BvS All Things Superman and Batman: An Open Discussion - - Part 37

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]473697[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]473551[/split]

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

See, that's a great concept for a live action GL.


Their civilian outfits are shadowed and blackened, and LED-like Green lights form a grid pattern around their bodies to show the ring's power.


That's how they should have done GL.

It doesn't look like that is how it works.

 

[Marvin]

It's not even that. This is the only genre I know where people are down right dogmatic about how these films are suppose to be...which I don't get.

There's no room for difference in this genre, as presently constructed in Hollywood right.

No matter where you turn, you get the same arguments about how one is doing it the right, "fun" and how one is doing it the wrong, "somber" way. My thing is this, why would anyone want these films, spread over four studios, to be exactly the same and exactly as they read them. What's the point of interpretation and adaptation if it's exactly the same across the ****ing board?

Maybe it's because I didn't read this stuff growing up and I didn't form concrete, "can't bend" opinions on how these characters are suppose to be but just based on the level on discussion about this film in comparison to other films in this genre, the DCU has no shot. None in the eyes of fans and the media. It's done.

Pretty much mostly pertains to WB and Sony's ASM(and a few others) and this is mainly because the fans have a heavy point of reference of what they want based on recent material. More importantly, the GA takes on that fanboy persona in that the GA is as heavily invested in the original films as the fans would traditionally be the source material.
One of the reasons marvel studios films avoid this sort of criticism is that their properties are mostly 'original' in that they aren't really remaking stuff from recent public conscious and if they do, it's coming from poorly received films such as Hulk or even Cap.

You don't get the 'Ironman is supposed to be...That's not what Thor would do, where is the yellow on thors boots, where is thors alter ego...etc' This new Guardians movie is free to be what ever the hell it wants to be but unlike say, Constantine, it has heavy relevance due to that shinny marvel symbol in the credits. A great opportunity for the studio.

Nolan got lucky cause he jumped into something(an origin on less) with a bad history as far as the GA was concerned so all he made were 'improvements'. Snyder is really asking for it to touch on batman at this point in time...

Any CBM given that Xmen 2000 circumstance(new, new new) would flourish

 

[BatLobster]

The complaint that the tone of the trailers was different from the movie is a pretty common one. I don't think people should be blamed for "misinterpreting" the marketing when that marketing accomplished its goal: to get people excited about the fact that there was a new Superman movie and that this was going to be a "post-TDKT" take on Superman. People bought what the trailers were selling. I wouldn't go as far to say that it was "false advertising", and they probably were representative of the movie that Zack and co. honestly felt they were making. But at the end of the day, a LOT of people came away feeling that the movie didn't achieve the grandeur that was presented in the trailers.

I never expected the film to be 2 hours of introspective Clark wandering the world like the teaser, but I do think Trailer 3, especially through the use of Zimmer's theme (which isn't used in full until the end of the film), painted the picture of something more rousing, inspiring and triumphant. I thought it would feel more earned when Superman takes his first flight, but it just didn't to me in the film. A lot of the emotional beats in the film just fell flat to me, despite the fact that I found all 3 first trailers very emotionally engaging.

Trailer 4 counterbalanced that by focusing on the sci-fi/action/Bayhem aspects of the movie, but I think it was the most honest of all the trailers. By that point though, the effects of the first 3 trailers had already set in and people were already expecting something a little different.

It is what it is. I'm happy for those who felt they got the movie they wanted based on the trailers. I'm not here to go through yet another tedious lists of complaints against MoS. I just think the trailer thing is a common enough observation that it shouldn't be brushed aside as mere fanboy nitpicking. That's not what it is. My friends who aren't Superman fanboys were WAY excited about the movie based on the trailers, and all of them came out of the movie ranging from "meh it was okay" to flat out disliking it. They all felt that the trailers had set them up for a fall.

 

[J.Howlett]

Pretty much mostly pertains to WB and Sony's ASM(and a few others) and this is mainly because the fans have a heavy point of reference of what they want based on recent material. More importantly, the GA takes on that fanboy persona in that the GA is as heavily invested in the original films as the fans would traditionally be the source material.
One of the reasons marvel studios films avoid this sort of criticism is that their properties are mostly 'original' in that they aren't really remaking stuff from recent public conscious and if they do, it's coming from poorly received films such as Hulk or even Cap.

