Not so sure about that... It's established that thousands died, but not because he was the root cause. He was fighting against a small Kryptonian army that wanted to exterminate the human race, i'm sure even humans would consider a couple of thousands "acceptable" collateral damage in that instance.
It's not like he went out of his way to make sure they died, he was just too busy to save them all.
It's not like he went out of his way to make sure they died, he was just too busy to save them all.
You saw the movie. You should be well aware of the innumerable plot holes and inconsistencies. It would be a waste of time for me to list them all here. (this was a Zack Snyder film, after all)
Suffice to say, the Superman portrayed in that movie was kind of a dick. Definitely not a beacon of hope, or an exemplar of personal restraint. And it was extremely odd that he spent far more time in the movie fighting, than he did trying to save anyone. This is Superman, you'd expect him to try to move any fight he's in to a less populated area. That's superhero 101, especially for someone who punches people through buildings.
Instead, they spend an enormous amount of the film's run-time duking it out in the middle of heavily populated environments, just because it looks cool. This happens even when Superman's enemies have been whittled down to just one guy. (much more manageable for the whole, "let's move this fight somewhere less populated" strategy)
And at the end of the film, Superman's solution is to kill all of his enemies. Literally, all of the villains in that movie die horribly, despite being the last vestiges of Superman's own species. The ultimate solution for the beacon of hope is to kill everyone.
Abandon all hope Gir. The Superman movie you're hoping for just isn't going to happen. Not anytime soon.
It didn't seem to me, like he had any real options, when fighting them. They were fixated on the city, for their machine, and Superman had to go to them. If he would have flown off, they would have just been relieved. The only threat they had, just flew off. And superman did not overpower them enough, to throw/carry them to a new location.
I really don't get this constant argument, suggesting that he intentionally fought them in the city. Let's also not forget, that's his first battle... ever. Now that he has had time to reflect, maybe he'll be smarter about it the next time.
Now that he has had time to reflect, maybe he'll be smarter about it the next time.
This is wishful thinking. Let's not forget how he reacted to spy drones flying over his fortress of solitude. Pancaking them in the front of a moving vehicle is great for making a threatening statement. It is not great for making a rational or reasonable statement. It is also a huge waste of money, especially when you consider what kind of power is at the disposal of the person destroying the drone. This event happens in the movie after Superman's first battle. Again we see him react with violent force instead of rational thought.
He could have easily just shown up outside of the general's office holding the drone, and make some fun quip like "You seem to have misplaced this." It would have been equally impressive, without being threatening. Instead we get something that is clearly more motivated by appearance than character development.
That is what you can expect from Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Everything in that film is going to be motivated by splashing impressive visuals on the screen. It's going to be Jackson Pollock for CGI spectacle, with zero consideration for character development. That is going to count for Batman and Wonder Woman, as well as Superman.
Usually when they fight, I thought Batman always beats him.
Especially considering this was based on DKR.
- Sonic Gun (Superman can hear clouds scrape so his ears asplode
- Nuclear fallout blocking out sun
- Gotham City's Electricity diverted to fry his brain
- Mist synthesized to simulate radioactive properties of Kryptonite to put him away:
Batman is pretty much Lex Luthor, except he's also a trained Ninja, a brilliant Scientist, and a sociopath.
This is wishful thinking. Let's not forget how he reacted to spy drones flying over his fortress of solitude. Pancaking them in the front of a moving vehicle is great for making a threatening statement. It is not great for making a rational or reasonable statement. It is also a huge waste of money, especially when you consider what kind of power is at the disposal of the person destroying the drone. This event happens in the movie after Superman's first battle. Again we see him react with violent force instead of rational thought.
He could have easily just shown up outside of the general's office holding the drone, and make some fun quip like "You seem to have misplaced this." It would have been equally impressive, without being threatening. Instead we get something that is clearly more motivated by appearance than character development.
Well, I guess everyone's view is different. IMO, 'violent' would have been throwing it into the hood of the car (In a way that immobilize them, but not kill them). I think, the way he did it, sent more of a message. Keep sending them, keep wasting money. If he delivered it to the general, they would have just sent it back up. Sure, either way, it was a threat, but I don't think in an "or else" kind of way.
