Early screening of Justice League deem it 'unwatchable'

Cicada 5

Elite Member
May 1, 2020
1,262
183
68
Country
Nigeria
Darth Rosenberg said:
No, you pointed out a recurring trend/norm in populist entertainment and society, so to try to claim it is essentially distinct to Whedon as a creator is disingenuous.
Except I never claimed it was distinct to Whedon. I said it was reoccurring in his work.

Darth Rosenberg said:
I'd say The Dark Knight addressed the moral and philosophical ambiguity and turmoil well enough, but it did so whilst mostly retaining Wayne's logical faculties and sense of [albeit damaged] humanity. The conflict between wanting to do what's just and still being drawn over the line to vigilantism was well realised, and Nolan's broader moral framework is established in the short but brilliant scene between Bruce and Rachel in the first film, where he sheepishly reveals his initial plan of vengeance against Joe Chill.

Then there's the line at the end of Begins regarding escalation, which sets up TDK and the idea that he and the Joker are simply equal and opposite reactions as a consequence of transgressing against all laws and order, and imposing one's own order/disorder upon the world by force.

Nolan's films portray his dark side well enough without needing to make him behave like a violent, unthinking, insecurely macho halfbrain.

Also, in BvS we have no real context as to how this psychotic Batman came to be, nor do we have time or space to explore the world's morality (and for the most part Alfred just goes along with his killing sprees - a few snarky comments aren't enough of a challenge). There is no time, of course, but it isn't a work of art or a cohesive story; it is a corporate byproduct of one studio fumbling to ape another's business model without understanding why it succeeded (any critic or admirer of the MCU could've told 'em, for free, I'd guess).
Nolan?s Batman was conveniently self aware enough to quit while he still was sane enough. Snyder?s Batman didn?t quit his self destructive life style and thus it took a toll on him as the film shows. This, however, is a feature not a bug. Portraying this guy as being immensely damaged without giving him a kill count would be about as believable as saying no one died in MoS. Snyder also doesn?t ignore the kill count whereas Nolan Batman can burn down an entire fortress full of people (including the guy he swore he didn?t want to kill), kill Harvey Dent and blow Talia sky high yet still be considered moral enough to chastise Catwoman about not killing. Not that he raises a finger of protest after she blows Bane up.
Snyder?s Batman is also stated numerous times to have become more ruthless over time as opposed to most other iterations that have that be his default personality.

Darth Rosenberg said:
Feck knows how Batman will come across in Justice League, although Affleck's already said he'll be more "traditional". If so it won't be because of a character arc - it will simply be because people didn't like BvS's bleakly stupid iteration. Again; a corporate reaction as opposed to anything creative.
Sure, we?ll ignore the fact that they?ve been talking about going in a different direction since before BvS was released. Whatever helps maintain your bias I suppose.

Darth Rosenberg said:
Right, and he did that by presenting it through his own fetish; violence...
Yeah because no other Batman scribe has ever shown him as violent.


Darth Rosenberg said:
Kinda takes the edge off the 'message' or theme, doesn't it? When the audience is sitting there cooing at Batman murdering people? Nothing says 'isn't he a nutjob' like 'Hey, watch him smash a car into other cars and kill people in this really nifty stunt!'.
And yet the fact that so many were turned off by his brutality should show you that Snyder wasn?t trying to glorify his actions. Then again, given how the Bat fandom reacts to Batman taking a life while ignoring his other crimes like torture and child endangerment, it seems like him killing people is the only time his vicious nature is fair game for criticism.

Darth Rosenberg said:
Who knows, maybe Snyder's trying to be subversive...
He is. But since he tries to go after a sacred cow, you?re not buying it.


Darth Rosenberg said:
Seriously, not only is this the first time he?s encountered Kryptonite...
Is he so dim he can't learn? Even children and animals tend to learn 'fire bad' by touching it once.[/quote]
You try learning something when you?re in crippling pain and having your entire biology screwed around with while some lunatic beats down on you. I also, see you ignored my point about it taking a while for him to recover.

Darth Rosenberg said:
Instead we got a morose, sullen Supes' bullying random civvies,
I think you confused him with Reeves and Silver Age Superman.

Darth Rosenberg said:
a [suicidal] Pa Kent who wondered whether someone with power and the means to save lives should instead let lives be snuffed out for the sake of self-interest,
It amazes me how people aren?t just unsympathetic to the Kents? plight, they?re aggressively ignorant to it. If Clark had been exposed when he was a child or a teen, his life would have been over. he?d have to consider every angle when it comes to meeting new people. Are these people my friends or secretly my enemies? Are they plotting to kill me or latching themselves onto me for protection? Are they only with me because they?ve been coerced in some way? The guy would be way to busy trying to figure out who is and isn?t his friend to actually help anyone. And this isn?t even ignoring authority figures who?d want him either dead or controlled for less noble purposes.
Jonathan and Martha knew their son could and should help people. They also knew this would come with a cost. And as we saw in BvS, it did.


Darth Rosenberg said:
and of course an orgy of carnage to give everyone headaches at the end.
So every action or superhero movie then?

Darth Rosenberg said:
This was a surly Superman film reveling in violence and destruction.

Darth Rosenberg said:
Not every retelling of a character should be rigidly orthodox, but there is such a thing as simply going against the grain to such an extent that you fail to grasp why a character is cherished and valued.
There are about four things Superman fans consider to be acceptable; being born, rescuing a plane, hitting on Lois and flying off at the end while mugging for the camera. Even diverging from one of these is enough to spark flame wars about ?not muh Superman?. And the types of stories that many Superman fans hold in regard and the ones they dislike start to make me wonder what they actually like him for.
Consider this; when Superman killed Zod in MoS, plenty protested that he should have done it immediately. They resented the fact that their hero was shown being forced into a situation and that without any of the usual cushions, he was no more superior to us regular people, in spite of his powers.
Contrast this to how they champion Joe Kelly?s What?s So Funny About Truth, Justice And The American Way? I cannot believe this was a story DC actually published instead of telling Joe Kelly to keep it confined to fanfiction.net where it rightfully belonged. Here we have a thinly veiled bash fic in which a writer vents his frustration that the The Auhtority dared to be more successful financially than Superman and turns the competition into straw men for Superman to knock down. Then after displaying that the only true reason Superman can stand up for his ideals is because he?s powerful enough to champion them, Kelly gives an utterly intelligence insulting speech about ?dreams saving us? as if we didn?t just witness him prove every single criticism levelled against the character.
Fans consider Superman to be the most ?human of superheroes? but it seems a lot of them don?t know what that actually means.


Darth Rosenberg said:
Directors still work with their editors and have input, so to try to assert Snyder had "zero input" over his own film's editing is patently ridiculous.
Yet that?s what happened and has happened before. Or do you seriously not hear of the type of horror stories that take place in Hollywood?

Darth Rosenberg said:
Still, it shows how unthinkingly callous or selfish Snyder is in terms of just offing such a character with no regard as to who might want to use him later.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe no one would have any use for Olsen later? Or that whatever use they might supposedly have would be of such little consequence that his death wouldn?t matter at all? Where is this wailing and gnashing of teeth every time the MCU offs a villain or supporting character? Jimmy Olsen is not the be all, end all of the DCU. The guy?s been in five movies prior to BvS. Nothing substantial was done with him in them. He was equally superfluous in the DCAU, was outlasted by Chloe Sullivan (a character invented for the show) on Smallville and the Supergirl tv series struggled to come up with something to do with the guy when he?s not being rescued by Superman or dating Supergirl. The universe can survive Jimmy Olsen?s death. You still have thousands of comics where he does almost nothing of value to read.

