# Batman/Superman Movie 2015



## UltraParanoia

Alright, lets open up a discussion here. Surely I'm not the only nerd on here, it is the internet after all

I think this will be a teething movie for Warner Brothers & DC. If they can manage to fit 2 massive characters like Batman & Superman on to the screen without it being terrible then I think they'll take a longer look at Justice League, but not until they see if this works or not.

I'm not the biggest DC Comics fan, apart from Batman being my lifetime hero  I may or may not have the Bat signal tattooed across my back.
Marvel always had the goods & for the most part their movies have been executed 100% better. I wasnt a fan of Man of Steel but it was absolutely a move in the right direction, bringing a version of Batman into that universe is really exciting...I hope it works!.

Even if this got terrible reviews, it would make money purely off the millions of geeks going to see it.

ttp://youtu.be/2spdUrYi6-c


----------



## UltraParanoia

Also...


----------



## UltraParanoia

It's also the same year as The Avengers 2 & Star Wars VII


----------



## sandalhat

Why does Batman need to exist in a world with Man of Steel version of Superman? He was/is so strong and fast wtf is Batman supposed to do? Sit around watching the stupid plot element from Dark Knight whereby all cellphones combined let you see anything and everything, and give Superman tactical support? Lol


----------



## UltraParanoia

sandalhat said:


> Why does Batman need to exist in a world with Man of Steel version of Superman? He was/is so strong and fast wtf is Batman supposed to do? Sit around watching the stupid plot element from Dark Knight whereby all cellphones combined let you see anything and everything, and give Superman tactical support? Lol


 
 Well firstly this Batman will have zero to do with the Christian Bale Batman we've known recently. He'll be completely unrelated. 

But, it is a weird pairing. As much as I prefer Batman, what can he do that Superman cant?


----------



## UltraParanoia

BUT! What if they are messing with us & Joseph Gordon Levitt is Batman & the Nolan universe meets Man of Steel??

The same writter is doing it after all


----------



## MFB

Couldn't care less for Snyder despite "Man of Steel" being a decent flick, but his palate is over-used now
Couldn't care less for a JGL as a possible Batman lead since he's Nightwing at best
Couldn't care less for the infamous amounts of butthurt that will come as a result of whoever wins

I like Batman, but he's over-used and over-powered as of late (and I mean the past few years mind you) and Superman has always been a bore to me since he's a boatload of powers with one weakness


----------



## technomancer

So they FINALLY do a decent job with Batman and now they're rebooting it 

Then again DC seems to .... up movies far more than they succeed  (See the disaster that was Green Lantern as a prime example)


----------



## ilyti

THIS ALREADY HAPPENED


----------



## UltraParanoia

I dont think it'll be a versus movie, I think it'll be those 2 teaming up against Lex Luther & maybe a Batman villian. 

I agree with the point that Batman has just dominated the world with 3 of the highest grossing films of all time & they are going to destroy that by rebooting...just like Spider-man


----------



## sandalhat

technomancer said:


> Green Lantern



You had to go there and mention he who we do not speak of.


----------



## The Reverend

Man, you guys call yourselves nerds? I can think of dozens of useful things Batman can do for the plot of the movie, and I f--king hate most incarnations of him. The only ones I like are when he's (rightfully) teetering on the edge of insanity. 

Don't forget that Batman has f--ked Superman up in the past. I can easily see a quick introduction to him in the first act, with some early stirrings of a conflict with either Gotham being subject to Kryptonian bullshit or Gotham crime leading to Batman's presence in Metropolis. Flash forward thirty minutes and after Bruce Wayne's rich-man gadgets and paranoid genius meets a stalemate with Superman's brute force and mentally deficient strategy they realize they have a common enemy and settle into an uneasy truce. I'm sure they'd throw in some bullshit JLA member, or maybe win nerd points with a f--ked up JSA nod, and then Superman and Bats win the battle and we all go home feeling giddy.

I've gotta say, IMO DC's big-name characters generally don't hold up, but there's enough interesting things to work with that they could make this a good movie if they keep it grounded. For example, they went with the cheesiest Silver Age Hal Jordan archetype they could manage while not emphasizing on the somewhat more serious tones superhero movies have been dabbling in. That shit worked with the first X-Men and Spiderman titles, but after introducing the world to Batman Begins and Watchmen they should've known better. 

I don't even like DC, aside from The Spectre and the Hal Jordan GL, what the f--k am I doing here. 



Leave me alone, thread. I don't want you.


----------



## UltraParanoia

Wow...


----------



## The Reverend

UltraParanoia said:


> Wow...



I hope that's not a "Wow, this guy cares too much," because I'm usually the guy who says that.


----------



## flint757

UltraParanoia said:


> I dont think it'll be a versus movie, I think it'll be those 2 teaming up against Lex Luther & maybe a Batman villian.
> 
> I agree with the point that Batman has just dominated the world with 3 of the highest grossing films of all time & they are going to destroy that by rebooting...just like Spider-man



Except the reboot Spiderman was better because Toby made a terrible Spiderman.  And I'm not a big Kirsten Dunst fan either. The only good one out of the 3 was the 2nd one and that's because Doc Ock was bad ass. The only real issue the new one suffered from was a couple plot holes and some rather convenient mechanics, but those are things honestly every super hero movie seems to suffer from. 

Rebooting Batman within Superman will be a difficult feat. Since he is different from the trilogy Batman they can't just pretend like we know who he is. They actually have to bother introducing the character again AND pull off the movie in general. It is doable though (see Hulk in Avengers).


