|
Jenny Angel posted:I feel like this is probably contradicted by the movie where we saw Stark break the Sokovia Accords
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
And my personal opinion on"my Batman" I love all of em. My favorite is probably Clooney, then West, and very close to both of them the polar opposite Affleck version.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I explained why the Knightmare sequence has no purpose for example, I didn't just say it was bad, I said it was bad BECAUSE it has no import or function on anything else in the film, the one bit of salient information "It's all about Lois" going forward has NO affect on Batman. Dream sequences aren't about characters learning new information for their use in the future (because that's now how dreams work), they're about exploring the psychology of the characters. We learn that Bruce views himself as a warlord ruling over a blasted hellscape (Gotham), helped by riot-gear clad allies (the cops), but that he fears they will betray him to side with Superman. This clarifies that Alfred's line about Bruce being turned cruel by a feeling of powerlessness is specifically about Bruce potentially losing control over what he views as his territory. The time-visit from Flash illustrates how Bruce's thinking is distorted by his selective use of what he learns. He gets told he was "right all along" and that "it's all about Lois," and all he cares about is that he was, apparently, right all along. That he ignores the information about Lois is, again, characterization. Time Warner chairman-CEO Jeff Bewkes posted:the creative Yeah, this is a guy whose opinion I'm definitely invested in as to the quality of a movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:I thought the same thing too but it wouldn't have worked. Had Stark defied the Sokovia Accords, his superhero career would have been over because the government would have seized all his assets, including his basement Iron Man factory. This is the problem when the source of your powers is money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Jerk McJerkface posted:Every single Marvel movie has a post credit sequence teasing the next movie. Please post a similar comment about all of them as well, since they are the same thing. On the other hand, it's after the credits and I'm long gone, they didn't stop the movie for a few minutes to play a youtube trailer for the next one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Tony had every intention of violating the Accords as soon as it suited him. He'd just arrange it in such a way as to avoid any blowback.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:On the other hand, it's after the credits and I'm long gone, they didn't stop the movie for a few minutes to play a youtube trailer for the next one. Sounds like they did for Civil War though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Yeah, this is a guy whose opinion I'm definitely invested in as to the quality of a movie. Well, he is the one in charge of the whole thing. Geoff Johns and Jon Berg are now in charge of the DC universe because of him. So, his decisions about the quality of movies are what shapes the next ones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Sounds like they did for Civil War though. I can't think of any scene off the top of my head that's similar to Wonder Woman sitting down at her computer and watching teaser trailers for the Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Well, he is the one in charge of the whole thing. If he thinks Geoff Johns is the one that will save the DC movieverse than you have all the info you need about his decision making. "We wanted a lighter tone, so here's the guy that tears off peoples arms"
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I can't think of any scene off the top of my head that's similar to Wonder Woman sitting down at her computer and watching teaser trailers for the Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg. Spiderman?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Spiderman? He actually did something in the movie, I don't think it's comparable. e: If it was just Iron Man going up to him and saying "sup" then Spider-man doesn't appear again and the movie keeps going, I'd be similarly annoyed though. RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:If he thinks Geoff Johns is the one that will save the DC movieverse than you have all the info you need about his decision making. Yeah, I have no idea how the future DC movies are going to turn out. Johns has come out as the leading critic against excessive violence and darkness in comic movies, but that was kind of his thing when he was a writer. I'm just sad that the guy responsible for the Green Lantern movie is in charge of Justice League and Wonder Woman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:If he thinks Geoff Johns is the one that will save the DC movieverse than you have all the info you need about his decision making.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Yeah, I have no idea how the future DC movies are going to turn out. Johns has come out as the leading critic against excessive violence and darkness in comic movies, but that was kind of his thing when he was a writer. Wasn't there a lot of executive meddling in Green Lantern? Blaming only Johns seems unfair.