Darth Rosenberg said:
Now they can't. Just as Doomsday's ruined,
What was there to ruin? This character never had any dignity to him and only existed because the comics didn?t want to do the Clois marriage before the Lois and Clark tv show.


Darth Rosenberg said:
'Lex' Luthor's ruined (though I suppose there's a tradition on the bigscreen in making Luthor an incompetent buffoon), and so on.
Oh I don?t know. He hasn?t come up with any stupid schemes revolving around real estate so I think there?s still more hope for him. Especially given his motivation is a hell of a lot better than petty jealousy.

Darth Rosenberg said:
You are aware it's not real, right? That comicbook universes operate by their own rules?
Okay, you do not get to play this card after all you?ve said about BvS.

Darth Rosenberg said:
If you have issue with all power fantasies in any comicbook property, then sure, go ahead and fault that entire need in human culture going back through our history.
So you don?t have an issue with power fantasies? Then what the hell is your beef with Snyder?

Darth Rosenberg said:
The MCU operates within its own internal rules, and so their actions are to be judged against that - not our own. As I said: in reality Team Stark is correct, but on the page (or on the screen) given all we know of the universe and the potential threats - and that we know Cap always has the best of intentions - Team Cap is a valid path.
The Looney Tunes operate within their own internal rules but you don?t see anybody advertising them as a moral example for people to follow. Either there are realistic qualities to the stances Steve embodies or, since he?s a fictional character, he just stands for pipe dreams that have no prayer of existing in reality. You might as well argue that the Lone Ranger is more heroic than real life cops or soldiers because they can?t shoot guns out of their enemies? hands.

Darth Rosenberg said:
Again, newsflash! It ain't real. If you want action films with no action, then--- well, go right ahead, I guess.
I want action films that don?t pretend to be smarter than they actually are. If the writers have neither the skill nor the freedom to truly interrogate the structure of their stories, then they?d best leave out discussions of registration and just focus on having their heroes plough through enemies like the Power Rangers go through the Putties.

Darth Rosenberg said:
Are you a Snyder completionist then? I can't comment on its tone as it looked dreadful and its reputation is less than stellar.
It was light hearted in tone and I enjoyed it.

Darth Rosenberg said:
I've only seen it once and a half, and not recently so I couldn't go into detail, but Watchmen is another nasty masculinist film from Snyder, where I always felt wary of his sympathies and put off by the depictions of violence.

Again he's clearly not the author, but you can tell a lot from the execution of an idea.
Again, why are you complaining about masculinist power fantasies in Snyder?s movies if you don?t seem to have an issue with them in MCU films?

Darth Rosenberg said:
Most constructed worlds try to have their cake and eat it - it's a given as far as internal creative tension goes, frankly.

Is it ideal? Perhaps not. Is it almost always inevitable? Yes.
Darth Rosenberg said:
For me IM2's probably the outright worse film in the MCU, but its thematic narrative focus was - by and large - still inspired by the Demon In A Bottle plot beat, ergo it was heavily entrenched in iconic elements of the entire character.
And whoever okayed this idea should have been smart enough to know what does not work for a film. They?ve got no one to blame for themselves. It was once considered iconic that Captain America went through WW1 without killing anybody yet the MCU left even that bit of idiocy out.

Darth Rosenberg said:
If nodding to late '70's era arcs counts as deconstruction of a "mindless superhero" world, then so be it... but I think you'll find most people just see that as coherent to the medium's way of telling stories for characters that span decades or even generations. Part of a continuum. There aren't many stories you can tell if you rigidly restrict yourself to the box marked "mindless", funnily enough.
This type of storytelling is already stupid enough in the comics but there it can at least be considered forgivable by the fact that the comics are ongoing and thus need new stories. A movie franchise, however, is a finite venture. As you said, these characters spanned decades and generations. They did not have to adapt ?Demon in a Bottle?.

Darth Rosenberg said:
You seem confused as to why people want to see stories about people...

It's paraphrased as it was maybe about a decade ago, but I remember a good line Michael Caine had in a short interview with Channel 4 News. The question was about him being becoming a 'star', I think, and the reply was along the lines of 'When people come to the cinema they don't come to see me - they come to see themselves reflected up there on the screen'.

That's an essential element of storytelling, frankly, so it's no wonder the MCU's struck a global chord by engaging normal punters with these larger than life avatars of all kinds of themes and ideas. The Silver Age thankfully presented characters who were flawed, who we could identify with and relate to. That's kinda the point of art as a whole... To explore who and what we are, and art externalises and then collectivises that ongoing process.
You can have a story about people without resorting to cheap soap opera telling in which the fears and pain of regular folk on the street plays second banana to a bunch of garishly dressed prima donas. If the MCU gave an iota about telling stories about people they?d show their perspective and not just the so called heroes.
Darth Rosenberg said:
Something like the MCU plays a very modest populist part in that, sure, but it's still a relevant part of the whole, just like The Dark Knight and The Bourne Identity were in terms of a post-9/11 reaction to a world which suddenly felt far more hostile and, crucially, far less certain in terms of 'us and them' and right and wrong (obviously that mood continued, and that same mistrust of our own supposedly moral power structures is found in The Avengers and most brazenly The Winter Soldier, with Cap providing a moral conduit of wish fulfilling empowerment when in reality we have no such power, and the solutions aren't as simple as blowing up some helicarriers).
The Dark Knight and The Bourne Identity had the maturity to acknowledge that the world they took place in was bigger than just one handful of people. The former best demonstrates this when Rachel shows Bruce how much worse than him others in Gotham have it. The events were treated as events in their own right and not just from the perspective of a handful of faves. Over in the MCU, we?ve got Whedon trying to replicate the Buffy/Angel romance in AoS, horrific events are ignored at the writers? choosing (Johannesburg) or when they are it?s to be used as emotional torque for one or two characters instead of a tragedy in its own right.
It?s not unlike how over in Game of Thrones, the story is more about the blue blood characters with little to no attention paid to the common folk. It's this sort of attitude - that "The common people [...] don't care what games the high lords play" and so are to be relegated to hapless extras, that prevents both GOT and the MCU from being an actual thoughtful take on the underpinnings of the setting, be it a fantasy world. Instead, it's every bit as self-indulgent in sex and violence as LOTR is bombastic in its pathos.
There are few things in this world more immature than a story that claims to be mature yet ignores how the characters? actions impact the greater world around them. The DCEU has handled this much better.

Darth Rosenberg said:
I see tonal contradiction as a result of Warner's corporate flipflopping, wanting to adjust to what sells better as established by Marvel. They swung and partly missed with MoS, and swung and missed hard on BvS (and Suicide Squad, though I've not seen that clusterfuck yet).

Moving from grimdark to something more conventional - and popular - clearly isn't an artistic choice for them. It's creative cowardice (they might've made even worse films had they kept doubling down on the grimdark, but I'd have respected their desire to be distinct).
http://www.ign.com/videos/2016/03/24/why-justice-league-wont-be-as-dark-as-batman-v-superman
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/One-Key-Way-Justice-League-Different-From-Batman-V-Superman-117997.html
http://io9.gizmodo.com/justice-league-will-be-lighter-in-tone-than-batman-v-su-1764317329

Darth Rosenberg said:
Then maybe they shouldn?t have called it ?Civil War? and gone for something more appropriate like ?When Adults Fight Like School Children?.Maybe they called it Civil War because the essential idea is the same as the comic arc Civil War and the same leaders represented the same sides in an inter-superhero conflict? I know, I know, I'm going out on a limb with that one...
The Civil War comic, for all its flaws actually felt like an event that affected numerous people and showed numerous people?s thoughts and views on it. The movie is 2 hours of two grown ass men acting like tweens while everyone else indulges them. See my response regarding the MCU and GoT above.

