Why do people say Zack Snyder doesn’t respect comics?

[Batmannerism]

I don't necesarily think I would. There's things I don't like from Marvel movies.Batman being in harder situations not to kill isn't in the movie. I think the movie itself, the theatrical, doesn't present a Batman where the fall matters, as far as killing.I don't think that's confirmed in the comic.

I don't think it is. As far as I understand, no one cares that Batman kills in the movie. The branding is brought up. But I don't think the killing of anyone, outside of Superman, is. Even Batman doesn't care after the Martha moment, where he continues killing.

I think it's a fight with that as well. To me, it not being a fight of ideology, I question why the movie spends time with his 1% talk and I question the point of the fight in the movie.Him disobeying his dad to the point of not letting him get killed by a tornado, with his powers, is something I'd buy.

Why does the point of the scene matter? I think the content of the scene is more the issue, I have and maybe others may have in a way.

I think, to me, I've seen this concept explored in Smallville, I think in a stronger written way, to me.I said characterization, not character development. To me, I think the personality of the character isn't interestingly and/or strongly developed.

I don't think they thought they could. As far as I remember, they shot him into space to get rid of him. But they also brainwashed him, using images of Superman hurting him to do so. BvS doesn't show (or I think say) that.

I didn't say the speech. I said I think the scene is dumb and pointless, to me. The reason being, no matter what the symbolism is going for (Batman thought as a child that when he saw the bats it was his way to heroism, but it was a lie and led him to pain and death etc., if I understand it appropriately), I think the visual of bats making Bruce fly in the opening scene is dumb. I don't think the visual and speech is needed for the movie (I think we don't need to see the death of the waynes, that could be and is done later in a nightmare, intercut with the death of Jason Todd to explore that concept more thoroughly and I think opening on the end of MOS has a more striking approach/I think the speech itself is more or less essentially telling us something the movie will do/the narration, as far as I remember doesn't come back in the movie itself).

 

[Zarex]

I think you are missing a major theme of TDKR which is prevalent in BvS and that is just how far Batman is willing to push the envelop and bend his rules. Frank Miller wanted to bring batman back to his roots after a decade of campy and goofy adventures.

This isn't true. Batman hadn't been a goofy character in the comics since the early 70s when Neal Adams and the late, great, Denny O'Neil took over the mag. That was long before Miller's TDKR.

if it was from marvel you'd be fine with it

This, coming from a poster who created an "MCU Spider-Man is THE WORST!" thread while vigorously defending Snyder's awful , failed versions of DC's greatest characters.

 

[Erzengel]

Right, but it's not supposed to be. It's not supposed to be some deep, thought provoking thing, and it's not presented as such in the film at any point. It's emotional, especially between Bruce and Alfred, but it's not deep. It's essentially the antagonist/villain's conflict and a lead in to the visual storytelling of the origin. The stuff regarding Superman's role in the world, the various meditations on power, all that was far deeper and more relevant stuff than Bruce's speech, though Bruce's speech does foreshadow Superman's fall from grace.

It doesn't help that personally I find the movie indigestible so if I'm not engaged enough to enjoy this portrayal of the movie than an emotional voice over for me isn't going to resonate for me.

if it was from marvel you'd be fine with it

But this has nothing to do with Marvel. If the defense of this movie is, look at what Marvel's doing then what if I didn't like Marvel? Or if I did, then oh, I must have misjudged BvS because Marvel did it?

BvS and Snyder's movies are divisive. There are going to be people who enjoyed them and those who didn't, however since they involve the most popular of comic book characters of course they are going to be analyzed more especially when you've had previous incarnations.

 

[Redd5]

That may have been Snyder's point - that Batman has fallen so far that he's branding people and planning to murder Superman. Is this a compelling version of the character - given that Batman has gone against his key principle ? Well, the reviews would suggest, "no", and I have to agree.

and yet no one has issues with Bale or Burton killing

Maybe that would be a good storyline - Batman has been pushed right to the line before in the comics. If Snyder were a better storyteller maybe he could present this warped version of Batman in a way that we could engage with and enjoy, but
instead, as Kevin Smith so eloquently said:

Batman vs Superman answers the question " what would happen if both Batman and Superman were **** ing ass holes?"

not every movie is going to be “enjoyed.” It’s kinda the point that you feel uncomfortable seeing Batman slowly deteriorate. And how was Superman an ******* in the movie?

First off? That's your second paragraph...nevermind. Anyway, that's one interpretation, and you're not alone in thinking that. Me, I go with what's actually on the page, which involves the Joker shifting his broken neck so that it kills him - I admit that's a bit odd , but for me it works.

Then go with on the page and see that Joker is the only person I’m the entire miniseries that has a text bubble not in white. Throughout the novel Batman does everything to justify his action and maintain the legend of the dark knight

Wait a moment, did you say Batman "realizes the error of his way." ? Hmmm.....just what leads him to this conclusion, as he's about to strike the fatal blow ? It wasn't a scolding from Alfred. Do we need to talk about the " Martha" moment ? Do you really want to go there ?

It was Batman realizing he was going to kill an innocent man who has done nothing wrong. Yes it was the Martha scene

THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT !! Believe me, I know it's not an adaptation - because if it had been that would have likely been a better film. Snyder is pretty good adapting source material ( e.g. Watchmen and 300 are okay movies).

Then why are you bringing up TDKR?

Snyder does a good job borrowing visuals from TDKR and he borrows a few lines too. What he doesn't do is take the compelling, complicated character that Miller created and instead goes for a homicidal and kind of stupid Batman - which is why I suggest that he doesn't understand what Batman is about, or why people find him such a gripping character.