Maybe I'm just more hopeful, that they'll take the criticism, from the first movie, and make adjustments. Personally, I enjoyed the first one. Sure, I had some gripes about it, but I didn't expect perfection, just like I don't when I watch any other super hero flick.
Maybe I'm just more hopeful, that they'll take the criticism, from the first movie, and make adjustments. Personally, I enjoyed the first one. Sure, I had some gripes about it, but I didn't expect perfection, just like I don't when I watch any other super hero flick.
Yes, you are definitely more hopeful. I only fear that you are going to be badly disappointed, and am doing what I can to temper your expectations.
I don't demand perfection from my films either. I don't hold super hero films to a different standard than any other film. But I don't think they have to be flawless to be entertaining.
However, there is a very large difference between perfection, and completely botching the tone. The high points of Man of Steel were all in the visual presentation. The low points were in the tone, the plot, the script, the dialog, basically everything that wasn't the visuals. And even the visuals could have benefited from a different palette.
I don't demand perfection, but I at least expect them to be in the general vicinity of the ballpark where some of those other elements are concerned. And if the recent previous Warner-Bros DC films have been anything to go on, you can understand why I might be leery of this latest outing.
You saw the movie. You should be well aware of the innumerable plot holes and inconsistencies. It would be a waste of time for me to list them all here. (this was a Zack Snyder film, after all)
Suffice to say, the Superman portrayed in that movie was kind of a dick. Definitely not a beacon of hope, or an exemplar of personal restraint. And it was extremely odd that he spent far more time in the movie fighting, than he did trying to save anyone. This is Superman, you'd expect him to try to move any fight he's in to a less populated area. That's superhero 101, especially for someone who punches people through buildings.
Instead, they spend an enormous amount of the film's run-time duking it out in the middle of heavily populated environments, just because it looks cool. This happens even when Superman's enemies have been whittled down to just one guy. (much more manageable for the whole, "let's move this fight somewhere less populated" strategy)
And at the end of the film, Superman's solution is to kill all of his enemies. Literally, all of the villains in that movie die horribly, despite being the last vestiges of Superman's own species. The ultimate solution for the beacon of hope is to kill everyone.
Abandon all hope Gir. The Superman movie you're hoping for just isn't going to happen. Not anytime soon.
The Bruce Timm-helmed DC animated series continue to be one of the best interpretations of DC comic characters in existence. Batman: TAS, Superman: TAS, and the Justice League series are all fantastic and well-worth revisiting, even today.
Holding up examples like that only makes me mournful for how bad the recent DC live-action movies have been. Can you even imagine if someone over at Warner Brothers wised up and got the heads of the animated creative team from that era to collaborate on a live-action film? Or even just a big-budget animated feature? That would be something to see!
They still need to get Wonderwoman and fish guy involved amongst all of this infighting. I'd suspect they're going to need to get all of their punchyness out of the way early and then start pulling together the Justice League to face whatever the bigger threat happens to be.
Superman is a stupid character. All the movies have been bad. Why do people think this will be good or would ever want this to be a thing?
The only good Superman anything was Smallville where he was still discovering his powers, didn't have them all and was still fallible.
I believe this will be the start of the donwfall of Superhero movies. Its now turning out to be all these mega obscurse charaters only hardcore fans know and care about. Plus half of every film is just setups for the next movie of joint movie.
Its now turning out to be all these mega obscurse charaters only hardcore fans know and care about.
And that's different from normal, non-comicbook movies that are based on characters that absolutely no one knows anything about?
I don't think the casual audience knew a lot about Guardians of the Galaxy going in to it. Even people who pull comics weekly but don't follow GotG itself probably knew very little about the characters. But that didn't get in the way of the movie, or prevent people from caring about them by the end. I suspect Ant-Man will be similar, along with several other characters.
Yeah, "Guardians of the Galaxy" is the ultimate counterpoint to Autocon's point. I knew nothing about that franchise or those characters. LOVED the movie and it was a huge hit...
Now Aquaman - there's something to complain about and wonder how that will ever be cool. I get that they got an awesome dude to play him but ... it's still Aquaman.
well, the difference there, is that Thor is a god in a universe of gods of varying power. Superman is alone in his level of godhood (in the DC universe).
After reading Kingdom Come I have found that Superman is a very interesting and dynamic character who has a lot character flaws that allow for great drama without resorting to kryptonite. But I do think the films have yet to do his character right.
