Its hard being a DC fan. (Rant)

[mduncan50]

I know a guy who claims these films have actually made Superman an interesting character. I told him read some comics because Superman is actually a very interesting character. In some ways I find him more complex than Batman. People claim that Suicide Squad looks fun, but to me it really doesn't. It's just going to be edgy bullshit to sell merchandise at Hot Topic.

Yeah, as someone that is actually familiar with the characters I can't help but wonder what the average movie-goer thinks when seeing the trailer for that movie. I'm not personally sold on any of the characters, since they've again warped them all nearly beyond recognition, and completely oversexualized the women. I hold out hope, but if I were a betting man, my money wouldn't be on DC making a great film.

 

[minkus_draconus]

So much this. I can't help but laugh when people defending this movie say it is too "adult and complex" for us normal people to understand since we're used to "kiddie movies" from Marvel. Being grimdark and humorless about everything is not adult, it is teenaged goth at best, and there is little complexity to these two murdering vigilantes that are upset that the other is a murdering vigilante so they try to murder each other. That is laughably bad without adding the fact that it is Batman and Superman that they turned into the murdering vigilantes. There is more adult motivations and complex storytelling in Civil War than there is in the collected works of Goyer and Snyder. Yes there are jokes. I'll let you in on a little secret that I figured out as an adult. We still like making jokes. Believe it or not, we even like having fun from time to time.

Every time I see that kind of defense used I think of the Lego Movie and Wyldstyle "This is real music, Emmet. Batman?s a true artist. Dark, brooding."

 

[Vanilla ISIS]

Because it's a piss poor representation of beloved characters? Superman straight up kills a guy 2 minutes into the film and Batman spends the whole movie murdering. The editing was shit, the visuals were okay to piss-poor. The lighting was awful for a lot of scenes. The Justice League e-mail cameo was pants on head retarded. Eisenberg was awful. Also, Superman acts just like Batman now which takes away any dynamic they can have together. Only Batman gets to mope around, not Superman. Snyder is a hack. Goyer should be fired and banned from writing any comic book movies ever again. I really fucking hate that movie.

Depends on which version of the characters you're talking about.
My introduction to Batman was the 1989 Tim Burton movie so I've never had a problem with him killing.
In fact, it added to his character.
They actually go out of their way to show that Superman tries to save everyone this time (we don't even see him kill that black guy at the beginning, he moves too fast).
I also think that he has the right to mope around, he feels guilty because of the events in MoS so he's saving people left and right now.
When that guy blow himself up in the court, he takes it as a failure and goes away from people to think.
It's not what we're used to with Superman but it works for this universe.
As long as it remains consistent within the DCCU, it's fine with me.
Lex is OK, definitely more memorable than what's-his-face from Iron Man 2, what's-his-face from Thor 2 or what's his-face from Guardians of the Galaxy.
I admit, if there's one person I would fire, it would be Goyer because he's dragging this thing down a little bit but the rest of the people are doing a really good job.

 

[Cicada 5]

Yes, please keep any Civil War discussion in spoilers please. I'm not going to be able to see it until tomorrow evening and it makes it really hard to read the thread if I need to skip over large numbers of posts. Thank you.

OT: I've seen both MoS and BvS and would rate both of them somewhere in the range of 6-7 out of 10. They are okay movies, but they both have some missteps, BvS particularly. Missteps can be overlooked in the case where a movie is just fun or enjoyable as well. This is something the first Iron Man managed, as I felt the ending was rather weak but everything else they did in the film was pure gold to me, so I was able to overlook the weak ending.

BvS, however, while having some very strong elements that could have led up to a fantastic film failed to incorporate things into a coherent whole. Too much foreshadowing of things to come in future films rather than dealing with the events and characters of the current film. Poor execution and development of subplots and character motivation. And probably the biggest problem I had with the film was the entirely pointless reason for the fight between Superman and Batman.

Spoiler: Spoilers ahead for those who haven't seen the movie yet

Lex has Martha Kent kidnapped and held hostage somewhere, and she'll be killed in an hour (if I remember correctly) unless Superman kills Batman and brings his head to Lex. Yet the movie established that Superman could detect when Lois was in any danger and come to her aid in seconds. It was previously established that he can hear cries for help from the stratosphere. You mean to tell me he could not find his mom in a matter of minutes, disable the men holding her in seconds, and having rescued her go back for Luthor?

Even if he couldn't do that, why not try actually talking to the obviously prepared Batman from the safety of the air rather than land and walk towards him in a menacing fashion? Just a few words to the effect of, "Lex Luthor is holding my mother hostage. I need your help to save her," would have done most of the humanizing of him that Batman needed to see and would have been a much more believable thing for Superman to do.