Miller’s Batman while not homicidal but does walk a very thin line throughout the book and sometimes acts like a hypocrite like saying they’re better than using guns but shot that one mutant with a gun

Miller’s Batman is about a bygone Batman trying to retain his code in an ever growing dangerous world with new threats. BvS does that too showing how far Batman has fallen

Except when he saves the kids on the school bus , or after Johnathan's death when he saves those guys on the oil rig ( in plain sight of the roughnecks and the helicopter crew) or saves Lois Lane from the Kryptonian robot.

first off the school bus thing was before and Clark is a kid so of course he disobeys his parents sometimes that’s what kids do. Next Clark saves people under different aliases and disappears in a search of who he is. There is a big difference between saving people in a small town and being a drifter. John wasn’t telling Clark to not save people but to not expose his identity hence why Lois told him he can’t just keep running away. If Clark pushed the bus out of the water and no one saw him I doubt John would’ve been upset

So he just follows his dad's instructions when it comes to his dad, but nobody else ? Does that make sense ?
Putting that aside,there had to be different ways of doing that scene so that it made sense. It's not that I don't understand the point that Snyder and co were trying to make - because Clark himself explains it to Lois. My issue is that it's a ridiculous point, given Clark's other behaviour, and something doesn't sit well with me about a version of Superman who stands by and lets a person he cares about die to protect his secret ( and yes, I understand that there's the bigger concept of him revealing that man isn't alone , blah blah , blah...) but irrespective of that, to me that's not what Superman does. He doesn't stand idly by. Sure, he reacted afterwards, but so what ? That scene could have been done in a way so that Clark couldn't save Jonathan, rather than wouldn't save him, which IMO would have worked much better.

The point isn’t about not being able to save his father. In Superman the point of Pa Kent’s death was to humble Clark. Here it was to tell Clark he is not ready to reveal himself to the world. On top of that a lot of time has passed since his father’s death meaning he has matured more accepting he may not be human compared to teenage Clark where he did the whole “you’re not my father” bit. John directly to his face told him no

You find it challenging, good on you. It didn't work for me and a few other folks - and let's not get into Superman killing Zod, which sort of works and sort of doesn't.

Or maybe you just don’t want the character of Superman to be challenged

Believe it or not I actually liked Man of Steel, because while I dont agree with everything in it, I think it gets a lot more right than wrong.

BvS I hated because it makes these 2 characters, who I've been invested in for over 40 years, unlikeable to the point that I didn't care what happened to them. When Superman died I was actually glad because it meant the movie was nearly over.[/QUOTE]

How was Superman unlikable?

Justice League is interesting because the characters of Batman and Superman are almost totally different to B v S and the tone is also completely different in kind of a jarring way. Somehow the Russos managed to make Infinity War and Civil War ( which was the MCU's answer to B v S) great fun movies, which still had serious stories and serious character moments.

I suspect this is because they are both better storytellers than Snyder and because they understand the characters better than he does.

Justice League is a piece of garbage and will go down as the single most disastrous and mismanaged movie especially with the Snyder cut coming

Civil War and Infinity War has next to no humor at all. And I disagree with BvS not having “fun” moments

 

[Redd5]

I don't necesarily think I would. There's things I don't like from Marvel movies.Batman being in harder situations not to kill isn't in the movie. I think the movie itself, the theatrical, doesn't present a Batman where the fall matters, as far as killing.I don't think that's confirmed in the comic.

I don't think it is. As far as I understand, no one cares that Batman kills in the movie. The branding is brought up. But I don't think the killing of anyone, outside of Superman, is. Even Batman doesn't care after the Martha moment, where he continues killing.

So basically every Alfred says to Bruce isn't him say "Hey Brucey maybe you've gone a little over board bud"?

I think it's a fight with that as well. To me, it not being a fight of ideology, I question why the movie spends time with his 1% talk and I question the point of the fight in the movie.

That isn't an ideology that is a philosophy. Bruce thinks keeping Superman alive is more harmful than potentially good. Still more ideological than Captain America:Civil War

Him disobeying his dad to the point of not letting him get killed by a tornado, with his powers, is something I'd buy. Why does the point of the scene matter? I think the content of the scene is more the issue, I have and maybe others may have in a way.

The point was to show that John values his son's life more than his own and that Clark isn't ready to be a hero. Clark didn't "let" his father die his father told him not to save him. John realized he had nothing left to teach Clark or to guide him and he would be on his own from now on

I think, to me, I've seen this concept explored in Smallville, I think in a stronger written way, to me.I said characterization, not character development. To me, I think the personality of the character isn't interestingly and/or strongly developed.

Well I disagree. I think this is the most interesting and in depth Superman we have ever gotten

I don't think they thought they could. As far as I remember, they shot him into space to get rid of him. But they also brainwashed him, using images of Superman hurting him to do so. BvS doesn't show (or I think say) that.

They did think they could control Doomsday. Regardless Luthor thought he created Doomsday so whatever he creates he can control

I didn't say the speech. I said I think the scene is dumb and pointless, to me. The reason being, no matter what the symbolism is going for (Batman thought as a child that when he saw the bats it was his way to heroism, but it was a lie and led him to pain and death etc., if I understand it appropriately), I think the visual of bats making Bruce fly in the opening scene is dumb. I don't think the visual and speech is needed for the movie (I think we don't need to see the death of the waynes, that could be and is done later in a nightmare, intercut with the death of Jason Todd to explore that concept more thoroughly and I think opening on the end of MOS has a more striking approach/I think the speech itself is more or less essentially telling us something the movie will do/the narration, as far as I remember doesn't come back in the movie itself).

Yes we do need to see the Waynes death again because it plays into a central theme throughout the movie. How obsessive Batman is over his parents' deaths. Not to mention the death of the Waynes is done in the least obtrusive way only being as long as the opening credits and of course sets up the Martha plot point. Batman's narration is like 5 sentences long

 

[Redd5]

This isn't true. Batman hadn't been a goofy character in the comics since the early 70s when Neal Adams and the late, great, Denny O'Neil took over the mag. That was long before Miller's TDKR.

TDKR came out in 1986 hard "long before" and while he wasn't the first he certainly popularized a darker Batman. This movie never justifies Batman killing and portrays him as the villain to superman unlike the other movies that do justify him killing

This, coming from a poster who created an "MCU Spider-Man is THE WORST!" thread while vigorously defending Snyder's awful , failed versions of DC's greatest characters.

That isn't true. These are the nest versions of DC's greatest characters

 

[Batmannerism]

and yet no one has issues with Bale or Burton killing

I'm trying to reply but my phone keeps messing up- so I'll keep it short.

First, Bale is an actor and has little control over the story. Nolan, the director and writer, explores Batman's one rule in an interesting way - particularly during the interrogation scene with the Joker "Killing is making a choice...."

