Are DC films held to a different, higher standard?

[The_Manhunter]

I see someone get smashed through several walls at super speed by a character we've seen kill before, I assume that person is dead, not that he was cradled to safety.

I hear hooves off in the distance, I assume it's horses, not zebras.

I'm going to assume your joking. As BH/HHH said, he went head-first to shield the terrorist from the impact.

 

[Predator jp]

Didn't Zack say Superman killing Zod was the formation of that code?

it realy doesn't matter what he says unless it's established in the movies.

 

[The Joker]

Clearly its a winning tactic that watching the movie closely means you have to slow it down to see something that is supposedly there. Its a mystery why more directors don't use such a brilliant technique for the "obvious" when it did wonders for this movie;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpBMlYzOAzk&t=0m21s

 

[BH/HHH]

It's actually quite sad that you folk love hating on something so much. Honestly you turn every thread into a DC bashing thread mostly for BvS yet when we fight back were the ones who get threads shut down and **** for it.

 

[TeeKay]

it realy doesn't matter what he says unless it's established in the movies.

Well he's the director so I'll take his word I guess.

lol, someone's salty.

Maybe if i slow down ALL of BvS, everything will make sense now.

Maybe Zack should shoot JL is slo mo.

I don't think I could deal with sitting through a 6 hour slowed down version.

It's the only way to clarify whether our protagonists are killing people though. Well are we even sure Batman was killing those guys in the Batmbile chase scene? Slow down and you'll see.

 

[Nemeres]

But that's the thing. People on the "Superman killed the warlord" side can support their claim through 1) the logical outcome of the event depicted on screen, along with 2) the absence of a shot of the surviving character, and 3) any explicit stance regarding killing on Superman's part. The people on the opposite camp have a conclusion reached through omission (no dead body shown), but no facts to counteract the conclusion reached by logic. You can't get exasperated about others being unable to reach your conclusion when it, however valid, is a willingly made logical leap.

 

[TeeKay]

But that's the thing. People on the "Superman killed the warlord" side can support their claim through 1) the logical outcome of the event depicted on screen, along with 2) the absence of a shot of the surviving character, and 3) any explicit stance regarding killing on Superman's part. The people on the opposite camp have a conclusion reached through omission (no dead body shown), but no facts to counteract the conclusion reached by logic. You can't get exasperated about others being unable to reach your conclusion when it, however valid, is a willingly made logical leap.

Yeah but they also use the argument that Superman said,"He didn't kill anyone"(I'm paraphrasing) in Nairomi so I guess that counts for something. But whatever, realistically speaking. No way that guy is alive. Whiplash alone from being tackled at super speed will kill him let alone going through several walls.

 

[writer0327]

I think everyone is missing the point.

Whether Superman killed the guy, didn't kill the guy, whether it was right that he should or right that he shouldn't, really isn't the point.

Superman using or threatening to use extreme violence against a human being alters his character from the previous film iterations, especially within the tone of these newer films. This is what makes Superman appear darker and less heroic. It follows the whole "great power, great responsibility" mantra. Superman can do whatever he wants, so the times he doesn't use violence to solve a problem are more poignant and powerful, especially when dealing with life and death.

 

[Predator jp]

Superman didn't kill the Warlord because he said he didn't kill anyone. that's enough for me.
but i really don't think it's reasonable to deny the fact that the scene made it look like he killed the Warlord.

 

[TeeKay]

Ummm it totally betrays the character and the mythos that Zack said it us. He said The killing of Zod was a way to form that no kill rule. Suddenly in the next movie it stars with him murdering one. Wtf?! Even what you say is really the case, he could have saved Lois in other non lethal ways than crashing the guy through several walls. But you know like Zack says, "cool scene yo".

 

[BH/HHH]

Edit:

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Superman didn't kill the Warlord because he said he didn't kill anyone. that's enough for me.
but i really don't think it's reasonable to deny the fact that the scene made it look like he killed the Warlord.

Pretty much this. I have no problem believing that Superman didn't kill the warlord for reasons others have mentioned (Clark saying he didn't kill anybody, Snyder's explanation that the "no kill" rule followed his experience with Zod, and my personal view on "what Superman would do").

However, the fact that it is unclear enough that we're actually having this debate tells me that Snyder failed as a director in terms of establishing exactly what happened in this scene. Although I like his work overall, too often Snyder is satisfied merely that a scene looks "cool", regardless of logic or character motivation.

Ambiguity can be a desirable element in film, of course, but there's a time and a place for it. Leaving the survival of the warlord as ambiguous as it was did the character of Superman and BvS itself no favours.

 

[TeeKay]

But then again you actually he people arguing that Batman didn't kill anyone is that Batmbile chase. I kid you not. A debate around that actually happened.

 

[BH/HHH]

But then again you actually he people arguing that Batman didn't kill anyone is that Batmbile chase. I kid you not. A debate around that actually happened.

