Escape to the Movies: Kick Ass 2

[Paradoxrifts]

If that's the case, then why hasn't Batman changed dramatically in the whole time he has been in comics?

You should really have a closer look at Batman's back catalogue before going on and making further statements that some might consider ill-informed and just plain ignorant. The simple fact is that since the character was first published way back in 1939 Batman has been consistently reinterpreted and re-envisioned by subsequent generations of both comic book authors and fans alike. Even when the character has left the comic book page and crossed mediums into movies, television and other media the portrayals of the character has seen considerable variation in execution.

You really could not have picked a worst possible example than Batman.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

If that's the case, then why hasn't Batman changed dramatically in the whole time he has been in comics?

You should really have a closer look at Batman's back catalogue before going on and making further statements that some might consider ill-informed and just plain ignorant. The simple fact is that since the character was first published way back in 1939 Batman has been consistently reinterpreted and re-envisioned by subsequent generations of both comic book authors and fans alike. Even when the character has left the comic book page and crossed mediums into movies, television and other media the portrayals of the character has seen considerable variation in execution.

You really could not have picked a worst possible example than Batman.

What I mean is that, while the interpretations of the character may change, he is still fundamentally the same person: a masked vigilante who fights crime to avenge the death of his parents. That is who Batman is, regardless of what costume or personality you give him. That is the core of his character. The same goes for Superman, and his no-kill policy.

Killing a person because of an alleged no-win scenario goes completely against one of the fundamental traits of the character.

 

[Wesley Brannock]

I really didn't like the first Kick Ass movie so I'll skip on commenting on this movie. I'm not even going to comment on the first one either for this reason. However I will comment on the fact that I'm tired of the condescending attitude that Bob "MovieBob" Chipman has. Every time a sequel comes out he says something like. " You didn't like the original: Well why not!? " I'll tell you why not because not everyone shares the same opinions / tastes. I'll give you an example of what I mean Bob. I'm color blind so I tend to like video games , moves , and art that use form as a format of self-expression rather then color. Movies like Clerks , The Book Of Eli , and last but not least Zombie Land. Bob you tend to openly debase these types of movies for the art style. Fine I can except that however it becomes insulting when you say " You didn't like the original: Well why not!? ". This shows a lack of respect for your audience if you want to keep an audience you will stop this.

 

[JimB]

snip

Meh. This was his origin story. He must first learn to step into the light, and learn to be the symbol before he can have the humans join him.

Isn't that admitting my point, though? Aren't you just saying, "Sure, he doesn't act like Superman, but it's okay because it's an origin story?"

He saves all the kids in the bus as a kid. He saves all the people at the oil platform. Not just two people.

I did forget them. Fair enough.

 

[Carpenter]

Oh hey look, another person on the internet taking a pop at Man of Steel for no good reason. That's what you became for a moment then Bob. Not a respected member of a field, another person on the internet.

This. Bob should totally have, like, done a video review for the movie...and maybe even another video to argue/explain his opinion!

And if he didn't want to be just another person on the internet, he should have posted these videos on a major popular culture website!

Shame on you, Bob!

p.s. And get a nickname, Bob! Don't you understand branding???

So having your opinion stated over and over again on a "popular culture website" makes you something other than just another guy on the internet?

That must be why you post here.

Point. Missed.

Estimate: Country Mile

Also Identified: Straw Man, Ad Hominem

I think you missed the point, not me.

On that note, you don't know what a "straw man" is and that was hardly an "ad hominem attack" but it's cute that you people are this predictable now.

"I disagree"
"Straw man! Ad Hominem! Words! Objection!"

 

[Carpenter]

If that's the case, then why hasn't Batman changed dramatically in the whole time he has been in comics?

You should really have a closer look at Batman's back catalogue before going on and making further statements that some might consider ill-informed and just plain ignorant. The simple fact is that since the character was first published way back in 1939 Batman has been consistently reinterpreted and re-envisioned by subsequent generations of both comic book authors and fans alike. Even when the character has left the comic book page and crossed mediums into movies, television and other media the portrayals of the character has seen considerable variation in execution.

You really could not have picked a worst possible example than Batman.

What I mean is that, while the interpretations of the character may change, he is still fundamentally the same person: a masked vigilante who fights crime to avenge the death of his parents. That is who Batman is, regardless of what costume or personality you give him. That is the core of his character. The same goes for Superman, and his no-kill policy.

Killing a person because of an alleged no-win scenario goes completely against one of the fundamental traits of the character.

