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

[Cicada 5]

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.

Amazons were never described as being muscular in the myths. That's a modern misconception.

Also, how about we focus on whether or not she can act instead of how much she resembles a fictional character.

 

[Kingjackl]

I was just watching the video from that marketing thing they did where Henry Cavill asks a bunch of kids whether they prefer Superman or Batman and most of them say Batman. It was really cute, really spot on...and highlights just so bone-headed the approach to this movie has been, where they're taking characters that appeal to and are aimed at kids and coming out with a version that kids can't even watch.

 

[RedDeadFred]

R rating can mean anything in the US. It'll likely be the variety that only makes 14A here in Canada. I doubt they're going to randomly add in a bunch of blood. Maybe some of the fight scene will be a bit longer with some added intensity.

 

[Amir Kondori]

So everyone had been crying about the loss of the hard R movie, how adult action films were toned down to hit PG-13 and hopefully make more money, and now that we might actually get the hard R back everyone is bitching about it?

You people are crazy.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

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.

Ssshhhh. People feel really smart when they make predictions about pop-culture trends; don't take the wind out of everyone's sails by saying the sky isn't falling.

In all seriousness, I really don't get the these forums sometimes. One day we're all complaining about how overzealous the ratings boards are with their willingness to slap absurd rating on any media that doesn't censor itself, but now an R rating is a sign of a grim-dark, edgy, production? The trailers have already been pretty much nothing but grim and dark from the beginning, so I'm not sure how this changes anything. You can get an R rating for using profanity; it doesn't exactly have very high threshold.

To be honest, if they do mindlessly follow along behind Deadpool's R rating I'd consider that a good thing. It's not like they won't be mindlessly following something, so they might as well prove to the world that R ratings can be profitable, and that not all films need to censor themselves to turn a profit.

 

[Samtemdo8_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.

Ssshhhh. People feel really smart when they make predictions about pop-culture trends; don't take the wind out of everyone's sails by saying the sky isn't falling.

In all seriousness, I really don't get the these forums sometimes. One day we're all complaining about how overzealous the ratings boards are with their willingness to slap absurd rating on any media that doesn't censor itself, but now an R rating is a sign of a grim-dark, edgy, production? The trailers have already been pretty much nothing but grim and dark from the beginning, so I'm not sure how this changes anything. You can get an R rating for using profanity; it doesn't exactly have very high threshold.

To be honest, if they do mindlessly follow along behind Deadpool's R rating I'd consider that a good thing. It's not like they won't be mindlessly following something, so they might as well prove to the world that R ratings can be profitable, and that not all films need to censor themselves to turn a profit.

Besides isn't the 1970s considered the greatest decade of film and most of them were of the Grim Dark category.


Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter.

I swear people these days are brainwashed by stuff like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqv_LUStxDw

Appreantly GrimDark equals shitty movies

 

[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.

Amazons were never described as being muscular in the myths. That's a modern misconception.

Also, how about we focus on whether or not she can act instead of how much she resembles a fictional character.

Yes the myth that has preceded it, much like horns on a viking helmet but it's still very commonly used. Not to mention it would make her stand out if she was tall and had some muscle going. It's a comic, they're not going for historical accuracy or she wouldn't be flying, or have a magic lasso or have fought Hades ...you know that thing that isn't real.

That's a very odd statement, "let's focus on..." No it's a good point, why can't she look the part and be good at acting? It's especially an odd statement considering the length they went to get accurate, detailed costumes to the Frank Miller Batman and Superman. Also how much the actors must have worked out to keep to fitting those roles.

They apparently have some large people in Game of Thrones so why not get someone who could do both instead of someone who doesn't look like they could fit the role.

That's a badass looking Wonder Woman.

 

[Cicada 5]

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.

Amazons were never described as being muscular in the myths. That's a modern misconception.

Also, how about we focus on whether or not she can act instead of how much she resembles a fictional character.

Yes the myth that has preceded it, much like horns on a viking helmet but it's still very commonly used. Not to mention it would make her stand out if she was tall and had some muscle going. It's a comic, they're not going for historical accuracy or she wouldn't be flying, or have a magic lasso or have fought Hades ...you know that thing that isn't real.

That's a very odd statement, "let's focus on..." No it's a good point, why can't she look the part and be good at acting? It's especially an odd statement considering the length they went to get accurate, detailed costumes to the Frank Miller Batman and Superman. Also how much the actors must have worked out to keep to fitting those roles.

They apparently have some large people in Game of Thrones so why not get someone who could do both instead of someone who doesn't look like they could fit the role.

