Batman v Superman Goes Full Grimdark, Approves R-Rated Alternate Cut

[RJ Dalton]

And once again (once again), Hollywood misunderstands how much context matters. The R-Rating in Deadpool wasn't what garnered people's interest. It was that you couldn't do the kind of humor and action Deadpool is made famous for without going into R-Rated territory. It doesn't mean that an R-rating is automatically successful or not. It's the quality of the content that matters.

But I might as well be talking to a chicken for all the difference trying to explain that to Hollywood will do.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

too bad this has been in production far longer than Deadpool has been released and of course it was directed by ZACK SNYDER. You're SURPRISED it's capable of an R rating? I was frankly shocked that he was able to restrain himself with Man of Steel.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

Whoa, what the hell is this "it's R-rated so it has to mean it's grimdark" assumption? Deadpool was not grimdark, most adult comedies and over the top action films are not grimdark. Why this ridiculous attempt at fanning the internet fanboy flames? And grimdark is a real meaningless term now it is used for anything that isn't all smiles and cuddles. I would recommend not jumping to conclusions from a single rating. Or is this about clicks and comments again?

Yeah it's kind of an assumption... but it's one I understand. This is made by the same Snyder and Co. that "grimdarked-up" Man of Steel with a lot of emo stuff not in other versions of the Superman story.

Now whether that's bad or not... I was in my formative years in the 90's. A bit of grimdark isn't always a bad thing. I wouldn't mind such at all in a Batman film. It just really seemed kind of out of place for Supes.

Here's the thing, though: Man of Steel wasn't grimdark, it was serious. As Xsjadoblayde said, the term is thrown at anything that isn't all bright and happy and whatnot. People use the term so much that it's been diluted of all meaning.

 

[Callate]

Batman v. Superman. Now with extra slow-mo punching.

I don't know if I buy the argument that this will automatically lead to a PG-13 version that feels watered down and/or tainted, but I do find the timing of the announcement suspicious and don't tend to think that it's a good sign. All we need now is a "This isn't your father's Superfriends" campaign sponsored by a new flavor of Mtn Dew.

 

[happyninja42]

Whoa, what the hell is this "it's R-rated so it has to mean it's grimdark" assumption? Deadpool was not grimdark, most adult comedies and over the top action films are not grimdark. Why this ridiculous attempt at fanning the internet fanboy flames? And grimdark is a real meaningless term now it is used for anything that isn't all smiles and cuddles. I would recommend not jumping to conclusions from a single rating. Or is this about clicks and comments again?

Yeah it's kind of an assumption... but it's one I understand. This is made by the same Snyder and Co. that "grimdarked-up" Man of Steel with a lot of emo stuff not in other versions of the Superman story.

Now whether that's bad or not... I was in my formative years in the 90's. A bit of grimdark isn't always a bad thing. I wouldn't mind such at all in a Batman film. It just really seemed kind of out of place for Supes.

Here's the thing, though: Man of Steel wasn't grimdark, it was serious. As Xsjadoblayde said, the term is thrown at anything that isn't all bright and happy and whatnot. People use the term so much that it's been diluted of all meaning.

Having something being hopeful doesn't exclude it from being serious. The main issue that most fans have with MoS, isn't that it was "serious", that's perfectly fine. It's that all of the traits about Superman's personality, that make him the icon and paragon he is, were left out, or at least they felt they were misrepresented. Superman Returns, a movie that most people hate, but I enjoyed a lot, was very hopeful and optimistic, but it was also serious. The threats that were happening were treated with true gravity, and lives were at stake. Sure it had some humor to it, and it had playful bits in it, but all of the superman movies did that to some extent. The gripe is that MoS sacrificed the core of Superman in order to have a "serious" premise, when it didn't need to do that at all.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

Whoa, what the hell is this "it's R-rated so it has to mean it's grimdark" assumption? Deadpool was not grimdark, most adult comedies and over the top action films are not grimdark. Why this ridiculous attempt at fanning the internet fanboy flames? And grimdark is a real meaningless term now it is used for anything that isn't all smiles and cuddles. I would recommend not jumping to conclusions from a single rating. Or is this about clicks and comments again?