No, they just wanted to rip off the biggest portions of The Dark Knight Returns and The Death of Superman, so logic and characterization goes out the window.

As a whole, the movie just felt lazily written. There were good moments. Affleck did a great job as Batman, Eisenberg had some moments of genius as Lex (though he totally annoyed me the rest of the time), and they really did touch on some great themes. They just didn't follow up on them to the end, making them fall flat or just feel shoehorned in. I wanted these films to be great, as I have no particular loyalty to DC or Marvel and find the fanboy wars to be some of the dumbest things possible, but it's just fact that Marvel is doing a better job with their Cinematic Universe than DC at this time.

Spoiler

He knew Lois was in danger because he was personally keeping an eye on her. Also, Luthor stated that if he attempted to locate his mother she would be executed

 

[Cicada 5]

...most "Gamers" are like you.

...At least people like you are happier.

Chill out the passive-aggressiveness, please.

Thanks.

I think I may have missed the passive part of that post...

Because it's a piss poor representation of beloved characters? Superman straight up kills a guy 2 minutes into the film and Batman spends the whole movie murdering. The editing was shit, the visuals were okay to piss-poor. The lighting was awful for a lot of scenes. The Justice League e-mail cameo was pants on head retarded. Eisenberg was awful. Also, Superman acts just like Batman now which takes away any dynamic they can have together. Only Batman gets to mope around, not Superman. Snyder is a hack. Goyer should be fired and banned from writing any comic book movies ever again. I really fucking hate that movie.

So much this. I can't help but laugh when people defending this movie say it is too "adult and complex" for us normal people to understand since we're used to "kiddie movies" from Marvel. Being grimdark and humorless about everything is not adult, it is teenaged goth at best, and there is little complexity to these two murdering vigilantes that are upset that the other is a murdering vigilante so they try to murder each other. That is laughably bad without adding the fact that it is Batman and Superman that they turned into the murdering vigilantes. There is more adult motivations and complex storytelling in Civil War than there is in the collected works of Goyer and Snyder. Yes there are jokes. I'll let you in on a little secret that I figured out as an adult. We still like making jokes. Believe it or not, we even like having fun from time to time.

I think the term "grimdark" is being misapplied here. When I think grimdark I think Watchmen or V for Vendetta. MoS and BvS are just being a bit more serious about their universe and how these characters would be like in a realistic world. There's nothing wrong with the family friendly approach but it's far from the only way to portray superheroes and the comics have used different tones for decades. This was far from the darkest Superman has been and given we are talking about a guy who can only make sense of a random mugging by putting on a Halloween and beating people up, this version of Batman is not that far off.

Also, this Superman is like Batman in only a few superficial ways and murder is not how any of his killings can be described at all.

 

[mduncan50]

I think the term "grimdark" is being misapplied here. When I think grimdark I think Watchmen or V for Vendetta. MoS and BvS are just being a bit more serious about their universe and how these characters would be like in a realistic world. There's nothing wrong with the family friendly approach but it's far from the only way to portray superheroes and the comics have used different tones for decades. This was far from the darkest Superman has been and given we are talking about a guy who can only make sense of a random mugging by putting on a Halloween and beating people up, this version of Batman is not that far off.

Also, this Superman is like Batman in only a few superficial ways and murder is not how any of his killings can be described at all.

From Wikipedia:
Grimdark is a subgenre or a way to describe the tone, style or setting of speculative fiction (especially fantasy) that is, depending on the definition used, markedly dystopian or amoral, or particularly violent or realistic.

I think it is applied perfectly.

 

[Hawki]

I think the term "grimdark" is being misapplied here. When I think grimdark I think Watchmen or V for Vendetta. MoS and BvS are just being a bit more serious about their universe and how these characters would be like in a realistic world. There's nothing wrong with the family friendly approach but it's far from the only way to portray superheroes and the comics have used different tones for decades. This was far from the darkest Superman has been and given we are talking about a guy who can only make sense of a random mugging by putting on a Halloween and beating people up, this version of Batman is not that far off.

Also, this Superman is like Batman in only a few superficial ways and murder is not how any of his killings can be described at all.

From Wikipedia:
Grimdark is a subgenre or a way to describe the tone, style or setting of speculative fiction (especially fantasy) that is, depending on the definition used, markedly dystopian or amoral, or particularly violent or realistic.

I think it is applied perfectly.

Wait, what?

Dystopian? Nup. Amoral? Not really - there's clearly defined protagonists and antagonists. Particuarly violent? No more than any other action movie. Realistic? There's two guys in capes, one woman dressed up like Xena, a giant cave troll, and a green sparkly rock mcguffin. Maybe 'realistic' by the standards of the superhero genre, but certainly not realistic.