After reading Kingdom Come I have found that Superman is a very interesting and dynamic character who has a lot character flaws that allow for great drama without resorting to kryptonite. But I do think the films have yet to do his character right.
Yeah, "Guardians of the Galaxy" is the ultimate counterpoint to Autocon's point. I knew nothing about that franchise or those characters. LOVED the movie and it was a huge hit...
Ah totally valid point. I knew nothing about Guardians and LOVED it. But guardians didn't feel like a comic book movie. No one was a comic book hero in the sense that they had some stupid super power, no one was wearing some stupid looking captian america outfit.
It was just a good sci fi flick that felt believable. Guess thats why Ironman and Batman are seen as the best of there respective Marvel/DC franchises as they feel real, they feel believable.
It was just a good sci fi flick that felt believable. Guess thats why Ironman and Batman are seen as the best of there respective Marvel/DC franchises as they feel real, they feel believable.
Believable isn't the right word. I don't know about you, but I don't go to the movies for realistic anything. I actively prefer my movies to be as unrealistic as possible. While I understand making concessions for suspension of disbelief, I like fantastic elements that have no place in the real world.
I think what you really mean is that those characters are more "relate-able." While exploring the emotions and perspective of someone who can fly and punch through buildings is an interesting creative exercise, it's not really something that the average person on the street can really wrap their head around.
The non-super-powered heroes like Iron-Man or Batman are more relate-able to the average Joe. Their flaws and struggles are something they can get.
That was another element I liked about Guardians of the Galaxy. Everything in that movie took fantastic characters and made them more relate-able. Star-Lord was a capable guy, but he also kept messing up, stumbling, and getting bumped and bruised. Things didn't magically go his way all the time for the sake of plot convenience. They weren't afraid of making things a bit more rough for the characters.
I'd suspect they're going to need to get all of their punchyness out of the way early and then start pulling together the Justice League to face whatever the bigger threat happens to be.
That was another element I liked about Guardians of the Galaxy. Everything in that movie took fantastic characters and made them more relate-able. Star-Lord was a capable guy, but he also kept messing up, stumbling, and getting bumped and bruised. Things didn't magically go his way all the time for the sake of plot convenience. They weren't afraid of making things a bit more rough for the characters.
I think this is why the good Superman stories work so well. Because Superman thinks he is right and the right way but he is actually screwing up big time from poor foresight. I think Batman v Superman needs to play this up and just acknowledge that Superman screwed up big time. Nobody should be his friend after that first movie.
Believable isn't the right word. I don't know about you, but I don't go to the movies for realistic anything. I actively prefer my movies to be as unrealistic as possible. While I understand making concessions for suspension of disbelief, I like fantastic elements that have no place in the real world.
I think what you really mean is that those characters are more "relate-able." While exploring the emotions and perspective of someone who can fly and punch through buildings is an interesting creative exercise, it's not really something that the average person on the street can really wrap their head around.
The non-super-powered heroes like Iron-Man or Batman are more relate-able to the average Joe. Their flaws and struggles are something they can get.
That was another element I liked about Guardians of the Galaxy. Everything in that movie took fantastic characters and made them more relate-able. Star-Lord was a capable guy, but he also kept messing up, stumbling, and getting bumped and bruised. Things didn't magically go his way all the time for the sake of plot convenience. They weren't afraid of making things a bit more rough for the characters.
"relate-able" is indeed a far better word choice and indeed more twoards what I meant.
I love a great suspension of disbelief but if I cannot relate to the characters enough then I just cant get invested too much into there plight and struggle. To much of, oh come on dude you can fly and stop bullets, stop crying and being a little bitch! haha
I feel I could relate more to the Na'vi of Avatar or Bane from Batman more than I could to Thor, Aquaman, Scarlet Witch, Captain America and so forth.
Batman suit looks like it was crafted by a 3rd grader with the help of his mom and her sewing machine in that pic. Pouty-face just makes the image even more silly looking. But it's B&W, so it's edgy!
watched Man of Steel this past weekend again, had only seen it once in the theater. Enjoyed it more the second time! Excited for this movie These images of Batman are awesome, so stoked.
Hoping the next trailer is from Superman's perspective with ominous VO about Batman.
The thing I always find funny, is how the cowl always requires black makeup, around the eyes. So I guess batman always stops, to throw some makeup on? And it magically disappears, when the mask is taken off.