I have a problem with how many people Burton's Batman kills ( in both movies), I had a problem with it in 1989, and still do - although overall I like the films.

not every movie is going to be “enjoyed.” It’s kinda the point that you feel uncomfortable seeing Batman slowly deteriorate. And how was Superman an ******* in the movie?

I put to you that blockbuster tentpole films of this sort are intended to be enjoyed, because the only way a studio makes its money back is if people go and see it.

Also, it's about Batman and Superman, it's a comic book film- it's not a Shakespearean tragedy. So called "serious" cbms like Logan, the Dark Knight and Joker are still enjoyable while still having heavy tones.


IMHO ( and I know I'm not alone on this ) The reason people didn't enjoy B v S is not because it was intended to be some sort of clever and challenging moral tale - they didn't enjoy it because it wasn't very good. But, if Snyder's goal was to make an unenjoyable film then mission accomplished!

Then go with on the page and see that Joker is the only person I’m the entire miniseries that has a text bubble not in white. Throughout the novel Batman does everything to justify his action and maintain the legend of the dark knight

Yeah, that's not very convincing.

It was Batman realizing he was going to kill an innocent man who has done nothing wrong. Yes it was the Martha scene

I remember people laughing and cursing out loud during that moment. In the hands of a master storyteller it could have been powerful, but in Snyder's hands it was a bad joke.

Then why are you bringing up TDKR?

Because Snyder borrowed a bunch of elements from it, but these were only surface features and not what makes TDKR a great story. My point is that he's not a very good storyteller because he chooses things that look cool over story and character elements that make sense.
In comparison the MCU changed almost everything about the story of Civil War, to make the film , but kept the most essential elements ( the characters of Captain America and Iron Man) intact.

Miller’s Batman while not homicidal but does walk a very thin line throughout the book and sometimes acts like a hypocrite like saying they’re better than using guns but shot that one mutant with a gun

This is true, although context matters a bit. He shot that mutant because he had a gun against a baby's head and was threatening to kill him.

Miller’s Batman is about a bygone Batman trying to retain his code in an ever growing dangerous world with new threats. BvS does that too showing how far Batman has fallen

You're right, the premises are different. The premise of B v S might have worked, but it would have needed a better director than Snyder to pull it off.

first off the school bus thing was before and Clark is a kid so of course he disobeys his parents sometimes that’s what kids do. Next Clark saves people under different aliases and disappears in a search of who he is. There is a big difference between saving people in a small town and being a drifter. John wasn’t telling Clark to not save people but to not expose his identity hence why Lois told him he can’t just keep running away. If Clark pushed the bus out of the water and no one saw him I doubt John would’ve been upset

So you're saying teenaged or young adult Clark is more likely to obey his father than kid Clark ? Are you sure you haven't got that wrong way around ( or are you unfamiliar with teenagers ? It certainly doesn't work that way with my nieces)

And actually Pa Kent does suggest that Clark shouldn't necessarily save people:

Clark " What was I supposed to do, just let them die?"

Pa "Maybe."

The point isn’t about not being able to save his father. In Superman the point of Pa Kent’s death was to humble Clark. Here it was to tell Clark he is not ready to reveal himself to the world. On top of that a lot of time has passed since his father’s death meaning he has matured more accepting he may not be human compared to teenage Clark where he did the whole “you’re not my father” bit. John directly to his face told him no

Actually, it isn't about Clark being ready at all. What does Clark say to Lois " My father believed that the WORLD was not ready.."
Which makes almost no sense in the context of the film because shortly after that Zod shows up and outs Clark/Kal as well as the existence of extraterrestrial life - so all that hiding was for nothing anyway.

Or maybe you just don’t want the character of Superman to be challenged

How was Superman unlikable?

The only moments of B v S where Superman is likeable are his interactions with Lois and that moment where he sees the fire ,on tv, and then goes and saves that kid.

Otherwise he's kind of just there and doesn't have a lot of charm.

The moment where he's about to make a speech at the capitol - what a wasted opportunity, that could have been a great Superman moment.

Similarly the moment where the people have been flooded out and are on the roof of their home, with a big S painted on it - and Superman just hovers there above them. A more thoughtful storyteller might have let the audience see Superman rescue them, interact on a warm human level, rather than just hover above them like some distant god figure.

Justice League is a piece of garbage and will go down as the single most disastrous and mismanaged movie especially with the Snyder cut coming

Civil War and Infinity War has next to no humor at all. And I disagree with BvS not having “fun” moments

You may have missed a few bits of Civil War and Infinity War, you might want to watch them again, especially the bits with Spider Man and Ant Man. They're pretty good......unlike some other cbms.

 

[Zarex]

TDKR came out in 1986 hard "long before" and while he wasn't the first he certainly popularized a darker Batman. This movie never justifies Batman killing and portrays him as the villain to superman unlike the other movies that do justify him killing

16 years isn't long before? Exactly how old are you?

That isn't true. These are the nest versions of DC's greatest characters

The nest? I'd say they were the blurst.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

First, Bale is an actor and has little control over the story. Nolan, the director and writer, explores Batman's one rule in an interesting way - particularly during the interrogation scene with the Joker "Killing is making a choice...."

Also, while Bale's Batman undoubtedly killed people, he wasn't egregious about doing so. Dent was about to kill a kid so he tackled him and he died. A bomb was about to blow up Gotham so he attacked the vehicle carrying it and Talia died as a result. Etc. These weren't acts of murder or (at least in my opinion) excessive force. He did what he had to do to save people and there was some unavoidable collateral damage. That's completely different than mowing through bad guys like Frank Castle or plotting to assassinate a superhero on the off chance he "might" turn evil one day.

 

[Batmannerism]

16 years isn't long before? Exactly how old are you?



The nest? I'd say they were the blurst.

Ah yes, it was the best of times it was the blurst of times.....


Who am I to laugh, I've made a bunch of typos today too.

 

[Batmannerism]

Also, while Bale's Batman undoubtedly killed people, he wasn't egregious about doing so. Dent was about to kill a kid so he tackled him and he died. A bomb was about to blow up Gotham so he attacked the vehicle carrying it and Talia died as a result. Etc. These weren't acts of murder or (at least in my opinion) excessive force. He did what he had to do to save people and there was some unavoidable collateral damage. That's completely different than mowing through bad guys like Frank Castle or plotting to assassinate a superhero on the off chance he "might" turn evil one day.