Yeah it's kind of an assumption... but it's one I understand. This is made by the same Snyder and Co. that "grimdarked-up" Man of Steel with a lot of emo stuff not in other versions of the Superman story.

Now whether that's bad or not... I was in my formative years in the 90's. A bit of grimdark isn't always a bad thing. I wouldn't mind such at all in a Batman film. It just really seemed kind of out of place for Supes.

Here's the thing, though: Man of Steel wasn't grimdark, it was serious. As Xsjadoblayde said, the term is thrown at anything that isn't all bright and happy and whatnot. People use the term so much that it's been diluted of all meaning.

Having something being hopeful doesn't exclude it from being serious. The main issue that most fans have with MoS, isn't that it was "serious", that's perfectly fine. It's that all of the traits about Superman's personality, that make him the icon and paragon he is, were left out, or at least they felt they were misrepresented. Superman Returns, a movie that most people hate, but I enjoyed a lot, was very hopeful and optimistic, but it was also serious. The threats that were happening were treated with true gravity, and lives were at stake. Sure it had some humor to it, and it had playful bits in it, but all of the superman movies did that to some extent. The gripe is that MoS sacrificed the core of Superman in order to have a "serious" premise, when it didn't need to do that at all.

But what are these core traits people keep talking about? If we're talking his desire to help people, MoS certainly has that. Most of the stuff people criticize MoS for (Superman killing, the destructive battles, questioning his purpose in life) have happened before in comics/shows, yet I rarely see those criticized. One could argue the movie could have executed certain concepts better, but I've only heard a few people do that; a lot of what I hear boils down to 'I don't like this interpretation of the character, therefore it's bad,' instead of separating their personal tastes from the quality of the movie itself and judging the movie on its own merits.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I had enough trouble with The Dark Knight Trilogy. So many people died. So many innocent people, or just officers doing their jobs. It's also one of the reasons I avoided Man of Steel. When I think Batman or Superman, I don't think of R ratings, but that's probably because I grew up with the cartoon versions of both of them. Seeing this rating does not fill me with confidence to be honest.

However, I was worried that Arkham Knight got a Mature rating, but it turned out okay, so it CAN be done correctly. I will withhold complete despair because of that fact, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried.

 

[happyninja42]

Whoa, what the hell is this "it's R-rated so it has to mean it's grimdark" assumption? Deadpool was not grimdark, most adult comedies and over the top action films are not grimdark. Why this ridiculous attempt at fanning the internet fanboy flames? And grimdark is a real meaningless term now it is used for anything that isn't all smiles and cuddles. I would recommend not jumping to conclusions from a single rating. Or is this about clicks and comments again?

Yeah it's kind of an assumption... but it's one I understand. This is made by the same Snyder and Co. that "grimdarked-up" Man of Steel with a lot of emo stuff not in other versions of the Superman story.

Now whether that's bad or not... I was in my formative years in the 90's. A bit of grimdark isn't always a bad thing. I wouldn't mind such at all in a Batman film. It just really seemed kind of out of place for Supes.

Here's the thing, though: Man of Steel wasn't grimdark, it was serious. As Xsjadoblayde said, the term is thrown at anything that isn't all bright and happy and whatnot. People use the term so much that it's been diluted of all meaning.

Having something being hopeful doesn't exclude it from being serious. The main issue that most fans have with MoS, isn't that it was "serious", that's perfectly fine. It's that all of the traits about Superman's personality, that make him the icon and paragon he is, were left out, or at least they felt they were misrepresented. Superman Returns, a movie that most people hate, but I enjoyed a lot, was very hopeful and optimistic, but it was also serious. The threats that were happening were treated with true gravity, and lives were at stake. Sure it had some humor to it, and it had playful bits in it, but all of the superman movies did that to some extent. The gripe is that MoS sacrificed the core of Superman in order to have a "serious" premise, when it didn't need to do that at all.