----------



## TomAwesome

UltraParanoia said:


> I dont think it'll be a versus movie, I think it'll be those 2 teaming up against Lex Luther & maybe a Batman villian.



Quite to the contrary, according to io9, the trailer used this quote from The Dark Knight Returns:



> I want you to remember, Clark&#8230;in all the years to come&#8230;in your most private moments&#8230;I want you to remember&#8230;my hand&#8230;at your throat&#8230;I want&#8230;you to remember&#8230;the one man who beat you.



Which leads me to reiterate:



ilyti said:


> THIS ALREADY HAPPENED



This already happened. Read The Dark Knight Returns. It's great. Also, it was already made into a two-part movie *just last year*. It was a pretty faithful recreation of the comic.

But for some reason, nobody cares about the animated movies. This is a shame, because the best iterations of Batman outside of the comics happen to be animated: the mid-90s animated series, Mask of the Phantasm (part of the aforementioned series), Under the Red Hood, Gotham Knight, The Dark Knight Returns, etc.


----------



## Xaios

flint757 said:


> The only real issue the new one suffered from was a couple plot holes and some rather convenient mechanics, but those are things honestly every super hero movie seems to suffer from.



THE EAGL... erm, I mean, THE CRANES!!!



In all fairness, yes, Andrew Garfield made a much better Spiderman AND Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire.

The problem I have with Superhero movies these days is that they're obsessed with absolutely relentless action and carnage. "BLOW EVERYTHING UP" seems to be the mantra that they work with now. Sure, they all have the requisite quiet moments of pathos, but they all seem to ring hollow (see Iron Man 3). We need a superhero movie where the stakes are more complex than EVERYTHING GETS DESTROYED, or at least make it so that the massive amounts of damage caused isn't the primary objective of the antagonist (and make it plain to see, not just a thinly veiled excuse).



> I want you to remember, Clark&#8230;in all the years to come&#8230;in your most private moments&#8230;I want you to remember&#8230;my hand&#8230;at your throat&#8230;I want&#8230;you to remember&#8230;the one man who beat you.



I had no idea that Khan was also a Batman villain.


----------



## pullingstraws

I think Jeremy Jahns has some cool theories about the plot.


----------



## sweepingDemon

Jeremy jahns is a great reviewer


----------



## vampiregenocide

Man of Steel brought Superman up to date in a way that he definitely needed. Being such an overpowered Superhero, I always found it hard to like him. Any time he faces a problem it seems so effortless to solve that you never really feel he's in danger. They seemed to tone him down a bit in MOS, which I preferred.

Batman on the other hand, has always been the complete opposite. In the comics he gets stabbed, shot, beaten up and almost killed numerous times. He lives life on the edge and that is why I've always preferred him. 

If they pulled Superman into that dark world of Batman, it would serve not only to ground Superman better but to contrast nicely with that style.



UltraParanoia said:


> I dont think it'll be a versus movie, I think it'll be those 2 teaming up against Lex Luther & maybe a Batman villian.
> 
> I agree with the point that Batman has just dominated the world with 3 of the highest grossing films of all time & they are going to destroy that by rebooting...just like Spider-man



Well the quote they read out implies that it will be based on The Dark Knight Returns in some respect. It would be more interesting to have them fight than to be friends. 

And the new Spider-Man film was waaaaaay better than any of Raimi's. A reboot was sorely needed.



technomancer said:


> So they FINALLY do a decent job with Batman and now they're rebooting it
> 
> Then again DC seems to .... up movies far more than they succeed  (See the disaster that was Green Lantern as a prime example)



Nolan's Batman films were always planned to be a trilogy only from what I read.


----------



## The Reverend

I'm not sure that they'll be adapting TDKR very faithfully. Having established Superman as a free agent in Man of Steel, it doesn't seem to make sense that Snyder would then send Superman to tangle with Batman on the government's behalf. I know that there's obvious workarounds, but I have more faith in Snyder than that. Such plot fixes can often seem forced. 

I think my plot prediction could be very close to the direction they'll take, with Batman being introduced as the film's first antagonist, before they figure out who the real enemy is in the third act. It's been a thing recently to have more than one villain given development in the film, so I think it's a good bet in this case. 

But who the f--k knows, right? In any event, I know I'll be seeing it just to see if DC can pull off a crossover with their two juggernaut characters.


----------



## flint757

Well in the Batman-verse the officials consider Batman a criminal so it does seem reasonable for it to start out with Superman being against Batman. Especially since he is such a goody two shoes.


----------



## The Reverend

flint757 said:


> Well in the Batman-verse the officials consider Batman a criminal so it does seem reasonable for it to start out with Superman being against Batman. Especially since he is such a goody two shoes.



I definitely agree with that point. I think we're going to see a TDKR-esque bitter, cynical Batman, but I don't think the movie will really get into the meat of that arc, which does disappoint me, personal distaste for Batman put aside. I really liked seeing Superman put down by an old Bruce Wayne. If anything, I think they should build the history of Supes and Batman working together in the MoS sequel, just so that the development of Batman and Supes in TDKR has all the impact on film as it did in the series.


----------



## UltraParanoia

pullingstraws said:


> I think Jeremy Jahns has some cool theories about the plot.




He definitely makes some good points, but he is annoying as hell


----------



## Dommak89

I have to agree with The Reverend. I just recently caught up with a lot of the direct-to-video comic productions and all the DC shows and I have to say that there is a lot of potential. If done right, they could easily hold up against Marvel.