Couldn't agree more !

 

[Zarex]

Ah yes, it was the best of times it was the blurst of times.....

You Stupid Monkey!

 

[Redd5]

16 years isn't long before? Exactly how old are you?




The nest? I'd say they were the blurst.

no 16 isn’t very long. i’m 18 years old. regardless like I said Miller help kick start the trend of gritty and serious comics even if he was far from the first

They are the best versions

 

[Redd5]

Also, while Bale's Batman undoubtedly killed people, he wasn't egregious about doing so. Dent was about to kill a kid so he tackled him and he died. A bomb was about to blow up Gotham so he attacked the vehicle carrying it and Talia died as a result. Etc. These weren't acts of murder or (at least in my opinion) excessive force. He did what he had to do to save people and there was some unavoidable collateral damage. That's completely different than mowing through bad guys like Frank Castle or plotting to assassinate a superhero on the off chance he "might" turn evil one day.

are you serious? Like the "I don't have to save you"? How about hit Dent with a baterang or grapple to gun away? Why did he even need to tackle him he could've grabbed JJ and knocked out Dent cold when he flipped his coin? I love how you apply those excuses to Nolan Batman but not Snyder Batman. Like is he suppose to let trucks fire rockets and machine guns at him? The only time Batman plotted to murder someone in BvS was Superman which A. He has done similar things in the comics because he is incredibly paranoid about an all powerful alien and B. The movie never justifies it unlike Nolan Batman. Not once does this movie depict Batman's actions in a positive light. Snyder knows Batman is in the wrong. So again I guess you don't want Batman as a character to ever be challenged or shown in a bad light

 

[Redd5]

I'm trying to reply but my phone keeps messing up- so I'll keep it short.

First, Bale is an actor and has little control over the story. Nolan, the director and writer, explores Batman's one rule in an interesting way - particularly during the interrogation scene with the Joker "Killing is making a choice...."

I have a problem with how many people Burton's Batman kills ( in both movies), I had a problem with it in 1989, and still do - although overall I like the films.

Fine Nolan's Batman. Nolan's Batman killed Ra's (don't even try the i dont have to save you bs), Harvey, Talia and a handful of goons with the Bat-tank and not once does the movie make Batman look like the bad guy (And if you say they did in Dark Knight the point was Bruce wanted Harvey to been seen as a hero since he never wanted Batman to be glorified but showed no regret for killing Harvey)

I put to you that blockbuster tentpole films of this sort are intended to be enjoyed, because the only way a studio makes its money back is if people go and see it.

Also, it's about Batman and Superman, it's a comic book film- it's not a Shakespearean tragedy. So called "serious" cbms like Logan, the Dark Knight and Joker are still enjoyable while still having heavy tones.

Well I certainly enjoyed it for its action scenes and commentary. I don't see what isn't enjoyable

Yeah, that's not very convincing.

So Frank Miller decided just for once to change the text bubbles for no reason? Even then do you really think leaving someone as a vegetable is any better than killing them? Do you know how difficult just breathing is as a quadriplegic?

I remember people laughing and cursing out loud during that moment. In the hands of a master storyteller it could have been powerful, but in Snyder's hands it was a bad joke.

If it said directed by Christopher Nolan everyone would say it was powerful

Because Snyder borrowed a bunch of elements from it, but these were only surface features and not what makes TDKR a great story. My point is that he's not a very good storyteller because he chooses things that look cool over story and character elements that make sense.
In comparison the MCU changed almost everything about the story of Civil War, to make the film , but kept the most essential elements ( the characters of Captain America and Iron Man) intact.

Having the same characters wasn't the most essential elements it was the accords that would decide whether to officially outlaw vigilante heroes or not which is why Civil War didn't work

Regardless Just because Snyder took some elements hardly warrants a comparison. It'd be idiotic of me to say Arkham Knight is a bad game because it is nothing like under the red hood

This is true, although context matters a bit. He shot that mutant because he had a gun against a baby's head and was threatening to kill him.

Showing that Batman is willing to bend his rules in extreme situations but later decries using guns. Again Batman is trying to maintain the legacy of the Batman the one who is above killing and using guns

You're right, the premises are different. The premise of B v S might have worked, but it would have needed a better director than Snyder to pull it off.

You have yet to explain what snyder did was so egregious

So you're saying teenaged or young adult Clark is more likely to obey his father than kid Clark ? Are you sure you haven't got that wrong way around ( or are you unfamiliar with teenagers ? It certainly doesn't work that way with my nieces)

Clark was in high school when he saved the bus so not really a child. And yes an older more mature Clark would be more likely to understand his father's decisions. If this was 14 year old Clark he would've ignored his father's wish but this is young adult Clark. On top of that he literally just insulted his father so the least he could do is honor his last wish. If he does save John then what? John has nothing left to give Clark who will be on his own soon anyway so what good would saving John really do?

And actually Pa Kent does suggest that Clark shouldn't necessarily save people:

Clark " What was I supposed to do, just let them die?"

Pa "Maybe."

Watch the scene again. John hesitated giving an answer and even then the maybe was one of uncertainty. He really couldn't give Clark a clear answer. If he said no then he is a hypocrite if he says yes he is an *******. I love how people assume maybe means yes. It is conceptually the same as Superman 1978 when John is telling Clark not to use his powers. The only difference is the situation is harder

Actually, it isn't about Clark being ready at all. What does Clark say to Lois " My father believed that the WORLD was not ready.."
Which makes almost no sense in the context of the film because shortly after that Zod shows up and outs Clark/Kal as well as the existence of extraterrestrial life - so all that hiding was for nothing anyway.

How was it for nothing? First off the kryptonians only found earth because Clark activated the homing beacon when he found the ship and learned of his alien heritage. And I'd say the world is more than ready for an alien superhero when aliens come and threaten it with genocide. I mean I'd even take Martian Manhunter

The only moments of B v S where Superman is likeable are his interactions with Lois and that moment where he sees the fire ,on tv, and then goes and saves that kid.

Otherwise he's kind of just there and doesn't have a lot of charm.

