I just want a Superman and Batman that actually fights and kills thier enemies when they have to.
I am not watching Justice League until I see Snyder's Cut of the Movie.
- Thread starter Samtemdo8_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
When looking at the budgets, IP's, potential, expectations, and the competition? Nnn---nope.Hawki said:
I've never ran in front of a train, but I know it'd hurt... Homecoming demonstrably proved a fairly quick turn around on a recast-reboot can work. It doesn't really matter what my own opinion of it might be (I'm not keen on Spider-Man in general, so I doubt it'll get anywhere near my personal faves in the MCU).
If something's not working, then doing something different is kindof a given. Schumacher killed the property cinematically, so the best thing was for a long break and a clean slate. Two things the DCEU could benefit from immensely.
Well, it might not for you, but it is for the industry and pop-culture in general, frankly. No one else is doing quite what he's doing. Someone like Villeneuve is too defiantly, er, creatively sincere, let's say, to be mass-market, so Nolan's one of the only real directors worth a damn in the mainstream.
I think everyone would rather take Nolan's sweeping scope and style than someone like Bay, and Abrams is pretty generic, despite his clear competency. There are a handful of other decent directors, but none that have carved out anything as influential or as highly praised a body of work.
Oh c'mon, that's just quaint contrarianism.
Do you have some kind of murder fetish, or summat? Why do you seem to need to see death and killing from superheroes?Samtemdo8 said:
Well that's good. It'll save you from seeing the most insipid, bland and forgettable superhero movie of possibly the entire decade.
I'll say this: the approach taken for Man of Steel was okay for maybe one movie, or a movie trilogy with Superman, and precisely Superman only. But as a template for the tone of an entire movieverse it was completely disastrous. It's like Man of Steel is a big, massive steak. Sure, I love steak, I'll eat that! And BvS is another massive steak, but this time it's been slightly burnt. Are you still that hungry for steak? Maybe, maybe not. Then you hear rumors of there being even more steak cooking in the kitchen (in this analogy the DC movies teased in BvS). Then Suicide Squad trudges along, promising to be yet another massive steak which you're getting sick of at this point. But then the cooks notice the customers are getting sick of steak, and add gummi bears and ice cream to make it different or something, and the result is exactly as pleasant as you'd expect. This analogy is dragging on, but I'll conclude with that Justice League is like a stew made out of burnt steak, gummi bears, ice cream, croutons and a salmon salad: a complete mess that tries to be everything, and as a result is nothing.
And I still can't believe they didn't just make a Man of Steel sequel with the name "Man of Tomorrow" and introduce Batman, and his eventual distrust of Superman in that. It was so obvious.
I'll say this: the approach taken for Man of Steel was okay for maybe one movie, or a movie trilogy with Superman, and precisely Superman only. But as a template for the tone of an entire movieverse it was completely disastrous. It's like Man of Steel is a big, massive steak. Sure, I love steak, I'll eat that! And BvS is another massive steak, but this time it's been slightly burnt. Are you still that hungry for steak? Maybe, maybe not. Then you hear rumors of there being even more steak cooking in the kitchen (in this analogy the DC movies teased in BvS). Then Suicide Squad trudges along, promising to be yet another massive steak which you're getting sick of at this point. But then the cooks notice the customers are getting sick of steak, and add gummi bears and ice cream to make it different or something, and the result is exactly as pleasant as you'd expect. This analogy is dragging on, but I'll conclude with that Justice League is like a stew made out of burnt steak, gummi bears, ice cream, croutons and a salmon salad: a complete mess that tries to be everything, and as a result is nothing.
And I still can't believe they didn't just make a Man of Steel sequel with the name "Man of Tomorrow" and introduce Batman, and his eventual distrust of Superman in that. It was so obvious.
So wait... you mean you don't actually want Superman and Batman then. Because supes and the b-man, as known in the public conscious, don't do that. I'm sure you'll be able to drag up a comic book or 2 where they did kill someone, but that's not "who they are" according to popular culture.Samtemdo8 said:
Fuck "who they are" according to popular culture. Fuck if that's what they are in the Comic Books.Avnger said:
I wanna see Superman go Dragon Ball Z on his enemies and only kill when he has too. I wanna see him lead an army of other Superheroes (as in more than 4 other people) against Darkseid and his army of New Gods in a War of the Gods.
I am getting tired of seeing Superman being pitted against Lex Luthor, I want Superheroes to actually use their godlike powers to do godlike things.
There's a reason the best Superman stories don't involve him using brute strength to win.Samtemdo8 said:
If we're defining contrarianism has having an unpopular/opposing/minority opinion for the sake of it, then no it isn't.Darth Rosenberg said:
I've never liked The Avengers. I've never considered it to be a good film. I didn't develop that opinion for the sake of it, that opinion came up from actually watching it. I can accept I'm in the minority there, but I'm not going to lie to myself or others for the sake of conforming.
I have only seen the Avengers once. I never bothered to watch it again on TV if it passes on FX or something.Hawki said:
Heck I haven't seen X-Men 1999 for YEARS now.
Infact I never go out of my way to re-watch any Superhero movies with the exception of Batman v Superman.
And I find that amazing since there is so much wrong with BvS. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there are people who can find enjoyment in it, and I won't deny some of the action sequences are pretty entertaining, but it's full of so much nonsense that I find it difficult to watch. And I even picked it up on Blu-ray so that my brother-in-law could see it before we all went to see Justice League, which even with its flaws was a far better film than BvS in my opinion.Samtemdo8 said:
I could go into all the problems, but that's been done to death by this point, and they are obviously things you do not see as flaws. You apparently want a Superman that's more in lines with the Injustice comic, and that's fine, but while it's fun as an Elseworlds storyline, it is apparently not what a majority of Superman fans want to see on the big screen.