 

[mduncan50]

I think the term "grimdark" is being misapplied here. When I think grimdark I think Watchmen or V for Vendetta. MoS and BvS are just being a bit more serious about their universe and how these characters would be like in a realistic world. There's nothing wrong with the family friendly approach but it's far from the only way to portray superheroes and the comics have used different tones for decades. This was far from the darkest Superman has been and given we are talking about a guy who can only make sense of a random mugging by putting on a Halloween and beating people up, this version of Batman is not that far off.

Also, this Superman is like Batman in only a few superficial ways and murder is not how any of his killings can be described at all.

From Wikipedia:
Grimdark is a subgenre or a way to describe the tone, style or setting of speculative fiction (especially fantasy) that is, depending on the definition used, markedly dystopian or amoral, or particularly violent or realistic.

I think it is applied perfectly.

Wait, what?

Dystopian? Nup. Amoral? Not really - there's clearly defined protagonists and antagonists. Particuarly violent? No more than any other action movie. Realistic? There's two guys in capes, one woman dressed up like Xena, a giant cave troll, and a green sparkly rock mcguffin. Maybe 'realistic' by the standards of the superhero genre, but certainly not realistic.

Dystopian? Metropolis is continuously being destroyed, and Gotham is prototypical noir dystopia, it always has been. Amoral? Your "heroes" are killing people and trying to kill each other. Violence I would judge from the R-Rated cut, but no, not particularly bad in the theatrical, though still lots of killing. Realistic? Why is this the only time there is no DC fanboys screaming about how awesome this movie is because it's heroes done realistically.

Bottom line is the Nolan Batman films were grimdark, and were celebrated as such because it worked for that character and those movies. Now DC is trying to Nolanize all of their superhero films by making them grimdark as well, and it just doesn't work for characters or stories they are using.

 

[Kyman102]

They actually go out of their way to show that Superman tries to save everyone this time (we don't even see him kill that black guy at the beginning, he moves too fast).

Okay, maybe I'm missing context here, but does this imply that Superman just kills a guy in the start of BvS?

If that's the case, no, I'm going to agree that that is a PISS POOR representation of Superman.

 

[mduncan50]

They actually go out of their way to show that Superman tries to save everyone this time (we don't even see him kill that black guy at the beginning, he moves too fast).

Okay, maybe I'm missing context here, but does this imply that Superman just kills a guy in the start of BvS?

If that's the case, no, I'm going to agree that that is a PISS POOR representation of Superman.

If I remember correctly, they don't explicitly show if the guy dies or not, but a guy (normal unarmored human) holding Lois at gunpoint is driven by the shoulders through two separate thick brick walls with little to no resistance. if he survived he will never move anything below his neck again. And if so many Snyder apologists will claim that Supes killed Zod in Superman II because it showed him falling without landing (both the script and extended cut explicitly have all of the Kryptonians survive) then I'll count it, because this is a much more violent possible death.

 

[Kyman102]

If I remember correctly, they don't explicitly show if the guy dies or not, but a guy (normal unarmored human) holding Lois at gunpoint is driven by the shoulders through two separate thick brick walls with little to no resistance. if he survived he will never move anything below his neck again. And if so many Snyder apologists will claim that Supes killed Zod in Superman II because it showed him falling without landing (both the script and extended cut explicitly have all of the Kryptonians survive) then I'll count it, because this is a much more violent possible death.

... Couldn't Superman have just taken the gun away?! Like, appeared next to the guy, taken the gun, and broken it?

 

[tzimize]

The thing I hate about most regarding Batman v Superman is that how much of a self fufilling prophecy this ended up becoming.

What could have been simply a Man of Steel 2 became this. It started with just bringing in Batman for damage control after the "failure" of Man of Steel. Because sadly and no one wants to admit it, no one likes Superman. If you end up having Superman doing exactly what you expect Superman to do, everyone will complain that he is too OP and too one dimensional to be an interesting character.

Then they showed Wonder Woman and called the movie Dawn of Justice and that title got mocked aswell.

Then Jesse Eisenberg was casted as Lex Luthor and everyone wanted Bryan fuckin Cranston as Lex jsut because he's bald in Breaking Bad

Then one trailer revealed Doomsday which honestly his design does not look as terrible as the earlier concept designs they were going with:

https://40.media.tumblr.com/dea14715627a4c2afc37766c32996806/tumblr_o52bswMSj91rov369o6_1280.jpg

Then the movie comes out and people are treating it as a disaster of Mengele proportions. Even people on youtube who never reviews movies before suddenly reviews it. Appearently the prospect of a Batman and Superman movie was that big.

Honestly I feel none of this would have happened if no one said anything bad about Man of Steel. If no one criticized Man of Steel we would have had a Man of Steel 2 and a stand alone Batman movie.