The moment where he's about to make a speech at the capitol - what a wasted opportunity, that could have been a great Superman moment.

Similarly the moment where the people have been flooded out and are on the roof of their home, with a big S painted on it - and Superman just hovers there above them. A more thoughtful storyteller might have let the audience see Superman rescue them, interact on a warm human level, rather than just hover above them like some distant god figure.

You can't be that oblivious. That was the point to show how people viewed Superman as a god. And Im sure if Superman did give a speech you'd say it was pretentious or a waste or question why the senator didn't notice the jar of urine. And yeah sure saving people or trying to oust Batman is just being there and doing nothing

You may have missed a few bits of Civil War and Infinity War, you might want to watch them again, especially the bits with Spider Man and Ant Man. They're pretty good......unlike some other cbms.

And BvS had absolutely no (intentionally) funny or comedic moments? Ant Man was in exactly one scene in CW. So one scene with some humor is enough for you?

 

[Wheels]

I do not like BvS and make no bones about that. However, Snyder clearly cares for these characters more than Tim Burton, who doesn't like Batman much, and turned him into a Burton avatar like most of his protagonists.

I say that as someone who does like his two films a ton more than BvS.

 

[The Guard]

Also, while Bale's Batman undoubtedly killed people, he wasn't egregious about doing so. Dent was about to kill a kid so he tackled him and he died. A bomb was about to blow up Gotham so he attacked the vehicle carrying it and Talia died as a result. Etc. These weren't acts of murder or (at least in my opinion) excessive force. He did what he had to do to save people and there was some unavoidable collateral damage. That's completely different than mowing through bad guys like Frank Castle or plotting to assassinate a superhero on the off chance he "might" turn evil one day.

You can make an argument that Nolan’s Batman is killing I’m self defense. Of course you can make the same argument about Snyder’s.

My favorite part is when Batman tackles Dent and the kid off a ledge after trying pretty much nothing else. The filmmakers couldn’t even choreograph a struggle.

He fired a fusillade of missies at the truck. Ostensibly so Nolan, after lecturing us about guns and killing, could have a spectacular crash sequence.

 

[Wheels]

It's not really the same thing when you factor in "Snyder's true vision that totally would have done better than the theaterical cut because."

Snyder's Batman branding people in the Utimate Cut tells you everything you need to know about Snyder's intentions honestly. Doesn't matter if he didn't have the murders done. He knew the pattern in terms of what was happening to the branded individuals. Which to me comes across worse than leaving Ra's on the train in Begins.

 

[Redd5]

It's not really the same thing when you factor in "Snyder's true vision that totally would have done better than the theaterical cut because."

Snyder's Batman branding people in the Utimate Cut tells you everything you need to know about Snyder's intentions honestly. Doesn't matter if he didn't have the murders done. He knew the pattern in terms of what was happening to the branded individuals. Which to me comes across worse than leaving Ra's on the train in Begins.

yeah it is called an arc and character growth. But again you seemingly don't want Batman to be shown in anything but a gleaming light. Plus Luthor was the one who orchestrated the killings (which honestly shows the negligence of Gotham prisons)

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

The same is true for Supwrman. The absolutely worst scene in Man of Steel was Pa Kent's death - it stands out like a bleeding partially amputated thumb because it's just so wrong. There is no way Superman would stand by and watch his father die - there must have been a million different ways to play that out to the same result ( Pa Kent dies) that would have been better than what we got. Give any real Superman fan five minutes, and they could have fixed that scene ( @KRYPTON INC. could probably fix the entire film in five minutes)

 

[Batmannerism]

Fine Nolan's Batman. Nolan's Batman killed Ra's (don't even try the i dont have to save you bs), Harvey, Talia and a handful of goons with the Bat-tank and not once does the movie make Batman look like the bad guy (And if you say they did in Dark Knight the point was Bruce wanted Harvey to been seen as a hero since he never wanted Batman to be glorified but showed no regret for killing Harvey)

I encourage you to think about why the Dark Knight Rises and Batman Begins don't try to make Batman look like a bad guy, even when he does cause the deaths of some people.

1. In Batman Begins he allows Ra's Al Ghul to die. He crashes the train in order to save Gotham from a horrific fate at the hands of the fear toxin. So he's causing the death of one person, in order to save millions.

2. In Dark Knight Rises he blasts the truck, which kills the driver and causes Talia to crash and die - again to save millions of lives from a nuclear bomb that is minutes away from exploding.

3. He tackles Dent to stop him murdering a child in front of his father. ( Not a lot of time for him to show regret as the movie ends about 5 minutes later, most of which he spends running away)

I invite you to consider how these situations are different from Batman killing people in B v S. He does kill some of Luthor's thugs to save Martha Kent - okay that's a little bit questionable, but they do pose a real threat to her, like Dent did to Jimmy Gordon.

However, his plan and attempt to murder Superman isn't based on an actual imminent threat ( like a gas attack or nuclear bomb that's about to explode or a gun against a child's head) it's based on a hypothetical threat. Up until that point all Superman has done is save people - and yes he killed Zod, to save the entire human race from extinction at Zod's vengeful hands.

Can you see a distinction there ?

Well I certainly enjoyed it for its action scenes and commentary. I don't see what isn't enjoyable

I've never talked down to anyone on SHH before, but I feel compelled to say this. At 18 years of age most people know very little about the world we live in. No matter how smart or well traveled you are, you just haven't got the mileage of experiences yet. At 18 I had seen a fair bit of Europe and North America, but really I didn't know anything at all. As you grow older the way you see the world changes, your experiences change you.

One of the most useful skills you may learn is being able to see things from other points of view. Believe it or not, being able to see someone else's point of view has literally saved my life at least once.
Right now I can see that you enjoyed the action in B v S - I have to admit that some of it impressed me too, mostly Batman vs team Luthor in the warehouse, although he was pretty casual about killing some of them. If you enjoyed it, that's fine - I didn't , I thought it was a bad film, and I'm not the only one, as the massive drop off in ticket sales in the film's second week suggested. However, this does not make you wrong. All it means is that our subjective experiences are different.

So Frank Miller decided just for once to change the text bubbles for no reason? Even then do you really think leaving someone as a vegetable is any better than killing them? Do you know how difficult just breathing is as a quadriplegic?