You don't get the 'Ironman is supposed to be...That's not what Thor would do, where is the yellow on thors boots, where is thors alter ego...etc' This new Guardians movie is free to be what ever the hell it wants to be but unlike say, Constantine, it has heavy relevance due to that shinny marvel symbol in the credits. A great opportunity for the studio.

Nolan got lucky cause he jumped into something(an origin on less) with a bad history as far as the GA was concerned so all he made were 'improvements'. Snyder is really asking for it to touch on batman at this point in time...

Any CBM given that Xmen 2000 circumstance(new, new new) would flourish

Which again, shows that this film isn't going to get a fair shake no matter what Snyder puts on the screen.

Meanwhile, the Mouse House continues to put out filler episodes until the Whedon movies hit and their labeled "great films." What?

I swear, sometimes I feel like I'm in an alternate reality with the way this genre turned since 2008.

 

[J.Howlett]

The complaint that the tone of the trailers was different from the movie is a pretty common one. I don't think people should be blamed for "misinterpreting" the marketing when that marketing accomplished its goal: to get people excited about the fact that there was a new Superman movie and that this was going to be a "post-TDKT" take on Superman. People bought what the trailers were selling. I wouldn't go as far to say that it was "false advertising", and they probably were representative of the movie that Zack and co. honestly felt they were making. But at the end of the day, a LOT of people came away feeling that the movie didn't achieve the grandeur that was presented in the trailers.

I never expected the film to be 2 hours of introspective Clark wandering the world like the teaser, but I do think Trailer 3, especially through the use of Zimmer's theme (which isn't used in full until the end of the film), painted the picture of something more rousing, inspiring and triumphant. I thought it would feel more earned when Superman takes his first flight, but it just didn't to me in the film. A lot of the emotional beats in the film just fell flat to me, despite the fact that I found all 3 first trailers very emotionally engaging.

Trailer 4 counterbalanced that by focusing on the sci-fi/action/Bayhem aspects of the movie, but I think it was the most honest of all the trailers. By that point though, the effects of the first 3 trailers had already set in and people were already expecting something a little different.

It is what it is. I'm happy for those who felt they got the movie they wanted based on the trailers. I'm not here to go through yet another tedious lists of complaints against MoS. I just think the trailer thing is a common enough observation that it shouldn't be brushed aside as mere fanboy nitpicking. That's not what it is. My friends who aren't Superman fanboys were WAY excited about the movie based on the trailers, and all of them came out of the movie ranging from "meh it was okay" to flat out disliking it. They all felt that the trailers had set them up for a fall.

You found nothing triumphant about this Clark Kent finding his place in the world?

 

[Capt. Marvelous]

My biggest disappointment with what the trailers gave us compared to the actual film, was that the trailers made it seem that MOS would be a deep, intelligent character study of Clark/Superman, just as BB was of Bruce Wayne/Batman.

MOS wasn't. We never really got into Clark's head in MoS and understood his psychology. It was all surface and exposition.

 

[J.Howlett]

My biggest disappointment with what the trailers gave us compared to the actual film, was that the trailers made it seem that MOS would be a deep, intelligent character study of Clark/Superman, just as BB was of Bruce Wayne/Batman.

MOS wasn't. We never really got into Clark's head in MoS and understood his psychology. It was all surface and exposition.

The first hour and 20 minutes does this! What are you even talking about?

 

[BatLobster]

You found nothing triumphant about this Clark Kent finding his place in the world?

The Daily Planet scene was nice, but I was still feeling the weight of Clark having to kill Zod and knowing the internal anguish it caused him. And no, I'm not one of those "Superman shouldn't have been put in that situation!" people. I'm fine with the fact that he killed Zod. But at the end of the day I felt the film left more looming questions about Superman's place in the world than it answered, so any triumph there felt a bit muted for me.

If you're referring to the first flight scene, it just felt too soon in the movie for me. I think it needed more buildup. But I get why they didn't do the full 1 hour origin thing.