But what are these core traits people keep talking about? If we're talking his desire to help people, MoS certainly has that. Most of the stuff people criticize MoS for (Superman killing, the destructive battles, questioning his purpose in life) have happened before in comics/shows, yet I rarely see those criticized. One could argue the movie could have executed certain concepts better, but I've only heard a few people do that; a lot of what I hear boils down to 'I don't like this interpretation of the character, therefore it's bad,' instead of separating their personal tastes from the quality of the movie itself and judging the movie on its own merits.

Well, I'm not a huge Superman fan, so I can only speculate based on what I have heard from others, but the core traits being

1. Not Killing (this is the most rabidly enforced trait of him that I've seen) Yes, some writers have broken this rule, but from what I gather, this is usually in alternate universe stories, or it turns out to not actually be Superman, or some other some such nonsense to retcon changing the character.

2. Hope. Actually providing hope and optimism for those around him. The trailers for MoS hyped this up a lot, but I think the final product failed to deliver on this element of his nature. I think BvS is going to focus a bit more on this, or at least, the trailers are suggesting it. We'll see if they pull another MoS, and just take lines out of context with the imagery. But yeah, Hope, the capital H kind of hope. The kind where he helps people get off of drugs, and convince criminals to turn themselves in because it's the right thing to do, not just because a god is floating over their head saying do it or I'll punch you really hard. That kind of stuff.

3. Sacrifice, giving of himself for the betterment of others. MoS showed him constantly disregarding the city around him while he was fighting, and literally plowing through buildings, sending people to their deaths from collapsing debris. In most depictions of Supes (at least the ones I've seen, again, not a huge fan of him), he is shown to go out of his way to save the innocent, not put them in peril. Superman Returns has a great scene illustrating this. That big crack opens up in the ocean floor, and he could either go fly to rescue Lois, and stop Luther, or he could go save Metropolis. He goes to save Metropolis. Why? Because he's Superman, and that's what he does. MoS didn't have any of that. The closest it had that I recall, was him defeating the dubstep machine, but again, that didn't really have any level of sacrifice to it. Him putting his personal wants at risk, for the greater good.

Those are the ones I can think of, I'm sure someone more versed in Supes could provide more examples, but those are the ones that I've always considered core traits of him. And I disagree that nobody has ever bothered to illustrate these points, people have argued these very topics on this very site ad naseum ever since that movie came out, and the BvS trailers started popping up.

 

[Objectable]

At LAST, a Batman-on-Superman sex scene too hot for PG-13!

 

[Kyrian007]

snip

snip

Here's the thing, though: Man of Steel wasn't grimdark, it was serious. As Xsjadoblayde said, the term is thrown at anything that isn't all bright and happy and whatnot. People use the term so much that it's been diluted of all meaning.

Having something being hopeful doesn't exclude it from being serious. The main issue that most fans have with MoS, isn't that it was "serious", that's perfectly fine. It's that all of the traits about Superman's personality, that make him the icon and paragon he is, were left out, or at least they felt they were misrepresented. Superman Returns, a movie that most people hate, but I enjoyed a lot, was very hopeful and optimistic, but it was also serious. The threats that were happening were treated with true gravity, and lives were at stake. Sure it had some humor to it, and it had playful bits in it, but all of the superman movies did that to some extent. The gripe is that MoS sacrificed the core of Superman in order to have a "serious" premise, when it didn't need to do that at all.

But what are these core traits people keep talking about? If we're talking his desire to help people, MoS certainly has that. Most of the stuff people criticize MoS for (Superman killing, the destructive battles, questioning his purpose in life) have happened before in comics/shows, yet I rarely see those criticized. One could argue the movie could have executed certain concepts better, but I've only heard a few people do that; a lot of what I hear boils down to 'I don't like this interpretation of the character, therefore it's bad,' instead of separating their personal tastes from the quality of the movie itself and judging the movie on its own merits.

To be completely honest I hated MoS because of its stupid and distracting, constant use of shaky cam. I don't mind it in an action scene or 2, but in a dialogue heavy scene with a discussion between 2 stationary people shaky cam is stupid, ugly, distracting, pointless, pretentious... I mean were they trying to convince us it was found footage?

