|
Still haven't been able to see BvS, but in regards to the ending: This whole time you guys have been saying Superman died, I figured he died due to damage from Doomsday, NOT that he died because of the kryptonite in the spear he used to kill Doomsday. Seems kind of dumb, and like something they only did to deviate it from Death Of Superman.hohoh0 posted:Any ideas who he is playing? I'm not a Dr.Strange fan so I really wasn't excited at all about it until this. Mads Mikkelsen loving owns. I realize it's cobbled together, but this scene is kind of a rambling mess. Also, since I haven't seen Superman 1 and 2 for a while, has Lois in them always come off as sort of vain, mean-spirited, and slightly unbalanced? I know some of this is in other depictions, but to this degree? And I know the actress had some...issues. Ultragonk posted:I just watched Justice League v Teen Titans and it hasn't been a good time for DC movies recently. It kind of meanders and very little of interest happens. Damian Wayne has got to be one of the most annoying characters in the DCEU, is he that way in the comics? I enjoyed it, but yeah, not so great. I'm not really familiar with Teen Titans and Trigon though. It's cool that Jon Bernthal voiced him though. I do find it hilarious that Trigon in any DC is almost literally Satan. I'm not sure any of the New 52 DCAU movies have been good, and if Flashpoint Paradox counts, then I guess that's the last one I really enjoyed. Damian Wayne, voice-actor aside, does seem like an annoying character. The idea of Batman being an actual father is interesting, but if Damian's always such a little poo poo, then it's not that compelling. And I'm still wishing for some inside info on why Green Lantern was totally left out of this one when he's been in the other New 52 DCAU movies. It's really conspicuous and weird.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Wasn't the second guy also killed? I thought Clark received pictures of him from the morgue?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 05:13
|
|
Longbaugh01 posted:And I'm still wishing for some inside info on why Green Lantern was totally left out of this one when he's been in the other New 52 DCAU movies. It's really conspicuous and weird. His lovely flop movie is still too fresh in people's minds.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:His lovely flop movie is still too fresh in people's minds. Someone brought that up in another thread but it makes no sense because the New 52 DCAU movies with him in it came out 2-3 years after that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Then maybe it's movie synergy.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Longbaugh01 posted:Someone brought that up in another thread but it makes no sense because the New 52 DCAU movies with him in it came out 2-3 years after that. The market of people who see feature films is much, much larger than those who watch animated direct-to-video releases
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Longbaugh01 posted:I realize it's cobbled together, but this scene is kind of a rambling mess. Also, since I haven't seen Superman 1 and 2 for a while, has Lois in them always come off as sort of vain, mean-spirited, and slightly unbalanced? I know some of this is in other depictions, but to this degree? And I know the actress had some...issues. She's not mean-spirited, but she's DEFINITELY cocky and self-centered in Donner's version of things - at least initially. Most of his take on the story is about her and Clark coming to terms with one another and such. In the Lester version a lot of that is still there, but she's also an idiot who only REALLY figures out that Clark is Superman when he trips and falls face-first into a fireplace and comes away unharmed. In Donner's version, she only "misses" that Clark is Superman initially because she's too busy focusing on her own work to be bothered with him. As soon as she takes a moment to slow down, she immediately figures him out. She's definitely characterized as impulsive and more than a little aggressive when it comes to Superman, which makes some degree of sense given what she saw in the first film. As for it rambling, I guess you need to have seen the movie to know exactly what's going on. In Donner's cut, Lois starts off the film fairly certain Clark is Superman and she jumps out of the window of the Daily Planet to force him to reveal himself (he manages to use his powers discretely to avoid this). Later, on assignment at Niagara Falls, a kid falls off the side of the walkway and Superman shows up to save the day, which 100% convinces her she was right initially. That said, she presumably brought the gun with her to begin with, so pretending that the kid fall is what made it "click" for her was mostly a lie. I love this version of Lois. She's got a real personality, isn't a bumbling doofus and cuts through the majority of the most cringe-inducing tropes that afflict the Superman shtick 90% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:The market of people who see feature films is much, much larger than those who watch animated direct-to-video releases No poo poo? That just adds to the weirdness of it though, not refute it. funtax posted:As for it rambling, I guess you need to have seen the movie to know exactly what's going on. In Donner's cut, Lois starts off the film fairly certain Clark is Superman and she jumps out of the window of the Daily Planet to force him to reveal himself (he manages to use his powers discretely to avoid this). Later, on assignment at Niagara Falls, a kid falls off the side of the walkway and Superman shows up to save the day, which 100% convinces her she was right initially. That said, she presumably brought the gun with her to begin with, so pretending that the kid fall is what made it "click" for her was mostly a lie. Oh I've seen both cuts, just not in a long time so I still get the context. All I meant was that even with that being a patched together scene. It's not very good. I like that she figures it out, and I like the shift from Clark to himself, but that scene is very badly put together. Longbaugh01 fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Longbaugh01 posted:No poo poo? DC understands that the kind of people who watch the animated movies are probably familiar enough with Green Lantern to not have their whole enjoyment of the character wrecked by one movie