Also, if you have watched all the shows and/or read the comics you would know that Batman is superior to Superman on many levels and is actually far more important for the Justice League. Shit, without him there wouldn't even be a decent Justice League (think about all the shit he has financed, like the Watchtower and stuff).


----------



## SenorDingDong

technomancer said:


> So they FINALLY do a decent job with Batman and now they're rebooting it
> 
> Then again DC seems to .... up movies far more than they succeed  (See the disaster that was Green Lantern as a prime example)



Actually, I'd have to disagree with the first part of your statement; I'm still hoping that they will finally do a decent job with Batman. Nolan's trilogy was bad. I'm hoping that something like this will show Batman in a less obnoxious, lazy and plot-hole ridden light, making up for how terribly the last three movies depicted him. 

And for those who will throw the gritty realism card out: I love early-mid 90's and late 80's Batman because of how dark and gritty he was. Nolan's trilogy tried to touch on that but missed the mark by a mile, throwing out pseudo-realism when it was convenient and when there seemed nothing else to do then reverting to the classic fantasy of "it doesn't have to make sense because it's a movie" whenever the writers struggled. 

What I want to see is a Batman-Superman meeting closer to that shown in "The Dark Knight Returns." Do that and I might be able to forgive the remorseless trampling Batman has been subjected to over the years in film.


----------



## Dommak89

SenorDingDong said:


> Actually, I'd have to disagree with the first part of your statement; I'm still hoping that they will finally do a decent job with Batman. Nolan's trilogy was bad. I'm hoping that something like this will show Batman in a less obnoxious, lazy and plot-hole ridden light, making up for how terribly the last three movies depicted him.
> 
> And for those who will throw the gritty realism card out: I love early-mid 90's and late 80's Batman because of how dark and gritty he was. Nolan's trilogy tried to touch on that but missed the mark by a mile, throwing out pseudo-realism when it was convenient and when there seemed nothing else to do then reverting to the classic fantasy of "it doesn't have to make sense because it's a movie" whenever the writers struggled.
> 
> What I want to see is a Batman-Superman meeting closer to that shown in "The Dark Knight Returns." Do that and I might be able to forgive the remorseless trampling Batman has been subjected to over the years in film.



Somehow that doesn't make sense if you take into consideration that the "dark night returns" was inspired by Nolan's movies. Also it shows the same approach towards realsim as in Nolan's TDK trilogy. Also, compared to any other Batman animated appearances it is the furthest away from the early 90s movies that you seem to like.

I liked Nolan's approach towards the Batman franchise, but I also think it's going to be difficult to put Batman and Superman in a movie, without proper introduction. The things that make Batman so badass are carefully explained and shown in all the Justice League episodes, so it would take a lot of screentime, to make the mortal Batman stand any chance against the super-human Superman.


----------



## MFB

Dommak89 said:


> Somehow that doesn't make sense if you take into consideration that the "dark night returns" was inspired by Nolan's movies.





The Dark Knight Returns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1986 is the publication date of Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" which inspired the Nolan-verse (namely the third film), NOT the other way around


----------



## flint757

Dommak89 said:


> I liked Nolan's approach towards the Batman franchise, but I also think it's going to be difficult to put Batman and Superman in a movie, without proper introduction. The things that make Batman so badass are carefully explained and shown in all the Justice League episodes, so it would take a lot of screentime, to make the mortal Batman stand any chance against the super-human Superman.



I liked the attempted approach better than previous attempts, exception being 1989 batman, but I didn't like the major plot holes or the overall progression. I have to agree with SeniorDingDong in the fact that he decided to go with the serious, gritty, 'realistic' angle and then chose when he decided to actually apply that to the movie (aside from atmosphere). The last one was just bad IMO, especially from the directors POV. Pulled punches, bad fight choreography, bad use of extras (cops vs bad guy battle towards the end) and some bad decision making with the audio. In other words it could have been a lot better.

Anyhow, it won't take much back story because everyone already knows Batman for one. Secondly, it won't be any more odd than if they introduce Lex Luthor, who hasn't been introduced yet either. ANY new character introduced in Superman is going to be out of left field. Think about The Dark Knight and the Joker. He was fleshed out really well despite lacking a back story.


----------



## UltraParanoia

MFB said:


> The Dark Knight Returns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 1986 is the publication date of Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" which inspired the Nolan-verse (namely the third film), NOT the other way around


 
THIS!! All damn day long!


----------



## The Reverend

flint757 said:


> Anyhow, it won't take much back story because everyone already knows Batman for one. Secondly, it won't be any more odd than if they introduce Lex Luthor, who hasn't been introduced yet either. ANY new character introduced in Superman is going to be out of left field. Think about The Dark Knight and the Joker. He was fleshed out really well despite lacking a back story.



This is going to be a sequel to Man of Steel. Let's not forget that. Marvel (and to some degree comics themselves) prove that when you have independently well-created characters and stories, weaving them together creates a lot more potential for even better stories. Yeah, everyone knows Batman, but as what? Batman in TDKR is retired and old, and the story is just as much about his rediscovery of purpose as it is him finally defeating a demi-god. We won't see years of uneasy alliances between them in MoS 2. I better not see a f--king montage, at least . We'll see Batman as another edgy hero with none of the nuance, dignity, or subtlety of TDKR. 