I have some idea, because my step brother is a quadriplegic. He actually is very self sufficient. Every time I start complaining that my own life is hard, I think of him and I shut the hell up.

The point was, whether Batman killed the Joker in TDKR. You believe he did, based on one interpretation of the page. I'm not convinced. If Frank Miller says that Batman killed him, I'll believe you.

If it said directed by Christopher Nolan everyone would say it was powerful

Interesting, Nolan has never had a bad review. He's had less than stellar reviews but never a bad one. I suspect if he'd directed Batman v Superman it would have looked quite different. Personally I think he's a much better director than Snyder, but Nolan too has his faults.

Having the same characters wasn't the most essential elements it was the accords that would decide whether to officially outlaw vigilante heroes or not which is why Civil War didn't work

While the initial conflict is over the accords, as the film goes on ( especially at the climax) it is a personal battle between Steve and Tony, the accords are just one element that leads to the climactic battle.

The film is clever because it knows that audiences don't really care about the accords, they are just a story point to advance the plot. What audiences really wanted to see was why Steve and Tony end up fighting, and how that fight would play out. The characters are much more important, that's why they're the essential element.

Are you suggesting that Civil War didn't work ? Because from the reviews ( RT 90% ) and box office ( 1.15 billion $) compared to B v S ( RT
28% and 872 million$) it appears at least that Civil War worked a lot better than B v S did.

Regardless Just because Snyder took some elements hardly warrants a comparison. It'd be idiotic of me to say Arkham Knight is a bad game because it is nothing like under the red hood

10 Times Batman V Superman Directly Used Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns

You should read that article. As someone who read TDKR long before you were born, I noticed most of those, you might have as well.

When one thing draws elements and inspiration from another thing, it seems only logical to compare the two things.

You have yet to explain what snyder did was so egregious

For me a plan that ends with murdering Superman with a spear is a step too far. The goons killed by Batman, either beaten to death ( because in the warehouse some of those guys would have died from the beating, as well as the guy blown up by a grenade and the guy whose flamethrower tank exploded) and the ones gunned down in the Batplane and Batmobile, I can just about excuse although they add up to quite a body count.

Clark was in high school when he saved the bus so not really a child. And yes an older more mature Clark would be more likely to understand his father's decisions. If this was 14 year old Clark he would've ignored his father's wish but this is young adult Clark. On top of that he literally just insulted his father so the least he could do is honor his last wish. If he does save John then what? John has nothing left to give Clark who will be on his own soon anyway so what good would saving John really do?

I am very rarely rude to people but "what good would saving John really do ?" are you for real ? What good would Superman saving his adopted father do ? Do you really need that explained to you ?

Watch the scene again. John hesitated giving an answer and even then the maybe was one of uncertainty. He really couldn't give Clark a clear answer. If he said no then he is a hypocrite if he says yes he is an *******. I love how people assume maybe means yes. It is conceptually the same as Superman 1978 when John is telling Clark not to use his powers. The only difference is the situation is harder

It is a little bit different from Superman the Movie, another movie I saw many times long before you were born. What Johnathan Kent says to Clark is that he was sent to Earth for a reason and that reason wasn't to score touchdowns. At no point does Pa Kent tell Clark that he shouldn't save people in order to maintain his secret.

That Pa Kent would even suggest that Clark let a bus full of children die just to protect his secret..... doesn't sit well with me, and that's another thing I'm far from alone on.

How was it for nothing? First off the kryptonians only found earth because Clark activated the homing beacon when he found the ship and learned of his alien heritage. And I'd say the world is more than ready for an alien superhero when aliens come and threaten it with genocide. I mean I'd even take Martian Manhunter

Pa Kent tells Clark that the world isn't ready, so when exactly was the world going to be ready ? Clark spends a decade after Johnathan's death wandering and hiding himself, well except for the oil rig. Clark doesn't even get to make the decision as to whether the world is ready or not reveal himself because the Kryptonians out him, so Pa Kent's suggestion/command or whatever you want to call it is rendered utterly moot.

What might have been a bit clever is if Superman revealed himself ( for a big natural disaster or something) and then Zod shows up. That way he least gets to decide when he thinks the world is ready ( or he's ready for the world).

I actually liked Man of Steel, although it has a bunch of faults, which is why it is such a divisive film.

You can't be that oblivious. That was the point to show how people viewed Superman as a god. And Im sure if Superman did give a speech you'd say it was pretentious or a waste or question why the senator didn't notice the jar of urine. And yeah sure saving people or trying to oust Batman is just being there and doing nothing

You asked why Superman wasn't likeable in the film, I explained to you that only has a few likeable moments, one being where we actually see him save someone. Floating above desperate people makes him look remote, which is what I said before. What would have made him a bit more likeable is if as an audience we see him save those people - which he does in Justice League.

And BvS had absolutely no (intentionally) funny or comedic moments? Ant Man was in exactly one scene in CW. So one scene with some humor is enough for you?

You missed the Spider Man scenes, and some of the other bits of humour. They work in some humour during the airport battle. Look I'm not going to go through the film scene by scene for you.

I think we're done here, we're not going to agree on this and honestly I'm not enjoying responding to your posts. As such, good luck and good bye kid.

 

[Wheels]

The introduction of a new Batman is not the best time to do something like this to me personally. It's not nearly as interesting as when Frank Miller deconstructed Batman in the context he did either. Nor is killing Superman without the context Death of Superman was in to me.

Not to mention if you can't create drama without usually deconstructing the mythos then maybe you've got issues as a creative? Just a little? Even Miller has Year One. Would Zack even be okay with not doing a deconstruction story? Seems like his gimmick. Which is awesome for Watchmen

I don't want deconstruction in the main superhero films. Off shoots like Joker and Logan are fine but the main Batman and Superman films being built around deconstruction doesn't work.

It's why neither MOS/BvS nor Superman Returns are all that popular in comparison to the versions that don't do this, at least amongst fandom.

But as I said, I do think Snyder's Batman ideas could have at least worked better later on. Fair or not, BvS has a disconnect with people because it's an introduction to what is the new status quo for Batman on film, which effectively becomes who the character is in the wider culture, at least for awhile, so it's not that nice for fans who don't like it

 

[Batmannerism]

You can make an argument that Nolan’s Batman is killing I’m self defense. Of course you can make the same argument about Snyder’s.