Except both superman and batman have killed.

It wasn't presented as a "no win scenario" in the movie. Zod was a crazy alien trying to kill lots of people, he killed him. Yes it's a little different from your favorite idea of superman but this version was never established as having a "no killing rule" let alone a rule against killing super powerful aliens.

People are just complaining because some other people online are complaining. Most of the people complaining about changes in the character have clearly never even read the comics.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

People are just complaining because some other people online are complaining. Most of the people complaining about changes in the character have clearly never even read the comics.

So I'm just complaining because other people are online? And not because I see Superman killing as being intrinsically wrong to his entire being? The movie can try to justify him killing by never establishing the policy in their take on the character, but to me, that just makes him *not* superman. He's a guy wearing a similar costume and has the same name, but he isn't the superman that the public knows.

 

[JimB]

People are just complaining because some other people online are complaining.

I am complaining for two reasons. The second is that Man of Steel is not a Superman movie, but is a movie made by people who are embarrassed of Superman, for people who dislike Superman. This movie, therefore, is not for me, and I think the advertisement should have been more honest about that so I wouldn't feel tricked at having given them my money to see the movie.

The first is the movie fucking lied to me. It lied in every word.* I've already gone off about the worst of it in this thread, but let's talk about killing Zod. Jor-El's ghost's hologram makes such a big fucking deal about how Kal-El can save everyone, but what about Zod? He didn't save Zod. He didn't even try. When Zod was on his eyes and clearly trying to commit suicide by cop, Superman didn't even make an effort to connect with the man, to reach past his pain and save him. He just yelled, "Don't do it!" and then snapped Zod's neck when Zod refused to submit to Kal-El's ultimatum. Kal-El didn't save Zod, apparently couldn't save Zod, and I believe wouldn't save Zod; but the movie told me right to my face that Kal-El could save everyone. The movie apparently thinks I am too stupid to notice it lied to me, and I resent that insult as much as I resent the dishonesty itself.

*that hoary cripple, with malicious eye

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

Cracked.com wrote an article about why superman does not work in the modern world. You MovieBob should read it (AngryJoe too). Basically the only way superman can survive and not become some anachronic character is to change. Times changes as people do. So does the conception of what a hero should behave. Also the movie was not that bad.

If that's the case, then why hasn't Batman changed dramatically in the whole time he has been in comics? Superman has survived for 75 years fighting for Truth, Justice and the American Way. Concepts of heroes may change, but heroes themselves don't need to.

Like James Bond said in Skyfall: "Sometimes the old ways work best."

Did you ever watch the Adam West Batman or see the episode where batman and robin team up with Scooby Doo? You can even watch the Linkara episode where he talks about an old Batman comic (It involved a alien plant that radiates heat that can melt safes). Yeah Batman has changed a lot in tone over the years, me and a friend still to this day laugh at the idea that "Batbaby" was a comic. And I remember reading the first batman comic (Thanks Comixology ) and he threw a guy in vat of acid (Then he became Two-Face...never mind that reference), and his response was pretty much "He was a criminal he deserved it."

 

[Sejborg]

snip

Meh. This was his origin story. He must first learn to step into the light, and learn to be the symbol before he can have the humans join him.

Isn't that admitting my point, though? Aren't you just saying, "Sure, he doesn't act like Superman, but it's okay because it's an origin story?"

It's different. He isn't the symbol you and I are used to view him as in comic books and the like - yet. But he is getting there. He is in hiding and all that jazz. Man of Steel is his journey to become the savior. It is character progression, where It seems to me that you want him to be the symbol from the start. A constant if you will.

Is that the same thing as saying he isn't acting as Superman? I don't think so, because we constantly see him doing the good deeds through out the movie. He is his destiny. It is like saying you wasn't acting as your self at the age of 4. But at the age of 4 you obviously was your self, and acted as you would at the age of 4.

 

[JimB]

He isn't the symbol you and I are used to view him as in comic books and the like - yet.

Right. He might act like Superman later, but he isn't doing it now.

It seems to me that you want him to be the symbol from the start. A constant, if you will.

Not necessarily...but I'd have complained a lot less if he at least acted like Superman by the end of the movie.

We constantly see him doing the good deeds through out the movie.

We also see him inflict a minimum of fifty thousand dollars of property damage as punishment for getting a beer dumped on him; a beer he could have prevented being dumped on him without super powers ever coming into it, too. We also see him let his father die in a tornado, the force of which will tear him into ribbons too small to collect and bury, but never mind.

