deadpool continuity.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

It's not that Nolan doesn't care about how they portray these characters, he objected to Superman killing after all, it's about these properties existing beyond them because they are bigger than any one filmmaker.

Exactly. And that's precisely what they don't care about. Fidelity to the characters is only important if they're something they intend to work with over time. If they're just disposable, rebootable properties, who cares? Shoot 'em up, kill 'em off, we'll just wipe the slate clean in five years and declare a do-over.

 

[shauner111]

What the heck are you talking about?

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Exactly. And that's precisely what they don't care about. Fidelity to the characters is only important if they're something they intend to work with over time. If they're just disposable, rebootable properties, who cares? Shoot 'em up, kill 'em off, we'll just wipe the slate clean in five years and declare a do-over.

That's not true at all. Nolan's Batman was a reasonably faithful version of post crisis Batman. At least the first two films were. And Nolan may not care about the do over, but he did care about his version of the character.