BvS All Things Superman and Batman: An Open Discussion - - - - - Part 14

[Jake Cassidy]

I like discussing film mate.

So you do care.

 

[Jekecy]

Your hypothetical prequel is kinda pointless, and even if it did happen elements would have had to have been planted to ensure that any follow up story featuring the arrival of their alien son wouldn't seem out of place.

I think you're skirting the issue at hand here. In a chronological timeline, how could there possibly be seeds for any sci-fi if it has not yet occurred? That is completely backwards. What you're essentially arguing is the Kents don't exist until Kal comes into the picture. I'm sure you recognize the ridiculousness of that. Kal's arrival marks a change in human history. There is no lead-up to it, it is a sudden event which alters the worldview. This is the foundation of every single first contact story.

Your Kent movie would still retain some form of sci-fi undertones in order for a sequel to work - otherwise it's flat out ridiculous.

It wouldn't need to be addressed because a Kent story doesn't necessarily involve Kal or aliens, or anything extraordinary. Again, that is completely backwards logic. Unless we're involving time bending here, predecessors work independently of their successors. By the simple fact they existed first. Sequels rely on the previous installment, not the other way around.

 

[Wise]

I like discussing film mate.

Out of curiousity, whereabouts in Australia do you live?

 

[Skrilla31]

I guess Avengers 2 won't have that same luxury either with Scarlet Witch and Quiksilver.

Key characters. KEY characters.

Those characters are window dressing.

 

[roach]

Yea, except Marvel's feels real and lived in and DC's is gonna feel like it was put together with scotch tape.

Avengers didn't need to waste time introducing or developing any of it's key characters. That's part of the reason why it was able to be so good. That first Justice League movie - and for all we know BvS - may not have that same luxury.

We've only had one DCCU movie and it felt real and lived in…not sure where the scotch taped together feeling is coming from...

 

[MrsKent26]

But they've developed independent of us. So what would our current limitations have to do with them?


Futuristic sci-fi thrives on techno-jabber and for the most part has avoided the necessity in justifying their tech. It's an accepted fact on behalf of the audience that by virtue of existing in the future, it is too advanced (and unimportant) to explain.

Ah, I see. But is this universe futuristic?

 

[Skrilla31]

We've only had one DCCU movie and it felt real and lived in…not sure where the scotch taped together feeling is coming from...

Wait until there's 5 or 6 costumed heroes teaming up together and you only barely got to know 2 or 3 of them.

 

[roach]

Ah, I see. But is this universe futuristic?

I don't think so since nothing seemed to be futuristic about the way humans lived or the military fought.

 

[MrsKent26]

No one does…but based on the track record of Snyder and Goyer…are they more apt to change her back story or keep it…the evidence is leading me towards keeping it.

What makes you think that? Not trying to argue, just curious.

Yea, except Marvel's feels real and lived in and DC's is gonna feel like it was put together with scotch tape.

Avengers didn't need to waste time introducing or developing any of it's key characters. That's part of the reason why it was able to be so good. That first Justice League movie - and for all we know BvS - may not have that same luxury.

We have no idea if it will seem patched together. I have many worries about this movie too, but there is a possibility that they can pull this off without doing exactly what Marvel did. I'd be quite happy if this was different than Avengers.

 

[roach]

Wait until there's 5 or 6 costumed heroes teaming up together and you only barely got to know 2 or 3 of them.

I don't prescribe to this notion that we need to see a character in a solo movie to care about them.

 

[jmc]

I think you're skirting the issue at hand here. In a chronological timeline, how could there possibly be seeds for any sci-fi if it has not yet occurred? That is completely backwards. What you're essentially arguing is the Kents don't exist until Kal comes into the picture. I'm sure you recognize the ridiculousness of that. Kal's arrival marks a change in human history. There is no lead-up to it, it is a sudden event which alters the worldview. This is the foundation of every single first contact story.


It wouldn't need to be addressed because a Kent story doesn't necessarily involve Kal or aliens, or anything extraordinary. Again, that is completely backwards logic. Unless we're involving time bending here, predecessors work independently of their successors. By the simple fact they existed first. Sequels rely on the previous installment, not the other way around.