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Well, he is the one in charge of the whole thing. His decisions about what will make the most money are what shapes the next ones. It makes sense for you to have posted the quote, but it's hard to take his comments as to the quality of the movies seriously as anything other than a framing for financially-motivated decisions. computer parts posted:Spiderman? Specifically, the visit to his apartment, which is this weird little side-show, though admittedly not quite as intrusively placed as in BvS where it interrupts the climax. RBA Starblade posted:He actually did something in the movie, I don't think it's comparable. Eh, he's another body flipping around during the fight, but he's not meaningfully important to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Equeen posted:BvS makes it very clear that Batman killing is a recent and concerning issue. Why is this so hard to understand*? Probably because it's loving ridiculous if it's true. It makes no sense. Aliens attack and now he decides that 20 years of being a hyper disciplined non lethal warrior was a bad idea. Superman is a threat, time to break my vow and kill some dudes. And even if this were all true he still kills after his 'redemption'. It doesn't matter if you personally feel like the situation in the warehouse is somehow impossible to resolve without lethal force because that's up to the writer. In an alternate universe where Batman didn't kill anyone in BvS nobody would be writing paragraphs arguing the ridiculousness of that. It would make SOME sort of sense if he became lethal after Jason Todd's death, but the entire point of Jason's character is that he's pissed that Batman won't kill people, specifically Joker. Jason Todd takes his Batman training and decides he would accomplish more good if he just killed the criminals instead of arresting them. In this universe Jason and Bruce would be best buds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
The important thing about Geoff Johns is the kind of comic book nerds who usually end up in charge of the early buzz on popular sites are like and trust him. When they see Geoff Johns name they put down their pitchforks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Aliens attack and now he decides that 20 years of being a hyper disciplined non lethal warrior was a bad idea. He doesn't decide that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:This is because you're simply flatly denying that anything happens in the movie. This is a losing position, which is why you end up talking little about the movie itself. Actually talking about the movie would mean admitting that it has plots and meanings that it communicates to the viewer. Amazing, this is what I talk about when I say lip-service, a few lines (some of which are only included in the longer cut) count as a discussion of violence, yet they have no functional import in the narrative or themes of the film, so when Batman is "redeemed" it still behaves with equal if not more violence than he was before his redemption; in fact he probably kills more people post-Martha than he does before it whether or not he is killing them for a good reason or not. The only real reference of other people being shocked and disturbed is one line from an old dude who says something to an effect of "there's a new meanness" in him, again only in the longer cut, IT IS LIP SERVICE. It does not examine in any way shape or form any real respondents to Batman's violence. Your Superman scene is one montage of a continually miserable looking Superman and what it communicates to me is something far different than what it does to you, the visuals clearly show a Superman distant from the people he rescues, and resentful of them, a figure who dangles above people in superiority. A superiority he maintains throughout, even his final sacrifice isn't earned from his character, but rather from us, "we didn't deserve someone so great, and he shouldn't have to answer to anyone, why should he?" I do think the film says something, and what it says is gross. BravestOfTheLamps posted:
You so thoroughly missed the point of my posts, but maybe I should have made them clearer (like the storytelling in BvS lol), The point I was making was how the "NOT MY BATMAN" defence is a lovely position to take because it can easily be applied to anyone if they have any preference in Batmans at all. Example 1: Person: I really think Batman in BvS is juvenile and boring. Person 2: You just don't like it because it's NOT YOUR BATMAN blaeurgh! Example 2: Person: I really think no kill justice Batman from the comics is juvenile and boring. Person 2: You just don't like it because it's NOT YOUR BATMAN blaurgy! Do you see? Do you understand now? If you read the posts I was responding to with those posts ( which you pulled out of the context of the discussion they were in, honestly or dishonestly) it was because whenever I said anything negative about the terrible BvS Batman all I got was attempts to dismiss my arguments and not engage with them by accusing me of having some bizarre, alternative agenda that was just made up. Karloff fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:He doesn't decide that. It's far more likely that Batman always killed people, a terrible but inevitable result of getting into fights with armed men.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Batman's redemption is that he realizes he really should have been calling the guns on his airplane "Batlings" the whole time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Probably because it's loving ridiculous if it's true. It makes no sense. Aliens attack and now he decides that 20 years of being a hyper disciplined non lethal warrior was a bad idea. Superman is a threat, time to break my vow and kill some dudes. And even if this were all true he still kills after his 'redemption'. It doesn't matter if you personally feel like the situation in the warehouse is somehow impossible to resolve without lethal force because that's up to the writer. In an alternate universe where Batman didn't kill anyone in BvS nobody would be writing paragraphs arguing the ridiculousness of that. Equeen is a little bit wrong. He didn't just start killing people. He just started executing people. Joker managed to avoid being executed by being in Arkham at the right time, if we're combining together BvS and Suicide Squad. Though there's also the question of whether being branded would be enough to get the Joker killed the way it would a random criminal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Equeen is a little bit wrong. He didn't just start killing people. He just started executing people. Joker managed to avoid being executed by being in Arkham at the right time, if we're combining together BvS and Suicide Squad. Though there's also the question of whether being branded would be enough to get the Joker killed the way it would a random criminal. The brand was simply the first of the sick tats the Joker got.