|
we've had this discussion literally forever in the movie's thread, but it's in a meta sense.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
Batfleck goes through a pretty clear evolution in the movie. At the start, he doesn't believe anyone can be genuinely good and stay that way. He's old, weary, and cynical - he outright asks Alfred how many good guys are left in Gotham after twenty years of being Batman and how many stayed that way. Superman rekindles Bruce's faith in mankind, and Wonder Woman's. It looks like in the movie Justice League, Wonder Woman and Batman will be the leaders while Superman is the emotional heart of the team.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
WHO WAS THE WOMAN IN BRUCE'S BED OH MY GOD THAT'S A PLOT HOLE. Is the kind of discussion I am seeing on Facebook right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:WHO WAS THE WOMAN IN BRUCE'S BED OH MY GOD THAT'S A PLOT HOLE. I was legit curious about that, actually.  Maybe a similarly older, grizzled Talia al'Ghul?Not that any of the four women in this movie ever speak to another about anything but Superman, and of the four two are damsels in distress and a third is killed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
bring back old gbs posted:Is there a DC origin story that doesn't involve a dead parent? Wonder Woman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:The enemy is a faceless paramilitary force fanatically loyal to their god. It's a role reversal, yes, but an uncomfortable one. actually try thinking this: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I was legit curious about that, actually. The dead one doesn't actually ever say anything does she?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Darko posted:There's a legitimately large chance of Disney/Marvel taking over how superhero movies, and to a lesser extent, summer blockbusters are created for a while. If alternatives don't succeed, there is a chance for a bit of a genre monopoly as people try to ape them or fail, which no movie fan should want. That's going to happen regardless because those films still make absurd amounts of money and there's a good chance Civil War (which is also a sequel to a stand-alone film where the protagonist ends up battling another superhero over thinly veiled political allegory) will outperform BvS. It seems pretty unlikely that WB will suddenly change tactics now and Fox has always done their own thing. Fanboying over which side should win assumes one is going to win and not just that we'll keep getting different films from different studios.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:The dead one doesn't actually ever say anything does she? She does. It's the senator. Lois and Martha Kent, then Wonder Woman. Also, Marvel put together a video about the lead-up to Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:She does. It's the senator. Lois and Martha Kent, then Wonder Woman. Every single preview for this makes it look like a film that would make more sense if Steve Rogers was fighting with Tony Stark because he wants to break up and go back to his old ex Bucky.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Every single preview for this makes it look like a film that would make more sense if Steve Rogers was fighting with Tony Stark because he wants to break up and go back to his old ex Bucky. The homoerotic bromance between Cap and Bucky is somewhere above sub-text, but below superliminal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:She does. It's the senator. Lois and Martha Kent, then Wonder Woman. I was thinking of Lex's black haired assistant. I apparently have issues with counting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:WHO WAS THE WOMAN IN BRUCE'S BED OH MY GOD THAT'S A PLOT HOLE. Some floozy that Alfred doesn't approve of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Some floozy that Alfred doesn't approve of. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIE6G39P9qU
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The homoerotic bromance between Cap and Bucky is somewhere above sub-text, but below superliminal. "Hey! You! Join the gay Navy!" "Eh." "Sure, why not?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Gay Navy might be redundant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Gay Navy might be redundant. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Sentinel Red posted:Need more Valerian details, everything shown so far looks fabulous as hell. Here's another glimpse for you: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:53
|
|
Rhyno posted:WHO WAS THE WOMAN IN BRUCE'S BED OH MY GOD THAT'S A PLOT HOLE. She exists as characterization and contrast, as that scene shows Bruce ignoring his sexual partner (and she is even actively dehumanized by the camera) to highlight his antisocial, empty life without human expression and happens shortly after a scene that shows off Clark and Lois having a very human, very goofy romantic moment.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
bring back old gbs posted:Barry Allen is actually the first DC guy to come to mind when I think of dead mom origin. Maybe they invented that for the TV show though. it looks like it was retconned around 2009 in Flash: Rebirth, the original Flash-Mom actually outlived Barry, only passing away after he died in the first Crisis you're right that current Flash's origin is all about the dead parent though (Wally's origin also doesn't involve any parental death)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
I like the version of the flash that just whoopsy-daisy'd a bunch of dangerous chemicals onto himself
Full Battle Rattle fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:I like the version of the flash that just whoopsy-daisy'd a bunch of dangerous chemicals onto himself Well they retconned that poo poo too. Now it turns out that bolt was future Barry zapping himself full of goesfast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