So did they just throw his ability to turn his head out the window? I'm tired of these stupid overly-sculpted cowls.
Some time ago they told everyone about how he could fully move his neck now. That was like the first thing they took care of lol, didn't want the problems from previous bat suits etc.
Yeah I'm guessing they're going with a more simpler look like the standard/classic comic look etc,
less armor/metal. Also bats always looks creepy in real life with his eyes showing, wish they would incorporate the white eyes one day.
I like the one HitmonInfinity shared better, but i love the simpler one as well.. !!Then again I'm just weird so don't mind me lol.
I guess I don't actually mind the regular Batsuit that much, even if the texture is a little funny. I'm all for the Dark Knight Returns look. The power suit is the one that could have used more updating in my opinion.
Replies
It's not like he went out of his way to make sure they died, he was just too busy to save them all.
You saw the movie. You should be well aware of the innumerable plot holes and inconsistencies. It would be a waste of time for me to list them all here. (this was a Zack Snyder film, after all)
Suffice to say, the Superman portrayed in that movie was kind of a dick. Definitely not a beacon of hope, or an exemplar of personal restraint. And it was extremely odd that he spent far more time in the movie fighting, than he did trying to save anyone. This is Superman, you'd expect him to try to move any fight he's in to a less populated area. That's superhero 101, especially for someone who punches people through buildings.
Instead, they spend an enormous amount of the film's run-time duking it out in the middle of heavily populated environments, just because it looks cool. This happens even when Superman's enemies have been whittled down to just one guy. (much more manageable for the whole, "let's move this fight somewhere less populated" strategy)
And at the end of the film, Superman's solution is to kill all of his enemies. Literally, all of the villains in that movie die horribly, despite being the last vestiges of Superman's own species. The ultimate solution for the beacon of hope is to kill everyone.
Abandon all hope Gir. The Superman movie you're hoping for just isn't going to happen. Not anytime soon.
I really don't get this constant argument, suggesting that he intentionally fought them in the city. Let's also not forget, that's his first battle... ever. Now that he has had time to reflect, maybe he'll be smarter about it the next time.
This is wishful thinking. Let's not forget how he reacted to spy drones flying over his fortress of solitude. Pancaking them in the front of a moving vehicle is great for making a threatening statement. It is not great for making a rational or reasonable statement. It is also a huge waste of money, especially when you consider what kind of power is at the disposal of the person destroying the drone. This event happens in the movie after Superman's first battle. Again we see him react with violent force instead of rational thought.
He could have easily just shown up outside of the general's office holding the drone, and make some fun quip like "You seem to have misplaced this." It would have been equally impressive, without being threatening. Instead we get something that is clearly more motivated by appearance than character development.
That is what you can expect from Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Everything in that film is going to be motivated by splashing impressive visuals on the screen. It's going to be Jackson Pollock for CGI spectacle, with zero consideration for character development. That is going to count for Batman and Wonder Woman, as well as Superman.
Usually when they fight, I thought Batman always beats him.
Especially considering this was based on DKR.
- Sonic Gun (Superman can hear clouds scrape so his ears asplode
- Nuclear fallout blocking out sun
- Gotham City's Electricity diverted to fry his brain
- Mist synthesized to simulate radioactive properties of Kryptonite to put him away:
Batman is pretty much Lex Luthor, except he's also a trained Ninja, a brilliant Scientist, and a sociopath.
"I'm done talking Clark, get out of my cave"
Well, I guess everyone's view is different. IMO, 'violent' would have been throwing it into the hood of the car (In a way that immobilize them, but not kill them). I think, the way he did it, sent more of a message. Keep sending them, keep wasting money. If he delivered it to the general, they would have just sent it back up. Sure, either way, it was a threat, but I don't think in an "or else" kind of way.
Maybe I'm just more hopeful, that they'll take the criticism, from the first movie, and make adjustments. Personally, I enjoyed the first one. Sure, I had some gripes about it, but I didn't expect perfection, just like I don't when I watch any other super hero flick.
Yes, you are definitely more hopeful. I only fear that you are going to be badly disappointed, and am doing what I can to temper your expectations.
I don't demand perfection from my films either. I don't hold super hero films to a different standard than any other film. But I don't think they have to be flawless to be entertaining.