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Equeen posted:Wasn't there a lot of executive meddling in Green Lantern? Blaming only Johns seems unfair. Agreed. The Johns hate is unfounded. Green Lantern Rebirth is a great comic, and no aspect of that story appeared in the movie. I've read other Green Lantern stories by him and they were all good. But then again this thread hates literally every comic ever made so YMMV. Still trying to wrap my mind around how someone can hate comics but still care enough about superhero movies to argue about them on Internet forums.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
I would say that the Geoff Johns "hatred" is entirely based on 20 years of Geoff Johns comics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Still trying to wrap my mind around how someone can hate comics but still care enough about superhero movies to argue about them on Internet forums. Comics being bad (or not) has nothing to do with whether movies are worthwhile, because movies aren't comics. They're movies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:It's far more likely that Batman always killed people, a terrible but inevitable result of getting into fights with armed men. This makes way more sense. I'm inclined to believe this. However many people posting here don't seem to believe this. Also re: Karloff. I'm not really sure why everyone's ganging up on you so hard but I wanted to mention that I agree with everything you are saying. I will say that I have grown to like the movie quite a bit after watching it again, despite its many many flaws. I guess it's cause I knew what I was getting into so I didn't have to deal with the disappointment of unmet expectations Sir Kodiak posted:Comics being bad (or not) has nothing to do with whether movies are worthwhile, because movies aren't comics. They're movies. If someone made a scene for scene comic adaptation of Batman v Superman, would you like it? To me they are all just stories told in different ways HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I would say that the Geoff Johns "hatred" is entirely based on 20 years of Geoff Johns comics. Back when I read a lot of comics I would go out of my way to read Johns books because I enjoyed them the most. Who would you consider to be a good comics writer? Which comics in particular do you think are good? SolidSnakesBandana fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
i care about superhero movies because it means i get superhero stuff without dealing with all the stupid poo poo in western cape comics
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Equeen is a little bit wrong. He didn't just start killing people. He just started executing people. Joker managed to avoid being executed by being in Arkham at the right time, if we're combining together BvS and Suicide Squad. Though there's also the question of whether being branded would be enough to get the Joker killed the way it would a random criminal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Why would a bat branding be a death mark in prison? If anything it could be something to brag about. at the very least the batbrand is basically saying to the guards and law enforcement 'yeah don't bother sticking up for or protecting this guy, The Bat has decided he's bad and deserves extra punishment'
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Why would a bat branding be a death mark in prison? If anything it could be something to brag about. For at least some of them Lex is paying to have them murdered in prison, and the police and guards look the other way because they're in cahoots with the Bat. It's yet another way that Batman is inadvertently helping Lex Luthor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Why would a bat branding be a death mark in prison? If anything it could be something to brag about. The Ultimate Cut shows Lex's goon visiting the prison and talking the guy who shanks the branded dude into doing it. It's not random prisoners being killed because of the brand, it's part of Lex's greater scheme to control the media messaging. It's already hinted at when Lex sends Clark the photos of the dead guy in the original cut, but it's explicit here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Back when I read a lot of comics I would go out of my way to read Johns books because I enjoyed them the most. Who would you consider to be a good comics writer? Which comics in particular do you think are good? Ones not written by Geoff Johns. Let's start there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:If someone made a scene for scene comic adaptation of Batman v Superman, would you like it? To me they are all just stories told in different ways I can't answer this in the abstract. It would depend significantly on the specifics of the adaptation. For instance, I like the Watchmen comic, but think Snyder's Watchmen film is way better than the more "faithful" motion comic. The choice of medium is a big part of the storytelling so you can't change the medium without changing the story. Also, people are "ganging up" on Karloff because multiple people disagree with him. I don't believe there's any behind-the-scenes coordination going on. He just produces enough stuff worth correcting or otherwise addressing for there to be room for multiple respondents.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Specifically, one of Karloff's core claims is that multiple sequences in the film "don't mean anything" or "don't serve any purpose", so anyone who found meaning or purpose in the sequences he cites will pretty reasonably want to offer their perspective