In this scenario it clearly can't hurt. I find it hard to believe they could mangle these characters any more than they already have.
Darth Rosenberg said:
In case you've forgotten:

I haven?t. what about it?

Darth Rosenberg said:
He sparked imaginations in children across the globe by representing a hopeful ideal.
And what is this hopeful ideal that you keep parroting? Is it something people actually have a prayer of achieving or just another empty platitude that only means something in the fictional world in which he resides?
There is a reason Superman has been struggling for relevancy for decades. Because until now, people were more in love with the idea of him rather than the reality. Because writers treated the consequence free world he occupied as an intrinsic trait rather than author fiat. And the second the curtain gets pulled, the fans lose their minds. It?s funny the stance you?ve taken in regards to Snyder?s work given how you seem to be all about how the MCU are stories about ?people?. Seems less like you want stories about people but rather you want your favorite characters to be unchallenged mouth pieces for whatever views you believe in.
It might be disillusioning to some to realize that a lot of the elements typically considered inherent in Superman are really just strokes of luck or the result of other people doing stuff for him; the guy is literally been living on other people's sacrifices from day one. On the other hand, it's interesting to see what is still left once those conveniences are removed. To measure him solely by his own actions and accomplishments, rather than as a pile-up of desirable traits to gush over.
 

Cicada 5

Elite Member
May 1, 2020
1,262
183
68
Country
Nigeria
COMaestro said:
twistedmic said:
Darth Rosenberg said:
Seriously, not only is this the first time he?s encountered Kryptonite...
Is he so dim he can't learn? Even children and animals tend to learn 'fire bad' by touching it once.
How exactly is Superman dim in that fight scene? He got hit with a Kryptonite gas grenade twice. Once before he knew what Batman had in his launcher then again when he was jumping/flying towards Batman and was unable to dodge the grenade.
Though Superman did quickly realize that Kryptonite would royally fuck up Kryptonians, which is why he used the spear to kill Doomsday.
What!? We see Superman fly at supersonic speeds multiple times in these movies, but he can't dodge a grenade? I totally give him the first one, which is why Darth stated the "Fool me once" quote.

But there was a bunch of dimness involved with Superman's part in this fight, and not avoiding the second grenade is hardly the worst of it. He comes to ask Batman for help, because apparently his super-hearing that can pick out Lois Lane in danger half a world away can't find his mom in the same or neighboring city. Batman came to pick a fight so Superman gives him one instead of keeping his distance and talking!? He starts knocking Batman around because he needs to prove he has the bigger dick!?

Just by throwing a punch, Superman had already lost that fight, because it threw out any thought of goodwill or the idea he could be there for something else. The simple words, "Please stop, I need your help," would have prevented the entire fight, following it up with, "to rescue my mother," would have done the same thing the ridiculous "Martha" bit did, with about 135% less cheese.
He was still recovering from the first grenade when the second one hit. he tried to talk it out at first but Bruce wouldn't listen. his senses also don't work the way you're describing either. when he uses them in full in MoS they overwhelm him. he saved Lois because he was following her in Africa.
 

Darth Rosenberg

New member
Oct 25, 2011
1,288
0
0
To avoid a giant textwall I'll put both replies behind clicky's.

Hawki said:
Prometheus, yes, Covenant, no.
Not seen Covenant yet, but from all the spoilerific critiques I've seen and heard of it it seems well in line with Prometheus in terms of Scott's wayward war on the entire franchise. Sadly, it seems, the less influence he has on Blade Runner 2049, the better for everyone.

Entertainment that's a bit more fulfilling than popcorn? Something a bit more meaningful than "good guy beats bad guy?"
A spectrum is surely needed, and not everything has to have subtexts, themes, and layers. Popcorn entertainment being just that is entirely fine.

I feel the MCU's about as good as that form of entertainment gets (a shared universe, interestingly diverse characters, great visuals/designs, some excellent setpieces, and so on), and more importantly to me they've also proven a faithfulness to the source material, certainly in spirit and tone. These aren't just soulless ports from page to screen; they're made by people who clearly understand and have affection for the material (I remember Brubaker being very positive about Winter Soldier, for example).

There's multiple examples of action films still fulfilling the elements of what counts as good story. Even superhero films have done this (Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2, Logan, etc.).
You're only intimating it, but a figurative comicbook shelf full of films in the mold of TDK and Logan would be joylessly bleak, and the scope of the broader genre would shrink or simply vanish - forgive the mixed metaphors - for lack of populist oxygen to sustain it.

Without the MCU - and those that paved the way for it - it's hard to imagine we'd have the best of the Netflix shows, either, or the apparently excellent Legion, so the value of the most mass market IP's benefits everyone.

It's not the point, but a piece of fiction can usually be elevated if it has a theme/motif behind it.
But it does not require it, and as I said above it'd be an awful state for all films to try to 'elevate' themselves. That's not how pop-culture works collectively, especially not the mass market mediums. 'Disposable' art/entertainment fulfills a different purpose than those that endure - both are therefore equal by being relative to one another.

As a fan of Marvel's universe the MCU represents something I never thought I'd ever see, crafted to a level of overall quality I'd never have hoped for (the first few X-Men films which were once trailblazers now seem almost unwatchably schlocky and poorly made by comparison). Much of the source material by itself has never been anything approaching high or particularly developed art (erm, the literal artwork aside), and so to have these characters and stories adapted in such a way is something I find extremely hard to be pissy and entitled about. I'm thankful for what we have, because frankly - as far as I'm concerned - populist cinema in the, '80's, '90's and early 2000's was shite (that there are exceptions is a given). To me the MCU represents a seismic improvement in quality on a broad cultural level, with its interconnected universe and its overall sense of direction and leadership.

I mean, jeese, even on a logistical and planning level the MCU is a truly remarkable achievement - and the trouble everyone else is having in copying their approach is testimony to that, which shouldn't be dismissed. People can complain about the cinematic Marvel method all they want, and yes, in an ideal world I'd like them to push the boat out a little more (I for one was a little disappointed that Guardians 1 was so conventional), but for this many films to have been produced with perhaps a single genuinely bad film amongst its ranks (I'd say Iron Man 2, though Thor 2 is consummately the MCU's most meaningless and inert entry)? That's almost unheard of, given most franchises usually can't go two or three films without a false step or an outright dud.

To be frank, I think The Dark Knight & Rises are the only films of this genre that really have a significant enough theme to provoke critical analysis, but even if a theme/motif is only on the surface level, a work is usually better off for it.
Well, there we have a fairly significant difference of opinion re what makes a good film or one worth discussing; I feel Dark Knight Rises is a bad film, or at least a horribly mangled and empty headed one compared to the two genre classics that preceded it.

Compared to something like BvS or Phantom Menace it's almost a work of genius, sure, but them's low bars to exceed.

Re themes/depth: it's simplistic but reasonably fair to say smaller - and usually separate - works by individuals with a vision are more likely to have enduring elements within them. The MCU largely represents a studio production, and that's fine - it is a compromise, a trade-off; the 'method' ensures quality control and a level of overall direction over a complicated continuity almost unheard of in film before, yet the soul and identity is, to varying degrees, lessened (Guardians 1, IM3, and I feel The Avengers are representative of their directors body of work).