However, there is a very large difference between perfection, and completely botching the tone. The high points of Man of Steel were all in the visual presentation. The low points were in the tone, the plot, the script, the dialog, basically everything that wasn't the visuals. And even the visuals could have benefited from a different palette.
I don't demand perfection, but I at least expect them to be in the general vicinity of the ballpark where some of those other elements are concerned. And if the recent previous Warner-Bros DC films have been anything to go on, you can understand why I might be leery of this latest outing.
[ame]
relevant. kinda.
Ahhhh, if only, Gir, if only.
The Bruce Timm-helmed DC animated series continue to be one of the best interpretations of DC comic characters in existence. Batman: TAS, Superman: TAS, and the Justice League series are all fantastic and well-worth revisiting, even today.
Holding up examples like that only makes me mournful for how bad the recent DC live-action movies have been. Can you even imagine if someone over at Warner Brothers wised up and got the heads of the animated creative team from that era to collaborate on a live-action film? Or even just a big-budget animated feature? That would be something to see!
The only good Superman anything was Smallville where he was still discovering his powers, didn't have them all and was still fallible.
I believe this will be the start of the donwfall of Superhero movies. Its now turning out to be all these mega obscurse charaters only hardcore fans know and care about. Plus half of every film is just setups for the next movie of joint movie.
And that's different from normal, non-comicbook movies that are based on characters that absolutely no one knows anything about?
I don't think the casual audience knew a lot about Guardians of the Galaxy going in to it. Even people who pull comics weekly but don't follow GotG itself probably knew very little about the characters. But that didn't get in the way of the movie, or prevent people from caring about them by the end. I suspect Ant-Man will be similar, along with several other characters.
i don't like superman either, but hes going to be the villain, so thats going to be fine i gues.
Exactly.
Ah totally valid point. I knew nothing about Guardians and LOVED it. But guardians didn't feel like a comic book movie. No one was a comic book hero in the sense that they had some stupid super power, no one was wearing some stupid looking captian america outfit.
It was just a good sci fi flick that felt believable. Guess thats why Ironman and Batman are seen as the best of there respective Marvel/DC franchises as they feel real, they feel believable.
Believable isn't the right word. I don't know about you, but I don't go to the movies for realistic anything. I actively prefer my movies to be as unrealistic as possible. While I understand making concessions for suspension of disbelief, I like fantastic elements that have no place in the real world.
I think what you really mean is that those characters are more "relate-able." While exploring the emotions and perspective of someone who can fly and punch through buildings is an interesting creative exercise, it's not really something that the average person on the street can really wrap their head around.
The non-super-powered heroes like Iron-Man or Batman are more relate-able to the average Joe. Their flaws and struggles are something they can get.
That was another element I liked about Guardians of the Galaxy. Everything in that movie took fantastic characters and made them more relate-able. Star-Lord was a capable guy, but he also kept messing up, stumbling, and getting bumped and bruised. Things didn't magically go his way all the time for the sake of plot convenience. They weren't afraid of making things a bit more rough for the characters.
http://batman-news.com/2015/04/22/avengers-director-joss-whedon-is-pumped-for-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-video/
I think this is why the good Superman stories work so well. Because Superman thinks he is right and the right way but he is actually screwing up big time from poor foresight. I think Batman v Superman needs to play this up and just acknowledge that Superman screwed up big time. Nobody should be his friend after that first movie.
"relate-able" is indeed a far better word choice and indeed more twoards what I meant.
I love a great suspension of disbelief but if I cannot relate to the characters enough then I just cant get invested too much into there plight and struggle. To much of, oh come on dude you can fly and stop bullets, stop crying and being a little bitch! haha
I feel I could relate more to the Na'vi of Avatar or Bane from Batman more than I could to Thor, Aquaman, Scarlet Witch, Captain America and so forth.
Hoping the next trailer is from Superman's perspective with ominous VO about Batman.
Some time ago they told everyone about how he could fully move his neck now. That was like the first thing they took care of lol, didn't want the problems from previous bat suits etc.
Are you disappointed? (Waits for someone to photoshop a wang in)
less armor/metal. Also bats always looks creepy in real life with his eyes showing, wish they would incorporate the white eyes one day.
I like the one HitmonInfinity shared better, but i love the simpler one as well..