It is like saying you weren't acting as yourself at the age of four.

Except in this movie Kal-El is thirty-four. If he hasn't learned to be a good man after three and a half decades, he never will.

 

[Carpenter]

People are just complaining because some other people online are complaining.

I am complaining for two reasons. The second is that Man of Steel is not a Superman movie, but is a movie made by people who are embarrassed of Superman, for people who dislike Superman. This movie, therefore, is not for me, and I think the advertisement should have been more honest about that so I wouldn't feel tricked at having given them my money to see the movie.

The first is the movie fucking lied to me. It lied in every word.* I've already gone off about the worst of it in this thread, but let's talk about killing Zod. Jor-El's ghost's hologram makes such a big fucking deal about how Kal-El can save everyone, but what about Zod? He didn't save Zod. He didn't even try. When Zod was on his eyes and clearly trying to commit suicide by cop, Superman didn't even make an effort to connect with the man, to reach past his pain and save him. He just yelled, "Don't do it!" and then snapped Zod's neck when Zod refused to submit to Kal-El's ultimatum. Kal-El didn't save Zod, apparently couldn't save Zod, and I believe wouldn't save Zod; but the movie told me right to my face that Kal-El could save everyone. The movie apparently thinks I am too stupid to notice it lied to me, and I resent that insult as much as I resent the dishonesty itself.

*that hoary cripple, with malicious eye

So the movie with superman as the main character is not a superman movie? Fantastic argument, well spoken, I am left speechless by it. That is absolutely a real flaw in the movie, there was no scenes with superman in the entire movie.


So you believe the people that made the movie were embarrassed by superman? What on earth gave you that idea? Oh right, they made a few changes and that means they hate your favorite superhero. Boohoo, they didn't make it all the same.

Yeah you know what I go to the movies for? To see things that I have already seen. Makes perfect sense.

Kid the movie never lied to you, even if what you described is how it happened, that's only a character lying to you.

On that note, he never lied. At no point is it ever presented that he couldn't have saved zod. The "no win scenario" crap was presented by people that watched the movie, not the movie itself.

The movie never presented a no kill rule, it's just something superman was not yet pushed to do. He didn't kill zod because he was going to kill a few people, he killed zod because he was still willing to kill "his humans" after all of that. He killed zod because he was pissed at zod, because he threatened his mother, destroyed his home, and destroyed much of the city.

You can argue that "real" superman would never kill but there is no "real" superman because he's a fictional character. The superman in the comics has killed several times in countless versions of the character.

Not every superhero movie needs to be some kiddie love fest about how killing is always bad. It felt out of place in batman and I'm glad it was ditched for man of steel.

Personally I liked the movie and you haven't really presented any real reason for all the hate. If you don't like the movie, fine, but stop trying to destroy it like us enjoying the movie is somehow wrong. Bob has gone out of his way to direct people who might enjoy the movie away from it. Even with Transformers he says "if you think you might like it, go see it" but with man of steel it's apparently so bad that it's not even worth that much.

I mean your first argument is that the makers were embarrassed by superman. That's demonstrably false considering zack snyder has promoted man of steel and is already promoting his batman superman movie.

 

[Carpenter]

People are just complaining because some other people online are complaining. Most of the people complaining about changes in the character have clearly never even read the comics.

So I'm just complaining because other people are online? And not because I see Superman killing as being intrinsically wrong to his entire being? The movie can try to justify him killing by never establishing the policy in their take on the character, but to me, that just makes him *not* superman. He's a guy wearing a similar costume and has the same name, but he isn't the superman that the public knows.

Superman killing is intrinsically wrong with his entire being?

Good god, don't read the comics then, you will be so pissed.

Hey guess what, they made some changes. Yeah you know what I want to see at the movies? The exact same thing I read in a comic, how fun.

 

[JimB]

So the movie with Superman as the main character is not a Superman movie?

Since the movie never once calls him Superman, and the only person to try to do so is a soldier mumbling the word around an apology before getting cut off, yeah, I do not feel bad about saying Superman is not a significant factor in the movie.

Fantastic argument, well spoken, I am left speechless by it. That is absolutely a real flaw in the movie, there were no scenes with Superman in the entire movie.

Your sarcasm is useless, as is your strawman. I invite you to keep both of them to yourself.

So you believe the people that made the movie were embarrassed by Superman?

Yes. That is exactly what I said. I am not in the habit of saying things I don't mean.