I'm not skirting around the issue, you're talking about a hypothetical movie that if it were made would be made with elements like I suggested. What you're asking for is a ultimately going to be a completely different type of film universe to what MoS is because you cannot tell a story of a simple farming family in the first film where nothing extraordinary happens then do a sequel where they find an alien - it's two completely different movies. Your argument doesn't hold water because ultimately the Kents story before Clark isn't important, their story begins when they find Clark. You're suggesting MoS is a sequel to a non-existent movie which is frankly absurd.

 

[jmc]

Out of curiousity, whereabouts in Australia do you live?

Sydney!

 

[roach]

What makes you think that? Not trying to argue, just curious.

if you look at the superheroes they both have made…they seem to be more reverent to the comics and origins than making changes to them…not to say they don't change things…but based on 300, Watchmen and Man of Steel…is Snyder more apt to give us a magic based WW or one with a sci-fi origin?

 

[MrsKent26]

I don't prescribe to this notion that we need to see a character in a solo movie to care about them.

I don't really either. Sometimes characters are given small but awesome roles that develop them enough for the audience to care about them, but they aren't the main character. Some development is needed, but quality can sometimes do more than quantity.

if you look at the superheroes they both have made…they seem to be more reverent to the comics and origins than making changes to them…not to say they don't change things…but based on 300, Watchmen and Man of Steel…is Snyder more apt to give us a magic based WW or one with a sci-fi origin?

Yeah, you're right about that. My gut says he'll want to be mostly faithful to the comics too.

 

[Skrilla31]

I don't prescribe to this notion that we need to see a character in a solo movie to care about them.

No, you need to spend time and get to know a character before you start caring about them. The solo films served that purpose so by the time we got to the team up movie, they could devote all that time to story instead of having to waste it on character.

 

[Jekecy]

Ah, I see. But is this universe futuristic?

We're talking about Themyscira, yes? I would say their technology would be, considering the MOS-Earth seems no different from ours. If they possess some gadget resembling a lasso, which is effectively a perfectly crafted truth extractor, by definition that is futuristic (relative to us).

 

[Jake Cassidy]

Sydney!

Brisbane!!!!

 

[Wise]

Sydney!

Melbourne here. But I'm in Sydney heaps for work.

 

[Jake Cassidy]

I don't prescribe to this notion that we need to see a character in a solo movie to care about them.

You're wrong, mate. We all know that every single character in LOTR should've had solo movies first. t:

 

[MrsKent26]

We're talking about Themyscira, yes? I would say their technology would be, considering the MOS-Earth seems no different from ours. If they possess some gadget resembling a lasso, which is effectively a perfectly crafted truth extractor, by definition that is futuristic (relative to us).

Ah, I get it. I was thinking about the MOS universe in general, not about Themyscira in relation to it. What you say makes sense.

 

[roach]

No, you need to spend time and get to know a character before you start caring about them. The solo films served that purpose so by the time we got to the team up movie, they could devote all that time to story instead of having to waste it on character.

Character doesn't take a whole movie to establish….and using Avengers as an example there was still character moments in the movie.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

The Avengers movie itself gave you reason to care about the characters.

Tons of people who saw The Avengers didn't see any previous movies.

 

[jmc]

Melbourne here. But I'm in Sydney heaps for work.

Brisbane!!!!

Nice

 

[charl_huntress]

if you look at the superheroes they both have made…they seem to be more reverent to the comics and origins than making changes to them…not to say they don't change things…but based on 300, Watchmen and Man of Steel…is Snyder more apt to give us a magic based WW or one with a sci-fi origin?

I think he and Goyer will combine both. Why not? I think it's quite possible they will tinker when needed, but not change things so heavily so they are unrecognizable to long term fans.

 

[Wise]

Character doesn't take a whole movie to establish….and using Avengers as an example there was still character moments in the movie.

Exactly. Case in point Bruce Banner who they essentially had to reintroduce to the audience after Edward Norton left.