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

[AndrewOz]

PS:
You guys that are taunting people about "proving" or substantiating their "feelings" gotta lay off. It really is unfair. You can not prove to someone else why you felt something. It is subjective. It IS emotional. So why don't all you frustrated pseudo intellectual Mr. Spocks out there quit acting all high and mighty and denigrating others "feelings" because you don't "feel" the same way.

This is a board entitled "open discussion".
A discussion is an exchange of ideas and viewpoints.
Asking for clarification or substantiation of differing views, especially when they begin declaring that any that disagree with theirs are wrong, is hardly unfair.

If you read the posts, you will notice that there are people who state in their posts that everyone who disagrees with their opinion has failed to understand the movie. That could easily be viewed as a "taunt".

Asking someone to explain the reasons why they feel something in an open discussion thread is not about proof but about understanding the rationale.

For those who wish to blindly assert their opinion is correct without the desire to enter into debate, or feel being asked their logical reasons for a stated belief is unfair, this is not the correct forum.

For those who love this movie and do not want that love to be challenged, there is the positivity thread.

For those with a blind belief in its utter failure and uninterested in contrary views, there is the negativity thread.

For those who come here to express their views, please show them the respect they deserve by allowing them to present their ideas to challenge others and be challenged in turn.
They may be here because they want the opportunity to challenge those whose opinions differ from their own and perhaps even change their minds.

To assume they feel they are being picked on and require others to come to their defense is protectionist and condescending - or denigrating, if you will - and is a practice largely the province of frustrated pseudo-intellectuals.

Anyone posting in here deserves the respect and consideration of assuming they are here on purpose and wish to exchange viewpoints openly, as fully prepared to defend their own as they are to challenge others.

Believing people that post in here are not just able to justify their opinions, but are in fact in here because they are actually eager to do so, is treating them with a degree of respect your defense lacks, not "taunting" them.

 

[AndrewOz]

Anyone notice Batman's age didn't have any impact on the film other than his disillusionment? In the action scenes he was moving around like he was 25. Once again Snyder throws out characterization once the action begins.

In TDKR, this movie's chief inspiration, there is constant reminder of how much harder this is for Bruce. Batman constantly laments his aching bones, sore muscles, and his heart and lungs being on fire. Batman is verbally jealous of the young bodies of the mutant leader and the cops. But I guess this would be too interesting to show.

I think interesting is too challenging to Snyder.
What he did here with Batman was the same as he did with Nite Owl.

 

[AndrewOz]

Thank you so much. I found this picture on twitter last week and I have been waiting to use it ever since.

Spoiler

Also this makes sense because Clark says he didn't kill anyone in the movie.

But you know what, I don't blame those who think Clark killed that man, Zack could have shown us a slo mo shot of that point of impact. I think Snyder wasted the potential of using slo-mo. He used them for Wayne Murder scene and Funeral scene, great. But I wished he showed them to emphasize the Super speed.

After seeing it the first time, I used that (comic book justified) defense of several unfair criticisms of the movie, even though I found plenty of fair ones.
Others included Batman "stabbing a guy through the heart" and Lois "getting herself stuck" under water retrieving the spear.
After subsequent viewings though I've concluded with the speed and the damage shown to the walls, the general was paste, under Superman's arm or not.

To be even remotely credible, Superman would have had to fly out backwards in a seated position with the general in his lap, but even that would only protect someone considerably smaller than Superman, like a child.
No, the general is gone. If he wasn't there should be scene with at least the news explaining he was handed over by Superman to the government.
This would also go towards demonstrating how he destabilised the region and how his actions may have led directly to the Government massacres in formerly rebel held territory, lending some credence to the existence of the senate inquiry.
But it didn't.
Maybe it will be in the DC

 

[Timebomb]

Andrewoz is killing it.

Totally!

 

[AndrewOz]

Thanks

 

[Sleiek]

After seeing it the first time, I used that (comic book justified) defense of several unfair criticisms of the movie, even though I found plenty of fair ones.
Others included Batman "stabbing a guy through the heart" and Lois "getting herself stuck" under water retrieving the spear.
After subsequent viewings though I've concluded with the speed and the damage shown to the walls, the general was paste, under Superman's arm or not.