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Jenny Angel posted:Specifically, one of Karloff's core claims is that multiple sequences in the film "don't mean anything" or "don't serve any purpose", so anyone who found meaning or purpose in the sequences he cites will pretty reasonably want to offer their perspective Yeah, I have no expectation of Karloff changing his mind, but it's a great prompt for discussing what's going on in the movie, which is interesting in itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Also, people are "ganging up" on Karloff because multiple people disagree with him. I don't believe there's any behind-the-scenes coordination going on. He just produces enough stuff worth correcting or otherwise addressing for there to be room for multiple respondents. You mean you don't receive the twice hourly CineD hivemind PMs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Back when I read a lot of comics I would go out of my way to read Johns books because I enjoyed them the most. Who would you consider to be a good comics writer? Which comics in particular do you think are good? I like early Johns a lot (specifically his Flash run, JSA, the GL stuff up to like a bit before Blackest Night) but he has taken a lot of hits over the past several years for unpopular DC stories as well as his involvement in the GL movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
Karloff posted:Amazing, this is what I talk about when I say lip-service, a few lines (some of which are only included in the longer cut) count as a discussion of violence, yet they have no functional import in the narrative or themes of the film, so when Batman is "redeemed" it still behaves with equal if not more violence than he was before his redemption; in fact he probably kills more people post-Martha than he does before it whether or not he is killing them for a good reason or not. The only real reference of other people being shocked and disturbed is one line from an old dude who says something to an effect of "there's a new meanness" in him, again only in the longer cut, IT IS LIP SERVICE. It does not examine in any way shape or form any real respondents to Batman's violence. Your Superman scene is one montage of a continually miserable looking Superman and what it communicates to me is something far different than what it does to do, the visuals clearly show a Superman distant from the people he rescues, and resentful of them, a figure who dangles above people in superiority. A superiority he maintains throughout, even his final sacrifice isn't earned from his character, but rather from us, "we didn't deserve someone so great, and he shouldn't have to answer to anyone, why should he?" I do think the film says something, and what it says is gross. Batman is still a brutal vigilante when he decides to fight for justice is because he has always been a brutal vigilante. There is no changing that. Batman's problem isn't really that he kills people as a vigilante, it's that he's not fighting for good. And even when he's fighting for good, he's still off-putting because he's still killing people in violent combat. He simply changes from a misguided vigilante to an effective vigilante. The reason you object to this is because BvS has successfully communicated to you that brutal vigilantes are rather disturbing, even if they're fighting for good. BvS fully embraces this disjunct, making Batman both heroic and villainous. You say there's no "discussion", but the movie is in dialogue with its predecessors: BvS's impactful violence and examination of psychosis is a very direct response to Nolan's sterility and emotional coldness. The Bat-Brand isn't lip service, it's a direct symbol of what Batman is. When he wields it again the Ultimate Cut, he's almost becoming Lobster Johnson.  This was once posted in the BSS's "Badass" thread. Just statistically speaking, there is someone who founds this awesome but recoiled in horror at BvS. With the Superman montage you've mentally edited out the scenes where's he's shown close, including his despair at being worshipped by the Day of the Dead celebrants, and instead complain that there's a shot of Superman as a "resentful" alien figure. The irony is that you're too immersed in the world of the movie, and end up operating by the logic of characters who project their fears and desperation on Superman, who's a mostly average dude with absolute power and desire to do good. Karloff posted:You so thoroughly missed the point of my posts, but maybe I should have made them clearer (like the storytelling in BvS lol), The point I was making was how the "NOT MY BATMAN" defence is a lovely position to take because it can easily be applied to anyone if they have any preference in Batmans at all. Again, you're deep in "My/Your Batman" territory because you think that "Batmen preference" is important at all. Batman is just a character, and characters are only tools for telling stories. It's really just a question of what stories people prefer. Preferring one Batman over another is just preferring one story or style of story over the other. Your criticisms end up muddled when you localize your criticisms in characters: you don't like BvS's story, and localize your complaints in the figure of Batman. When somebody points out how arbitrary this is, you make counter-accusations that they're closet fascists or something for liking BvS ("This "IS YOUR BATMAN", the ultimate amalgamation of all the elements you have always desired Batman to be, you've emotionally attached to this version..."). BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 16:04
|
|