All Things DCEU News, Discussion, and Speculation - Part 2

[BH/HHH]

Jesus this thread, I wonder how long it would take me to go through many threads on here and find the exact same arguments.

 

[The Joker]

I know when certain posters champion certain articles, its best not to take it seriously.

Those articles are for people that already agree with the writer.

Not to mention, they're already trying to change to please critics, hence the "See, JL is going to be fun!" set visits, and the editing of SS.

Batsy shoots, Batsy scores.

That's exactly right. Especially about JL's lighter approach.

 

[Slade W]

Batsy shoots, Batsy scores.

That's exactly right. Especially about JL's lighter approach.

Indeed.

“We accelerated the story to get to the hope and optimism a little faster,” said Berg.

http://ie.ign.com/articles/2016/09/...-lightening-the-tone-of-their-upcoming-movies

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Jesus this thread, I wonder how long it would take me to go through many threads on here and find the exact same arguments.

As long as things are being civilly discussed, that's what this board is for.

 

[metaphysician]

Would DCEU's Superman cry about terrorists who kill children? I don't understand his moral compass at all. I don't get where this ultimate goodness comes from.

I know your being rhetorical, but it bears repeating: The problem is not that these questions cannot be answered. The problem is that the movie *doesn't* answer them. It doesn't dramatize the motivations for Superman in any coherent manner. To the extent these explanations make sense, it depends on the starting assumptions the audience bring- of *course* Superman would be bothered by killing, because he's Superman. Except you wouldn't know that from the movie, because its messages about the morality of its hero are at best mixed and contradictory.

Now, it'd be okay for the movie to rely on the audience knowing its iconic character. . . *if* the movie actually *used* said icon. Instead, it spends almost all its time trying to *not* be the iconic Superman. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Grommers]

As long as things are being civilly discussed, that's what this board is for.

Agreed ad disagree - repeating the same argument over and over again, which causes someone else to repeat their points too me is a form of trolling in my eyes, its like "hey you proved me wrong..so im going to change minor amount of words making the same point even though my point has been rebuttled."


Although, considering mainstream media hasnt figured away of providing legitimate 100% factual stories, I can't imagine SHH forum posters will either .

 

[metaphysician]

Right. Good writing is parking the Iron Man armor outside a restaurant.

Given it produces a good image, answers a potential "everyday life" question about the character, and doesn't introduce any plot problems, yeah. It *is* good writing.

( What, is Stark supposed to be afraid someone will. . . walk up and try to steal the suit? The suit that weighs hundreds of pounds, is monitored by an AI, and capable of self-operation? )

 

[OutOfBoose]

I know your being rhetorical, but it bears repeating: The problem is not that these questions cannot be answered. The problem is that the movie *doesn't* answer them. It doesn't dramatize the motivations for Superman in any coherent manner. To the extent these explanations make sense, it depends on the starting assumptions the audience bring- of *course* Superman would be bothered by killing, because he's Superman. Except you wouldn't know that from the movie, because its messages about the morality of its hero are at best mixed and contradictory.

Now, it'd be okay for the movie to rely on the audience knowing its iconic character. . . *if* the movie actually *used* said icon. Instead, it spends almost all its time trying to *not* be the iconic Superman. You can't have it both ways.

Yep.

 

[metaphysician]

Didn't Snyder come out and say that Superman killing Zod was the formation of the no kill rule? Absolutely makes no sense to me.

The only way it makes sense is if Superman's "no killing" rule is supposed to be based on personal squeamishness. Its not the harm to another that bothers him, its the visceral feeling of someone dying in his hands. Which is a *profoundly* dubious basis for such a moral position.

And its moot anyway, since his first scene in the next movie has him killing someone, so. . .

 

[misslane38]

I know your being rhetorical, but it bears repeating: The problem is not that these questions cannot be answered. The problem is that the movie *doesn't* answer them. It doesn't dramatize the motivations for Superman in any coherent manner. To the extent these explanations make sense, it depends on the starting assumptions the audience bring- of *course* Superman would be bothered by killing, because he's Superman. Except you wouldn't know that from the movie, because its messages about the morality of its hero are at best mixed and contradictory.

Now, it'd be okay for the movie to rely on the audience knowing its iconic character. . . *if* the movie actually *used* said icon. Instead, it spends almost all its time trying to *not* be the iconic Superman. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, and I don't see how the movie expects one to bring outside knowledge of Superman to it. Can you elaborate? Can you also give an example of how the movie could have done this properly in your eyes? How does one "dramatize the motivations in a coherent manner," and what wasn't "coherent" about his morality in the movie? Where are the contradictions?

How about yourself? How do you know killing is wrong? What are some core moral principles you believe in, and how/when did you develop that morality?