Batman Begins and TDK were films seemingly made on the terms of one of the most respected directors working in this era. Logan was a doubling down on the collaboration between Mangold and Jackman (before Logan I felt The Wolverine was the best in the series), and was thankfully never directly beholden to the utter garbage that is the rest of the Fox X-Men continuity.

If someone doesn't care one iota about shared continuity and interconnected plotlines? Then the MCU's compromises will be too great, and they'll only be able to give a damn about one or two, if that. And that's okay, but people need to have perspective and then be honest about what it is they value about the populist films they watch.

I'm clearly fine with the compromises given what's gained, because I value the incredibly well thought out sprawling continuity. To me comicbook continuity was one of the mediums most valuable and distinct virtues, and the MCU like nothing else does an exceptional job of transitioning that from one medium to another (The Avengers, in particular, is a glorious example of that).

Personally, I think it's foolish and delusional to wish for entertainment and/or art to be as 'uncompromised' as possible, which is what you seem to be hoping for or wanting? Different things can be accomplished with varying degrees of 'compromise' (relative to budget, demands of continuity, etc), ergo they have equal value by catering to different needs. Without the MCU we'd largely be bound by mere three-act trilogies, and works like The Avengers, Winter Soldier, and Logan could not exist (as much as I loathe the Fox continuity it's hard to imagine Mangold and Jackman would've ever had their chance at something so distinct without the haphazard series).

Fight scenes are still part of the overall story. / The airport scene isn't as emotionally vapid as that, but it does show signs of this philosophy. Why is Spider-Man forced into the movie? Because it would be cool. Why is Ant-Man literally dragged to the airport? Because it would be cool. Why is it made clear that the airport is free of civilians? Because the writers/producers/whoever didn't want anything getting in the way of the fun (as opposed to something like Man of Steel, which does show the human cost of super-powered beings duking it out). So, yes, the airport scene is 'fun,' and does have some emotional punch (e.g. Rhodes being crippled), but at the end of the day, it's mainly an action scene for the sake of an action scene.
Firstly re the underlined: and that's sometimes okay.

The ideal is all action serves a narrative purpose of some kind, but the ideal obviously needn't be the only thing you strive for. Entertainment and art should always sometimes be indulgent and excessive.

And secondly as you said, it isn't purely a meaningless setpiece. As I said, I'm not overly enamoured with it. Immense fun, but I prefer smaller scale scraps (one of my favourite sequences in the MCU is Winter Soldier's opening mission with Cap and Widow on the ship. my only beef is that the awesome wide shot of Cap barreling through mercs should've been held one bad-guy-hit more). However, aside from just being excellently staged it's clever in achieving multiple things at once. As I often end up saying; pure spectacle has always been a part of the very medium's DNA, right from its birth, and it will always remain so (one reason I still enjoy the third Transformers film, particularly for the skyscraper sequence). The airport scene has, therefore, value as sheer spectacle to entertain an audience - that's primarily the purpose of mainstream films, after all (which is why it's also the absolutely perfect moment to introduce MCU Spidey).

It's also a key pivot point for the main narrative conflict not only between Cap and Iron Man, but it provides an opportunity for brief, smaller scale head-to-heads. Seeing a large cast of diverse characters interact is one of the simple joys of the MCU (another defining quality of comicbook universes spanning generations which they translate so well to the screen), and in particular the largest scale team-ups.

And as I said previously, it's also there in the film to provide the audience with a tonal, er, vacation before the story necessarily plunges into smaller scale and much darker territory (thematically and visually). All films need an ebb and flow as well as tonal pacing. Civil War's a busy film, but I'd say the Russo's are exceptional judges in these regards.

Overall it's a very cannily crafted sequence, and it's that level of multitasking forethought that the DCEU and, I'd say, the Fox X-Men continuity utterly lacks (so far).

3) Spider-Man 2
2) Logan
1) The Dark Knight
Obviously three fine films, but for the reasons stated above - to me two of 'em can't be compared to the MCU because they and it are trying to accomplish very different things. And given variety is the spice of life, and all, I think it's meaningless to compared TDK and anything in the MCU. Neither can pull off what the other can, because they're not ever intending to.

The three MCU films I can call "good" are Iron Man, Iron Man 3, and Doctor Strange.
Now that's a, erm, strange line-up given Winter Soldier and The Avengers are absent.

I actually also liked IM3, and I admired its balls, even if I really could've done with a little more actual Iron Man in Iron Man's final solo film.

Doctor Strange was a film I'd looked forward to seeing years before they even hinted they'd use him in the MCU, and I was a little disappointed. I feel the MCU gets undue stick for its humour (criticism by fans of grimdark are meaningless, though), but Strange was one character I was annoyed they went that direction with. Hopefully he'll get more sombre as the films roll by. Aside from that I loved the effects, Tilda Swinton (her death scene's one of the best written in the MCU, I reckon. I think Derrickson's own spirituality was a perfect fit for that story and that scene in particular. he's an interesting guy - a Christian who made his name making films about evil), and how literally creative - not destructive - the finale was, with its ongoing conflict in a city rebuilding itself.

Potential that I don't think will be met, as the MCU has no reason to change (while the DCEU has great potential marred by flawed execution), but I could see them exceeding the standard set.
For now the DCEU clearly has no vision or confidence in its own properties. I'd say the entire continuity is poisoned by the dreadful start, because whatever happens no one can magic MoS, BvS, and Suicide Squad away.

Agent_Z said:
Except I never claimed it was distinct to Whedon. I said it was reoccurring in his work.
Which then makes it a meaningless observation, given the topic wasn't trends and norms in society as a whole.

Snyder?s Batman is also stated numerous times to have become more ruthless over time as opposed to most other iterations that have that be his default personality.
You seem pathologically incapable of finding fault in one of the worst films ever made (making much of our exchange completely fruitless), but I'll ask anyway...

Do you concede it was handled poorly, though? That BvS simply had too many ideas, too many functions to do any of them real justice? A darker more damaged Bats' would be something I'd like to see; I'd have liked to see Nolan go even darker.

Batman's cruelty in BvS is glorified through choreography and framing (more on that later). The room clearing scene is usually described as 'badass' even by critics of the film and this version of the character, and his moments of action - along with his casting potential - are generally regarded as the films only enduring qualities.

Was BvS an examination of his character? Absolutely not, because it simply doesn't have the time and has no interest in telling that kind of story. So what we have is a character almost in a vacuum, with no real context and no time or space to explore who this Bruce Wayne or Batman is or how he came to be. There is no real judgement, either, because not even Alfred actively goes against his murderous impulses regardless of the lines crossed (compare that to Fox's horror at Batman's networked surveillance, which mirrors our own).

Again, if we want great contemporary onscreen examination of vigilantism, including its lethal extremes, then look to Daredevil S2 and its treatment of the Punisher. Batman in BvS, by comparison, is merely a caricature adrift in a story too big for its own good, incapable of representing his specific story with anything approaching nuance. Terrio, Goyer, and Snyder gave a psychopathic Batman with no justification and no judgement, and did so with Snyder's typical fetishism for violence, which in a moral vacuum thus condones or glorifies his actions. It could easily be called irresponsible, were the script not so superficially infantile (lines like "You're not brave. Men are brave!" easily reveal why it's so popular with angsty and/or insecure teenage boys. how that line made the final draft I've no idea).

Sure, we?ll ignore the fact that they?ve been talking about going in a different direction since before BvS was released. Whatever helps maintain your bias I suppose.
So you're saying they essentially realised MoS was a mistake and needed a tonal course correction? Who'd a thunk it. Funny they evidently hadn't got their shit together by Suicide Squad, though, and were still flipflopping as to what to copy next.