And now Civil War came out and of course people are saying this is how BvS should have been.

And now I dread the possibility of DC changing the tone and direction of the movies because of that rumor of Snyder and WB having disputes and the directors for DC movies like Flash and Aquaman has left.

No just no keep the tone the way it is other wise if it ends up being exactly like the MCU it will be increadibly redundant I mean there is already a Superhero bubble so why should DC end up looking more like the MCU in the exact tone and look?

I just want my Zack Snyder DC movies because he has talent he knows how to make Comic Boook movies he proclaims he grew up reading comic books and I believe him and he makes action that is 10x better then any movie I have seen in theaters. And he is NOT MICHAEL BAY!!

Its so fuckin unfair that things I really want to see happen is being taken away from me. I want that Justice League movie with Zack Snyder's style and sadly the movie community is against it

The thing about znyder is, he just cant write. He has made 2 good movies to my knowledge. 300 and Watchmen. Both good movies in their own way (if you like that sort of thing), but he already had the source material, and 300 is not exactly Shakespeare.

He can direct relatively well, but no matter how you look at it BvS was a fucking MESS.

Man of Steel was a mixed bag for me. When I came out of the theatre I wanted to murder Znyder for doing what he did to superman, but when I had time to cool off...I could see that many of the things that was done was ok.

Pa Kent: This never bothered me too much, and in time I appreciate that he didnt want Clark to expose himself. He just didnt trust people that much. Which is FINE, it actually adds something to Clarks character, and gives him something emotional to overcome. Its a good thing.

Emo Supes: It was ok in Man of steel. It was a butterfly story, he was becoming Superman, he didnt start out that way.

The destruction/failure to save EVERYONE: It was fine. It was the "realistic" side of superhero movies. If superman had to fight someone as powerful as himself, what are the odds, really, that he would be able to dictate the fight? Slim to none.

However, as soon as BvS was announced I was sceptical, and I was wrong. It was a lot worse than I expected.

1; Emos everywhere: If both Supes and Bats are emos, they cant bounce off each other. They need to be different, or they wont work together. This was my thought before the movie, and it was confirmed in the worst kind of way.

2; Crazy lex: I dont care if it was lex's son or whatever. IT WAS A BAD LEX. His acting was all over the place, inconsistent, and for a person that unstable to outsmart the greatest detective ever....lame. SO lame.

3; Screentime: For some reason, that governor-lady got a hell of a lot of screentime. No one cared about her, and no one wanted to know anything about her. Why couldnt we had some more character development of lois, or clark, or bats?

4; visions/dreams: Absolutely unecessary and wholly time-consuming without furthering the plot.

5; walking in straw in slow motion: Holy fucking slow-mo Znyder! I realise he likes it, but when every second scene is in slow motion it kinda loses its impact. In addition it is eating up valuable time for characterization.

Man of steel was a mixed bag. For my own part I ended up liking it more than I disliked it.

BvS was a trainwreck of epic proportions. It failed on more or less every conceivable level, and was simply a BAD movie.

If Znyder is kicked off the team I will be exctatic. If he stays he needs some GOOD writers, and some strict direction himself.

 

[mduncan50]

If I remember correctly, they don't explicitly show if the guy dies or not, but a guy (normal unarmored human) holding Lois at gunpoint is driven by the shoulders through two separate thick brick walls with little to no resistance. if he survived he will never move anything below his neck again. And if so many Snyder apologists will claim that Supes killed Zod in Superman II because it showed him falling without landing (both the script and extended cut explicitly have all of the Kryptonians survive) then I'll count it, because this is a much more violent possible death.

... Couldn't Superman have just taken the gun away?! Like, appeared next to the guy, taken the gun, and broken it?

Yes...yes he could have. If he wanted to teach the guy a lesson for messing with his girl then he could have broken his arm before the bad guy even knew he was in the room.

The destruction/failure to save EVERYONE: It was fine. It was the "realistic" side of superhero movies. If superman had to fight someone as powerful as himself, what are the odds, really, that he would be able to dictate the fight? Slim to none.

I've got to disagree with this one personally. It's not about a failure to save everyone, it's about not showing any attempt to save people, and the fact that for every building Zod destroyed Superman destroyed one too. Compare that to the first Avengers, where they are facing a superior force, and nearly every aspect of Cap's battle plan is keeping the invading alien army penned into a radius of a few blocks to limit the destruction and to funnel the civilians out to safety. Cap even takes a break in the action to direct some nearby cops on how to most efficiently and safely evacuate the citizen given their battle strategy.