To be even remotely credible, Superman would have had to fly out backwards in a seated position with the general in his lap, but even that would only protect someone considerably smaller than Superman, like a child.
No, the general is gone. If he wasn't there should be scene with at least the news explaining he was handed over by Superman to the government.
This would also go towards demonstrating how he destabilised the region and how his actions may have led directly to the Government massacres in formerly rebel held territory, lending some credence to the existence of the senate inquiry.
But it didn't.
Maybe it will be in the DC

If you want to talk real life physics, there doesn't even have to be a SINGLE wall for that General to die. Superman was already going fast enough to kill the General on touch while killing Lois Lane in the process because the General's arm was around her neck. But we have to remind ourselves these are COMIC BOOK MOVIES.

 

[titansupes]

I see your point. The only rational, and I agree it is not illustrated on film in THIS film, is the current nature of Batman in Gotham. All I can say about the shooting is that he was startled and scared and started shooting. In Nolan's version there was a little hypocrisy or mixed feelings too. Gordon has the Batsignal suggesting the Cops call Batman for help...yet...he is a wanted vigilantly. Some know and some do not know or trust and don't trust. Gordon is "working" with him but Foley is trying to capture or kill him. I know, he was painted as Dents killer but they sure accept his help later with no problem.

Just on this bit-- in TDK, the fact that Batman was officially considered a wanted criminal... yet the cops have a big bat signal on their rooftop and let him apprehend real criminals for them is pointed out a couple of times in the movie itself, as part of the story and evolving relationship.

And the cops worked with him in TDKR only after Gordon's letter made it clear that he was innocent and Dent was the real villain.

 

[Predator jp]

If you want to talk real life physics, there doesn't even have to be a SINGLE wall for that General to die. Superman was already going fast enough to kill the General on touch while killing Lois Lane in the process because the General's arm was around her neck. But we have to remind ourselves these are COMIC BOOK MOVIES.

and yet, Snyder and co keep claiming it's as realistic and grounded as it gets.

 

[AndrewOz]

This whole post....

Andrewoz is killing it.

Totally!

Thanks guys, this put a smile on my face today.

And that, more than anything else, is proof to me that Snyder's claims that his DCEU is a portrayal of grounded "realism" is anything but.

If I can take pleasure from this small amount of appreciation, over something as essentially frivolous as an internet forum on a movie, how overwhelmingly gratifying must it be to receive appreciation first hand over something as truly meaningful as saving lives?

Superman would be overwhelmed, every time. In a positive way.

I'm fortunate enough to know a few people who have saved lives and the effect it has on them, even in some cases, years later, is profound. They light up and their mood is instantly bulletproof as soon as they think about it.

Until we see more of that, the realistic balance of opposing opinions, not just the people questioning him and demoralising him, but the uplifting effect the genuine appreciation from those he saves has on him and how it motivates him, there won't be any basis for claims of realism in these films.

I've just come back from seeing it again (somewhat reluctantly) with a group from work and there really is shockingly little that would need to be changed or polished to make this movie work for me, but it is what is.

 

[AndrewOz]

If you want to talk real life physics, there doesn't even have to be a SINGLE wall for that General to die. Superman was already going fast enough to kill the General on touch while killing Lois Lane in the process because the General's arm was around her neck. But we have to remind ourselves these are COMIC BOOK MOVIES.

Of course they are. But super speed gives him options that are still consistent with physics. He could have easily moved (or, more likely, removed) the general's arm before launching him past Lois. He could have smashed the walls down with a blast of super-breath, too, meaning there was no impact.
His indestructible cape has often been used as an explanation for why he can carry people at super speed without crisping them due to friction.
Byrne even alluded in his MoS reboot that his powers may have a psionic nature as well, with a small force field that protects anything in close proximity to him, as well as hinting there was a telekinetic aspect to his flight, with him noticing that things he carries weigh much less when he's flying.
The point being that comics and CBM's should go out of their way to explain the rules that apply to their internal logic, no matter how far-fetched.
It's core to establishing suspension of disbelief.
I would have been more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and if the director's cut has a clip showing Superman handing the general over to the Nairomi authorities, I'll happily give that a pass.

 

[Charlatan]

Anyone notice Batman's age didn't have any impact on the film other than his disillusionment? In the action scenes he was moving around like he was 25. Once again Snyder throws out characterization once the action begins.

In TDKR, this movie's chief inspiration, there is constant reminder of how much harder this is for Bruce. Batman constantly laments his aching bones, sore muscles, and his heart and lungs being on fire. Batman is verbally jealous of the young bodies of the mutant leader and the cops. But I guess this would be too interesting to show.