Well in that case he definitely did, I can't argue that at all. Although I don't move that he killed people. But there is definitely undeniable as I said to my brother before he saw the film Batman doesn't give a **** lol

 

[BlueLanternKal]

But then again you actually he people arguing that Batman didn't kill anyone is that Batmbile chase. I kid you not. A debate around that actually happened.

Batman is definitely guilty of vehicular manslaughter. And shooting guys. And blowing them up.

That's just denial.

Superman. Not so much.

 

[The_Manhunter]

No joking has to be claiming something is clearly obvious and then saying you have to slow the movie down to see it.

I never said that.

 

[The_Manhunter]

It's actually quite sad that you folk love hating on something so much. Honestly you turn every thread into a DC bashing thread mostly for BvS yet when we fight back were the ones who get threads shut down and **** for it.

Yep no kidding. This site should be renamed to MarvelHeroHype, because that's all it really is nowadays. Unfortunate, I used to love talking all superhero films here.

 

[TeeKay]

Because people have different opinions? Wow.

 

[The Batman]

"This site should be renamed MarvelHeroHype because they're being mean to the films I like."

 

[C. Lee]

It's actually quite sad that you folk love hating on something so much. Honestly you turn every thread into a DC bashing thread mostly for BvS yet when we fight back were the ones who get threads shut down and **** for it.

I've said this many times in the past....and I will say it many times in the future.....


This is a discussion site. All view points can be discussed. NOT just the ones you want to be discussed.

That means that sometimes people will discuss things that you don't agree with.

Disagreeing with what someone says....does NOT make them wrong.

Someone giving an OPINION that differs from yours is NOT an attack against you.

People will NOT be infracted because they do not share your OPINION.

People who are uncivil and call other people names and act offensive WILL be infracted.

When people STOP discussing the topic of a thread and instead turn that thread into a lets discuss and complain about other posters thread......then yes, it will be closed.

 

[TeeKay]

Thank you C.Lee

 

[BH/HHH]

I've said this many times in the past....and I will say it many times in the future.....


This is a discussion site. All view points can be discussed. NOT just the ones you want to be discussed.

That means that sometimes people will discuss things that you don't agree with.

Disagreeing with what someone says....does NOT make them wrong.

Someone giving an OPINION that differs from yours is NOT an attack against you.

People will NOT be infracted because they do not share your OPINION.

People who are uncivil and call other people names and act offensive WILL be infracted.

When people STOP discussing the topic of a thread and instead turn that thread into a lets discuss and complain about other posters thread......then yes, it will be closed.

I just don't think it's that simple, they turn every thread into the same thing. This is about whether the films are held to higher standards not to make jokey comments about a films dialogue or a scene. It's in every thread. Heck we've even had them coming in trying to stir **** up in other threads when something positive is going on.

I won't derail the thread any further but they know what they're doing and for some reason they seem to get a kick out of it.

 

[Kelly]

I have never in my life seen so much childish snark. Good grief, if you cannot have a mature discussion without resorting to snarky comments about a poster or snarky retorts without any kind of discussion....OR.....comment without whining about how unfair people are being to your favorite movie...THEN DON'T DISCUSS IT. Because this is not discussion it is tit for tat and it needs to stop. If I deleted every post that was not whining about unfair treatment, or every post that was simply a snarky post trying to be funny with absolutely no substance to it....there would be very few posts left in this thread.

Seriously, either discuss the topic without backhandedly slamming each other and actually discuss what you think about the topic.....if that doesn't happen, the thread will be closed.

We do not have time to hold hands here...

 

[jmc]

I just don't think it's that simple, they turn every thread into the same thing. This is about whether the films are held to higher standards not to make jokey comments about a films dialogue or a scene. It's in every thread. Heck we've even had them coming in trying to stir **** up in other threads when something positive is going on.

I won't derail the thread any further but they know what they're doing and for some reason they seem to get a kick out of it.

Unfortunately as series a films featuring much beloved characters has been created that in many fans eyes have not captured the essence of who these characters are. Whether you like it or not people are going to have strong feelings when they feel characters they love have been done an injustice too, and a superhero forums is exactly where they are likely to talk about their displeasure. You can't expect people to simply walk away from what they love. They want to talk about it, be angry at it, and yes even mock these movies, because they want what's best for the characters they like.

 

[Patchwork Man]

Unfortunately as series a films featuring much beloved characters has been created that in many fans eyes have not captured the essence of who these characters are. Whether you like it or not people are going to have strong feelings when they feel characters they love have been done an injustice too, and a superhero forums is exactly where they are likely to talk about their displeasure. You can't expect people to simply walk away from what they love. They want to talk about it, be angry at it, and yes even mock these movies, because they want what's best for the characters they like.

I wonder why Superman Returns wasn't a massive success, then.