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Longbaugh01 posted:Oh I've seen both cuts, just not in a long time so I still get the context. All I meant was that even with that being a patched together scene. It's not very good. I like that she figures it out, and I like the shift from Clark to himself, but that scene is very badly put together. Different strokes, I suppose. Personally, it's my favorite sequence from any superhero film. But I also like that version of Lois to begin with, so that's probably crucial to enjoying it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:So I did end up watching BVS. Didn't hate it as much as I expected to. It has a lot of huge, obvious problems, but there's some cool parts. I found a lot of the criticisms were, in fact, completely knee-jerk and reactionary, most of them had a pretty obvious rebuttal in the movie. It makes a lot of real weird and dumb choices. It's audacious and yet dull at the same time. I think Cavill is a fine actor, but you can't do much in a story that is designed around how much Superman sucks and that nobody should like him. The writers just don't like Superman. That's why he was one of the weakest links in both of his movies. Cael posted:Just got back. Terrible Batman movie (with the exception of Alfred), terrible Superman movie, terrible forced setup to JLA movie, a pretty decent action movie, and a great Wonder Woman movie. Those are my observations. Almost being the operative word in that flat out lie. Bats used a gun in the warehouse scene and both of his vehicles were equipped with machine guns. He shot quite a number of people even ignoring that dream sequence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:DC understands that the kind of people who watch the animated movies are probably familiar enough with Green Lantern to not have their whole enjoyment of the character wrecked by one movie I think you're thinking I'm some huge GL fan or something. I'm not. (Also, I just realized Captain Marvel wasn't in it either, but no one cares about him.) Look at it this way, they bothered to have him in Flashpoint Paradox which introduces the New 52, he's a major part and somewhat comic relief in Justice League: War which assembles the New 52 JL, they get both him (bringing back Nathan Fillion to voice) and C.Marvel back for Throne of Atlantis, and then the next movie to have all of them is this Teen Titans one, but all of a sudden both he and Marvel are missing. I just want to know if it was budget, or story, or whatever it was, because to me, it's weird and interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Longbaugh01 posted:I think you're thinking I'm some huge GL fan or something. I'm not. (Also, I just realized Captain Marvel wasn't in it either, but no one cares about him.) Could be setting up the next movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Could be setting up the next movie. Maybe. I couldn't find anything on a next one though besides almost year-long rumors that they were going to adapt The Killing Joke.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:At the risk of doing a NOT MY FANTASTIC FOUR You know something I've been thinking of a lot, though: The two things that the movie needed to do I think to put it into a better direction is just cut out the high school scenes and remove Doom entirely. For the first part, if you get rid of those high school scene for the science fair, it takes one of the worst parts out of the film. In addition, you get Reed going to the Baxter institute and we sort of dance around his age and history a bit. We've left ourselves a window to explore. Reed could be 18, 22, 24, etc. He could have had some experiences leading up to all of this. Same with Ben. Maybe Ben's been in the military for a while. Maybe he's still active duty and just helping out his friend while on leave. Maybe he's done his stint and is trying to figure out if he wants to reenlist or something, maybe he's in a reserve program. We've got ourselves some breathing room with their origins that let us explore things like that later. Secondly, if you get rid of Doom, you can replace him in the film with something like an Annihillus-type enemy from Planet Zero. It makes it's motivations and abilities and history more alien and we're sort of left to figure out it out like our main characters will. Some alien thing trying to destroy our world seems to work well with something like that as opposed to Doom taking on that role, and picking some obscure or less-than-Doom villain for the first film that you can have be exactly what you need for the film maybe make sure the main 4 characters get the center stage on development and motivation. But another part about not featuring Doom at all is that even if the film was just mediocre or average or whatever, you could have something for Fant4stic 2 to maybe build up to. Even if you don't like it, you can go, "Well, this is the rough spot in the character's origins, but they didn't ruin Doom, so they'll get everything working for a sequel.' We would have had the first film to focus on our main characters, start to turn them into heroes, to establish them. Doom origins and character won't have to share as much development time, then, with everyone else in a second film or even third film, it will be HIS story. By that time, once the FF has faced aliens and otherworldly threats, the idea of Doom and what he is might feel more instantly believeable to a general movie audience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