Again though, I don't really want to get into my criticisms of the movie because I'm kind of in the middle with it. I sort of see both sides of the arguments, and I feel like most of it has been said already.

 

[Crimson King]

Which again, shows that this film isn't going to get a fair shake no matter what Snyder puts on the screen.

Meanwhile, the Mouse House continues to put out filler episodes until the Whedon movies hit and their labeled "great films." What?

I swear, sometimes I feel like I'm in an alternate reality with the way this genre turned since 2008.

Filler episodes? Come on, now. I get that you lean DC, but belittling the solo MS movies as filler is just not true.

Snyder's film will get a fair shake because very few people outside of SHH give two ***** about what company makes a movie. The movie will succeed or fail on its own.

 

[J.Howlett]

Filler episodes? Come on, now. I get that you lean DC, but belittling the solo MS movies as filler is just not true.

Snyder's film will get a fair shake because very few people outside of SHH give two ***** about what company makes a movie. The movie will succeed or fail on its own.

Dude, I dug the living hell out of THE DARK WORLD but that's a filler episode if I ever saw one. That film didn't care two bits about Thor until the big scene between Loki-Odin and Thor, which was basically letting Hemsworth spell out his entire arc of the picture, since they forgot most of it through out the entire picture.

That picture was constructed (haphazardly, I might add) to achieve one damn thing; to get Loki in that chair at the end. That's it. Everything else in the film is almost irrelevant.

I won't say anything about Iron Man 3. No point getting into that film.

 

[CountOrlok]

I didn't see Man of Steel until a few weeks ago. Was a bit too action-porny for me but I liked the character moments. Definitely prefer it to Nolan's Batman films.

 

[Capt. Marvelous]

The first hour and 20 minutes does this! What are you even talking about?

It doesn't. Why does Clark desire to save people? What drives him?


All we really got was contradictory messages from bipolar Jonathan that the world isn't ready and you should keep your powers a secret, and maybe you should have let the kids die. But you should discover your origins and you are destined to change the world. All throwaway lines for the trailers and marketing, that were handled poorly in the actual film.


In BB, we got in-depth coverage of what motivated Bruce Wayne's desire to train, his crusade, his perception of justice and his ethics. And why he seeks to inspire fear in criminals (using the symbol that inspired fear in him) while bringing hope to Gotham.

 

[Crimson King]

Dude, I dug the living hell out of THE DARK WORLD but that's a filler episode if I ever saw one. That film didn't care two bits about Thor until the big scene between Loki-Odin and Thor, which was basically letting Hemsworth spell out his entire arc of the picture, since they forgot most of it through out the entire picture.

That picture was constructed (haphazardly, I might add) to achieve one damn thing; to get Loki in that chair at the end. That's it. Everything else in the film is almost irrelevant.

I won't say anything about Iron Man 3. No point getting into that film.

You'll believe what you want, I guess. But filler? No. A connection established between films =/= filler.

And you generalized every solo movie with that tag, not just TDW. One look at TWS trailer should tell you they're not just doing this to tread water until Age of Ultron.

 

[J.Howlett]

What drives Clark is the fact that he has these extraordinary abilities to help others around him. It's in his nature two fold; from his adoptive parents and from his birth parents. He is the byproduct of two sets of loving parents.

Now, what is his most important drive in the film is finding out who the hell he is and the why of him. But, there's also the desire to belong which is what the entire second half of the picture is about, when it comes to the arrive of the Kryptonians.

 

[J.Howlett]

You'll believe what you want, I guess. But filler? No. A connection established between films =/= filler.

And you generalized every solo movie with that tag, not just TDW. One look at TWS trailer should tell you they're not just doing this to tread water until Age of Ultron.

I agree about the WINTER SOLDIER. Not with the first two films of Phase Two.

 

[Tra-El]

Holy Sh*!t. So, last night I had a Batman/Superman dream, lmao.

-Eisenberg as Lex looked AWESOME actually. He started off the movie with his trademark curly hair detonating something.

-He then was wearing a trenchcoat in a dark restaurant having some sort of a meeting and he was laughing under his breath maniacally and was snickering at those who spoke around him. He was bald at this time.

