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

[IOwnTheSpire]

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.

Do you have any ACTUAL evidence, or are you just going to keep making stuff up? Everything you've said isn't proof, it's you making assumptions about the filmmakers because they didn't read your mind and make the film you wanted them to make. You can't use your biased interpretation of the film (grimdark, my ass) as evidence to support how you think their mind works.

 

[HybridChangeling]

Man, Hollywood seems to be getting less and less able to understand how trends work, and how fans work. Here's the thing, if you make an alternate cut, with MORE in it, whether it's more effects, establishing shots, or CGI blood, you have to deal with the fact that the fans are going to see the cut with more in it the actual movie (See also: Superman 2, Blade Runner, LOTR series, The Lost World) and might not even bother with the original release. Why support the movie now when the one I want to see comes out on DVD for 14 bucks in a few months? Why watch (what many would consider but not me) a "censored" version of the movie? So there is the first problem, now here is the second.

DC in the last few years has tried so hard to be more mature to catch all the fans that have grown up, but in doing so they have only alienated a lot of them. So many of the new movies, animated and otherwise, are just all swearing and "adult themes". But the problem is that while they add these things, they forget to add an appropriate tone, setting, idea, and reason to have it. The heart is replaced with trendy dark grittiness. It's one of the main reasons I stopped watching their movies and most comics, and one of the big reasons my old "DC is best" friends, have sort of left that state. It's not about keeping comics kid friendly all the time, It's about keeping the comics friendly to what they are.

 

[Kyrian007]

Do you have any ACTUAL evidence, or are you just going to keep making stuff up? Everything you've said isn't proof, it's you making assumptions about the filmmakers because they didn't read your mind and make the film you wanted them to make. You can't use your biased interpretation of the film (grimdark, my ass) as evidence to support how you think their mind works.

All the evidence I need is right there on the film. I admit I haven't read every single Superman comic since the late 30's, but no where in any origin story or developmental flashback I've seen does Jon Kent ever suggest that letting a bus full of kids die might have been a better option than saving them. The origin story in which he does is then, darker than any I've seen so far. I suppose if that isn't enough to qualify as darker... then fair enough. I suppose it could be worse, a world where the Kents make little Clark flog himself for not being human and one of God's creatures and therefore an abomination would be darker. Or perhaps one where Jon subtly erodes Clark's self confidence until he develops an inferiority complex and accidentally kills a kid breaking a tackle in a football game or something. But just because it could be a darker story, doesn't mean it isn't darker a story than other versions.

I get they wanted to change the story, it's a reboot and of course they wanted their version to stand out. Some of the changes worked. I liked the new look of Krypton. Less crystalline and more metallic, cool. It stands out from prior incarnations. Other changes, not so much. Take Zod's plan. I actually liked that rather than just being evil world domination super-badguy, Zod was portrayed more sympathetically. Trying to preserve his people and their way of life creating a new planet for them. What didn't work was not explaining why they couldn't have followed Kal, found Earth, and then just contacted him or Earth officials and said "hey, we notice you aren't using the next planet in your system. Do you guys mind if we use this big world engine to terraform it to be a suitable habitat for our endangered species?" That may not have turned out any better, but they could have at least asked or established why Mars wasn't good enough. Instead they had Zod go right for world domination as eugenesist space Hitler.

I'm not saying darker Superman stories CAN'T be good. I really ejoyed "Kingdom Come" for instance. But MoS was launching a DC cinematic universe. I'd just have preferred a more traditional "man of tomorrow, hope for humanity" foundation for Supes. That contrasts him better aginst someone like Batman who does have that darker background.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's not about keeping comics kid friendly all the time, It's about keeping the comics friendly to what they are.

Hell, it'd be one thing if they were actually trying to appeal to their audience.

Linkara recently reuploaded one of his Atop the Fourth Wall vids to YouTube that brings up the polling crap from a few years back. Rather than investigating what their actual readers want, they decided who they wanted as readersa and wrote off or even belittled people who they weren't interested in. And even if that worked for them, I'd be inclined to say "fair play."

But a cursory look tells me it hurt them pretty bad.

I can imagine this is happening with the movies.