 

[tzimize]

If I remember correctly, they don't explicitly show if the guy dies or not, but a guy (normal unarmored human) holding Lois at gunpoint is driven by the shoulders through two separate thick brick walls with little to no resistance. if he survived he will never move anything below his neck again. And if so many Snyder apologists will claim that Supes killed Zod in Superman II because it showed him falling without landing (both the script and extended cut explicitly have all of the Kryptonians survive) then I'll count it, because this is a much more violent possible death.

... Couldn't Superman have just taken the gun away?! Like, appeared next to the guy, taken the gun, and broken it?

Yes...yes he could have. If he wanted to teach the guy a lesson for messing with his girl then he could have broken his arm before the bad guy even knew he was in the room.

The destruction/failure to save EVERYONE: It was fine. It was the "realistic" side of superhero movies. If superman had to fight someone as powerful as himself, what are the odds, really, that he would be able to dictate the fight? Slim to none.

I've got to disagree with this one personally. It's not about a failure to save everyone, it's about not showing any attempt to save people, and the fact that for every building Zod destroyed Superman destroyed one too. Compare that to the first Avengers, where they are facing a superior force, and nearly every aspect of Cap's battle plan is keeping the invading alien army penned into a radius of a few blocks to limit the destruction and to funnel the civilians out to safety. Cap even takes a break in the action to direct some nearby cops on how to most efficiently and safely evacuate the citizen given their battle strategy.

Yes of course. Which is fine when you're not up against anything but mooks with zero powers. In Avenger the invaders were a buffed up alien military.

When the invader is essentially a Superman with no mercy and a strategic military mind...I willing to bet things would have looked different.

As I said, its a more realistic view of superhero fighting. And the result was much a part of the storytelling. Avengers were about the Avengers manning up together and becoming a team. The fight reflected that. Plus...with aliens flying around and shooting lasers...Caps Options are relatively limited seeing as he is not exactly a "high level" superhero. Man of steel was about Superman choosing a side and revealing himself to the world. Not so much about his savior thing.

Could superman have flown off to lure Zod? Sure. But honestly, why the hell would Zod follow? Zod was right where he wanted to be, if he killed Clark right then, or later....why should he care? Clark was on the offensive and on the clock. Kinda hard to dictate the fight then.

 

[Hawki]

Dystopian? Metropolis is continuously being destroyed, and Gotham is prototypical noir dystopia, it always has been. Amoral? Your "heroes" are killing people and trying to kill each other. Violence I would judge from the R-Rated cut, but no, not particularly bad in the theatrical, though still lots of killing. Realistic? Why is this the only time there is no DC fanboys screaming about how awesome this movie is because it's heroes done realistically.

Bottom line is the Nolan Batman films were grimdark, and were celebrated as such because it worked for that character and those movies. Now DC is trying to Nolanize all of their superhero films by making them grimdark as well, and it just doesn't work for characters or stories they are using.

"Your heroes?" I thought I made it quite clear by now that I don't even like BvS. But that said, if you're going to criticize it, at least keep the criticism honest.

So, dystopia. Metropolis has been leveled once, and being continuously destroyed isn't dystopia (hello, Power Rangers, Evangelion, Godzilla, etc.). Dystopia refers more to the society of a setting and/or standard of living, usually exploring a concept or hypothetical "what if?" Brave New World, 1984, and Farenheit 451 are all examples of dystopias. There's plenty of examples among fiction of that. A city being destroyed once isn't dystopia. It says nothing on the political/social/cultural environment of a setting. Gotham comes closer to dystopia, but Gotham is just a city wrecked by crime and corruption. That's not unheard of in the real world, and it's used more as an environment for Batman, whereas in something like Blade Runner, the setting of Los Angeles is part of the worldbuilding, illustrating environmental devastation, the gap between rich and poor, etc.

Second of all, amoral. First, I agree that both Batman and Superman are generally unlikable in the film, but the film is still wanting you to root for them. Compare this to something like Warhammer 40,000 or A Song of Ice and Fire - there's no "good side" or "good guys," just varying shades of gray in a grim setting. BvS coming off as amoral is more a flaw in its writing, rather than a statement of intent. So no, I don't think it counts as amoral in the same sense as other genuinely grimdark settings.

And ending with violence and realism, what does that have to do with anything? Lots of things are violent and realistic. I can't even call BvS the latter.

So no, whatever flaws BvS has, it doesn't meet the criteria of being "grimdark" in my eyes. And I don't think "grimdark" should ever be used as an inherent negative, unless we start using terms like "happylite" to balance it out.

 

[mduncan50]

If I remember correctly, they don't explicitly show if the guy dies or not, but a guy (normal unarmored human) holding Lois at gunpoint is driven by the shoulders through two separate thick brick walls with little to no resistance. if he survived he will never move anything below his neck again. And if so many Snyder apologists will claim that Supes killed Zod in Superman II because it showed him falling without landing (both the script and extended cut explicitly have all of the Kryptonians survive) then I'll count it, because this is a much more violent possible death.

... Couldn't Superman have just taken the gun away?! Like, appeared next to the guy, taken the gun, and broken it?

Yes...yes he could have. If he wanted to teach the guy a lesson for messing with his girl then he could have broken his arm before the bad guy even knew he was in the room.

The destruction/failure to save EVERYONE: It was fine. It was the "realistic" side of superhero movies. If superman had to fight someone as powerful as himself, what are the odds, really, that he would be able to dictate the fight? Slim to none.

I've got to disagree with this one personally. It's not about a failure to save everyone, it's about not showing any attempt to save people, and the fact that for every building Zod destroyed Superman destroyed one too. Compare that to the first Avengers, where they are facing a superior force, and nearly every aspect of Cap's battle plan is keeping the invading alien army penned into a radius of a few blocks to limit the destruction and to funnel the civilians out to safety. Cap even takes a break in the action to direct some nearby cops on how to most efficiently and safely evacuate the citizen given their battle strategy.

Yes of course. Which is fine when you're not up against anything but mooks with zero powers. In Avenger the invaders were a buffed up alien military.

When the invader is essentially a Superman with no mercy and a strategic military mind...I willing to bet things would have looked different.

As I said, its a more realistic view of superhero fighting. And the result was much a part of the storytelling. Avengers were about the Avengers manning up together and becoming a team. The fight reflected that. Plus...with aliens flying around and shooting lasers...Caps Options are relatively limited seeing as he is not exactly a "high level" superhero. Man of steel was about Superman choosing a side and revealing himself to the world. Not so much about his savior thing.

Could superman have flown off to lure Zod? Sure. But honestly, why the hell would Zod follow? Zod was right where he wanted to be, if he killed Clark right then, or later....why should he care? Clark was on the offensive and on the clock. Kinda hard to dictate the fight then.

So a one on one fight against a guy that is equally powerful as the hero is the more difficult fight compared to the one where six people are fighting an army of thousands?

Also one of the things that bugged me the most about Superman snapping Zod's neck at the end, beyond the whole "Superman doesn't do that" thing, is that if he WAS willing to kill this mass murderer, couldn't he have done it a few tens of thousands of casualties ago?

 

[mduncan50]

Dystopian? Metropolis is continuously being destroyed, and Gotham is prototypical noir dystopia, it always has been. Amoral? Your "heroes" are killing people and trying to kill each other. Violence I would judge from the R-Rated cut, but no, not particularly bad in the theatrical, though still lots of killing. Realistic? Why is this the only time there is no DC fanboys screaming about how awesome this movie is because it's heroes done realistically.

Bottom line is the Nolan Batman films were grimdark, and were celebrated as such because it worked for that character and those movies. Now DC is trying to Nolanize all of their superhero films by making them grimdark as well, and it just doesn't work for characters or stories they are using.

"Your heroes?" I thought I made it quite clear by now that I don't even like BvS. But that said, if you're going to criticize it, at least keep the criticism honest.

So, dystopia. Metropolis has been leveled once, and being continuously destroyed isn't dystopia (hello, Power Rangers, Evangelion, Godzilla, etc.). Dystopia refers more to the society of a setting and/or standard of living, usually exploring a concept or hypothetical "what if?" Brave New World, 1984, and Farenheit 451 are all examples of dystopias. There's plenty of examples among fiction of that. A city being destroyed once isn't dystopia. It says nothing on the political/social/cultural environment of a setting. Gotham comes closer to dystopia, but Gotham is just a city wrecked by crime and corruption. That's not unheard of in the real world, and it's used more as an environment for Batman, whereas in something like Blade Runner, the setting of Los Angeles is part of the worldbuilding, illustrating environmental devastation, the gap between rich and poor, etc.

Second of all, amoral. First, I agree that both Batman and Superman are generally unlikable in the film, but the film is still wanting you to root for them. Compare this to something like Warhammer 40,000 or A Song of Ice and Fire - there's no "good side" or "good guys," just varying shades of gray in a grim setting. BvS coming off as amoral is more a flaw in its writing, rather than a statement of intent. So no, I don't think it counts as amoral in the same sense as other genuinely grimdark settings.

And ending with violence and realism, what does that have to do with anything? Lots of things are violent and realistic. I can't even call BvS the latter.

So no, whatever flaws BvS has, it doesn't meet the criteria of being "grimdark" in my eyes. And I don't think "grimdark" should ever be used as an inherent negative, unless we start using terms like "happylite" to balance it out.

I don't consider grimdark to be an inherent negative, as I said, it worked quite well in the Nolan Batman movies. It is when it is being used with settings and characters that it doesn't make sense with that it becomes an issue. Like, happylite is perfectly fine for the Care Bear's movie, but would be a terrible tone for the upcoming Killing Joke movie. We can agree to disagree on this one.

Oh, and when I said 'Your "heroes"' I was simply meaning that they were the characters that the movie was presenting to the audience as the heroes, not that you personally were a devotee. (It's okay if you are though, I wont tell anyone)

 

[Cicada 5]

If I remember correctly, they don't explicitly show if the guy dies or not, but a guy (normal unarmored human) holding Lois at gunpoint is driven by the shoulders through two separate thick brick walls with little to no resistance. if he survived he will never move anything below his neck again. And if so many Snyder apologists will claim that Supes killed Zod in Superman II because it showed him falling without landing (both the script and extended cut explicitly have all of the Kryptonians survive) then I'll count it, because this is a much more violent possible death.

... Couldn't Superman have just taken the gun away?! Like, appeared next to the guy, taken the gun, and broken it?

Yes...yes he could have. If he wanted to teach the guy a lesson for messing with his girl then he could have broken his arm before the bad guy even knew he was in the room.

The destruction/failure to save EVERYONE: It was fine. It was the "realistic" side of superhero movies. If superman had to fight someone as powerful as himself, what are the odds, really, that he would be able to dictate the fight? Slim to none.

I've got to disagree with this one personally. It's not about a failure to save everyone, it's about not showing any attempt to save people, and the fact that for every building Zod destroyed Superman destroyed one too. Compare that to the first Avengers, where they are facing a superior force, and nearly every aspect of Cap's battle plan is keeping the invading alien army penned into a radius of a few blocks to limit the destruction and to funnel the civilians out to safety. Cap even takes a break in the action to direct some nearby cops on how to most efficiently and safely evacuate the citizen given their battle strategy.

Yes of course. Which is fine when you're not up against anything but mooks with zero powers. In Avenger the invaders were a buffed up alien military.

When the invader is essentially a Superman with no mercy and a strategic military mind...I willing to bet things would have looked different.

As I said, its a more realistic view of superhero fighting. And the result was much a part of the storytelling. Avengers were about the Avengers manning up together and becoming a team. The fight reflected that. Plus...with aliens flying around and shooting lasers...Caps Options are relatively limited seeing as he is not exactly a "high level" superhero. Man of steel was about Superman choosing a side and revealing himself to the world. Not so much about his savior thing.

Could superman have flown off to lure Zod? Sure. But honestly, why the hell would Zod follow? Zod was right where he wanted to be, if he killed Clark right then, or later....why should he care? Clark was on the offensive and on the clock. Kinda hard to dictate the fight then.

If I remember correctly, they don't explicitly show if the guy dies or not, but a guy (normal unarmored human) holding Lois at gunpoint is driven by the shoulders through two separate thick brick walls with little to no resistance. if he survived he will never move anything below his neck again. And if so many Snyder apologists will claim that Supes killed Zod in Superman II because it showed him falling without landing (both the script and extended cut explicitly have all of the Kryptonians survive) then I'll count it, because this is a much more violent possible death.

... Couldn't Superman have just taken the gun away?! Like, appeared next to the guy, taken the gun, and broken it?

Yes...yes he could have. If he wanted to teach the guy a lesson for messing with his girl then he could have broken his arm before the bad guy even knew he was in the room.

The destruction/failure to save EVERYONE: It was fine. It was the "realistic" side of superhero movies. If superman had to fight someone as powerful as himself, what are the odds, really, that he would be able to dictate the fight? Slim to none.

I've got to disagree with this one personally. It's not about a failure to save everyone, it's about not showing any attempt to save people, and the fact that for every building Zod destroyed Superman destroyed one too. Compare that to the first Avengers, where they are facing a superior force, and nearly every aspect of Cap's battle plan is keeping the invading alien army penned into a radius of a few blocks to limit the destruction and to funnel the civilians out to safety. Cap even takes a break in the action to direct some nearby cops on how to most efficiently and safely evacuate the citizen given their battle strategy.

The Avengers were a team of six against enemies that were as threatening as the Putties from Power Rangers. Steve takes a shot to the stomach from one of them and is never seen needing any medical attention. Almost everytime Superman engaged the Kryptonians he was outnumbered while fighting enemies more ruthless and experienced in battle.

And no Superman does not destroy any building unless you count being thrown into them by Zod as destroying them and even then we saw some of them as empty.