 

[ManWithNoName18]

As long as things are being civilly discussed, that's what this board is for.

Also rather these discussions be here then in places they don't exactly fit, like the Justice League forums

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Agreed ad disagree - repeating the same argument over and over again, which causes someone else to repeat their points too me is a form of trolling in my eyes, its like "hey you proved me wrong..so im going to change minor amount of words making the same point even though my point has been rebuttled."


Although, considering mainstream media hasnt figured away of providing legitimate 100% factual stories, I can't imagine SHH forum posters will either .

an article was posted about why the DCEU shouldn't change because of critics. That is what started the discussion. You never would have heard those same arguments if that article wasn't posted here in the first place. But its all part of the discussion and I'm happy to participate

 

[metaphysician]

And just to be clear, I am actually fine with a movie *slightly* loosening Superman's traditional CvK. Take the position that Superman loves people, he values life, he'll do everything he can to save everyone. But, if the stakes are sufficiently high, he will fight full out in battle against a foe, even if it kills them, in order to save innocent lives. Its not something he normally has to do, and he tries his hardest to find another way. But, if the only way to stop the city smashing villain is to kill them, he will do so, and regret what is lost.

The thing is, to go this way? You need to actually *go this way*. You need to make Superman's love of life an actual part of his characterization. You need to show up saving people, and taking risks to himself in order to find a better way, and this mattering to him. Then, when you face him with a foe he cannot defeat except by killing, you have this *also* matter to him, with his manner and his actions effected by it through the rest of the movie.

 

[The Guard]

Superman's stance against killing has existed for decades. Entire stories have been written about it. There are likely countless instances where he was shown to actively avoid doing it, for one reason or another. Citing the (very) few instances where does kill to justify the ending of MOS is cherry picking.

No, it's not cherry picking, anymore than creators of Batman stories using elements of Alan Moore's The Killing Joke or elements of Frank Miller's Batman stories like focusing on police corruption, Commissioner Loeb, and Year One elements is cherry picking. It's an accepted part of the modern character's mythology.

Modern interpretations of Superman, since the late eighties in fact, have featured this as part of their mythology.

Much like the Death of Superman storyline had far reaching impact on the mythology, the Evil Kryptonian story arc where Superman had to kill Zod and felt awful about it was a key storyline that had quite an impact on the character and was referenced for several decades. It has been part of his character for quite a while.

 

[DrCosmic]

Much like the Death of Superman storyline had far reaching impact on the mythology, the Evil Kryptonian story arc where Superman had to kill Zod and felt awful about it was a key storyline that had quite an impact on the character and was referenced for several decades. It has been part of his character for quite a while.

I call shenanigans! Never heard of this "key" storyline in all my years of superman fandom, and it does not come up when I google "Evil Kryptonian" whereas an actual key storyline, Death of Superman, is known to any serious Superman fan, and doesn't just google easy, it's got it's own wikipedia page.

So, shenanigans on that. It's an obscure story, referenced in obscure stories.

 

[misslane38]

The thing is, to go this way? You need to actually *go this way*. You need to make Superman's love of life an actual part of his characterization. You need to show up saving people, and taking risks to himself in order to find a better way, and this mattering to him. Then, when you face him with a foe he cannot defeat except by killing, you have this *also* matter to him, with his manner and his actions effected by it through the rest of the movie.

Can you explain why you think this didn't happen in MoS? He risked exposure and did something selfless when he saved his classmates including his bully from drowning. When Whitney and other boys teased him and hit him, he refused to hit back, inspiring a speech from Jonathan about good character. He saves Lois in the scout ship in the arctic even though she's a reporter and he didn't now if she could be trusted. When Lois investigates and confronts him, the conclusion is that he is someone who cannot stop himself from helping people, preserving life. He turned himself over to Zod and the US government to save Earth even though he wasn't sure either could be trusted. Unless Superman was confronted with another kill/didn't kill scenario after Zod, then how can you show it mattering to him beyond what we did see, which was heartbreak at the act?

 

[misslane38]

I call shenanigans! Never heard of this "key" storyline in all my years of superman fandom, and it does not come up when I google "Evil Kryptonian" whereas an actual key storyline, Death of Superman, is known to any serious Superman fan, and doesn't just google easy, it's got it's own wikipedia page.

So, shenanigans on that. It's an obscure story, referenced in obscure stories.

It's not that obscure of a story (learn more here). It's a well-known arc among Superman comics readers, as it was quite controversial at the time. It had long-lasting repercussions on the Post-Crisis Superman who. among other things, brought it up in therapy many years later.

 

[Ivan Drago]

He pulled out because he wanted to do Kingsman. He figured the time for a bright and fun spy movie was coming, and if he didn't do it, someone else would beat him to the punch (and sure enough, Ritchie's TMFU came out a few months later).