Not only do I hate myself for thinking about DC this much, but I'm starting to think that this movie could actually turn out to be too ambitious. I get that DC is anxious to catch up to Marvel, and I respect that because I want to see a decent GL, but if they want to do this right they need to capitalize on Marvel's formula (ironically just that of comic books). Establish characters, then merge.


----------



## technomancer

SenorDingDong said:


> Actually, I'd have to disagree with the first part of your statement;



We'll agree to disagree... then again I've never been a DC guy and they recently ended the only title I actively read and rebooted it to make the character "younger and edgier" in the new 52 so I just don't care all that much 

This just strikes me as ZOMG MARVEL MADE A TON OF MONEY WITH AVENGERS.... LET'S PUT CHARACTERS TOGETHER IN A MOVIE!!!


----------



## Dommak89

MFB said:


> 1986 is the publication date of Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" which inspired the Nolan-verse (namely the third film), NOT the other way around



Oh shoot, it was the other way around, wasn't it? Totally mixed that up. Forget my previous comment.


----------



## M3CHK1LLA




----------



## Steinmetzify

This would be great if they could pull it off. TDKR has always been my favorite piece of mainstream comic fiction....the animated movie that they did was excellent, and is my favorite Batman movie of all time. The '89 version runs second, but it's a pretty big margin...it was stylish, well written, but kind of a joke...Michael Keaton did a great job with the poignant tragedy inherent to the character without making it seem like he focused on nothing else BUT that, even though he had to.

The Nolan movies sucked from my perspective....the storyline for the entire trilogy seemed like it was written on a bar napkin by someone who had a passing familiarity with the characters; Michael Caine was great, and Heath Ledger as the Joker was really good....up there with Jack Nicholson in terms of believably crazy, but anyone else in the whole trilogy could have been replaced by any other actor and the film would have been the same to me. No one really stood out, at all....in an interview with Christian Bale (taken from the Wiki) Bale described Batman's dilemma as whether "[his crusade is] something that has an end. Can he quit and have an ordinary life? The kind of manic intensity someone has to have to maintain the passion and the anger that they felt as a child, takes an effort after a while, to keep doing that. At some point, you have to exorcise your demons." THIS RIGHT HERE is what's wrong with this film, this series, and the writing of it in general.....Batman does have that manic intensity; he HAS to, to maintain this...he always has and always will. It DOESN'T end, EVER, not for him. There's no such thing as Bruce Wayne without Batman....in a very real sense Bruce Wayne is just a mask for Batman. Batman has changed to me as I've gotten older...when I was younger, I thought he did it just out of a sense of justice....now, I see that it's that, but that he's also a little bit insane....always has been and never won't be. He blames himself, and will spend his entire life feeling responsible for it. That's an inherent part of TDKR and the character in general, that has never really been explored and could be to the benefit of all future films.

DC has always lagged behind Marvel when it comes to the live action films though....GL blew hard, even with an engaging lead character....I dig Ryan Reynolds and I think he did a decent job in a lackluster production, but you can only go so far....Marvel has established characters and kept them in their places, for the most part.....Hugh Jackman IS Wolverine in the movie universe, and Patrick Stewart is Professor X and James Marsden is Cyclops and Halle Berry is Storm and so on and so forth....I get that the Batman movies have a much longer duration, but it seems like anyone can play Batman and we're just expected to believe it. George Clooney is not now, was not then, and nor will he ever be believable as Batman. Cmon. 

The thing that DC needs to realize is that people are going to go and see it no matter what the backstory is....I have a cousin that doesn't even read comics and she goes to see all the big comic movies anyway, so why bother with the 'origin story intro' movie? Comic people know em all already and the general public doesn't care; short bios are available on Wiki anyway for people that 'have to know the story'. Give people some credit and get on with the story....not every Batman/Superman/Iron Man/Avengers graphic novel or comic does an origin story EVERY SINGLE TIME. I think it's kind of insulting by this time.....is there actually ANYONE out there who doesn't know why Bruce Wayne became Batman, or WHY Superman can fly and has heat vision? My woman doesn't even read comics and we don't really talk about them at all, but she knows who the Justice League is. Eff the intros and get on with it already.

TDKR done by someone talented and kept faithful to the Frank Miller version would be the best comic film of all time, so far. It could be done exactly as written; the news stories scattered throughout the book do a fine job of covering the backstory that needs to be told; nothing else need be added. I'd pay through the nose to see it, and it'd be one of the few films I'd actually pay to own.


----------



## 777timesgod

So they are going to go head to head in this movie? How will that make sense, one is a superhuman, the other a guy in a bat suit...


----------



## Ckackley

I agree with the whole TDKR angle. I would totally LOVE to see Superman have his ass handed to him by an old retired but still amazingly crafty Batman. My biggest beef with Superman is his invincibility, and my biggest love of Batman was the fact that he's just a normal guy. No superpowers, just training, brains and resources.


----------



## donray1527

you guys forget that batman isnt just a guy in a suit. He has that utility belt...


----------



## Steinmetzify

777timesgod said:


> So they are going to go head to head in this movie? How will that make sense, one is a superhuman, the other a guy in a bat suit...


 
If you haven't read the book or seen any of the fights they get into you should probably be aware that Batman kicks the living sh*t out of Superman when this happens lol......he's a tactical genius, a brilliant researching scientist and would make a commanding general in any top rate army shocked at his knowledge of guerilla warfare (as he's written, anyway). Not to give too much away, but in TDKR, it took him millions of dollars and a lot of years, but he successfully synthesized Kryptonite knowing that he was going to have to go up against Clark one day.