 

[Cicada 5]

If I remember correctly, they don't explicitly show if the guy dies or not, but a guy (normal unarmored human) holding Lois at gunpoint is driven by the shoulders through two separate thick brick walls with little to no resistance. if he survived he will never move anything below his neck again. And if so many Snyder apologists will claim that Supes killed Zod in Superman II because it showed him falling without landing (both the script and extended cut explicitly have all of the Kryptonians survive) then I'll count it, because this is a much more violent possible death.

... Couldn't Superman have just taken the gun away?! Like, appeared next to the guy, taken the gun, and broken it?

Yes...yes he could have. If he wanted to teach the guy a lesson for messing with his girl then he could have broken his arm before the bad guy even knew he was in the room.

The destruction/failure to save EVERYONE: It was fine. It was the "realistic" side of superhero movies. If superman had to fight someone as powerful as himself, what are the odds, really, that he would be able to dictate the fight? Slim to none.

I've got to disagree with this one personally. It's not about a failure to save everyone, it's about not showing any attempt to save people, and the fact that for every building Zod destroyed Superman destroyed one too. Compare that to the first Avengers, where they are facing a superior force, and nearly every aspect of Cap's battle plan is keeping the invading alien army penned into a radius of a few blocks to limit the destruction and to funnel the civilians out to safety. Cap even takes a break in the action to direct some nearby cops on how to most efficiently and safely evacuate the citizen given their battle strategy.

Yes of course. Which is fine when you're not up against anything but mooks with zero powers. In Avenger the invaders were a buffed up alien military.

When the invader is essentially a Superman with no mercy and a strategic military mind...I willing to bet things would have looked different.

As I said, its a more realistic view of superhero fighting. And the result was much a part of the storytelling. Avengers were about the Avengers manning up together and becoming a team. The fight reflected that. Plus...with aliens flying around and shooting lasers...Caps Options are relatively limited seeing as he is not exactly a "high level" superhero. Man of steel was about Superman choosing a side and revealing himself to the world. Not so much about his savior thing.

Could superman have flown off to lure Zod? Sure. But honestly, why the hell would Zod follow? Zod was right where he wanted to be, if he killed Clark right then, or later....why should he care? Clark was on the offensive and on the clock. Kinda hard to dictate the fight then.

So a one on one fight against a guy that is equally powerful as the hero is the more difficult fight compared to the one where six people are fighting an army of thousands?

Also one of the things that bugged me the most about Superman snapping Zod's neck at the end, beyond the whole "Superman doesn't do that" thing, is that if he WAS willing to kill this mass murderer, couldn't he have done it a few tens of thousands of casualties ago?

1) Yes fighting a guy who is growing more powerful by the minute and has tons more experience in combat is more difficult than enemies who are as durable as the Putties from Power Rangers and the aim of Stormtroopers.

2) Also one of the things that bugged me the most about Superman snapping Zod's neck at the end, beyond the whole "Superman doesn't do that" thing, is that if he WAS willing to kill this mass murderer, couldn't he have done it a few tens of thousands of casualties ago?

I am always baffled by this question. Ignoring the fact that Zod is not easy to kill to begin with, it's obvious that this Superman had never killed before and had no desire to do so. You can clearly see this when he BREAKS DOWN IN TEARS AFTER KILLING ZOD. He's not a soldier or an assassin he's just a guy who found himself in a crappy situation and performed as best as he could given the circumstances. He didn't come into this situation with the intent to kill anyone (that;s why they come up with the plan to use the Phantom Zone projector) but wound up doing so when faced with no other option.

That'e even leaving out that not only has Superman killed in the comics before but he has also committed actions far more questionable than killing enemy combatants.

 

[mduncan50]

The Avengers were a team of six against enemies that were as threatening as the Putties from Power Rangers. Steve takes a shot to the stomach from one of them and is never seen needing any medical attention. Almost everytime Superman engaged the Kryptonians he was outnumbered while fighting enemies more ruthless and experienced in battle.

And no Superman does not destroy any building unless you count being thrown into them by Zod as destroying them and even then we saw some of them as empty.

More ruthless and experienced in battle? Maybe. They've also had their powers for only a couple of days... some of them for only minutes. They just got to Earth, where the gravity differential gives them some of their powers, while most of them aren't unlocked for them until they're out of their bio-suits.

And yes, poor cg Superman was throwing poor cg Zod into buildings as well, and I saw no empty buildings. I saw the one rooftop they were stayed for a few seconds as being under construction, so it's possible that the rest of the building was as well, but every other building had plenty of lights on and there were constant shots of people in the streets watching and traffic everywhere. I mean hell, Superman was the one that threw Zod into Grand Central or whatever the Metropolis equivalent is, which was chock full of people. And they started from space at that point! Sure, Zod started them on the way down, but once Supes got the upper hand he could have tried to stay up there or veer away from the people, but nope, right into the goshdarn heart of the city.