From what he's said about his version of DoFP, Singer's is far better anyway.

Yeah Vaughn's ideas for DOFP were.... questionable, to say the least. The Juggernaut set piece in the original script paled in comparison to Quicksilver and his scene. I think most people would agree Quicksilver was the highlight of DOFP, and that was all Singer.

Vaughn also wanted the Sentinels to look like Mystique.

Bryan [Singer] did a few things, which I thought were genius that weren’t in my script. *I had Juggernaut breaking into the Pentagon, he changed it to Quicksilver and did that f**king brilliantly, I have to add. *My idea was the sentinels at the end, I wanted them to look like Mystique. *I thought there should be thousands of mystiques attacking them in the future.

http://collider.com./x-men-days-of-future-past-matthew-vaughn/

 

[The Guard]

I call shenanigans! Never heard of this "key" storyline in all my years of superman fandom, and it does not come up when I google "Evil Kryptonian" whereas an actual key storyline, Death of Superman, is known to any serious Superman fan, and doesn't just google easy, it's got it's own wikipedia page.

So, shenanigans on that. It's an obscure story, referenced in obscure stories.

Google "Superman kills Zod in the comics" or the storyline called "The Price".

It's a very well known part of Superman's modern lore. He literally executes the Kryptonian criminals with Kryptonite.

This event was followed by an equally famous storyline called SUPERMAN: EXHILE, where Superman felt so bad about what he had done that he left Earth. EXHILE includes a very well known storyline with the villain Mongul where Superman fought in gladitorial matches on Warworld, a storyline that was adapted on Justice League the animated series, and has been adapted on SUPERGIRL, and which later informed the Superman AND Green Lantern mythologies, because Mongul returned after Superman's death and return and sought to destroy Superman's adopted homeworld as part of the Reign of the Superman/Return of Superman storyline.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Ew, Vaughn. Enough with the 'Stique

 

[BH/HHH]

Yeah Vaughn's ideas for DOFP were.... questionable, to say the least. The Juggernaut set piece in the original script paled in comparison to Quicksilver and his scene. I think most people would agree Quicksilver was the highlight of DOFP, and that was all Singer.

Vaughn also wanted the Sentinels to look like Mystique.

Bryan [Singer] did a few things, which I thought were genius that weren’t in my script. *I had Juggernaut breaking into the Pentagon, he changed it to Quicksilver and did that f**king brilliantly, I have to add. *My idea was the sentinels at the end, I wanted them to look like Mystique. *I thought there should be thousands of mystiques attacking them in the future.

http://collider.com./x-men-days-of-future-past-matthew-vaughn/

Tbf Juggernaught breaking into the Pentagon would have made sense and probably been pretty cool.

Also he was talking about the future sentinels, and given what they could do it might have made sense to do that. I'm sure they wouldn't have been giant Jennifer Lawrence's lol.

But in any case I'm glad for what we got instead over that. Just think sometimes ideas in paper can sound sillier than they actually end up been in execution.

 

[BH/HHH]

Google "Superman kills Zod in the comics" or the storyline called "The Price".

It's a very well known part of Superman's modern lore. He literally executes the Kryptonian criminals with Kryptonite.

This event was followed by an equally famous storyline called SUPERMAN: EXHILE, where Superman felt so bad about what he had done that he left Earth. EXHILE includes a very well known storyline with the villain Mongul where Superman fought in gladitorial matches on Warworld, a storyline that was adapted on Justice League the animated series, and has been adapted on SUPERGIRL, and which later informed the Superman AND Green Lantern mythologies, because Mongul returned after Superman's death and return and sought to destroy Superman's adopted homeworld as part of the Reign of the Superman/Return of Superman storyline.

Here it is:

Spoiler

 

[Boy Scout]

No, it's not cherry picking, anymore than creators of Batman stories using elements of Alan Moore's The Killing Joke or elements of Frank Miller's Batman stories like focusing on police corruption, Commissioner Loeb, and Year One elements is cherry picking. It's an accepted part of the modern character's mythology.

Modern interpretations of Superman, since the late eighties in fact, have featured this as part of their mythology.

Much like the Death of Superman storyline had far reaching impact on the mythology, the Evil Kryptonian story arc where Superman had to kill Zod and felt awful about it was a key storyline that had quite an impact on the character and was referenced for several decades. It has been part of his character for quite a while.

That is complete and utter hogwash.

 

[The Guard]

That is complete and utter hogwash.

Which part?

 

[ManWithNoName18]

Justin Kroll is saying The Batman will not make a 2018 release date, Matt Reeves will still be to busy working on Apes. Production however, will most likely start in 2018.