But as far as your "core traits" and added pointless grimdark for the emo crowd. Easy, Jon Kent. In every other incarnation he is a simple Kansas farmer who teaches honest Midwestern values to little Kal and inspires him to be the very incarnation of hope and justice. In Man of Steel he seems to be a paranoid nutcase who would suggest it might be better to let busses full of children die rather than be a hero, and that sets Kal's emotional growth back about 10 years or so. Well that combined with that attitude causing Jon's death and making Kal more or less directly responsible for that death he could have easily prevented (without exposing jack to "teh world.")

Basically rather than the simple but profoundly important message papa Kent's death imparted of "no matter how powerful you are, people are mortal and there are some things you can't change," Snyder and Co. decided to grimdark up Superman's backstory, lose the original message, and replace that with the implication that the human dad was frail and imperfect and stunted Kal's emotional development until he found his alien god dad and became something better. People are worthless and mankind is doomed without paranormal help. Which if that isn't "added grimdark" it'll do for me until something even grimmerdarker comes along.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Zack Snyder is a terrible director. Watchmen was good only because of a) a mostly great cast and b) the source material was so good. Man of Steel was a bad film and I'm not looking forward to a baby faced Lex Luthor, more dark and edgy and another Zack Snyder film. This one will probably be a "watch on TV later" movie, but I'll wait for reviews. Putting the two flagship characters together at this point is about the only interesting thing DC have left to do.

 

[Worgen]

In the grimdarkness of the future there is only Batman vs Superman.

Seriously, all they need to do now is give superman a puppy and halfway through have it get incurable puppy cancer. Only then with the transformation be complete.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

To be completely honest I hated MoS because of its stupid and distracting, constant use of shaky cam. I don't mind it in an action scene or 2, but in a dialogue heavy scene with a discussion between 2 stationary people shaky cam is stupid, ugly, distracting, pointless, pretentious... I mean were they trying to convince us it was found footage?

But as far as your "core traits" and added pointless grimdark for the emo crowd. Easy, Jon Kent. In every other incarnation he is a simple Kansas farmer who teaches honest Midwestern values to little Kal and inspires him to be the very incarnation of hope and justice. In Man of Steel he seems to be a paranoid nutcase who would suggest it might be better to let busses full of children die rather than be a hero, and that sets Kal's emotional growth back about 10 years or so. Well that combined with that attitude causing Jon's death and making Kal more or less directly responsible for that death he could have easily prevented (without exposing jack to "teh world.")

If you don't like shaky cam, that's fine, but that's a personal taste thing and shouldn't be a factor in determining a film's quality.

Like most people in this thread, you're misusing the word 'grimdark'. Is there no one out there who understands what that word actually means? Grimdark and serious are not the same thing. In addition, Jon Kent DID NOT say Clark should let kids die; maybe and yes do not mean the same thing either. He was trying to protect his son because he knew the world might reject him and the military would come and take him away (and as Flashpoint showed, Clark living under military containment would be bad for him). If Clark had saved his father, those people witnessing wouldn't have kept quiet about it.

Basically rather than the simple but profoundly important message papa Kent's death imparted of "no matter how powerful you are, people are mortal and there are some things you can't change," Snyder and Co. decided to grimdark up Superman's backstory, lose the original message, and replace that with the implication that the human dad was frail and imperfect and stunted Kal's emotional development until he found his alien god dad and became something better. People are worthless and mankind is doomed without paranormal help. Which if that isn't "added grimdark" it'll do for me until something even grimmerdarker comes along.

Unless you can read Snyder's mind, you shouldn't make claims about what his intentions are without proper evidence, and your strange interpretation of MoS's message isn't evidence.

 

[Evonisia]

Well if they feel it will fit the tone of the film, why not? It's not like it's being released to theatres like this to capitalise on the "Deadpool" thing.

OK with me, as long as we see Henry Cavil's woohoo.

I second this.

At LAST, a Batman-on-Superman sex scene too hot for PG-13!