Did you see this iteration of Batman at the age of 25? How do you know he wasn't faster? Maybe his experience allows him to be more efficient with his attacks? Did you also notice how many time his gear saved his butt? His bullet proof cowl? Knife proof neck? The gauntlets? The little devices that disabled all the guns?

 

[Reek]

You know what I find irritating? When people say "Marvel movies are meant for all ages and DC tries being mature."

Why? Because Marvel movies use language and sexual innuendo etc all the time. I'm not complaining about it by any means, but they even have 11 year old spider-man say s*** in CW... along with a few other times... Given censorship these days.. i mean look... i can't say s***... why? because its not for all ages.

again not complaining at all about the movies having that... but irritated people use the all ages argument and... blah /end

 

[souperman]

This is a board entitled "open discussion".
A discussion is an exchange of ideas and viewpoints.
Asking for clarification or substantiation of differing views, especially when they begin declaring that any that disagree with theirs are wrong, is hardly unfair.

If you read the posts, you will notice that there are people who state in their posts that everyone who disagrees with their opinion has failed to understand the movie. That could easily be viewed as a "taunt".

Asking someone to explain the reasons why they feel something in an open discussion thread is not about proof but about understanding the rationale.

For those who wish to blindly assert their opinion is correct without the desire to enter into debate, or feel being asked their logical reasons for a stated belief is unfair, this is not the correct forum.

For those who love this movie and do not want that love to be challenged, there is the positivity thread.

For those with a blind belief in its utter failure and uninterested in contrary views, there is the negativity thread.

For those who come here to express their views, please show them the respect they deserve by allowing them to present their ideas to challenge others and be challenged in turn.
They may be here because they want the opportunity to challenge those whose opinions differ from their own and perhaps even change their minds.

To assume they feel they are being picked on and require others to come to their defense is protectionist and condescending - or denigrating, if you will - and is a practice largely the province of frustrated pseudo-intellectuals.

Anyone posting in here deserves the respect and consideration of assuming they are here on purpose and wish to exchange viewpoints openly, as fully prepared to defend their own as they are to challenge others.

Believing people that post in here are not just able to justify their opinions, but are in fact in here because they are actually eager to do so, is treating them with a degree of respect your defense lacks, not "taunting" them.

He wut smelt it...dealt it...

I am sure the member in question did not need any help defending themselves.
If you have been keeping score, in the past weeks there have been a onslaught of pile-on posts similar to the run that I was referring to. Members have been baiting other members to explain their "feelings" and justify their opinions , only to be rebuffed by a slew of posts telling them they are "wrong" or stupid for feeling the way they do... Not that they disagree or can't quite grasp the concept or that they see it a different way. If this was not intended as a "thread trap", I apologize,- but it was starting to sound that way and the subsequent congratulatory forum high fives given to each other as if something is "won" after a knock down post kind of proves my point. I know several members who have left after such an encounter and it is just sad.

There is nothing wrong with a different point of view, so long as the point doesn't get blood all over it !


And trying to use the same terms in a turn-around against me... for shame doc.

 

[AndrewOz]

He wut smelt it...dealt it...

I am sure the member in question did not need any help defending themselves.
If you have been keeping score, in the past weeks there have been a onslaught of pile-on posts similar to the run that I was referring to. Members have been baiting other members to explain their "feelings" and justify their opinions , only to be rebuffed by a slew of posts telling them they are "wrong" or stupid for feeling the way they do... Not that they disagree or can't quite grasp the concept or that they see it a different way. If this was not intended as a "thread trap", I apologize,- but it was starting to sound that way and the subsequent congratulatory forum high fives given to each other as if something is "won" after a knock down post kind of proves my point. I know several members who have left after such an encounter and it is just sad.

There is nothing wrong with a different point of view, so long as the point doesn't get blood all over it !


And trying to use the same terms in a turn-around against me... for shame doc.

Apology accepted

 

[souperman]

After seeing it the first time, I used that (comic book justified) defense of several unfair criticisms of the movie, even though I found plenty of fair ones.
Others included Batman "stabbing a guy through the heart" and Lois "getting herself stuck" under water retrieving the spear.
After subsequent viewings though I've concluded with the speed and the damage shown to the walls, the general was paste, under Superman's arm or not.