-Lex all of a sudden started coughing up blood, and he lifted up his shirt (he was ripped) with something stuck in his skin and his eyes glowed red (looked like Luthor from the series "Lex Luthor: Man of Steel" ) and the opening credits crossfaded into Superman flying around his new Fortress.

- The Fortress somewhat looked like a Krypton setting, on some sort of Supermobile that he was testing out. He was zooming in and out of fog and speeding around on this craft that looked like the flying scenes from his first flight in Man of Steel (speed, camera zooming in and out, going up in the air, flying down and zig-zagging, etc..)

-After Supes was done flying, he landed in his Fortress, which looked like he landed in some water and he was wearing a robe. When he took off the robe, he was sporting the Kingdom Come S-shield but the suit was a darker blue but looked more like the classic spandex.

- A woman walked over to him and brought something to his attention, maybe a drone but I couldn't make it out and that's when the title credit appeared.

The title revealed was:

"Two Men of Fear"

with the "e" in "Men" as the S-shield and the "r" in"fear" as the Batman logo in what appeared to be the style of the new 300 movie font...

... and I don't know why

 

[Kevin Smith]

It doesn't. Why does Clark desire to save people? What drives him?


All we really got was contradictory messages from bipolar Jonathan that the world isn't ready and you should keep your powers a secret, and maybe you should have let the kids die. But you should discover your origins and you are destined to change the world. All throwaway lines for the trailers and marketing, that were handled poorly in the actual film.


In BB, we got in-depth coverage of what motivated Bruce Wayne's desire to train, his crusade, his perception of justice and his ethics. And why he seeks to inspire fear in criminals (using the symbol that inspired fear in him) while bringing hope to Gotham.

Truth.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

You'll believe what you want, I guess. But filler? No. A connection established between films =/= filler.

And you generalized every solo movie with that tag, not just TDW. One look at TWS trailer should tell you they're not just doing this to tread water until Age of Ultron.

I think he means filler in that it never furthered any plot. It just sort of happened. Which is fairly accurate, Thor was pretty fully formed, so it was more an epilogue to his first film.

The most important scenes to both the Thor world and overall in the film were arguably Loki's development, accepting his heritage, getting the throne and the scene with the Collector.

 

[Kevin Smith]

My biggest disappointment with what the trailers gave us compared to the actual film, was that the trailers made it seem that MOS would be a deep, intelligent character study of Clark/Superman, just as BB was of Bruce Wayne/Batman.

MOS wasn't. We never really got into Clark's head in MoS and understood his psychology. It was all surface and exposition.

Exactly.

 

[Marvin]

Which again, shows that this film isn't going to get a fair shake no matter what Snyder puts on the screen.

Meanwhile, the Mouse House continues to put out filler episodes until the Whedon movies hit and their labeled "great films." What?

I swear, sometimes I feel like I'm in an alternate reality with the way this genre turned since 2008.

Meh, DC films and relevance tend to better in the sequels.

As supposedly loved as Begins was(retroactively imo), the presses didn't stop till the sequel. MOS has so much misplaced expectations it's really skewed things in this regard. When the sequel's press get's rolling we'll see the real impact the film made. Marvel had a good amount of solo's not stop the presses as MOS has before Avengers and when DC get's to their JLA thing, more even keeled comparisons will be made as to how everything is going.

imo.

 

[BH/HHH]

On a non MOS 2 note GOTG looks average, so far I'm excited about one CBM pre SVB which is Cap. I'm still hoping the next X-Men trailer knocks my socks off and I'm hoping Spideys weak trailers do not mean a weak film.

 

[I Am The Knight]

BB WAS loved back in 2005. I don't know what you're talking about, Marvin.

 

[J.Howlett]

I think he means filler in that it never furthered any plot. It just sort of happened. Which is fairly accurate, Thor was pretty fully formed, so it was more an epilogue to his first film.

The most important scenes to both the Thor world and overall in the film were arguably Loki's development, accepting his heritage, getting the throne and the scene with the Collector.

Thank you. The film just exists. It does nothing more than that.