I prefer a symbol of hope and an ideal for humanity to strive for over some conqueror who mows down anyone who really gets in his way or represents any kind of significant threat to him. And if he does have to kill someone, as he and Batman both have rarely done in the comics, then I want to see repercussions for it. In MoS, Superman lets out a great scream after killing Zod, but then the act of killing him is never touched upon again. I want some mental anguish, a drive to do better, etc, something to show it affected him.
I don't want Superman being a dictator thats for sure.COMaestro said:
I don't want Batman to be seen as the true leader and face of DC again.
But Superman!Samtemdo8 said:
I don't know what else to say here, unless he is
killing Darkseid with the power of singing
Christopher Reeve totally murdered Zod back in the 70's
There's miles of difference between Injustice Supes and MoS Supes. One of them is a dictator who rules through fear, and even kills his own subordinates when they call him out for his actions. The other is someone who gives their all for the people of Earth, and is torn up by taking lives.COMaestro said:
As an aside, MoS Supes struck me as being a symbol of hope as well, and one that's far more relatable than something like, say, Superman Returns, where Supes has no real challenges to overcome, and certainly no character flaws. It's far more engaging to see a flawed character overcome obstacles than a perfect character do so.
Because even if we did get an Amazing Spider-Man DC Edition, it would still result in better films.Samtemdo8 said:
Amazing Spiderman 2 was the worse Superhero movie I have seen yet, completely the opposite to the Raimi's movies, even Spiderman 3 was better.Laggyteabag said:
I don't give fuck if people think the romance between Gwen and Peter was actually good, they are wrong the romance is garbage, its cringy, its corny, it has no place in a story about Superheroes. I want to see Superheroes fight monsters and supervillains, not what's their personal and dating life. If there must be romance in Superheroe stories it MUST be between 2 Superheroes for me.
Its why I prefer a Romance between Superman and Wonder Woman aswell as Batman and Catwoman. I don't care about Lois Lane, I don't care about Mary Jane.
I actually want to know the personal or dating life for a superhero. Its a good way to understand the characters as well as their interaction with the outside world when it doesn't involve being the hero.Samtemdo8 said:
Also I agree with Amazing Spider-Man 2. Its not the worst superhero film for me, but its up there.
I care about Lois Lane and Mary Jane. I do kinda have a like/dislike thing about the Catwoman/Batman romance, but Tom King's current run on Batman Rebirth has made me really fascinated with it a lot more. As for Superman and WW, I've tried to like it, but tbh I find it really boring.
Thank you! That bugged the heck out of me with the Zod death. I was fine with the death and Clark feeling remorse, but its just dropped and never leaves a single impact on him as a character. Its also tonally jarring in the next scene as its color palette is a bit brighter despite still looking grey as well as making jokes. Giant whiplash.COMaestro said:
I'll admit, I've never seen BvS, only MoS. And what I saw in MoS doesn't match what you're describing. It's been 5 years or so since the one time I've seen it, but here's what I remember:Hawki said:
Clark Kent's dad tells him not to be a hero, while he goes and gets himself killed trying to be a hero, leaving whatever year old Clark to grow up through his teen years without a father. That's not what Pa Kent is supposed to be. Superman's adopted parents are the core of his human morality. That's one of the defining points of his character.
As an adult, Clark Kent bums around, knowing he has superpowers but not knowing what to do with them since being told by his dead father figure to not use them in any constructive way. Okay, fair enough, that's logical character progression from what's presented in the movie. The movie's still wrong from the start, but is consistent here.
Clark ends up in Alaska somehow, where his alien mothership is buried, somehow. I don't remember the details. He gets an explanation of what he is and the suit. He goes outside, scrunches his face up, takes a couple practice hops, and suddenly he's flying.
And that's where the movie breaks. Up to that point, Pa Kent's warning has defined his adult life, and it's left Clark pretty messed up. He's got anger issues (I think he smashed a dick's car), he probably feels like a freak, he feels guilty for having this power but no constructive outlet for it. But then he gets a 5 minute talk with Kurt Russel who says "Naw kid, you're just an alien, you cool, you're gonna be the superest, go out there and show the humans how super you can be." And all the character building up to that point is jettisonned. Anger's gone. Guilt's gone. Fear's gone. Just like flipping a switch. He does a couple hero things, the military gets pissy and wants to interrogate him, he just walks in, sits down without so much as a quiver in his eye lashes, and calmly speaks his words of reason and wisdom. He's got no doubts. No hesitation.
The rest of the movie is mostly a bunch of conflict about what he's gonna do about his fellow Kryptonins without anymore reflection on what it means for a man to become super like the first half of the movie was setting up. It's a thematic abortion. He doesn't earn his "Symbol of Hope" schtick. He isn't relatable by the end of the movie. He flips over from relatable young man with great ability but seeking purpose, to having his purpose delivered to him hand packaged by Russel Dad and completely changing the very fabric of his being after a 5 minute pep talk. It's like his character arc skipped about 45 degrees. The very last chance they had for doing something with the first half's character progression was with Zod's death, but after the big moment it's just brushed off. Oh no, I killed a dude, am I gonna ruminate on the nature and responsibility of the power I wield, or am I just gonna get my smoochies on with my girl? Movie goes with the latter.
MoS was a pretty big dissapointment for me. It started off with an atypical take on Superman's origin, then completely falls through on it halfway into the movie. It could have worked. It could actually have worked really well. But the writer and director didn't follow through on their set up, so it just ended up being cringey and flaccid.
So you don't actually want Superman or Batm-Samtemdo8 said:
Avnger said: