DC Movies- if at first you don't succeed...

[BoloOfEarth]

Dammit, I read the comments again.

 

You should know better by now. 

[Bazza]

Read the OP again and chuckled. 

[bigdamnhero]

I think DC lives in terror of Cloony/Schumachrer's Batman And Robin being their legacy.  So they are striving with everything they have to never have a single moment like the old 60s Batman show.

I think fear of Green Lantern looms larger. That's apparently the film that led to the "no jokes" policy. Thank Odin Marvel didn't draw the same conclusion from Incredible Hulk, or we might've wound up with a "no CGI" policy for the MCU?

[zslane]

The upcoming DCEU movies need a lot more than just tonal adjustments if they are going to be any good.

[BoloOfEarth]

Dammit, I read the comments again.

 

A further addition.  I read some comments, and found this one hilarious:

 

 

 

This is good news, Booster Gold might use that new style of cinema called colour if it's not in the DCEU.

[slikmar]

I like Johns writing and comcis he has done, but I am slightly worried that he went and rewrote the WW movie. I am hoping he did not rewrite the stuff we have seen that looks good so far.

[Lord Liaden]

The report I heard is that principle photography on the movie had already wrapped, and the film was in post-production, before the first trailer was released. It's unlikely they'll be making major changes to the movie at this point. Especially since most of the people who saw that trailer have been raving over it.

[Christopher]

I do not see what all the hate/fear regarding DC is.

If you cut past the stupid cutting done for the Theatrical release (or life in a country like germany, where they were cutting a bit more sanely) the story makes absolute sense and matches perfectly.

Watch a Few Cinema Wins on teh mater, it puts all that "so bad" stuff into context:

 

 

Still have to watch Suicide Squad but as I heard they cut the important Joker scenes out. Again those losses on the cutting room floor.

 

And stop watching Cinema Sins. They went all overboard with "finding mistakes that do not actually exist for a high score". In How to Train your Dragon 2 - a children movie - they recently complained about "too few deaths".

[Starlord]

The plots were ok, the movies were adequately directed and the acting is solid.  However, I don't want a Superman who is pouty, carelessly destructive on a massive scale and kills his enemies and I definitely don't want my Batman to be an ultra-violent casual killer who attempted to murder said Superman. 

[zslane]

The Batman in BvS is a Batman near the end of his career, hardened and embittered by the crusade. It is perhaps the unfortunate consequence of a culture that demands a more realistic psychological demeanor from a hero tormented by so many years of fighting psychotic maniacs.

[Christopher]

The plots were ok, the movies were adequately directed and the acting is solid.  However, I don't want a Superman who is pouty, carelessly destructive on a massive scale and kills his enemies and I definitely don't want my Batman to be an ultra-violent casual killer who attempted to murder said Superman. 

Superman:

He was outnumbered.

An absolute beginner.

And he was not willing to damn the last people of his race to death/fate worse then death just on the word of his space-dead-ghost, without at least talking with them first.

He tried to stop Zod without killing he. He tried his best. But he failed. Killing him was the only way he could save that familiy Zod was about to murder just to hurt him.

How is that not like Superman?

 

Batman:

Batman was world weary by the time Superman appeared. He had propably lost 2-4 Robins and Batgirl by that time.

He was only a human against enemies that used weapons. He did try to disarm them when possible (as seen when saving Martha). But they were still armead with weapons and threathened innocents.

Except for the Goons Luthor hired to smuggle radioactive Material into the country.

Only the contact with Superman made him remember the good guy in himself, as can be seen near the end.

Seems pretty human of him.

[Starlord]

Superman:

He was outnumbered.

An absolute beginner.

And he was not willing to damn the last people of his race to death/fate worse then death just on the word of his space-dead-ghost, without at least talking with them first.

He tried to stop Zod without killing he. He tried his best. But he failed. Killing him was the only way he could save that familiy Zod was about to murder just to hurt him.

How is that not like Superman?

 

Batman:

Batman was world weary by the time Superman appeared. He had propably lost 2-4 Robins and Batgirl by that time.

He was only a human against enemies that used weapons. He did try to disarm them when possible (as seen when saving Martha). But they were still armead with weapons and threathened innocents.

Except for the Goons Luthor hired to smuggle radioactive Material into the country.

Only the contact with Superman made him remember the good guy in himself, as can be seen near the end.

Seems pretty human of him.

 

Two situations that have happened a thousand times before.  Superman is always outnumbered.  Batman fights guys with guns.  World weary?  He BRANDED a guy.  I'll go watch Punisher on Netflix when I want see bad guys tortured for no reason.  Again, you wondered why these movies might be disliked.  I don't want a Superman who is pouty, carelessly destructive on a massive scale and kills his enemies and I definitely don't want my Batman to be an ultra-violent casual killer who attempted to murder said Superman.

[Twilight]

Two situations that have happened a thousand times before.  Superman is always outnumbered.  Batman fights guys with guns.  World weary?  He BRANDED a guy.  I'll go watch Punisher on Netflix when I want see bad guys tortured for no reason.  Again, you wondered why these movies might be disliked.  I don't want a Superman who is pouty, carelessly destructive on a massive scale and kills his enemies and I definitely don't want my Batman to be an ultra-violent casual killer who attempted to murder said Superman.

To be fair, most of the destruction in Metropolis was caused by Zod's terraforming machine not by Superman.

[Old Man]

Of course Superman would kill a bad guy to save innocents, if he was backed into a corner with no other choice. But that's not a Superman story. The point of a Superman story is that the strong have a duty to act morally and lawfully. The point of MoS was that Superman's philosophy is hopelessly naive, and the whole story was about his struggle to finally abandon the moral code that was holding him back.

[slikmar]

I don't know why, but for some reason, I had actually thought the branding was something Luthor was doing to frame Batman so Supes would go after him. I admit I could be wrong, but that is the impression I came away with.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Of course Superman would kill a bad guy to save innocents, if he was backed into a corner with no other choice. But that's not a Superman story. The point of a Superman story is that the strong have a duty to act morally and lawfully. The point of MoS was that Superman's philosophy is hopelessly naive, and the whole story was about his struggle to finally abandon the moral code that was holding him back.

Oh, come on! The one thing we know about Superman is that he doesn't like killing people. (Or squash.) Well, how do you know that you don't like killing people (or squash) until you've tried it? Hunh?

[Iuz the Evil]

Oh, come on! The one thing we know about Superman is that he doesn't like killing people. (Or squash.) Well, how do you know that you don't like killing people (or squash) until you've tried it? Hunh?

And that he likes beef bourgogne with katsup. And that his solid Midwestern values instilled by his adoptive parents serve as a moral compass. And that he's got a fetish for alliterative names. Among other things.

 

But yes, total code vs killing.

[Starlord]

I don't know why, but for some reason, I had actually thought the branding was something Luthor was doing to frame Batman so Supes would go after him. I admit I could be wrong, but that is the impression I came away with.

 

Apparently, its become a regular thing since they state in the movie that the brand is a death sentence for any criminal who has it. 

[Christopher]

Two situations that have happened a thousand times before.  Superman is always outnumbered.  Batman fights guys with guns.  World weary?  He BRANDED a guy. [...] I don't want a Superman who is pouty, carelessly destructive on a massive scale and kills his enemies and I definitely don't want my Batman to be an ultra-violent casual killer who attempted to murder said Superman.

It never happened in a Univese where a gun is a HKA, Batman has only about normal human defenses and no enemy has a CvK.

 

Of course Superman would kill a bad guy to save innocents, if he was backed into a corner with no other choice. But that's not a Superman story. The point of a Superman story is that the strong have a duty to act morally and lawfully. The point of MoS was that Superman's philosophy is hopelessly naive, and the whole story was about his struggle to finally abandon the moral code that was holding him back.

Actually, quite the opposite. He still tries to do the right thing. Him doing that despite it backfiring so often makes him the symbol he is.

Failure is the most important part of a heroes Journey.

You are depicting it as if he went: "Have to Fight Zod. Necksnap".

The ENTIRE FIGHT before that was him trying to subdue Zod WITHOUT snapping his neck.

 

Superman should not kill, even to save innocents?

Yet superman should not also not fight the villain to subdue him without killing him?

 

Then what should he do:

Ask the guy making a "I will make them suffer because you care about them" speech to take the fight somewhere else with less people around?

Should he just have not been there supermanning, letting humanty (and the women he felt strong atraction too) die from the Terraforming?

Should he just not have any film?

 

 

Batman is literally about "Striking fear into the heart of his enemies". That is WHY HE DRESSES UP LIKE A BAT. He was actually once considered for a Yellow Lantern Ring, so deeply is he rooted in the emotion fear. He literally wants "to scare the criminal intent out of Gothams Criminal Element". Branding a human trafficker/slaver seems rather in line with that.

"You either die a hero, or life long enough to becoem the villain". Batman is on the later path of that yourney after about 20 Years of Batmanning.

 

I don't know why, but for some reason, I had actually thought the branding was something Luthor was doing to frame Batman so Supes would go after him. I admit I could be wrong, but that is the impression I came away with.

Yes, Batman does Brand People in that Movie. However, Lex hires the other Inmate that Kills the branded Person as part of his Scheme to "let them fight". And how much those claims "the Bat Symbol is a death sentence" is actually true or just fabricated by Luther/Overdrawn by the press is not clear. We only ever see the one guy getting killed. Because LUTHOR HIRED A ASSASIN.

 

He also clearly abandons that practice, after being reminded of Superman that you can stay a hero.

 

Seriously guys, stop turning off your brains. Or at least watch EGA Batman v Superman. The answers are right there.

You are complaing "this math book has no value for Pi" while staring at the the two pages dealing only with Pi and mentioning it's value 5 times.

[Pattern Ghost]

Seriously guys, stop turning off your brains.

 

That's uncalled for. People having differing tastes doesn't make them stupid.

[Starlord]

Seriously guys, stop turning off your brains. Or at least watch EGA Batman v Superman. The answers are right there.

You are complaing "this math book has no value for Pi" while staring at the the two pages dealing only with Pi and mentioning it's value 5 times.

 

1.  Explanations for fundamentally changing the main characters, does not justify fundamentally changing the characters!

2.  Completely changing the main characters are not minor issues where I come from.  Actually, if you throw in the fact that Eisenberg is actually playing the Joker instead of Lex Luthor...that's 3 main characters BTW.

3.  Your insult is particularly ironic given that you seem to be the only one not listening to the fact that my (and others) issues come from a standpoint of taste/preference and tone.

[Ternaugh]

The fundamental sin of BvS for me was that it was frequently boring. I watched a streaming version of it on an airplane flight, and frequently checked the progress bar just to see how much of it was left. Near the halfway mark, I was sorely tempted to abandon it, and watch something more entertaining.

 

As far as Man of Steel goes, it wasn't necessarily a bad movie, but it certainly wasn't a good one, either. I've seen it once, and I really don't need to see it again. Snyder put a little too much Ayn Rand into Superman for my tastes, but I haven't really been a fan of his, anyway.

[Christopher R Taylor]

One of the parts of stories that is consistently satisfying is watching a hero who seems utterly without options, totally trapped and pinned down... finding a way to triumph anyway.  Superman over the decades has done this over and over (Batman, Spider-Man, etc as well): how to defeat the bad guy without murdering them.  This is the entire premise of the writing of Stephen Moffat (Dr Who, Sherlock): put your hero into impossible situations and yet they triumph.

 

Man of Steel set out deliberately to have him murder Zod.  The writing wrote him into a corner where it seemed like that was his only option, so its more gritty and badass, its EPIC! (sound of pounding music).  The negative zone projector is destroyed!  He can't banish them!  Take that, old Superman stories!

 

A good writer would have come up with a way for Superman to stop Zod and protect the city without murder.  A lazy one has him twist the guy's head, despite being unable to stop his head from turning because he's so strong (??).

[zslane]

A good writer would have come up with a way for Superman to stop Zod and protect the city without murder.  A lazy one has him twist the guy's head, despite being unable to stop his head from turning because he's so strong (??).

I think this is the most salient point of all.

 

We can't really talk about Superman as if he were a real person, because he's not. Everything he is and does is governed and constrained by the story that is written for him. It is meaningless to ask, "What would Superman do if given no choice but to kill an adversary?" because a competent writer (i.e., one who truly understands the character and the genre) would never put Superman in that position.

 

It reminds me of Star Trek, original series, in which Kirk looks like a genius most of the time because whenever he appears to be stuck having to choose between two truly awful options, the story (i.e., the writer) always manages to drum up a third option for him that saves the day. Saavik was spot on when she observed that Kirk had never faced a no-win scenario before, and she was in effect making a rather meta statement (as was Kirk with his retort about not believing in the no-win scenario) about the original series and the writing philosophy that drove it.

 

To my mind, a story in which Superman kills an enemy according to Machiavellian ethics is not a Superman story at all, but an ill-conceived distortion of one. Similarly, a story in which Batman kills/tortures criminals, or repeatedly brawls with Bane in futile contests of raw power, is not a Batman story at all, but a confused misappropriation of the character. I think that's why these movies fail: because they refuse to adhere to the accepted axioms of storytelling established for these characters.

[Nolgroth]

That's a pretty good reason for fans of those characters to be ticked off at MoS and BvS. As a person who is not a fan and only had passing familiarity with the core concepts that drive those characters, I enjoyed both movies (except for the Joker-Luther and the big CGI boss fight at the end of BvS) for what they were. If I were more invested in their comic book roots and the long passage of time, I might have been more angry. Sort of how I hated Spiderman 3. I was/am invested in Spiderman much more than the DC roster so that movie really stunk IMO. I never watched the reboot series and now I hear they are going to use the kid from Civil War in yet another reboot. I could just about kick every major executive at Sony in the ho-ho's for that travesty of justice. Point is, I get your distaste.