Dude took on Darkseid (a god) and even though he got his ass handed to him physically, he still got him to stand down due to a tactical advantage over him.

Not to mention that he's studied all his enemies AND his friends, and when someone got hold of his doomsday plans for the Justice League, the entire plan worked.....not just Superman.....the plan he wrote took out the entire JL flawlessly, including Wonder Woman and Martian Manhunter, two of the only characters that are considered equal to Superman on a power scale. If Batman was the one that had done it instead of Ra's al Ghul, not one of them could have stood up to him; he had every contingency worked out to the smallest detail and every one of them would have died.

Check out the JLA: Tower of Babel storyline if you're into it; it's a fun read, and was an interesting look at Batman's paranoia and ways he deals with it.

*TL;DR: Don't fvck with Batman, even if you're Superman.*


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Required viewing material for anyone doubting Batman's ability to take anyone down with brutal efficiency. Also, if you can't find Tower of Babel.


----------



## MFB

Justice League : Doom was ...eh, at best.

Green Lantern's thing ended up coming down to being a robot, Flash's contingency plan was the plot line to "Speed", Wonder Woman's doesn't even really stop her just causes her to harm a bunch of innocent bystanders which since all these plans were stolen from Bruce - makes absolutely zero sense. Only Superman and Martian Manhunters are really like "Oh hey, that's pretty hardcore"


----------



## wankerness

technomancer said:


> We'll agree to disagree... then again I've never been a DC guy and they recently ended the only title I actively read and rebooted it to make the character "younger and edgier" in the new 52 so I just don't care all that much
> 
> This just strikes me as ZOMG MARVEL MADE A TON OF MONEY WITH AVENGERS.... LET'S PUT CHARACTERS TOGETHER IN A MOVIE!!!



It strikes me as "goddammit, no movie about DC characters has ever been successful besides batman, I guess we'll have to put him in any of our movies if we want them to make money."


----------



## flint757

Green Lantern could have been and should have been bad ass. I think Flash would be pretty good too.


----------



## Jes Johnson

I actually think Batman and Superman are pretty evenly matched. Putting aside the money and gadgets and martial arts, the way Batman's mind works practically is a superpower. This is a more subtle point, which is why a lot of people overlook it. But he's a genius-level intellect and determination makes him extremely powerful. Besides, he beats up people with super powers on a pretty regular basis. ;P

In any case, I'm excited for the movie. I liked Man of Steel and the Dark Knight movies, I think this one will be good, too.


----------



## The Reverend

My problem with Batman is that his mental acuity makes him overpowered. I don't mind resourceful, super suspicious Batman, but what keeps me from really enjoying him is this fixation on how smart he is. If you know that with a bit of planning he could and did take down the entire JLA, how can anything be a threat to him? Especially some of the jokes in his rogues gallery? Why isn't he coming up with plans to permanently incapacitate villains, instead of beating them up and putting them in shoddy prisons?

The only overpowered comic book characters I like are the villains, but only because it puts the struggles of the heroes in much greater context. Without any believable threat to a hero, though, we just get a bunch of frames of ass-kicking and useless dialogue. I can understand that some people only want that, but if we're pushing for comics to have any sort of depth we have to rise above the Michael Bay style of entertainment and create moving, emotional stories.


----------



## Jes Johnson

The Reverend said:


> My problem with Batman is that his mental acuity makes him overpowered. I don't mind resourceful, super suspicious Batman, but what keeps me from really enjoying him is this fixation on how smart he is. If you know that with a bit of planning he could and did take down the entire JLA, how can anything be a threat to him? Especially some of the jokes in his rogues gallery? Why isn't he coming up with plans to permanently incapacitate villains, instead of beating them up and putting them in shoddy prisons?
> 
> The only overpowered comic book characters I like are the villains, but only because it puts the struggles of the heroes in much greater context. Without any believable threat to a hero, though, we just get a bunch of frames of ass-kicking and useless dialogue. I can understand that some people only want that, but if we're pushing for comics to have any sort of depth we have to rise above the Michael Bay style of entertainment and create moving, emotional stories.



I can understand why you feel that way. Personally, I think the fact that he's an un-powered character in a universe full of super beings sort of humanizes him. Despite his mental resources, that still handicaps him to a certain extent. There are stories here and there that really show him being challenged. But one thing I like about him is he always comes out on top regardless of what ridiculous situation he's put in. Personally, I find him an inspirational character because his way of thinking has real life implications. I'm never gonna fly, but I can learn to think more like Batman. Lol, I know that sounds really dorky, but you know what I'm saying.


----------



## TheDeathOfMusic

Originally I was bummed out at this, thinking it was just a lame cash cow. Now I'm getting pretty excited.


----------



## Danukenator

What's the best "Batman and Superman" stuff out there? This can include any medium. I like comic book stuff but looking at it without much knowledge is absolutely mind boggling. It's just hard to make heads or tails of all the different series, retcons, etc.

I'm open to anything though with those two, preferably where they interact. I remember an animated movie as a kid...I think. However, considering it seems like we have some pros on had, I'd love your opinions.


----------



## The Reverend

Danukenator said:


> What's the best "Batman and Superman" stuff out there? This can include any medium. I like comic book stuff but looking at it without much knowledge is absolutely mind boggling. It's just hard to make heads or tails of all the different series, retcons, etc.
> 
> I'm open to anything though with those two, preferably where they interact. I remember an animated movie as a kid...I think. However, considering it seems like we have some pros on had, I'd love your opinions.