I actually like that idea 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Didn't Waid do something like that to Wally as well or am I mis-remembering?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
broken clock opsec posted:Iron Man flamethrowers people flat out in his first outing. But I guess it's fine because Marvel "did it right". Neo Rasa posted:Marvel is good at having endless horde type enemies. Iron Man 1's bad guys for most of the movie are stupidly generic evil terrorists so it's okay for them to die horribly since Iron Man is funny and his suit is cool. The MCU films resolve themselves by killing/destroying the villains almost every time - Iron Man kills Stane/Iron Monger, Iron Man 2 blows up Ivan Vanko/Whiplash, Captain America implodes the Red Skull with the Tesseract, Guardians of the Galaxy vaporise Ronan, Ant-Man violently crushes Yellowjacket by sabotaging his shrinking equipment, etc etc.. They solve the supervillain problem by just making them go away because they're operating under standard comicbook/action movie rules where killing the irredeemable villain is framed as being good and right and justified. When Marvel superheroes complete their trials they look like this:  Just look at how loving smug they are. But because of the way the story was framed the audience feels like they totally earned it, and because the audience identified with these characters they also get a smugly Pavlovian reward when the movies conclude like this. Marvel films tell the audience "Superheroes are awesome and you're awesome for liking them!" Man of Steel, on the other hand, chose not to operate under those rules. The protagonist here wasn't a charismatic plucky underdog who was using his unique skills to win the day, he was a guy who was uncertain about his place in the world and constantly questioning his actions, or whether he should act at all. The villain wasn't just a selfish guy hell bent on destroying his enemies, he was a nuanced "the end justifies the means" character who was trying to save his race. We didn't completely identify with the hero and we didn't completely hate the villain. Zod's death was more of a "suicide via Supercop", forced by his own volition onto a reluctant 'hero' rather than the triumphant victory over evil that Marvel films dish up, and that SUperman films also used to dish up. Superman II back in 1980 was operating under standard superhero/action movie rules so when he killed Zod that time he looked like this:  ... but when the DCCU Superman kills Zod he looks like this:  MoS wasn't trying to be standard comicbook/action movie and it instead decided to question the cliched comicbook resolution by asking "What if you can't neatly make the problem go away? What if you don't get the triumphant happy ending? What if the good guy doesn't have all the answers just because he's the good guy?" And those are some really good questions to ask in a movie, but on the other hand they're attacking some of the core assumptions that have been underlying the superhero genre for nearly 80 years now. The great majority of superhero comics/movies/Saturday Morning cartoons have operated under a Just World milieu where the hero deserved to win and the bad guy deserved to die and this was hardly ever questioned. (There's a whole lot of obvious exceptions to this but most of the general public probably wouldn't be familiar with them and they're vastly outnumbered by the cliched comicbook stories.) When Superman is forced to end Zod's reign of terror by snapping his neck and when Batman decides to kill dozens of mooks and these acts are shown as being morally ambiguous instead of being justified retribution then these stories are stepping outside the popular perception of the superhero genre. They're asking audiences to think about the genre rather than just leading them to the happy ending they usually get. So yeah, Marvel did "do it right" in that they served up superhero movies that comfortably fit inside the superhero framework that has been fed to the general public over these last 70-odd years. DC decided to step outside that framework and ask whether those cliched superhero plots might have different consequences in the real world, and that's perfectly fine but there's going to be giant swathes of the general public disappointed that they didn't get the uplifting morally unambiguous costumed punchman film they were expecting, and there's also going to be a whole ton of diehard fans that will be upset that these films are daring to raise questions about the superhero genre instead of faithfully recreating it on the big screen. If people walked into Mos or BvS expecting a standard "Superheroes are awesome and you're awesome for liking them!" experience then they won't have been prepared for what they were going to get instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Beautiful post Snowglobe. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:
They captured Loki and took him in. He did not die.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:They captured Loki and took him in. He did not die. They made him "go away". MoS raises the question "What if the bad guy refuses to just neatly go away?" Edit: also Red Skull and a bunch of the other villains didn't actually die, they just ..... went away. Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:They made him "go away". They gave him to his people. Take it up with the Asguardian court system or whatever. I'm not asking this in a story logic sense, but what should they do with a terrorist who blew up a bit of New York? Killing them doesn't sit right with you, and fair enough...but what next? And Loki didn't "go away" like Red Skull. He was imprisoned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Killing them doesn't sit right with you, and fair enough...but what next? Killing them sits perfectly well with me, for exactly the same reasons that I was fine with Hans Gruber dying in Die Hard and Belloq dying in Raiders of the Lost Ark and Drax dying in Moonraker. Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:The MCU films resolve themselves by killing/destroying the villains almost every time - Iron Man kills Stane/Iron Monger, Iron Man 2 blows up Ivan Vanko/Whiplash, Captain America implodes the Red Skull with the Tesseract, Guardians of the Galaxy vaporise Ronan, Ant-Man violently crushes Yellowjacket by sabotaging his shrinking equipment, etc etc.. They solve the supervillain problem by just making them go away because they're operating under standard comicbook/action movie rules where killing the irredeemable villain is framed as being good and right and justified. When Marvel superheroes complete their trials they look like this: This is a good post, I'm going to rub it all over my face.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