My favorite part is when Batman tackles Dent and the kid off a ledge after trying pretty much nothing else. The filmmakers couldn’t even choreograph a struggle.

He fired a fusillade of missies at the truck. Ostensibly so Nolan, after lecturing us about guns and killing, could have a spectacular crash sequence.

First , I applaud your use of ostensibly and fusillade, words we just don't see enough of in everyday use.

Second, you are correct that both Snyder and Nolan's Batmen could argue self defence as a legal justification for killing people ( because self defense also includes situations where you are protecting someone else).

However, there are some key distinctions between when Nolan's Batman kills, and when Snyder's does.

1. In Batman Begins, Batman allows Ra's Al Ghul to die ( a bunch of ninjas probably die when he blows up the mountain stronghold too). He crashes the train in order to save Gotham from a horrific fate at the hands of the fear toxin. So he's causing the death of one person, in order to save millions.

2. In Dark Knight Rises he blasts the truck, which kills the driver and causes Talia to crash and die - again to save millions of lives from a nuclear bomb that is minutes away from exploding. I feel like he gets a pass on this one, given the stakes. Yes the crash is spectacular, but it does serve a legitimate story purpose and makes sense. He does stop Selina from shooting someone earlier in the film, but there aren't millions of lives at stake.

3. He tackles Dent to stop him murdering a child in front of his father. ( Not a lot of time for him to show regret as the movie ends about 5 minutes later, most of which he spends running away). I quite like the way it played out, Batman is gutshot by Dent, and looks out for the count, he has a split second to act before Dent kills Jimmy Gordon, so he doesn't have time for anything sophisticated, the tackle works IMO.

I invite you to consider how these situations are different from Batman killing people in B v S. He does kill some of Luthor's thugs to save Martha Kent - okay that's a little bit questionable, do they pose a real threat to her, like Dent did to Jimmy Gordon ? The one thug he probably has to kill is the guy with the flamethrower, the others I'm not so sure about. The guys he kills during the batmobile sequence, maybe not.

However, his plan and attempt to murder Superman isn't based on an actual imminent threat ( like a gas attack or nuclear bomb that's about to explode or a gun against a child's head) it's based on a hypothetical threat. Up until that point all Superman has done is save people - and yes he killed Zod, to save the entire human race from extinction at Zod's vengeful hands.

 

[The Guard]

I’m well aware of the different contexts. But then, they are in entirely different films. What I’m getting at is that I don’t know that Nolan, with his heavily armed Batman, necessarily showed complete respect of the comics version of the character, either.

There’s a chance THE BATMAN will be that movie. This Batmobile doesn’t appear to have guns, and he has what appear to be mostly non lethal weapons on his gauntlets.

 

[Redd5]

I encourage you to think about why the Dark Knight Rises and Batman Begins don't try to make Batman look like a bad guy, even when he does cause the deaths of some people.

1. In Batman Begins he allows Ra's Al Ghul to die. He crashes the train in order to save Gotham from a horrific fate at the hands of the fear toxin. So he's causing the death of one person, in order to save millions.

But it wasn’t an if or situation. Ras didn’t need to die for the train to be destroyed. He just left Ra's to die on a train he destroyed

2. In Dark Knight Rises he blasts the truck, which kills the driver and causes Talia to crash and die - again to save millions of lives from a nuclear bomb that is minutes away from exploding.

3. He tackles Dent to stop him murdering a child in front of his father. ( Not a lot of time for him to show regret as the movie ends about 5 minutes later, most of which he spends running away)

I invite you to consider how these situations are different from Batman killing people in B v S. He does kill some of Luthor's thugs to save Martha Kent - okay that's a little bit questionable, but they do pose a real threat to her, like Dent did to Jimmy Gordon.

Exactly so what is the problem?

However, his plan and attempt to murder Superman isn't based on an actual imminent threat ( like a gas attack or nuclear bomb that's about to explode or a gun against a child's head) it's based on a hypothetical threat. Up until that point all Superman has done is save people - and yes he killed Zod, to save the entire human race from extinction at Zod's vengeful hands.

Can you see a distinction there ?

There you go now you got it. Yes It is about Batman going to too far and how wrong he is. You essentially never want Batman to be challenged or shown in a negative light. If Batman fights Superman it should be for a noble cause. I wonder how you’d feel about Injustice if it was about evil Batman

I've never talked down to anyone on SHH before, but I feel compelled to say this. At 18 years of age most people know very little about the world we live in. No matter how smart or well traveled you are, you just haven't got the mileage of experiences yet. At 18 I had seen a fair bit of Europe and North America, but really I didn't know anything at all. As you grow older the way you see the world changes, your experiences change you.

One of the most useful skills you may learn is being able to see things from other points of view. Believe it or not, being able to see someone else's point of view has literally saved my life at least once.
Right now I can see that you enjoyed the action in B v S - I have to admit that some of it impressed me too, mostly Batman vs team Luthor in the warehouse, although he was pretty casual about killing some of them. If you enjoyed it, that's fine - I didn't , I thought it was a bad film, and I'm not the only one, as the massive drop off in ticket sales in the film's second week suggested. However, this does not make you wrong. All it means is that our subjective experiences are different.

Either you’re not getting it or you don’t want to. When does Zack ever make Batman look like a hero in BvS? For most of the movie he is more villainous than anything else. Even when he saved the Asian women from the trafficker he was more scary than heroic

I have some idea, because my step brother is a quadriplegic. He actually is very self sufficient. Every time I start complaining that my own life is hard, I think of him and I shut the hell up.

The point was, whether Batman killed the Joker in TDKR. You believe he did, based on one interpretation of the page. I'm not convinced. If Frank Miller says that Batman killed him, I'll believe you.

