Discussion in 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' started by Thread Manager, Oct 24, 2013.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]465695[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]464255[/split]
No, I'm actually acting like if the Donner films didn't exist, and to a greater point if this was reviewed objectively and not in relation to preconceptions we'd be seeing a different reception. I do assert that the donner films continuity have the greatest impact going in to his era given the demographic and the piece of media most celebrated in american cinema, modern or otherwise.
This tangent is interesting. To compare our modern audiences' recollection of the 60's colour batman(often spoofed in popular media, music et all) with our modern audiences recollection of the 50's black and white Reeves show(personally don't remember the music) is something. I know the modern TAS was compared to the 40's TAS but I'm not so sure how much more people think that as opposed to the donner picture as it pertains to mos. Who's to say.
Still, you won't get an argument from me about those installments having at least some bearing on some people. I do have my suspicions about Mara, she seemingly graduated and started working around the same time I did. If she's my age, I find myself wondering just which superman she was citing in her comparisons. But that's conjecture.
zack synder's superman? lol
I see your point about the importance of objective reviewing for movies with a huge nostalgic factor, but how does one actually excise the Donner films entirely from the discussion? The success of S:TM prompted Singer to recreate the magic in Returns, whose less-than-successful reception prompted the making of MoS. In short, no S:TM, no MoS.
I don't think you can use a ceteris paribus reasoning here, that if S:TM didn't exist, all other things being equal, MoS will be reviewed more objectively.
people should compare MOS to STM, Cavill to Reeve.
The sad reality is how it actually went down in truth.
-From the begging aspect(don't remember stamp asking for anything short of mercy)
-The present danger aspect(powers vs no powers)
-The secondary begging aspect(superman)
-The after the fact reaction (Reeve vs Cavil)
Still, I have little bout that's the way people see things. A shame really.
It's the complete opposite of that.
That's a shame.
The funny thing is that "The Superman you know and love" is not described as "Donner Superman" or "Reeve Superman".
The Superman fanbase said that Superman Returns was a bad movie because Superman "didn't land a single punch". We then got MoS. Now, the Superman fanbase is saying that MoS is a bad movie because "Superman killed". I don't think think that this is a correct criticism of MoS.
The problem is not the death but how it's handled and integrated into the story. And even that, I'm pretty sure, is not the biggest failing of the film.
But, the fanbase has spoken, the next movie will probably be a response to the fan's biggest complaint with MoS, that Superman killed, and also possibly that he didn't save enough people.
Lol, as if they would give a damn about the fanbase.
It's the market.
Quoteriginally Posted by*The Guard*Did we ever see Clark change into Superman in MAN OF STEEL?
I don't think we did.oh ya, we didn't even see the most ironic shirt-ripoff scene. and we didn't even see how the public reaction to the powerful flying blueman.*this is so against the expectation of the general audience. did they do it in purpose???
I'm sure the 'fanbase' has said these statements, but not sure where you get the idea that the 'fanbase' said "returns was a bad movie because..land a single punch".
And I'm not sure the fanbase is saying mos was a 'bad movie because he killed'. By fanbase I assume you mean superman fans and not the GA?
Like you said there are other problems, so I'm curious where you derived these conclusions other than the sentiments of a few, loud(like waid) or others.
Moreover, weren't you going on about how wb(goyer/snyder specifically) probably won't take the criticism but rather just do what they want(maybe that was tobias).
My point is, you are making generalizations about why 'people' think films are good or bad as a whole. I personally think if mos had major failings, between the 4 creative people attached to the film, at least some of those things will be addressed, nolan doesn't seem like one to not be even a little keen on such things, even in a suggestion capacity. The only concern is if WB sees more money to be made in spite of what is a proper decision. The fact of the matter is unlike GL they have a hit on their hands, more than ASM/Ironman in respective categories. Had they played it safer and not taken a few bold chances they probably would have had a safer score tbh.
one difference between returns and mos is the basic superman tropes of old such as the daily planet stuff, costume changes and excuses, luthor, a superman that waved to people..etc. This stuff puts returns in a more 'superman film' category than returns which simply chose to go in a fresh, prequelesque route. I think some people that want to see that 'stuff' may have been put off by this non superman film which might have lead to some of the criticism about some stuff missing. I see that changed next time around. When someone said the fun was missing, I suspect at least some of that has to do with no classic shirt rip or things of that sort.
All that being said, I personally think this team has a way with sequels.
That's an extremely broad generalization. There are plenty of members of the Superman fanbase that have never said such a thing. In fact, there a plenty of members who would argue the opposite.
Considering how closely we know Snyder and Goyer would have studied the comics, taking lines from them etc, I'm really surprised we didn't see a shirt rip.
I'm pretty sure that most of what people felt was missing in MoS when it came to their idea of Superman will be present in BvsS. After all, he has to be distinguished from Batman.
I think the shirt rip comes with Clark Kent with glasses as a reporter and transforming into Superman. Since he didn't become that version of Clark Kent till the end we didn't get a shirt rip.
Yeah absolutely. I remember before the film was released, we had no idea for how much of the film he would be a reporter. Beforehand I thought the film might actually end on a shirt rip, right into the credits. It did end on a great line though.
I think like batman but even moreso, they are really sticking to the "building upto" character type of deconstruction. If they had their way I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even call him superman in this.
Sort of like a condensed smallville approach. That series literally ended on the shirt rip if I recall correctly.
Pretty sure he'll be formally called Superman, given the title of the movie. I think the "building up to character" was already done in MoS, and the scene of him confronting General Swanwick in the desert showed a Superman confident in his own suit. If anything, BvS will be a building up to mythology.
Agree with Starman in that the shirt rip is more synonymous with Clark Kent the reporter, so there's a good chance we could see it in BvS.
I was talking about mos.
Ah, my bad.
We did get a sort of shirt rip. In the scene where Jor-El is explaining the \S/ to Clark, Jor-El pulls his shirt open to show it and explain that it means hope.
I can do just fine without the shirt rip.
The Superman you know and love sends powerless villians down a chasm and grins while they die.
Or is he actually talking about the comics
It's funny, but I don't see people get nearly as defensive about other characters as Superman.
If someone is forced to kill as a last resort, does that mean that he/she is a bad person?
I don't think so. I think it was too early to have Superman kill before many audiences had a chance to invest emotionally in the character over multiple movies.
^it's a confusing matter, dude didn't reference the donner film outside of essentially using a donner scene...
At the same time, donner's superman killed, so maybe it's not the donner scene. then again superman has killed zod in the comics. What's a fanboy to do.
The real issue I have is how superman is under the moral microscope to the point of inequality. You ask the basic question of if a man can kill with no choice and still be a good person? Why is this question never asked of the marvel cinematic heroes and their kills and quips? Because the same rules don't apply there. As everything else, superman isn't going to be met with even keeled rational. Just weighed against an intangible preconception that really no one can even tie down. Then there is the little issue of the fully contradictory tdk stuff...
Long story short, is tony stark a "bad person" for killing 'self defense'? Probably not, Is superman a bad person for... probably so.