If Justice League was going to be Snyder and the so far hapless Terrio attempting to create something more lighthearted all along, then perhaps Whedon won't be such a terrible fit (I'd still prefer he was as far from the project as possible).

Yeah because no other Batman scribe has ever shown him as violent.
Action is one thing, but making casual murder 'cool' when you're apparently pretending to present a 'serious' and mature depiction of a tormented character is a contradiction.

It's a recent touchstone as I've only just finished watching it, but the Punisher's violence in Daredevil S2 is horrifically realistic and consequential. Regardless of his own extreme code, what he does is monstrous and the script, framing, and performances are all in step with that (including showing wholly sympathetic characters reacting to Castle's handiwork, ergo making it hard for any viewer still sympathetic to his methods to comfortably side with him).

Fancy action scenes very easily undermine supposedly serious scenes and films. BvS's script is so tone deaf that Snyder's direction exacerbates the issue.

And yet the fact that so many were turned off by his brutality should show you that Snyder wasn?t trying to glorify his actions.
'Cept as I said, that warehouse scene is about the only thing people positively remember, and I'd argue that's for the wrong reasons (or, at least, disturbing reasons most people don't care to reflect on).

So many were turned off by the depiction for the obvious reason that this was a poorly presented expression of the character used terribly. That goes doubly so when you consider Nolan's Batman was the previous incarnation fresh in everyone's memories (even if I felt Rises was a major letdown).

Then again, given how the Bat fandom reacts to Batman taking a life while ignoring his other crimes like torture and child endangerment, it seems like him killing people is the only time his vicious nature is fair game for criticism.
Batman is certainly a fairly disturbingly popular icon. A quasi-fascist masculine power fantasy that's encompassed a bewildering spectrum of tone across the generations - in a way the character has always been defined by an identity crisis within his universe and outside of it.

Terrio/Goyer/Snyder did not fully introduce their expression of the character on his own terms, however, and so it isn't the essential direction they tried to take, it's the fumbled execution and lack of narrative space/time that was the issue.

He is. But since he tries to go after a sacred cow, you?re not buying it.
Nope. See above.

You try learning something when you?re in crippling pain and having your entire biology screwed around with while some lunatic beats down on you. I also, see you ignored my point about it taking a while for him to recover.
So he knows he needs time to recover, and that another face full could be lethal, yet he still waits for Batman to reload and still attacks?

Like I said - he's depicted as an idiot.

...and no, given the well discussed introduction to the whole scene (Superman flat out not finishing his sentence and making the whole situation worse by choice, see my other reply re his escalation increasing the risk Martha's in), that doesn't wash as presenting him as 'flawed'.

Jonathan and Martha knew their son could and should help people. They also knew this would come with a cost. And as we saw in BvS, it did.
It was a contradiction of the selfless symbolism the entire character was supposed to stand for.

You may shirk at that vision of the character, and in many ways I sympathise, but a paragon to look up to was kinda the point. In this day and age deconstruction of icons and internal conflicts and doubt are all the rage, understandably so, but that means more classical paragons have their relative place as well (which explains why so many responded so well to Chris Evans' sincerity and simplicity as Cap).

I never used to believe that, given I always preferred more grounded characters and universes. MoS had some nice moments (and it was sometimes an excellent guilty spectacle), but BvS compounded its mistakes and it's going to be very interesting to see if they try to bring back a more traditional iteration. They'll certainly have the opportunity to do so.

So every action or superhero movie then?
Usually, yes, but it's probably fair to say the consensus has it that MoS's finale was just too much for too long. That's a trudge regardless of the film, but for Snyder to essentially go full Bayhem in a Superman story was the final kicker.

Contrast this to how they champion Joe Kelly?s What?s So Funny About Truth, Justice And The American Way? I cannot believe this was a story DC actually published instead of telling Joe Kelly to keep it confined to fanfiction.net where it rightfully belonged. Here we have a thinly veiled bash fic in which a writer vents his frustration that the The Auhtority dared to be more successful financially than Superman and turns the competition into straw men for Superman to knock down.
Warren Ellis's Authority? I'm not familiar enough with the Kelly Superman arc, and The Authority's been on my to-read list for absolutely years.

The premise of What's So Funny sounds interesting, at least.

Fans consider Superman to be the most ?human of superheroes? but it seems a lot of them don?t know what that actually means.
Perhaps not, but you can at least concede his history and initial global success make him an at times very hard character to deal with.

Yet that?s what happened and has happened before. Or do you seriously not hear of the type of horror stories that take place in Hollywood?
Either you can prove it - or stop speculating.

If the director of Watchmen, 300, and MoS can't get into the editing suite then he's dumber than I already think he is if he agreed to such bizarre terms.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe no one would have any use for Olsen later?
Right back atcha: did it ever occur to you that maybe someone would have a use for Olsen later?

Keeping an option open is better than trashing one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Snyder's original idea to have Eissenberg as Olsen, and then 'shock' the audience by offing him? Then insanity or hubris took over and we had Lex 'Landis' Luthor, instead, yet Olsen was still X'd out.

Where is this wailing and gnashing of teeth every time the MCU offs a villain or supporting character?
You really do have a chip on your shoulder about the MCU. Maybe people have a broadly positive opinion of what the MCU does with its characters because they don't tend to fuck up that much? Radical notion, I know.

The biggest controversies are probably the Mandarin and maybe the Ancient One, I guess? And that's a reasonable hit rate across sixteen films, with one of those likely being political (which worked out great, as Swinton's Ancient One was superb).

What was there to ruin? This character never had any dignity to him and only existed because the comics didn?t want to do the Clois marriage before the Lois and Clark tv show.
Not a lot, to be sure, but it's still another notable character tied to a major arc that BvS gutted (LotR Troll #9 isn't typically how Doomsday's best known) and the continuity can't use.

Okay, you do not get to play this card after all you?ve said about BvS.
You want to pretend BvS is more 'gritty' and consequential? Then that universe plays by tougher rules. Its own ridiculousness is a result of its own self-seriousness, which all leaves the door wide open for criticism.

So you don?t have an issue with power fantasies? Then what the hell is your beef with Snyder?
Eh? I'm pointing out a contradiction in your own reasoning. I'm certainly agreeing superhero narratives and power fantasies go hand in hand, but the manner it is depicted and its contexts are what matters.

Either there are realistic qualities to the stances Steve embodies or, since he?s a fictional character, he just stands for pipe dreams that have no prayer of existing in reality.
This goes back to what I said about the cake-and-eat-it tensions in these kinds of worlds. It isn't that absolute - art/entertainment can be contrary things at the same time. For me - and many others - the line the MCU treads is fine, just as comic books series' tend to shift between tones yet still exist within the same universe.

Rogers is emblematic of 'the best of us' (almost always makes the right choice every time, prone to self-sacrifice, modest, never gives up, etc), but that doesn't stop him being fallible, which is something we both seem to value positively.

I want action films that don?t pretend to be smarter than they actually are.
Wow, a film pretending to be smarter than it actually is is a perfect description of BvS and MoS and it's truly bizarre how you seem entirely incapable of perceiving that.

Again, why are you complaining about masculinist power fantasies in Snyder?s movies if you don?t seem to have an issue with them in MCU films?
Because whilst they can serve as run of the mill heroic power fantasies they wholly lack Snyder's almost homoerotic grimdark hyper-masculinity. Oh, and I've got nowt against homoeroticism given I swing both ways, but BvS's macho posturing and crossfit montages aren't my cup of borderline-parody tea. Snyder seems popular with insecure or/and angry males (he certainly has a gendered following), and if he does not condone hyper-masculinism then his works are too muddled to be parsed correctly by a lot of his naively halfwitted fans.