That's a badass looking Wonder Woman.

Yes it is a cool looking WW. It's also a fanart drawing. The WW from the comics has a physique much closer to Gadot. She has never been drawn that muscular at all. In fact, there's a comic where an opponent comments on her small stature and is surprised by her strength.

The only costume that resembles anything like Frank Miller's work is Batman's. Superman's costume is based on the new 52 version and WW wearing a skirt goes all the way back to her Golden Age appearance and the heels are from that era and the modern one as well.

All this is moot anyway because Gadot has been working out and quite frankly how they portray the character is more important than them looking as jacked as they do or don't in the comics. Even Superman and Batman don't look completely like their comic counterparts.

 

[Xpwn3ntial]

So everyone had been crying about the loss of the hard R movie, how adult action films were toned down to hit PG-13 and hopefully make more money, and now that we might actually get the hard R back everyone is bitching about it?

You people are crazy.

It's still going to be pg-13 in the theater. This means either a truly R-rated movie was in fact neutered for release or a PG-13 movie is getting some extra cgi blood, maybe some body parts shown in alternate takes (sexual or dismemberment as to taste), and possibly some swearing dubbed in.

And there's nothing wrong with a PG-13 rating, anyway. I was perfectly content with this movie's rating until this very announcement.

I also find it suspect they're only announcing it after the success of Deadpool and not, say, in tv advertisements for the home release (common enough) or before the success of Deadpool when they were having marketing trouble thanks to that Doomsday trailer. "Yeah we're sorry we spoiled the third act for you guys but if you buy the home release it's rated R and super gory!"

 

[Souplex]

The lesson to be learned from Marvel is "Be yourself."
The lesson to be learned from DC is "Don't be that guy you were in the late 80s/early 90s. The only people who like that guy are people whose approval you don't want.

 

[happyninja42]

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.

Actually yes it should. It's a film style technique, that directly effects the quality and style of the movie presented. Just like lens flare is a valid critique in a movie, or Dutch Angle, or slow motion, or any number of other directing tools that are used, to try and convey a specific emotion/tension in a scene. To say that you can't criticize the way the film is directly presented to the audience because it's not a valid form of criticism of the quality is....very wrong.

 

[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.

Amazons were never described as being muscular in the myths. That's a modern misconception.

Also, how about we focus on whether or not she can act instead of how much she resembles a fictional character.

Yes the myth that has preceded it, much like horns on a viking helmet but it's still very commonly used. Not to mention it would make her stand out if she was tall and had some muscle going. It's a comic, they're not going for historical accuracy or she wouldn't be flying, or have a magic lasso or have fought Hades ...you know that thing that isn't real.

That's a very odd statement, "let's focus on..." No it's a good point, why can't she look the part and be good at acting? It's especially an odd statement considering the length they went to get accurate, detailed costumes to the Frank Miller Batman and Superman. Also how much the actors must have worked out to keep to fitting those roles.

They apparently have some large people in Game of Thrones so why not get someone who could do both instead of someone who doesn't look like they could fit the role.

That's a badass looking Wonder Woman.

Yes it is a cool looking WW. It's also a fanart drawing. The WW from the comics has a physique much closer to Gadot. She has never been drawn that muscular at all. In fact, there's a comic where an opponent comments on her small stature and is surprised by her strength.

The only costume that resembles anything like Frank Miller's work is Batman's. Superman's costume is based on the new 52 version and WW wearing a skirt goes all the way back to her Golden Age appearance and the heels are from that era and the modern one as well.

All this is moot anyway because Gadot has been working out and quite frankly how they portray the character is more important than them looking as jacked as they do or don't in the comics. Even Superman and Batman don't look completely like their comic counterparts.

I'm aware it's fanart, by a professional comic artist. I'm not saying "Make Wonder Woman look like this or the film will suck" I'm saying I would like to see a more fitting Wonder Woman since they went to great lengths to make Batman and Superman look the parts. That's all.

Since they seen to entirely be ditching the original story and just throwing EVERYTHING into the movie (which is going to make it too busy and likely not good) I don't have high hopes for it anyway, but either way that was just my thoughts.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

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.

Actually yes it should. It's a film style technique, that directly effects the quality and style of the movie presented. Just like lens flare is a valid critique in a movie, or Dutch Angle, or slow motion, or any number of other directing tools that are used, to try and convey a specific emotion/tension in a scene. To say that you can't criticize the way the film is directly presented to the audience because it's not a valid form of criticism of the quality is....very wrong.