To be even remotely credible, Superman would have had to fly out backwards in a seated position with the general in his lap, but even that would only protect someone considerably smaller than Superman, like a child.
No, the general is gone. If he wasn't there should be scene with at least the news explaining he was handed over by Superman to the government.
This would also go towards demonstrating how he destabilised the region and how his actions may have led directly to the Government massacres in formerly rebel held territory, lending some credence to the existence of the senate inquiry.
But it didn't.
Maybe it will be in the DC

If you want to talk real life physics, there doesn't even have to be a SINGLE wall for that General to die. Superman was already going fast enough to kill the General on touch while killing Lois Lane in the process because the General's arm was around her neck. But we have to remind ourselves these are COMIC BOOK MOVIES.

Of course they are. But super speed gives him options that are still consistent with physics. He could have easily moved (or, more likely, removed) the general's arm before launching him past Lois. He could have smashed the walls down with a blast of super-breath, too, meaning there was no impact.
His indestructible cape has often been used as an explanation for why he can carry people at super speed without crisping them due to friction.
Byrne even alluded in his MoS reboot that his powers may have a psionic nature as well, with a small force field that protects anything in close proximity to him, as well as hinting there was a telekinetic aspect to his flight, with him noticing that things he carries weigh much less when he's flying.
The point being that comics and CBM's should go out of their way to explain the rules that apply to their internal logic, no matter how far-fetched.
It's core to establishing suspension of disbelief.
I would have been more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and if the director's cut has a clip showing Superman handing the general over to the Nairomi authorities, I'll happily give that a pass.

If you are referring to the warehouse fight, I think the guy you are talking about was stabbed in the shoulder not the heart. Batman takes the knife that HE was stabbed in the shoulder with and does the same to the terrorist...into the wall. Basically payback. I didn't mind the brutality here.

Not sure what you were pointing out about Lois underwater. I think she got stuck because when she dove down and the building collapsed and trapped her.

The difference between movie "Realism" and Reality is vast. Real physics in these films (and any CBM or action film ) would be impossible. Superman's ( not to mention Flash's) super speed would suck the air from the area and suffocate people, blow out their ear drums and collapse their skulls from just the pressure wave. That said, both sides make good points here. I think it was a cool scene showing not only Lois's trust in Superman but Superman's love and protective nature for Lois. Sure, he "could" have stopped the terrorist General many other ways and I agree, it would have been easy and fast to simply show the General dazed and confused sitting on the ground in rubble for a sec.

I think they chose this wall smash option to illustrate and drive home the point that Superman does not like his woman threatened and thought it would be cool to maybe pay homage to George Reeves TV wall smashes.

The Physics issue that was more perplexing to me was the choice to show Superman in the arctic, "pulling" a ship by the anchor chain... on foot...and he did not slip or sink in to the snow and ice. Sure, he is using the super gravity force, but why walk? I guess to mimic a comic panel but it did look odd and the CG there was iffy at best for some reason. Holding the chain over his shoulder and one arm extended flying low and slow would have worked better for me... but was not a mood killer.

 

[souperman]

one other quick observation.

I found it interesting that Clark felt the need to explain and assure even Lois that he did not kill those people.

I think this first shows Clark's wariness of his public perception and that he feels he needs to defend his honor, morals and ethics.

 

[AndrewOz]

If you are referring to the warehouse fight, I think the guy you are talking about was stabbed in the shoulder not the heart. Batman takes the knife that HE was stabbed in the shoulder with and does the same to the terrorist...into the wall. Payback. I didn't mind the brutality here.

Not sure what you were pointing out about Lois underwater. I think she got stuck because when she dove down and the building collapsed and trapped her.

The difference between movie "Realism" and Reality is vast. Real physics in these films would be impossible. Superman's ( not to mention Flash's) super speed would suck the air from the area and suffocate people, blow out their ear drums and collapse their skulls from just the pressure wave. That said, both sides make good points here. I think it was a cool scene showing not only Lois's trust in Superman but Superman's love and protective nature for Lois. Sure, he "could" have stopped the terrorist General many other ways and I agree, it would have been easy and fast to simply show the General dazed and confused sitting on the ground in rubble for a sec.

I think they chose this wall smash option to illustrate and drive home the point that Superman does not like his woman threatened and thought it would be cool to maybe pay homage to George Reeves TV wall smashes.