The way DC does their continuity, knowing backstory is useless since it becomes irrelevant every decade, so picking up random comics isn't necessarily leaving you out of anything. 

I think there's a few movies with Bats and Supes on Netflix involving Darkseid or something. I'm really not the best one to answer this question.


----------



## MFB

You're talking about "Batman/Superman : Apocalypse" which is a solid movie. If you're talking about Batman in general, might be worth watching both "Mask of the Phantasm" and "Under the Red Hood" - both of which have great reviews. "Year One" is good as well, but I've heard to avoid "Gotham Knight" for various reasons.

As for comics, if you're looking for origins - I'm not sure since I've known Batman for so long that it's tough to call where I started. Could just go through the Wiki and get all your catch-ups and then jump on to the new 52 run which is written by Scott Snyder and the first storyline (Court of Owls) kicked ass. General storylines that are good include : Death in the Family, Batman R.I.P., Hush, and obviously Knightfall and Dark Knight Returns (if you can get past the art)


----------



## Jes Johnson

Danukenator said:


> What's the best "Batman and Superman" stuff out there? This can include any medium. I like comic book stuff but looking at it without much knowledge is absolutely mind boggling. It's just hard to make heads or tails of all the different series, retcons, etc.
> 
> I'm open to anything though with those two, preferably where they interact. I remember an animated movie as a kid...I think. However, considering it seems like we have some pros on had, I'd love your opinions.



I don't know too much of the Superman stuff personally. Some of my favorite Batman comics are Dark Knight Returns, The Killing Joke, Arkham Asylum, Batman RIP. I'm a big Joker fan, so a lot of those feature him as a major character.


----------



## Vicissitude27

uhhhhh....the new batman is...... 


https://www.facebook.com/notes/warner-bros-pictures/ben-affleck-revealed-as-batman/656526234358932


----------



## UltraParanoia

I dont hate this news.
An academy award winning acting playing 1 of the biggest comic book heros of all time? Warner Bros will be cheering!

Ben Affleck Cast as Batman in Man of Steel Sequel! - ComingSoon.net


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

He'll probably be fine, but at this point I can't see him as The Caped Crusader. I also said that about Heath Ledger's Joker, though.


----------



## UltraParanoia

I think he'll nail it.
Although Goyer is writing it & he wrote Batman with Nolan, it'll be good to see a different take on Batman. 

I'm excited for it


----------



## flint757

He always surprises me, but I honestly don't know if I can picture him as Batman.


----------



## Jes Johnson

Lol wow, that's a surprise. I don't really see him as Batman either, but I'll give him a shot.


----------



## Steinmetzify

Good god.


----------



## ImNotAhab

Ok... I like Big Ben Affleck and i hope he proves me wrong. 

But at the moment i just don't see it...


----------



## wankerness

I already was sure this movie would suck, this news is only upsetting cause Ben Affleck could have made something good in the time he'll waste on this turd. Gone Baby Gone is one of my favorite movies of the 2000s. I also don't really see him working in the part. It isn't that I don't like him, I think he's hilarious in Mallrats as a total dick and think he's more than fine in Argo, Good Will Hunting and Chasing Amy. 

Zach Snyder +that charisma vacuum that starred in Man of Steel strongly suggest this movie was hopeless from the getgo. I do think Watchmen is a pretty good flick but I think it's only cause the source material was so incredibly strong that even Zach Snyder couldn't destroy it with a sex scene set to Hallelujah.


----------



## wankerness

UltraParanoia said:


> I dont hate this news.
> An academy award winning acting playing 1 of the biggest comic book heros of all time? Warner Bros will be cheering!



It's notable that neither of his oscars were for his acting


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Time for the bump, leaked trailer! 

https://vid.me/NlzG


Movie will probably be as visually stunning, but emotionally hollow like the last one and complete with sub-bass heavy DUN DUNS... but more importantly.... Ben has a new Batman voice.

... Or at least i think that's a batman voice, it sounds really processed. Either its another character (luthor speaking through a comm system?) the other unnamed villain... or batman's voice in the armored, krypotnite suit. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Steinmetzify

Dig it. I'm in. That scene from TDKR looks sick and I've waited years to see it on the big screen. I'll see this. We get Avengers, this and Star Wars this year. Stoked.


----------



## groverj3

It's going to get some hate due to it being so grimdark. However, Superman is a super boring superhero so the dark setting somewhat makes up for that. I'm interested in seeing more of the Battfleck.


----------



## flint757

Hopefully they don't go the '300: Rise of an Empire' style for explaining how we get from Man of Steel to this setting (boring monologues with some overtures). That's a ton of off screen development. If it all happens on screen then this is going to be a long ass movie. 

That's what kind of ruined Days of Future Past for me.


----------



## wankerness

groverj3 said:


> It's going to get some hate due to it being so grimdark. However, Superman is a super boring superhero so the dark setting somewhat makes up for that. I'm interested in seeing more of the Battfleck.



The problem isn't the GRIMNESS, the problem is the STUPID. The Nolan ones had great atmosphere, this looks like Man of Steel meets Sin City 2. Remove any fun from the equation and things do not look good. I might end up watching it anyway, but boy was Man of Steel a joyless slog which mistook darkness for substance.


----------



## Skyblue

I enjoyed Man of Steel, even though it was "Meh" as a movie. I'm worried that it'll be all dark and grim and brooding and oh-we're-so-super-serious and not think about the fact that we're here for fun. Even TDK had slightly more easy going parts and characters, but so far the vibe from this movie isn't good. 