And this.

 

[Snotnarok]

The more they show of this movie the worse it looks. It's looking way too busy with way too much going on with the story, Batman vs Superman ....Then Doomsday, then Zod, also Wonderwoman is there because we're DESPERATELY trying to get something like the Avengers.

I wish they got a better Wonderwoman...someone with a bit more beef on her arms. You know being an AMAZON and all.

 

[Kyrian007]

But as far as your "core traits" and added pointless grimdark for the emo crowd. Easy, Jon Kent. In every other incarnation he is a simple Kansas farmer who teaches honest Midwestern values to little Kal and inspires him to be the very incarnation of hope and justice. In Man of Steel he seems to be a paranoid nutcase who would suggest it might be better to let busses full of children die rather than be a hero, and that sets Kal's emotional growth back about 10 years or so.

In addition, Jon Kent DID NOT say Clark should let kids die; maybe and yes do not mean the same thing either. He was trying to protect his son because he knew the world might reject him and the military would come and take him away (and as Flashpoint showed, Clark living under military containment would be bad for him). If Clark had saved his father, those people witnessing wouldn't have kept quiet about it.

No, they wouldn't have. They'd have said "Well, the dad was just standing there like a gormless idiot, when his dumb but lucky kid ran over to him (at normal speed, he had plenty of time according to how long Jon just stands there looking at Clark before dying) and knocked him to the ground" (the sensible thing any Kansan knows could save their life with a lot of luck in that situation.) Jon and Clark's survival would have been chalked up to "good luck" or simple Midwestern "Praise Jesus" as opposed to "that kid must BE Jesus, lets worship him." A statistical improbability is just that, not proof of the second coming no matter what people seem to think about midwesterners.

Also, if you had actually read my post you would have noticed I never implied that Jon said "Yes, let that bus full of kids die." I said "paranoid nutcase who would suggest it might be better to let busses full of children die." "Might be better" is "maybe." So yes, "maybe" does not mean "yes." That isn't the problem. The problem is that "yes" AND "maybe" ARE NOT THE CORRECT ANSWER. "Maybe" also does not mean "NO" which is the correct answer. Even in the "what if kid X grows up to be Hitler" scenario the non paranoid nutcase or non actually sociopathic answer is an emphatic "NO, don't let that bus of kids die."

 

[Funcakes]

They need to take these IP away from whatever idiots are making these decisions.

Just set all the money on fire, save everyone the trouble.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

Also, if you had actually read my post you would have noticed I never implied that Jon said "Yes, let that bus full of kids die." I said "paranoid nutcase who would suggest it might be better to let busses full of children die." "Might be better" is "maybe." So yes, "maybe" does not mean "yes." That isn't the problem. The problem is that "yes" AND "maybe" ARE NOT THE CORRECT ANSWER. "Maybe" also does not mean "NO" which is the correct answer. Even in the "what if kid X grows up to be Hitler" scenario the non paranoid nutcase or non actually sociopathic answer is an emphatic "NO, don't let that bus of kids die."

You seem to be missing something: THERE IS NO CORRECT ANSWER. You seem to think it's a black-and-white issue, clear cut easy choice, but it's not, and that's what Jonathan was saying: he's weighing the consequences of Clark revealing who he is. Jonathan saying 'No' wouldn't make any sense. "You have to keep this side of yourself a secret, but you did the right thing by almost exposing your secret." Why would he be lecturing Clark in the first place if he thought he did the right thing?

 

[Cicada 5]

Whoa, what the hell is this "it's R-rated so it has to mean it's grimdark" assumption? Deadpool was not grimdark, most adult comedies and over the top action films are not grimdark. Why this ridiculous attempt at fanning the internet fanboy flames? And grimdark is a real meaningless term now it is used for anything that isn't all smiles and cuddles. I would recommend not jumping to conclusions from a single rating. Or is this about clicks and comments again?

And even than what is with this backlash against "Grim-Dark" stuff anyway? When did it became an objectivly bad concept and content for a superhero movie?

People think only Marvel's way is the right way to do superhero movies.