You do have a point. I suppose I should say it shouldn't be the sole factor in determining a film's quality.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

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.

Amazons were never described as being muscular in the myths. That's a modern misconception.

Also, how about we focus on whether or not she can act instead of how much she resembles a fictional character.

Yes the myth that has preceded it, much like horns on a viking helmet but it's still very commonly used. Not to mention it would make her stand out if she was tall and had some muscle going. It's a comic, they're not going for historical accuracy or she wouldn't be flying, or have a magic lasso or have fought Hades ...you know that thing that isn't real.

That's a very odd statement, "let's focus on..." No it's a good point, why can't she look the part and be good at acting? It's especially an odd statement considering the length they went to get accurate, detailed costumes to the Frank Miller Batman and Superman. Also how much the actors must have worked out to keep to fitting those roles.

They apparently have some large people in Game of Thrones so why not get someone who could do both instead of someone who doesn't look like they could fit the role.

That's a badass looking Wonder Woman.

Yes it is a cool looking WW. It's also a fanart drawing. The WW from the comics has a physique much closer to Gadot. She has never been drawn that muscular at all. In fact, there's a comic where an opponent comments on her small stature and is surprised by her strength.

The only costume that resembles anything like Frank Miller's work is Batman's. Superman's costume is based on the new 52 version and WW wearing a skirt goes all the way back to her Golden Age appearance and the heels are from that era and the modern one as well.

All this is moot anyway because Gadot has been working out and quite frankly how they portray the character is more important than them looking as jacked as they do or don't in the comics. Even Superman and Batman don't look completely like their comic counterparts.

I'm aware it's fanart, by a professional comic artist. I'm not saying "Make Wonder Woman look like this or the film will suck" I'm saying I would like to see a more fitting Wonder Woman since they went to great lengths to make Batman and Superman look the parts. That's all.

Since they seen to entirely be ditching the original story and just throwing EVERYTHING into the movie (which is going to make it too busy and likely not good) I don't have high hopes for it anyway, but either way that was just my thoughts.

Wait they are ditching the confirmed Wonder Woman movie?

 

[Therumancer]

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

You'll have to hope someone has the brains to bring back "Wildstorm" properly, then your wildest fantasies will be lived out by The Midnighter and Apollo (who are a Batman and Superman equivalent in that universe, and a married gay couple to boot).

 

[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.

Amazons were never described as being muscular in the myths. That's a modern misconception.

Also, how about we focus on whether or not she can act instead of how much she resembles a fictional character.

Yes the myth that has preceded it, much like horns on a viking helmet but it's still very commonly used. Not to mention it would make her stand out if she was tall and had some muscle going. It's a comic, they're not going for historical accuracy or she wouldn't be flying, or have a magic lasso or have fought Hades ...you know that thing that isn't real.

That's a very odd statement, "let's focus on..." No it's a good point, why can't she look the part and be good at acting? It's especially an odd statement considering the length they went to get accurate, detailed costumes to the Frank Miller Batman and Superman. Also how much the actors must have worked out to keep to fitting those roles.

They apparently have some large people in Game of Thrones so why not get someone who could do both instead of someone who doesn't look like they could fit the role.

That's a badass looking Wonder Woman.

Yes it is a cool looking WW. It's also a fanart drawing. The WW from the comics has a physique much closer to Gadot. She has never been drawn that muscular at all. In fact, there's a comic where an opponent comments on her small stature and is surprised by her strength.

The only costume that resembles anything like Frank Miller's work is Batman's. Superman's costume is based on the new 52 version and WW wearing a skirt goes all the way back to her Golden Age appearance and the heels are from that era and the modern one as well.

All this is moot anyway because Gadot has been working out and quite frankly how they portray the character is more important than them looking as jacked as they do or don't in the comics. Even Superman and Batman don't look completely like their comic counterparts.

I'm aware it's fanart, by a professional comic artist. I'm not saying "Make Wonder Woman look like this or the film will suck" I'm saying I would like to see a more fitting Wonder Woman since they went to great lengths to make Batman and Superman look the parts. That's all.

Since they seen to entirely be ditching the original story and just throwing EVERYTHING into the movie (which is going to make it too busy and likely not good) I don't have high hopes for it anyway, but either way that was just my thoughts.

Wait they are ditching the confirmed Wonder Woman movie?

Not that I'm aware of, I meant that they're just throwing Wonder Woman in the Batman vs Superman movie in an attempt to make some form of crossover like Marvel has. The original story this is based is going to be very different.