And whoever okayed this idea should have been smart enough to know what does not work for a film. They?ve got no one to blame for themselves.
Stark's potential for self-destruction has been a recurring part of his character for multiple eras, and that arc wasn't at all to blame for IM2's problems; a couple of awful antagonists and some very dodgy directing and editing were what undid the whole thing.

The last time I watched it I fast forwarded all Stark-less scenes with Hammer and Vanko, and found it was my most enjoyable viewing of the film yet.

A movie franchise, however, is a finite venture. As you said, these characters spanned decades and generations. They did not have to adapt ?Demon in a Bottle?.
Nor did they - they simply adapted elements of it. It was a notable arc for the character and, to a lesser degree, comics as a whole, and so it would've been addressed eventually.

They certainly could've done it much better, but I appreciated that they headed in that direction.

You can have a story about people without resorting to cheap soap opera telling in which the fears and pain of regular folk on the street plays second banana to a bunch of garishly dressed prima donas. If the MCU gave an iota about telling stories about people they?d show their perspective and not just the so called heroes.
I don't get it, either you like superheroes as an idea - ergo inherently OTT to varying degrees - or you do not.

Heroes and villains represent distilled and exaggerated traits and ideas, that's kinda the point of mythic narrative. All cultures have their avatars of this and that, and typically you find a lot of essential thematic overlap because human nature is universal, though the ages and across continents.

For the most part superheroes are still us, and represent extensions of who we are and what we might desire. For some reason you seem to want to reject that aspect.

It?s not unlike how over in Game of Thrones, the story is more about the blue blood characters with little to no attention paid to the common folk.
Sooo.... what. BvS is a socialist or 'view of the proles' narrative, given it can't seem to put a foot wrong with you? You seem unduly hung up about the place of the 'people' in these narratives, whilst seemingly ignoring the above point that these characters are still us which is why people can relate to them in the first place.

Instead, it's every bit as self-indulgent in sex and violence as LOTR is bombastic in its pathos.
That's a criticism of GoT and Jackson's LotR? Then we overlap on this, at least, as I tend to dislike both.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2016/03/24/why-justice-league-wont-be-as-dark-as-batman-v-superman
Amusing to the read the comments section on that page.

Answer me this, then; do you honestly believe the reaction to BvS won't have impacted Justice League? Does the notion of a studio with a clear vision of the series hold true when Suicide Squad's taken into account? They've never looked like a company with any confidence in the direction they're headed, and if Justice League is a mess that'll play up to that even more.

And what is this hopeful ideal that you keep parroting? Is it something people actually have a prayer of achieving or just another empty platitude that only means something in the fictional world in which he resides?
Paragons can provide bold examples - an entire society worshiping them would be terrible, but a spectrum of exemplars and people to project onto/through is healthy.

On the other hand, it's interesting to see what is still left once those conveniences are removed. To measure him solely by his own actions and accomplishments, rather than as a pile-up of desirable traits to gush over.
Which could be interesting, provided a good script has a good director attached.

I personally don't see a traditional Superman film worth a damn (Donner's is moderately charming at times, but clearly thoroughly outdated. I've not seen Superman Returns since MoS or BvS, so that would make for an interesting watch), which is why I'd rather have a great classical version of it before it's deconstructed.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,619
978
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
I get the need to use the spoiler boxes, but it's going to make quoting a *****. So I'm going to make things more simple:

"You're only intimating it, but a figurative comicbook shelf full of films in the mold of TDK and Logan would be joylessly bleak, and the scope of the broader genre would shrink or simply vanish - forgive the mixed metaphors - for lack of populist oxygen to sustain it."

It would be bleak, but I'm not intimating it - there's a reason why I keep including Spider-Man 2, and that's because I feel it's set the gold standard for this kind of entertainment on the lighter end of the spectrum. So far though, I haven't seen the MCU equal or surpass that film, even though its films are closer in tone. Likewise, if the DCEU's mission statement has been to emulate the Dark Knight, it's also failed.

To be frank, I think the entire idea of cinematic universes has led to a reduction in overall film quality, since the best examples of the genre are either outside the cinematic universes, or very much stand-alone (see Logan). This is even the same in the "Monsterverse" (compare Kong: Skull Island to Jackson's King Kong for example). And scuttlebutt is that The Mummy reboot was shot in the foot by worldbuilding and is inferior to the Fraser ones.

"Well, there we have a fairly significant difference of opinion re what makes a good film or one worth discussing; I feel Dark Knight Rises is a bad film, or at least a horribly mangled and empty headed one compared to the two genre classics that preceded it."

TDKR is the weakest of Nolan's Batman films, but I'd argue it's the most thematically heavy. Main issues with it are the pacing, which makes it feel like two separate movies have been combined into one (pacing up to Bane taking over Gotham, and the pacing after that).

"Now that's a, erm, strange line-up given Winter Soldier and The Avengers are absent."

Haven't seen Winter Soldier, and I don't consider The Avengers to be a good film. It's average, at the end of the day. An average film with cliche characters engaging in cliche dialogue, fighting a cliche villain over a cliche McGuffin.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
twistedmic said:
How exactly is Superman dim in that fight scene? He got hit with a Kryptonite gas grenade twice. Once before he knew what Batman had in his launcher then again when he was jumping/flying towards Batman and was unable to dodge the grenade.
After he recovers from the first grenade and gets the upper hand he doesn't disarm Batman or destroy his weapon.

Imagine you were in a fight with someone who had a handgun, a weapon that you know will mess you up if it hits you. You manage to close to striking/grappling distance and gain the upper hand. At that point you'd be doing absolutely everything you could to get that weapon away from your enemy. You'd have to be very dim to do anything else.

Instead Superman knocks Batman around a bit then sits there and watches while he slowly reloads the grenade launcher. Because apparently he's a super dimwit.
 

Cicada 5

Elite Member
May 1, 2020
1,262
183
68
Country
Nigeria
Zhukov said:
twistedmic said:
How exactly is Superman dim in that fight scene? He got hit with a Kryptonite gas grenade twice. Once before he knew what Batman had in his launcher then again when he was jumping/flying towards Batman and was unable to dodge the grenade.
After he recovers from the first grenade and gets the upper hand he doesn't disarm Batman or destroy his weapon.

Imagine you were in a fight with someone who had a handgun, a weapon that you know will mess you up if it hits you. You manage to close to striking/grappling distance and gain the upper hand. At that point you'd be doing absolutely everything you could to get that weapon away from your enemy. You'd have to be very dim to do anything else.

Instead Superman knocks Batman around a bit then sits there and watches while he slowly reloads the grenade launcher. Because apparently he's a super dimwit.
He hadn't recovered from the first grenade
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
Agent_Z said:
Zhukov said:
twistedmic said:
How exactly is Superman dim in that fight scene? He got hit with a Kryptonite gas grenade twice. Once before he knew what Batman had in his launcher then again when he was jumping/flying towards Batman and was unable to dodge the grenade.
After he recovers from the first grenade and gets the upper hand he doesn't disarm Batman or destroy his weapon.

Imagine you were in a fight with someone who had a handgun, a weapon that you know will mess you up if it hits you. You manage to close to striking/grappling distance and gain the upper hand. At that point you'd be doing absolutely everything you could to get that weapon away from your enemy. You'd have to be very dim to do anything else.