DC are kinda trying to copy Marvel and still be different, but it's almost as if they're doing everything too-little-too-late.


----------



## groverj3

wankerness said:


> The problem isn't the GRIMNESS, the problem is the STUPID. The Nolan ones had great atmosphere, this looks like Man of Steel meets Sin City 2. Remove any fun from the equation and things do not look good. I might end up watching it anyway, but boy was Man of Steel a joyless slog which mistook darkness for substance.



Exactly what is "stupid" about it? That's not very descriptive. It seems like they're following The Dark Knight Returns to a certain extent, which is one of the best graphic novels to feature Batman (IMHO).

You're perfectly entitled to have an opinion on it all, but the completely predictable negative reactions to anything superhero-related are getting a bit old.


----------



## brutalwizard

So why doesnt superman just like throw batman into space or something? Or lazer vision melt him for 60 minutes straight. I guess i really don't understand this. Like batdude could pull out kyptonite but superguy could just like fly away. I legit don't understand this concept. Seems like an super alien fighting a dude with a bunch of equipment is a huge plot hole. 

(idk have no one else to talk about this, i know it seems dumb to most of you haha)


----------



## flint757

It is a huge plot hole no matter what anyone says. Then again pretty much every action and superhero movie has nothing but giant plot holes so it's par for the course. 

This is why Superman is such a boring character. He can literally do anything and is pretty much invincible. DC did not foresee their universe expanding past Superman when they made him...


----------



## wankerness

groverj3 said:


> Exactly what is "stupid" about it? That's not very descriptive. It seems like they're following The Dark Knight Returns to a certain extent, which is one of the best graphic novels to feature Batman (IMHO).
> 
> You're perfectly entitled to have an opinion on it all, but the completely predictable negative reactions to anything superhero-related are getting a bit old.



Gimme a break, I liked Captain America 2 and X-Men DOFP and Guardians of the Galaxy more than any of the best picture nominees last year! I even really liked the Dark Knight Rises and Thor. I like superhero movies, I just think Man of Steel blew chunks and was about the level of Daredevil or Fantastic Four. This just looks like another ponderous joyless slog of SERIOUSNESS in the Man of Steel style. He's got great visual style, but has repeatedly shown to be utterly incapable of injecting any humanity or likable characters into anything he makes (except arguably Watchmen, but that was such a slavishly faithful adaptation most of the time it doesn't really count, plus he did his darnedest to turn Nite Owl and Silk Spectre II into CGI action figures as soon as any action happened). The concept isn't bad, but everything about that trailer just screams THIS IS REALLY SERIOUS, NO JOKES ALLOWED and THESE CHARACTERS HAVE NO PERSONALITY AND INSTEAD ARE JUST GOING TO POSE LIKE STATUES JUST LIKE THEY DO IN ALL OTHER ZACH SNYDER MOVIES. When Chris Nolan had a super serious trailer it was fine cause he'd repeatedly demonstrated the ability to lighten things up and add human flourishes no matter how dark or ridiculous the story was. Zach Snyder has repeatedly demonstrated he has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, and Warner Bros expressly saying there would be no humor allowed in this movie strikes me as one of the dumbest rules I've ever heard for a summer blockbuster, one that certainly suggests there will be no fun to be had here.


----------



## wankerness

brutalwizard said:


> So why doesnt superman just like throw batman into space or something? Or lazer vision melt him for 60 minutes straight. I guess i really don't understand this. Like batdude could pull out kyptonite but superguy could just like fly away. I legit don't understand this concept. Seems like an super alien fighting a dude with a bunch of equipment is a huge plot hole.
> 
> (idk have no one else to talk about this, i know it seems dumb to most of you haha)



Read the graphic novel, this is a really common question among people that don't know the source material and I've kind of enjoyed seeing my comics-literate friends silently bristle every time someone says this kind of thing. Basically, though, Batman the character fights things with superpowers ALL THE TIME in the comic books so Superman is no problem (plus he's the aggressor here and meticulously prepares for everything and has scads of technological help).


----------



## Duosphere

I don't care what dumb explanations people can come up to explain why everybody can fight Superman no matter how almost invincible he is, If I was him I'd just sneeze all my enemies to the space and not just throw them like brutalwizard said cause sneezing would be a lot funnier


----------



## groverj3

wankerness said:


> Gimme a break, I liked Captain America 2 and X-Men DOFP and Guardians of the Galaxy more than any of the best picture nominees last year! I even really liked the Dark Knight Rises and Thor. I like superhero movies, I just think Man of Steel blew chunks and was about the level of Daredevil or Fantastic Four. This just looks like another ponderous joyless slog of SERIOUSNESS in the Man of Steel style. He's got great visual style, but has repeatedly shown to be utterly incapable of injecting any humanity or likable characters into anything he makes (except arguably Watchmen, but that was such a slavishly faithful adaptation most of the time it doesn't really count, plus he did his darnedest to turn Nite Owl and Silk Spectre II into CGI action figures as soon as any action happened). The concept isn't bad, but everything about that trailer just screams THIS IS REALLY SERIOUS, NO JOKES ALLOWED and THESE CHARACTERS HAVE NO PERSONALITY AND INSTEAD ARE JUST GOING TO POSE LIKE STATUES JUST LIKE THEY DO IN ALL OTHER ZACH SNYDER MOVIES. When Chris Nolan had a super serious trailer it was fine cause he'd repeatedly demonstrated the ability to lighten things up and add human flourishes no matter how dark or ridiculous the story was. Zach Snyder has repeatedly demonstrated he has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, and Warner Bros expressly saying there would be no humor allowed in this movie strikes me as one of the dumbest rules I've ever heard for a summer blockbuster, one that certainly suggests there will be no fun to be had here.