The Physics issue that was more perplexing to me was the choice to show Superman in the arctic, "pulling" a ship by the anchor chain... on foot...and he did not slip or sink in to the snow and ice. Sure, he is using the super gravity force, but why walk? I guess to mimic a comic panel but it did look odd and the CG there was iffy at best for some reason. Holding the chain over his shoulder and one arm extended flying low and slow would have worked better for me... but was not a mood killer.

Yes, Batman clearly stabbed him in the shoulder in retaliation for his own wound. It never even occurred to me that it was a chest strike.
The only justification I can think of for anyone believing otherwise is how freely he's shown to kill earlier.
I find it ironic, given Zack's comments on Miller's TDKR, that Zack's Batman is accused of a kill he didn't make.
Some commentators were saying Lois trapped herself underwater, when Doomsday's explosion toppled the building and dropped the rubble that closed over the pool and trapped her.

The invention of the speed-force was an attempt to negate the need to try and apply physics to explain Flash, but Superman poses other issues.
John Byrne used telekinesis to explain the physically impossible in his classic FF#249 and #250 with the Superman-analogue Guardian, which he also alluded to with his work on MoS.
I have a theory extrapolated from that that I like to invoke to explain all superhero powers and even non-powered heroes, when the laws of physics or probability are broken too blatantly for suspension of disbelief to apply unaided, using Julian May's ideas on metapsychic operancy. In my mind, all heroes have powerful latent abilities that they draw on without being aware of it.
Superman generates a telekinetic blanket around the anchor chain and the ship, enabling him to drag it through the ice using muscle power, without buckling the ship or shredding the chain in his hands, thus maintaining the integrity of the structure. Otherwise, the chain breaks in his hands.
The fact that the imperfect "Superboy" clone introduced in the Return of Superman saga has tactile telekinesis is a nod to Byrne's earlier allusions to that side of Superman's power.
Julian May's suite of meta-psychic powers and latency can be used to explain almost any superhero power set, how normal physics are seemingly circumvented and even why powers seem to vary between runs by different writers.
I noticed a lot of cross pollination between her work and the X-Men in particular.
Her Marc Remillard is clearly based on the Claremont/Byrne Magneto, down to his distinctive hair. The Onslaught saga was clearly based on her story of Denis, Marc's grandfather.

Or we could just wait for Sheldon to publish a paper explaining why the Justice League is entirely plausible with the correct application of theoretical physics.

 

[souperman]

Yes, Batman clearly stabbed him in the shoulder in retaliation for his own wound. It never even occurred to me that it was a chest strike.
The only justification I can think of for anyone believing otherwise is how freely he's shown to kill earlier.
I find it ironic, given Zack's comments on Miller's TDKR, that Zack's Batman is accused of a kill he didn't make.
Some commentators were saying Lois trapped herself underwater, when Doomsday's explosion toppled the building and dropped the rubble that closed over the pool and trapped her.

The invention of the speed-force was an attempt to negate the need to try and apply physics to explain Flash, but Superman poses other issues.
John Byrne used telekinesis to explain the physically impossible in his classic FF#249 and #250 with the Superman-analogue Guardian, which he also alluded to with his work on MoS.
I have a theory extrapolated from that that I like to invoke to explain all superhero powers and even non-powered heroes, when the laws of physics or probability are broken too blatantly for suspension of disbelief to apply unaided, using Julian May's ideas on metapsychic operancy. In my mind, all heroes have powerful latent abilities that they draw on without being aware of it.
Superman generates a telekinetic blanket around the anchor chain and the ship, enabling him to drag it through the ice using muscle power, without buckling the ship or shredding the chain in his hands, thus maintaining the integrity of the structure. Otherwise, the chain breaks in his hands.
The fact that the imperfect "Superboy" clone introduced in the Return of Superman saga has tactile telekinesis is a nod to Byrne's earlier allusions to that side of Superman's power.
Julian May's suite of meta-psychic powers and latency can be used to explain almost any superhero power set, how normal physics are seemingly circumvented and even why powers seem to vary between runs by different writers.
I noticed a lot of cross pollination between her work and the X-Men in particular.
Her Marc Remillard is clearly based on the Claremont/Byrne Magneto, down to his distinctive hair. The Onslaught saga was clearly based on her story of Denis, Marc's grandfather.

Or we could just wait for Sheldon to publish a paper explaining why the Justice League is entirely plausible with the correct application of theoretical physics.