Instead Superman knocks Batman around a bit then sits there and watches while he slowly reloads the grenade launcher. Because apparently he's a super dimwit.
He hadn't recovered from the first grenade
Yes he had.


Starting at 1:00 in that video there's a whole sequence of shots to show you exactly that. The bit where Batman is punching him in the face repeatedly and then each punch becomes less effective until the last one doesn't even make his head move. (Actually one of the best bits in the movie.) Then he even flies a little bit. Then he throws Batman around for a bit. There's even a shot where he has a hold of Batman and the grenade launcher is right fucking there but instead of getting rid of the weapon that he now knows can render him vulnerable he instead throws Batman through a wall, creating distance. Then kneels there for a bit watching while Batman slowly reloads the bloody thing.

You can handwave it if you want and it's far from the biggest problem in the movie, but there's no denying that Superman fights like a complete fuckwit.
 

twistedmic

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,354
38
53
Zhukov said:
twistedmic said:
How exactly is Superman dim in that fight scene? He got hit with a Kryptonite gas grenade twice. Once before he knew what Batman had in his launcher then again when he was jumping/flying towards Batman and was unable to dodge the grenade.
After he recovers from the first grenade and gets the upper hand he doesn't disarm Batman or destroy his weapon.

Imagine you were in a fight with someone who had a handgun, a weapon that you know will mess you up if it hits you. You manage to close to striking/grappling distance and gain the upper hand. At that point you'd be doing absolutely everything you could to get that weapon away from your enemy. You'd have to be very dim to do anything else.

Instead Superman knocks Batman around a bit then sits there and watches while he slowly reloads the grenade launcher. Because apparently he's a super dimwit.
Just because Superman can tank a few punches, hover a bit and throw Batman around a bit doesn't mean that he has all of his mental faculties up and running. A drunken moron can preform most of those feats but I doubt he'd be able to dodge a baseball lobbed at his head or think clearly enough to try and take a gun from someone.
Also someone who has been given anesthesia will still be loopy for (easily) several hours after they regain consciousness, just look at videos of people who have just had their wisdom teeth removed.
 

twistedmic

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,354
38
53
Zhukov said:

Starting at 1:00 in that video there's a whole sequence of shots to show you exactly that. The bit where Batman is punching him in the face repeatedly and then each punch becomes less effective until the last one doesn't even make his head move. (Actually one of the best bits in the movie.) Then he even flies a little bit. Then he throws Batman around for a bit. There's even a shot where he has a hold of Batman and the grenade launcher is right fucking there but instead of getting rid of the weapon that he now knows can render him vulnerable he instead throws Batman through a wall, creating distance. Then kneels there for a bit watching while Batman slowly reloads the bloody thing.

You can handwave it if you want and it's far from the biggest problem in the movie, but there's no denying that Superman fights like a complete fuckwit.
Notice how Superman struggled to throw Batman, when he was able to easily lift and carry the crew capsule of an exploding rocket, drag and overturned tanker ship through ice with little visible effort and punch Doomsday into lower orbit without breaking a sweat? Superman was not even physically recovered from the first gas grenade, let alone mentally/cognitively recovered.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
twistedmic said:
He was physically recovered enough to fly and throw a big dude in a big armour suit around like a ragdoll. That's enough to break his bloody weapon. He was clearly shown to have the upper hand and know it.

He was never shown to be cognitively impaired. He appears fully cognizant when he's doing the Oh-ho-I've-got-my-powers-back-you're-fucked-now face. Even if that wasn't the case, how smart do you have to be to realize GUN BAD GET RID OF GUN? If you have the brain power to grab someone and throw them then you have the brain power to grab their gun and throw that.

Guy fights like a fuckwit. No amount of frantic grasping excuses are going to change that.
 

Pritika Srivastav

New member
Jun 28, 2017
2
0
0
Great article post, I really interesting the way you highlighted some important points. Thanks very much, I appreciate your post. quickbooks support site [http://www.quickbooks-phonesupport.com/] intuit quickbooks customer service phone number [http://www.quickbooks-phonesupport.com/intuit-quickbooks-support/] quickbooks customer service telephone number [http://www.quickbooks-phonesupport.com/quickbooks-customer-service/] quickbooks help me [http://www.quickbooks-phonesupport.com/quickbooks-help/] quickbooks payroll support phone number [http://www.quickbooks-phonesupport.com/quickbooks-payroll-support/] quickbooks technical support number [http://www.quickbooks-phonesupport.com/quickbooks-technical-support/] quickbooks phone [http://www.quickbooks-phonesupport.com/quickbooks-phone-number/] quickbooks online customer support [http://www.quickbooks-phonesupport.com/quickbooks-online-support/] quickbooks proadvisor support number [http://www.quickbooks-phonesupport.com/quickbooks-enterprise-support/] quicken support for mac [http://www.quicken-phonesupport.com/] quicken help support [http://www.quicken-phonesupport.com/quicken-help/] quicken customer support [http://www.quicken-phonesupport.com/quicken-customer-service/] quicken technical support phone number [http://www.quicken-phonesupport.com/quicken-technical-support/] quicken bill pay phone number [http://www.quicken-phonesupport.com/quicken-bill-pay-support/] quicken contact us [http://www.quicken-phonesupport.com/quicken-phone-number/] quicken online support chat [http://www.quicken-phonesupport.com/quicken-online-support/] netflix 800 number [http://www.callsupportnumber.com/netflix-support/] dell customer support phone number [http://www.callsupportnumber.com/dell-support/] hp printer support number [http://www.callsupportnumber.com/hp-support/] netgear customer service number [http://www.callsupportnumber.com/netgear-support/] linksys tech support phone number [http://www.callsupportnumber.com/linksys-support/] cisco contact center express [http://www.callsupportnumber.com/cisco-support/] gmail customer service number [http://www.callsupportnumber.com/gmail-support/] hotmail support number [http://www.callsupportnumber.com/hotmail-support/] contact yahoo email [http://www.callsupportnumber.com/yahoo-mail-support/] phone number for microsoft [http://www.callsupportnumber.com/microsoft-support/] norton number [http://www.callsupportnumber.com/norton-support/] mcafee customer service number [http://www.callsupportnumber.com/mcafee-support/] dragon phone number [http://www.callsupportnumber.com/nuance-dragon-support/] adobe tech support phone number [http://www.callsupportnumber.com/adobe-support/] Epson phone support [http://www.callsupportnumber.com/epson-support/] toshiba support drivers [http://www.callsupportnumber.com/toshiba-support/]
 

Cicada 5

Elite Member
May 1, 2020
1,262
183
68
Country
Nigeria
Zhukov said:
twistedmic said:
He was physically recovered enough to fly and throw a big dude in a big armour suit around like a ragdoll. That's enough to break his bloody weapon. He was clearly shown to have the upper hand and know it.

He was never shown to be cognitively impaired. He appears fully cognizant when he's doing the Oh-ho-I've-got-my-powers-back-you're-fucked-now face. Even if that wasn't the case, how smart do you have to be to realize GUN BAD GET RID OF GUN? If you have the brain power to grab someone and throw them then you have the brain power to grab their gun and throw that.

Guy fights like a fuckwit. No amount of frantic grasping excuses are going to change that.
more like he fights like a guy who's never been trained to fight and didn't even want this fight to begin with.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
Agent_Z said:
more like he fights like a guy who's never been trained to fight and didn't even want this fight to begin with.
Zero training is required to get one's head around GUN BAD GET RID OF GUN.