 

[Kyrian007]

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?

No, there is a correct answer. If one possible outcome is "bus full of children dies" and the other is that they're saved... not dead is always the correct answer. That IS black and white. Children live GOOD, all die BAD. I'm NOT saying its the easy choice, but it is RIGHT. Jon COULD have said "No" and then explained to Clark the reasons for being careful. There's a way to convey that sentiment WITHOUT sounding like letting a bus full of kids might have been a better solution. Jon was just being portrayed by Snyder and Co. as a paranoid moron because to them the original Superman origin story wasn't "dark" enough.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

Jon was just being portrayed by Snyder and Co. as a paranoid moron because to them the original Superman origin story wasn't "dark" enough.

Don't make claims about the intentions of people you've never met without proof, and the film itself isn't proof.

 

[happyninja42]

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.

Actually yes it should. It's a film style technique, that directly effects the quality and style of the movie presented. Just like lens flare is a valid critique in a movie, or Dutch Angle, or slow motion, or any number of other directing tools that are used, to try and convey a specific emotion/tension in a scene. To say that you can't criticize the way the film is directly presented to the audience because it's not a valid form of criticism of the quality is....very wrong.

You do have a point. I suppose I should say it shouldn't be the sole factor in determining a film's quality.

On that we can agree. Just like how it would be wrong to say that "Battlefield: Earth is a steaming pile of cinematic refuse simply because the whole thing is in Dutch Angle" is a flawed statement. The fact that it's entirely at Dutch Angle is simply ONE part of why that movie is utter shit. xD There is such a looooong list of other criticisms that are equally valid. But the Dutch Angle is a valid criticism to go along with the other reasons.

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?

No, there is a correct answer. If one possible outcome is "bus full of children dies" and the other is that they're saved... not dead is always the correct answer. That IS black and white. Children live GOOD, all die BAD. I'm NOT saying its the easy choice, but it is RIGHT. Jon COULD have said "No" and then explained to Clark the reasons for being careful. There's a way to convey that sentiment WITHOUT sounding like letting a bus full of kids might have been a better solution. Jon was just being portrayed by Snyder and Co. as a paranoid moron because to them the original Superman origin story wasn't "dark" enough.

I don't know if they we're intentionally trying to make him come across as a paranoid person or not, though considering some of the things that Snyder has actually been quoted as saying were his reasons for various character elements/representations, it wouldn't surprise me. I think it more likely that they just, didn't really get what Pa Kent was supposed to reflect in the Superman mythos. For the most part, I can understand what they were likely trying to convey with the "What was I supposed to do, let them die?" "Maybe" statement, it just wasn't presented well. They were trying to convey (I think), Pa Kent's total helplessness in the face of what he's dealing with. That given the totally unknown nature of Clark's abilities, he never knows what's going to happen from moment to moment, and suddenly finds himself in damage control, for stuff he can't even comprehend. He's floundering, and trying to balance protecting his son from the shitstorm he knows will come around him when he reveals himself (which is exactly what we're seeing in BvS, with the legal/media hurricane), and having him do the things he was raised to do, and how that will put him in the spotlight. I can appreciate the attempt, but it simply didn't work well in my opinion when actually executed on film.

 

[Kyrian007]

Jon was just being portrayed by Snyder and Co. as a paranoid moron because to them the original Superman origin story wasn't "dark" enough.

Don't make claims about the intentions of people you've never met without proof, and the film itself isn't proof.

Perhaps you're right, allow me to rephrase. But the film itself does have to be evidence. It's actually the only evidence I need.

Ample evidence suggests Jon was just being portrayed by Snyder and Co. as a paranoid moron because to them the original Superman origin story wasn't "dark" enough. After all, until MoS Jon Kent was just a simple good man whose common sense fairly simplistic look at right and wrong inspires his adopted son to be a symbol of hope and goodness. Snyder's take on the backstory is much darker than that. This is a Jon Kent that suggests that children dying might be a better option than their living. And if that isn't intentional... it was what? Some kind of oversight, just a by-product rebooting. "Wow, that's kind of dark, I never read it in sequence like that. Oh well, gotta deadline to meet. Just shoot it." Somehow it not being intentional grimdarking seems worse now that I have to theorize this alternative. Some kind of "incidental grimdarking." Or completely unintentional. Like...

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

"Maybe"

"CUT! Kevin, the line was "No."

"Oops, sorry. Take it again?"

"Naa, run with it. We're losing daylight."

So I guess it's at least possible it wasn't intentionally darker.