What on Earth gave you that idea? Oh right, they made a few changes and that means they hate your favorite superhero.

Please point out where I said or even implied Superman is my favorite superhero. Go ahead, find my words where I said that. I'll...well, I was about to say "I'll wait for you," but I won't do that because I didn't say it and you won't find it. You are making stuff up because you want to call me a baby, and you need to invent this narrative in order to do so.

In any event, I have already explained in great detail in this thread alone what gave me that idea. If you are actually interested in understanding my position, it won't be hard to find. If you're not, then please quit bothering me.

Yeah, you know what I go to the movies for? To see things that I have already seen. Makes perfect sense.

I do not care what you have gone to the movies for, nor am I impressed by your blatant misrepresentation of my position.

Kid, the movie never lied to you. Even if what you described is how it happened, that's only a character lying to you.

Two things, Carpenter.

First, that is exactly how it happened. That you have to phrase it as an uncertainty makes me question whether you've even seen the movie, and if you haven't, then why on Earth are you defending it with so much hostility?

Second, the character is part of the movie. His lines were written by the writers, directed by the director, and read by the actor. The grips held the mic, the crew lit the scene, the blah blah blah. All of those people participated in telling me that Kal-El could save everyone, and then thousands of people died in Metropolis before Kal-El killed Zod. Almost everyone whose name is in the credits played a part in it. The movie lied to me.

At no point is it ever presented that he couldn't have saved Zod.

Your argument is that Kal-El could have saved Zod, but chose not to, so the movie didn't lie? Sorry, that crap won't flush. If he didn't save everyone, then he couldn't save everyone. I don't care how things might have turned out if they'd been different, because they aren't different and they turned out the way they did. He had a chance to save everyone and he failed. He therefore could not save everyone.

He didn't kill Zod because he was going to kill a few people; he killed Zod because he was still willing to kill "his humans" after all of that. He killed Zod because he was pissed at Zod, because he threatened his mother, destroyed his home, and destroyed much of the city.

He killed Zod because he couldn't be bothered to save Zod, despite the movie banging on and on about how he's Space Jesus.

If you don't like the movie, fine, but stop trying to destroy it like us enjoying the movie is somehow wrong.

Carpenter, please understand this: I am physically incapable of caring less what you think about this movie. Not if you took a power drill to my frontal lobe could your opinion matter less to me, so I don't care if you disagree with me any more than I care if you agree with me. I am explaining my position: mine, and only mine. That I think the movie is bad, that I think the movie lies, that I think the movie was not made for me, speaks only about my opinion of the movie, not yours. If you do like the movie, then for Christ's sake be secure enough in your own position to read some criticism of it without acting like I'm on some crusade to have it stricken from the history books.

I mean your first argument is that the makers were embarrassed by Superman. That's demonstrably false considering Zack Snyder has promoted Man of Steel.

Yes. Man of Steel. Not Superman.

 

[endtherapture]

I mean your first argument is that the makers were embarrassed by Superman. That's demonstrably false considering Zack Snyder has promoted Man of Steel.

Yes. Man of Steel. Not Superman.

Calling the film out for being called man of steel is like calling The Dark Knight out for being called The Dark Knight, and not "Batman".

 

[JimB]

Calling the film out for being called Man of Steel is like calling the Dark Knight out for being called the Dark Knight, and not "Batman."

It would be more like doing that if, in the Dark Knight, the movie went out of its way to avoid calling Batman Batman and only did name him once while the character who did sounded ashamed for doing it.

 

[endtherapture]

Calling the film out for being called Man of Steel is like calling the Dark Knight out for being called the Dark Knight, and not "Batman."

It would be more like doing that if, in the Dark Knight, the movie went out of its way to avoid calling Batman Batman and only did name him once while the character who did sounded ashamed for doing it.

They did call him Superman and it was an origin story, I expect that he will be called Superman a lot more in Man of Steel 2.

How is everyone going to know to call him "Superman" when he's literally only been known for about 8 hours?

 

[JimB]

How is everyone going to know to call him "Superman" when he's literally only been known for about eight hours?

The same way they know to call the other guy "Batman," except Superman had much more of a lead-in since he spent fifteen-some years as a superpowered Bigfoot, helping people and vanishing.

 

[Don Reba]

My biggest criticism of the movie is that when Hit Girl tried to speak Russian, she only mumbled something illegible. Everything else was good.

I don't even mind Russians being portrayed as bad guys (girls) when they are this awesome.