I refer you to my previous scenario involving a handgun. If you were tangling with someone using a weapon that you knew could mess you up, you'd have to be crazy to focus on anything but getting that weapon out of the equation.

Hell, I've seen footage of real life hand-to-hand fights involving random untrained people tackling people with guns. They grab the gun (or the hand holding the gun) and cling on for dear life. Because they're not fuckwits.

 

Cicada 5

Elite Member
May 1, 2020
1,262
183
68
Country
Nigeria
Zhukov said:
Agent_Z said:
more like he fights like a guy who's never been trained to fight and didn't even want this fight to begin with.
Zero training is required to get one's head around GUN BAD GET RID OF GUN.

I refer you to my previous scenario involving a handgun. If you were tangling with someone using a weapon that you knew could mess you up, you'd have to be crazy to focus on anything but getting that weapon out of the equation.

Hell, I've seen footage of real life hand-to-hand fights involving random untrained people tackling people with guns. They grab the gun (or the hand holding the gun) and cling on for dear life. Because they're not fuckwits.

Was that person exposed to a substance that screwed with their biology?

Also, grabbing a gun is a sure fire way to accidentally set it off if the safety is off. Unless you have combat training, which again Superman does not have, trying to grab a gun from someone only increases your chance of dying.

If you want an example of a fuckwit, see Steve Rogers escalating a battle in a busy area in Lagos, not alerting the authorities that a terrorist was in their city and then leaving the least experienced member of the team to fail to contain the explosion. Keep in mind unlike Superman, Steve is supposed to be a trained soldier. Superman prior to his confrontation with Batman had been in only one fight his entire life.

I mean, it's easy for you to sit there and talk about what an untrained civilian should or should not do with an unarmed enemy but I highly doubt you'd be so perfect in a similar situation, powers or no
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
Agent_Z said:
Was that person exposed to a substance that screwed with their biology?
If he was, he's clearly recovered from it. Just like Superman!

Also, grabbing a gun is a sure fire way to accidentally set it off if the safety is off. Unless you have combat training, which again Superman does not have, trying to grab a gun from someone only increases your chance of dying.
Hahaha.

You're seriously trying to tell me that it's a bad idea to grab a gun that somebody is trying to shoot you with? Because it might accidentally go off? Y'know, instead of intentionally going off because the person holding it pulled the trigger while aiming it at you?

Deary me. The excuses were getting desperate before, now they're getting comical.

Also, it requires zero combat training to grab a thing and keep the shooty end from pointing at you. (See video.) Especially if one is many times stronger than one's opponent. It just requires that one not be a complete fuckwit.

If you want an example of a fuckwit, see Steve Rogers escalating a battle in a busy area in Lagos, not alerting the authorities that a terrorist was in their city and then leaving the least experienced member of the team to fail to contain the explosion. Keep in mind unlike Superman, Steve is supposed to be a trained soldier. Superman prior to his confrontation with Batman had been in only one fight his entire life.
Okay. Cool. You'll have to take that up with someone who cares about defending Steve Rogers.

Superman is still a fuckwit.
 

twistedmic

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,354
38
53
Zhukov said:
If he was, he's clearly recovered from it. Just like Superman!
Show me proof that Superman was fully and completely recovered from the kryptonite and getting pummeled. Him hovering a little bit, tackling a guy through a floor (of dubious strength/sturdiness/state of repair) and toss him across a room is not at the same level of how he fought Zod in Man of Steel or Doomsday later in the film.
Also note that right before he got hit with the second grenade, Superman was running (on foot), not flying, most of the way towards Batman. He jumped, and was airborne, for the last few feet when he got hit again. Superman was never before, or afterward, shown running on foot towards an opponent.
If Superman is shown to be operating below his usual level of skill it stands to reason that he is not at full strength.

Deary me. The excuses were getting desperate before, now they're getting comical.
Your determination to believe that Superman is a 'fuckwit', despite several logical reasons/explanations to the contrary strikes me as desperate.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
twistedmic said:
Zhukov said:
If he was, he's clearly recovered from it. Just like Superman!
Show me proof that Superman was fully and completely recovered from the kryptonite and getting pummeled. Him hovering a little bit, tackling a guy through a floor (of dubious strength/sturdiness/state of repair) and toss him across a room is not at the same level of how he fought Zod in Man of Steel or Doomsday later in the film.
If he's recovered enough to ignore punches from a big dude with metal gloves, throw the big dude like a doll and fly even a little bit then he's recovered enough grab the grenade launcher and break it.

The only explanation is that he's just too dumb.

Deary me. The excuses were getting desperate before, now they're getting comical.
Your determination to believe that Superman is a 'fuckwit', despite several logical reasons/explanations to the contrary strikes me as desperate.
It's not my fault the movie portrays him as a fuckwit.

If that upsets you I suggest taking it up with whoever wrote the screenplay.
 

Cicada 5

Elite Member
May 1, 2020
1,262
183
68
Country
Nigeria
Zhukov said:
If he was, he's clearly recovered from it. Just like Superman!
No. Not like Superman.

Zhukov said:
Hahaha.

You're seriously trying to tell me that it's a bad idea to grab a gun that somebody is trying to shoot you with? Because it might accidentally go off?
So you?ve never heard of a gun accidentally firing while two people are struggling? Is this some unheard of phenomena where you come from?

Zhukov said:
Deary me. The excuses were getting desperate before, now they're getting comical.
Not as comical as your attempts to play armchair warrior.

Zhukov said:
Also, it requires zero combat training to grab a thing and keep the shooty end from pointing at you. (See video.) Especially if one is many times stronger than one's opponent. It just requires that one not be a complete fuckwit.
Because as we all know, strength is clearly all that matters in a fight.
Seriously, this is how Superman gets beat by human or weaker enemies all the time. By your logic, he?s been a ?fuckwit? everytime he?s gone up against Kryptonite and this one at least has the excuse of being in only one fight in his life prior to confronting Batman.

Zhukov said:
Okay. Cool. You'll have to take that up with someone who cares about defending Steve Rogers.
I was pointing out an actual example of a fuckwit.
Zhukov said:
If he's recovered enough to ignore punches from a big dude with metal gloves, throw the big dude like a doll and fly even a little bit then he's recovered enough grab the grenade launcher and break it.
He?s clearly operating at a lower capcity before the second grenade hits. He?s not moving at super speed and this is a guy almost entirely unfamiliar with extreme pain. He could have the genetically-endowed super-intelligence that many on this board seem to think he should have and it would be believable that he wouldn't have been able to use it while his mind and body were wracked with pain. People don't think clearly when they're hurt, sick, and in fear for their lives. Especially not if they're largely unfamiliar with those sensations.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
Agent_Z said:
Zhukov said:
Hahaha.

You're seriously trying to tell me that it's a bad idea to grab a gun that somebody is trying to shoot you with? Because it might accidentally go off?
So you?ve never heard of a gun accidentally firing while two people are struggling? Is this some unheard of phenomena where you come from?
Like I said, if someone is trying to deliberately shoot you then getting accidentally shot is the least of your concerns.

I notice you clipped the last sentence where I already made that point.

Zhukov said:
Deary me. The excuses were getting desperate before, now they're getting comical.
Not as comical as your attempts to play armchair warrior.
Except I used real life non-armchair examples of how even regular untrained people know to try and control the weapon when tackling armed opponents.

Here, have some more. Notice how they all go straight for the weapon instead of fucking around.








Because as we all know, strength is clearly all that matters in a fight.
If you're strong enough to throw your opponent around like a ragdoll, then yeah, it matters.

A bit of commonsense helps too. Sadly Superman didn't have any of that.