Hahaha when did the thread title changeCodependent Poster posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
RE: FF, They basically cribbed Ultimate, which is par for the course in the past 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
The problem with Fantastic Four is that they keep making it an action movie. Fantastic Four should be a romantic comedy about Reed winning back Sue from Namor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
Dear God no.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
Namor is a weird character to deal with since (probably unfairly) he comes across as an Aquaman ripoff, which in itself is hilarious. Just looked it up, hahaha, Namor predates Aquaman by two years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
Namor should be used like Drax in an FF movie. He'd be very self-serious but constantly say funny things due to cultural differences. Trying to play him dead serious probably wouldn't work, and not having his bombastic IMPERIOUS REX-ness at all would be a crime.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
Yeah he's basically a grade-a rear end in a top hat and not good at socializing. Which is also funny, since later DC has portrayed Aquaman as similar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
Whizbang posted:The problem with Fantastic Four is that they keep making it an action movie. Fantastic Four should be a romantic comedy about Reed winning back Sue from Namor. I would totally watch My Big Fat Atlantean Wedding
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
Does Marvel have rights to Namor? Or is he considered part of the Fantastic Four related properties?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
I believe Namor was sold off separately from the Fantastic Four. Last I heard, I think Universal has the rights, I think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
My pitch for a fantastic four movie is fox buying/trading for the namor rights. Can be used in x-movies as well!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
They should totally set up Namor as the villain in Black Panther, it's probably too late but man that would rule
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:I think Cavill is a fine actor, but you can't do much in a story that is designed around how much Superman sucks and that nobody should like him. The writers just don't like Superman. That's why he was one of the weakest links in both of his movies. This is a movie where Superman redeems Batman and saves the world again, despite this world not being worthy of him. This movie loves Superman.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Could be setting up the next movie. If the rumors are true and the GL movie is more of a Corps movie, that could be why. You're not going to put 3 or 4 guys in Justice League.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
McCloud posted:This is a movie where Superman redeems Batman and saves the world again, despite this world not being worthy of him. This movie loves Superman. This is a movie where for Batman and Wonder Woman's stories to land, Superman needs to be inspiring and heroic. He's not, but the movie asks us to ignore that and pretend that he is, so we can have a Justice League movie. The movie as a whole turns on Superman being a good enough person to restore two jaded warrior's faiths in mankind. The ending falls extremely flat because it hasnt been earned or supported by anything that's come before. Superman does literally two superhero things this entire movie, he saves a single little girl he saw on TV and he dies in a really dumb and contrived manner. The rest of the movie is him either failing to save people or agonizing over whether he should save people, or trying to stop Batman. The movie is hoping that if they show enough shots of Superman's cape flapping dramatically in slow motion you'll forget that he isn't doing or saying anything worthy of the kind of devotion he gets in the ending. The movie needs us to love Superman but it can't quite overcome its 21st century cynicism and self-consciousness to actually make him a good, wholesome heroic figure. It's like a kid who doesn't want to hug his gramma goodbye because the other kids will make fun of him. Superman is a victim of the perpetual adolescence of the superhero genre.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
He saved the world, but what has he some for us lately? The movies seem to have taken inspiration from that Grant Morrison quote about how Superman is really an everyman writ large. 'Inspiring' seems to mean that he has to be a kind of benevolent patriarch. Not at all necessary. I can say I've been more insoired by everyday people than a Gandhi quote. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
An FF movie needs the Mole Man. Thing just punching the hell out of moloids, Johnny blasting everything, Sue protecting people with bubbles, Reed scienceing the poo poo out of stuff. Action! You have a team of heroes, you need a group of villains (see; Avengers) not a single antagonist (Doom).