They made Lex Luthor go away too. And I'm sorry but I just can't agree with you about the moral ambiguity of Batman's actions, Snowglobe. The villains moods we see are just as generic as Avengers' flying space reptiles and hydra mooks. They literally beat up old ladies and villagers. Their leader is even a sneering foreigner with no redeeming qualities. Not to mention his vicious dispatching of them is wasteful and unnecessary. His first pointless car chase just gets Superman on his case, and he didn't even need to do it considering he just steals the kryptonite later and always had a means of finding out where it was going. It adds up to making Batman comically inept more than a man driven to do tough things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I'm not asking this in a story logic sense, but what should they do with a terrorist who blew up a bit of New York? Killing them doesn't sit right with you, and fair enough...but what next? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Hey, if I'd be okay if Marvel wants to double down on some consequence stuff, but still makes the end uplifting and good. So long as, even if the heroes hosed up, they are still heroes ultimately. That's all I every ask from any Superhero film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Hey, if I'd be okay if Marvel wants to double down on some consequence stuff, but still makes the end uplifting and good. So long as, even if the heroes hosed up, they are still heroes ultimately. That's all I every ask from any Superhero film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Scyantific posted:Well they retconned that poo poo too. Now it turns out that bolt was future Barry zapping himself full of goesfast. Yes. The Flash is not just the result of an accident anymore. Now all DC Comics speedsters are part of a mythical "Speed Force", that as I understand it is also a barrier that separates the various universes (Earth-1, Earth-2 and such) from the outer dimensions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out what I'm saying because I feel like BvS broke me, kinda? There's something about that whole movie that bothered me on a deep level and I'm trying to wrack my brain around it. Like, outside of the editing, the film makes me feel just awful. And it's not really about killing or not killing, but about character, ultimately. And how Superman's character just doesn't jive with me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:They made Lex Luthor go away too. BvS actually starts out in morally ambiguous territory but in the last 20 minutes they suddenly veer back into Cliched Superhero World by killing Zod 2.0 but framing it as a clear triumph over an evildoer whose death is unambiguously a good thing. The original Zod wasn't a standard comicbook villain but Doomsday clearly was, and just in case anyone might have had any doubts they even removed all signs of personality and agency from him. Luthor got Loki'd and only temporarily made to "go away" because they're probably going to bring him back in the sequels, just like Loki was. You'll note that people aren't bringing up the "Not My Batman/Superman" complaint about the ending of the film but all the stuff from the first two acts. CelticPredator posted:Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out what I'm saying because I feel like BvS broke me, kinda? There's something about that whole movie that bothered me on a deep level and I'm trying to wrack my brain around it. Like, outside of the editing, the film makes me feel just awful. Same here. The fact that the film made both of us feel awful is pretty much my core complaint. Like, it's perfectly fine that they wanted to make a superhero film that challenged the genre instead of just falling into step with all the other films but on the other hand why would anyone want to make a Superman/Batman film that left the audience feeling awful?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
in what ways did the film make you guys feel awful? it hit alot of emotions in me but 'awful' definitely wasn't on that list
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
I was curious about which Mahvel villains end up dead and how gruesomely they end up going Dead Obadiah Stane (electrocuted and vaporized) Aldrich Killian (bombed into fiery chunks) Malekith (maimed and crushed) Kurse (stabbed and sucked into black hole) Alexander Pierce (shot) Ronan (vaporized) Korath (brain partially torn out) Ultron (all bodies destroyed) Baron Strucker (killed in prison by Stark's brainchild) Yellowjacket (turned into an atom or something) Untold number of Ten Rings members and other fighters in the Middle East All of Aldrich Killian's men Untold number of Hydra soldiers Untold number of frost giants Untold number of elves Untold number of Ronan's lackeys Untold number of Chitauri Dead by own folly Vanko (blows himself up) Red Skull (zapped into nothingness) Arnim Zola (destroys last vestige of own conciousness with missiles) Left badly wounded Brock Rumlow (burnt and disfigured) Nebula (loses arm to escape Gamora) Ulysses Klaw (loses arm at the hands of Stark's brainchild) Apprehended Justin Hammer Trevor Slattery Abomination Loki Batroc Spared Bucky
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:40
|
|