Ah ha!

See, my advantage over you is that I have limited comic knowledge and so the comic vs film variances do not bother me as much... but I would prefer "more" plausible set-ups and resolutions.

BvS physics is no worse in my view than other CBMs like the Avengers flying aircraft carrier...with "turbofan" engines. Why not use Stark Built repulsor or anti gravity drive? That would have been more movie plausible to my eye than a propeller driven invisible aircraft carrier that no birds or planes or Supermen fly into

The superpowers I can accept as shown just because they do what they do. A little explanation is great. The floating rocks in MOS gave a better idea of the way Superman is able to fly. Not necessary but nice touch.

Other "powers" should be telegraphed a little better or shown slower so we can see what's going on. On one hand, the not knowing keeps the audience in the same boat as the characters in the film being acted upon for a visceral experience. On the other hand, we may miss the boat !

I do like the idea of Superman having a natural molecular "force-field" that contributes to his powers. It sounds good at least. Maybe it is this feature that as you say, protects what ever he is in contact with like inside a plasma bubble.

 

[Sleiek]

How does superpower physics affect the "Maturity" of the film and the "Realism" of a story?

When film makers offer a grounded take, it doesn't necessarily mean every nook and cranny of the film is going to be grounded.

 

[souperman]

How does superpower physics affect the "Maturity" of the film and the "Realism" of a story?

See, I think this realism concept is misunderstood by many people. I think the production means that they want to treat the situations and reactions as realistically as possible...how would the world truly react to a SUPERMAN, just as Perry White says to Lois and not how real they can get the physics to make sense.

The Maturity of BvS, for me is in the handling of the myth, comparisons and religious metaphors. The subject of the world treating this alien like a god, his reluctance to be a "visible" hero and finally his acceptance of his fate. Sure, it can be viewed as heavy handed or not heavy handed enough but it was good for me. Not a perfect film, but very enjoyable and interesting and had exciting visuals and action and poignant/touching moments...for me.

There IS a lot of thought put into the depth of the storytelling, I only wish it was done more clearly or in a manor so more people could appreciate it.

I suppose it depends on what is more important to the viewer as to how much they can let slide.

 

[Sleiek]

Absolutely. I am not gonna bring Marvel movies into this because I enjoy them as well, but BvS certainly is a deep film. It certainly made me think.

I have to say, souperman and AndrewOZ are doing a great job! Discussing in detail and more importantly in a decent manner.

 

[souperman]

Absolutely. I am not gonna bring Marvel movies into this because I enjoy them as well, but BvS certainly is a deep film. It certainly made me think.

I have to say, souperman and AndrewOZ are doing a great job! Discussing in detail and more importantly in a decent manner.

You know, I like Marvel movies too...some more than others but hope all these CBMs do well because I want to see more of them.

 

[obredaan]

Does seem odd that no matter the quality, every marvel movie get's a fresh rating, usually in the 90% range, even though they've pumped out absolute drivel like IM2, IM3, Thor 2, Avenger's 2, The incredible Hulk, Ant-Man (imo it was a borefest and cliche). Yet movies like Batman v Superman and MOS, though very very far from perfect get ****tier scores than f****** Evolution with sean william scott got a higher rating FFS. As someone who is not a fanboy, I've never read a comic in my life, I as a general movie goer, find that to be a little fishy.

Odd that you don't mention The Nolan films in this little rant. I find it fishy when fanboys complain about film critics bashing DC films but always manage to ignore the DC films that have gotten huge praise in the past. And the Marvel films you listed are barely fresh and are not widely considered to be drivel. Also the percentage is just the number of critics that liked the movie. Its not a indicator of how good or bad the film is. Its just that 90% of critics enjoyed the film.

 

[Sleiek]

You know, I like Marvel movies too...some more than others but hope all these CBMs do well because I want to see more of them.

Same as me. I am kinda troubled with the reception to Apocalypse. My only wish, as a fan of superhero concept in general, is that all superhero movies do well in all points.

 

[Charlatan]

they all kill enemies in these movies. I was just watching Civil War again and counted several in that first fight alone. Cap splatters one guy all over a concrete pillar, then Falcon kills 4 in 2 seconds when he shoots those 2 missiles at them and immolated them right there on the spot. No one ever bats an eye at that though. And that's just in the first 5 min of the movie.