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
X-O posted:Obviously it's a matter of how you want Superman to be depicted but I agree with a lot of that. I think Man of Steel was better in that regard and I don't think Cavill is the problem. The scene where he flies for the first time in Man of Steel is probably one of my favorite scenes from any comic movie. I'd have liked if Batman v Superman had anything in it approaching this. Yes, that learning to fly scene is the highpoint of Man of Steel because it acknowledges one simple fact: being able to fly is loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
howe_sam posted:Yes, that learning to fly scene is the highpoint of Man of Steel because it acknowledges one simple fact: being able to fly is loving awesome. Speaking of which, Astro City #1 is the best, and if you like Superman (or, in this case, Superman stand-ins) you should read it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
McCloud posted:This is a movie where Superman redeems Batman and saves the world again, despite this world not being worthy of him. This movie loves Superman. Yes, I do know that Superman was in the movie and did things. But of the people who saw the movie, a very minuscule percentage comes out of it with a high opinion of Cavill's performance. Yeah Superman saves the world, but the Earth is as divided on him as people are on the movie. He's not even sure he should be there. Of all things to defend, this is an odd choice. I mean even the most negative reviews take the time out to go gaga over Gal Gadot and Ben Affleck. I haven't seen that for Cavill from either side of the coin. BravestOfTheLamps posted:He saved the world, but what has he some for us lately? That's a fine anecdote, but if you asked the world at large "Who is more inspirational: a random dude BravestOfTheLamps knows or Mahatma Gandhi" I don't think the odds would be in favor of your mate. If there was a "Superman is just like you and me" message in the movie, it didn't land. Both MoS and BvS went pretty far out of their way to make him feel alien to audiences and people in the actual world. A building explodes around him and everyone dies in a fire and all he can do is sorta frown and then fly away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Speaking of which, Astro City #1 is the best, and if you like Superman (or, in this case, Superman stand-ins) you should read it. Astro city is what I wish DC comics were like. What an incredible book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
McCloud posted:This is a movie where Superman redeems Batman and saves the world again, despite this world not being worthy of him. This movie loves Superman. This 100 times. When the movie has people like Perry White tell Clark "get your head out of your rear end. It's not 1938" you're not supposed to agree with him. The movie indicts Perry, Lex, Bruce, and all the talking heads who are skeptical or distrustful of Superman.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:This 100 times. When the movie has people like Perry White tell Clark "get your head out of your rear end. It's not 1938" you're not supposed to agree with him. The movie indicts Perry, Lex, Bruce, and all the talking heads who are skeptical or distrustful of Superman. Watching a film is not a purely rational experience, and feelings that are evoked by the images, music, and character actions are not only AS valid as a textual reading, they are almost certainly more valid. If we can stop pretending that flatly stating what a movie was trying to say means it succeeded at saying it, that would be great. I think a lot of the ideas that Snyder was going for were good, but he simply didn't execute on them well. The movie was like the worst of Grant Morrison's work (when it's borderline undecipherable) but with less talent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Watching a film is not a purely rational experience, and feelings that are evoked by the images, music, and character actions are not only AS valid as a textual reading, they are almost certainly more valid. Even so, I'd argue the movie communicated what I'm talking about as clearly as it reasonably could have with the scene showing the godlike statue of Superman replaced by the Kryptonian symbol for hope and "if you seek his monument, look around you" along with the music in that scene, but since a large contingent of viewers thought this movie hates Superman, then it must not have been all that clear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:Even so, I'd argue the movie communicated what I'm talking about as clearly as it reasonably could have with the scene showing the godlike statue of Superman replaced by the Kryptonian symbol for hope and "if you seek his monument, look around you" along with the music in that scene, but since a large contingent of viewers thought this movie hates Superman, then it must not have been all that clear. This is what I mean when I said Superman doesn't earn the reverence he's given by the ending of the movie. He has to be a beloved symbol of good and justice for the ending to stick, but I don't think the preceding two hours of movie justify that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:43
|
|