Then you would understand no one should have to live like that. Good on your brother for pushing through but I wouldn't want my worst enemies to have to go through that. I’m sorry but snapping someone’s neck and leaving them a vegetable is no better than killing them and Batman still put Joker in a situation to kill himself. This is probably why you refuse to see Miller having Batman kill. ironically enough you’re acting just like Batman in that situation and refusing to accept he killed joker to maintain the legend of Batman

A big theme in Miller's TDKR is the idea of putting this somewhat outdated and idealized Batman into a gritty and violent world and asking the question of how Batman can maintain his code and how far will he bend it until it breaks and then how much further will he bend it from there. Snyder's Batman is the same thing being a past his prime Batman who is slowly going there the path of villainy after losing his way. To quote nolan either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain

Interesting, Nolan has never had a bad review. He's had less than stellar reviews but never a bad one. I suspect if he'd directed Batman v Superman it would have looked quite different. Personally I think he's a much better director than Snyder, but Nolan too has his faults.

i agree Nolan is a better director but the fact is critics and audiences have prejudices to filmmakers and often make up their minds on if it will be good before even seeing it

While the initial conflict is over the accords, as the film goes on ( especially at the climax) it is a personal battle between Steve and Tony, the accords are just one element that leads to the climactic battle.

The film is clever because it knows that audiences don't really care about the accords, they are just a story point to advance the plot. What audiences really wanted to see was why Steve and Tony end up fighting, and how that fight would play out. The characters are much more important, that's why they're the essential element.

Are you suggesting that Civil War didn't work ? Because from the reviews ( RT 90% ) and box office ( 1.15 billion $) compared to B v S ( RT
28% and 872 million$) it appears at least that Civil War worked a lot better than B v S did.

argument of popularity isn’t a good argument. Transformers 3 also made 1.2 billion dollars guess it’s better than CW. And if no one cared about the accords (because who wants an ideological conflict?) why spend the entire first hour of the movie on it? No what the conflict came down to is a misunderstanding and yeah i think BvS worked much better

10 Times Batman V Superman Directly Used Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns

You should read that article. As someone who read TDKR long before you were born, I noticed most of those, you might have as well.

When one thing draws elements and inspiration from another thing, it seems only logical to compare the two things.

So you compare Arkham Knight to Under the Red Hood? obviously BvS has inspiration but i don’t get what you mean by Snyder missed the point. he fulfilled it having batman go to more and more extremes to combat extreme situations bending his rules further

For me a plan that ends with murdering Superman with a spear is a step too far. The goons killed by Batman, either beaten to death ( because in the warehouse some of those guys would have died from the beating, as well as the guy blown up by a grenade and the guy whose flamethrower tank exploded) and the ones gunned down in the Batplane and Batmobile, I can just about excuse although they add up to quite a body count.

you literally come off as the stereotypical batman fan who can’t stand seeing batman as anything but heroic. You’re not suppose to excuse Batman trying to murder Superman and the movie makes it incredibly clear that Batman is the villain and has fallen too far

I am very rarely rude to people but "what good would saving John really do ?" are you for real ? What good would Superman saving his adopted father do ? Do you really need that explained to you ?

Yes i do. Jonathan has given Clark all he knows about Clark and can’t give him any more guidance especially since Clark is grown up. So please what does it benefit Clark to give up his identity to save his father who he just insulted a minute ago? It is up to Clark to come to terms with his own origins on his own

It is a little bit different from Superman the Movie, another movie I saw many times long before you were born. What Johnathan Kent says to Clark is that he was sent to Earth for a reason and that reason wasn't to score touchdowns. At no point does Pa Kent tell Clark that he shouldn't save people in order to maintain his secret.

because the Donner movies paint everything in clear black and white and doesn’t challenge John’s morality. Both Pa Kent’s are telling Clark he is destined for greatness when the time comes. Pa Kent doesn’t tell clark to not save people because he is never put in that situation

That Pa Kent would even suggest that Clark let a bus full of children die just to protect his secret..... doesn't sit well with me, and that's another thing I'm far from alone on.

Again he didn’t Clark brought it up to put John on the spot and again John was really saying “IDK”. But you’re ignoring what could happen to young Clark. The main theme of MoS is choice and if Clark comes out as an alien now he no longer has any choice

Pa Kent tells Clark that the world isn't ready, so when exactly was the world going to be ready ? Clark spends a decade after Johnathan's death wandering and hiding himself, well except for the oil rig. Clark doesn't even get to make the decision as to whether the world is ready or not reveal himself because the Kryptonians out him, so Pa Kent's suggestion/command or whatever you want to call it is rendered utterly moot.

How about when genocidal aliens attack? And Clark didn’t have to give his identity to the world (in a way he still didn’t since Clark Kent is just some guy). And again on the oil rig he disappeared so the workers probably thought he died. The point is Clark didn’t have to face the kryptonians he could just try and keep hiding but as Lois said the only way to do that is to stop helping people

What might have been a bit clever is if Superman revealed himself ( for a big natural disaster or something) and then Zod shows up. That way he least gets to decide when he thinks the world is ready ( or he's ready for the world).

That makes no sense. Clark can’t just choose “Now the world is ready for me” that is ridiculous. The first half of the movie Clark is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to help people but be a phantom too just drifting and hiding hence why Lois told him that unless he wants to disappear for good he will stop helping people. Guess what sometimes in life you have to make choices based on things happening out of nowhere. He still had a choice to join Zod and destroy humanity or keep hiding or even fly away to another planet but he chose to stay and help humanity. On top of that he now has leverage on the government like at the end when he destroys the drone and tells the general to let him have his privacy. On top of that his Clark Kent identity is preserved. Like seriously BMB recently had Superman tell the world he was Clark Kent and everyone was furious of how stupid that was. Now Superman put his loved ones in danger, his and Lois' papers at the Planet are now biased and unreliable and he can never go undercover. Bendis has made some awful decisions over his years but this is easily the single worst

You asked why Superman wasn't likeable in the film, I explained to you that only has a few likeable moments, one being where we actually see him save someone. Floating above desperate people makes him look remote, which is what I said before. What would have made him a bit more likeable is if as an audience we see him save those people - which he does in Justice League.

Again that was the point of the scene to show how people view him as a god. Do you need every scene spelt out or can’t you deduce he saved those people?

You missed the Spider Man scenes, and some of the other bits of humour. They work in some humour during the airport battle. Look I'm not going to go through the film scene by scene for you.

Great then Alfred and Luthor’s comic relief are more than enough

If you want you can watch this video and his follow 3 part video on BvS

[/QUOTE]