Not saying you can't dislike something if you choose to.

It's just that everyone I know that hates Man of Steel did so because it was a markedly different tone from previous Superman movies. All of which I though were terrible (not a popular opinion, but they all bore me). That's just me of course.


----------



## flint757

Man of Steel felt incomplete and the end fight sequence was overkill. Both left me feeling kind of bored and indifferent about MoS.

I thought the same about the last Transformers movie. Lots of gloss and not a lot of substance.


----------



## wankerness

I don't know anyone that hated it because of previous Superman movies, if you're trying to blame things other than the quality of the movie itself, then people disliked it compared to all other DC/Marvel flicks (well, I guess people generally liked it more than Green Lantern or Catwoman or maybe even Iron Man 2). Most people didn't like the Superman Returns either (and basically no one liked 3 or 4), but it still seems to be much better-regarded than Man of Steel. A lot of people hated what it did with Superman's character based on their ideas of the character from the comics, not just the movies...I don't really know anyone under the age of about 30 who's even seen the Christopher Reeve ones! I was not one of these people, I have never read a comic book in my life unless you count Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen. It seems to be the primary complaint about the movie I see on the net, though.

It also is just such an ugly, incoherent downer of a movie compared to just about all the Marvel and DC movies that came out in the last 15 years. Everyone liked The Dark Knight which is an even darker movie, so it's certainly not simply a DARKNESS problem. It's what I said in the last post! The way it seemed to be aiming for GRITTY REALISM with the handheld stuff while you had Russell Crowe flying around on a space dragon was laughable too.


----------



## Steinmetzify

The Nolan movies sucked. 

Also, for all the guys asking about 'why wouldn't Superman just kill him or throw him into space, or fly away when the Kryptonite comes out'...

A: Superman doesn't kill people. It's part of the mythology, he just doesn't. 

B: once the Kryptonite comes out, he CAN'T fly away, or do much of anything else. If you guys had read this story or like mentioned above, knew the source material, you'd know that the only one who could ever beat Superman besides Doomsday is Batman. Dude planned the whole thing out years ago knowing he'd have to go up against Clark one day. The people that are complaining that he's just a normal guy going up against Superman have no idea who this guy is. He's a master of pretty much any martial art there is, he's a tactical genius and a monster at guerrilla warfare. Superman, knowing none of this and being a nice guy who just happens to be really strong and almost invincible has almost no chance here. At all. 

Batman synthesized Kryptonite, for ....s sake.


----------



## Duosphere

steinmetzify said:


> Also, for all the guys asking about 'why wouldn't Superman just kill him or throw him into space, or fly away when the Kryptonite comes out'...
> 
> A: Superman doesn't kill people. It's part of the mythology, he just doesn't.
> 
> B: once the Kryptonite comes out, he CAN'T fly away, or do much of anything else. If you guys had read this story or like mentioned above, knew the source material, you'd know that the only one who could ever beat Superman besides Doomsday is Batman. Dude planned the whole thing out years ago knowing he'd have to go up against Clark one day. The people that are complaining that he's just a normal guy going up against Superman have no idea who this guy is. He's a master of pretty much any martial art there is, he's a tactical genius and a monster at guerrilla warfare. Superman, knowing none of this and being a nice guy who just happens to be really strong and almost invincible has almost no chance here. At all.
> 
> Batman synthesized Kryptonite, for ....s sake.



It all doesn't matter, he's Superman, once Luthor got out of jail, grab him then dump him in jail again, attack is the best defense so do something against your enemy before he does to you.If there's a known enemy who wants to rule the world, keep his mind busy thinking about how you'll "attack" him leaving no free time to think about a new plan.I would keep taking him to really far away places, one day is India, next day is Finland and so on.Lame stories with a lot of holes, Superman can do whatever he wants to stop bad guys but still he waits till they do something, that's dumb.When your enemies want to kill you and rule the world, you have to be one step ahead otherwise it's just another dumb story which Superman will win no matter how many steps behind he is.


----------



## Steinmetzify

So if you were Superman, you'd punish people for crimes you think they're going to commit?


----------



## Duosphere

steinmetzify said:


> So if you were Superman, you'd punish people for crimes you think they're going to commit?



People?
I said known enemies, the only thing they do is try to kill me and rule the world.If I was one of them for sure I'd prefer Superman taking me to different places then spending my life in jail.I know they'll do something so I don't let their minds free to think of another plan, I keep them busy not knowing what'll be my next step.
If I was Superman I'd grab Gianna Michaels then show her my Fortress of LONGtude


----------



## Matyrker

STOKED for the movie. It's literally history in the making. Cannot wait.


----------



## zappatton2

I'll watch it if they bring back Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor! I kid, but he really was the best thing about the Superman movies IMO.


----------



## wankerness

Matyrker said:


> STOKED for the movie. *It's literally history in the making.* Cannot wait.



What the heck does that mean? Yes, it will be in IMDB and future books that list movies, just like every other movie that's come out.  Do you mean it's an important historical event? How do you figure?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wankerness said:


> What the heck does that mean? Yes, it will be in IMDB and future books that list movies, just like every other movie that's come out.  Do you mean it's an important historical event? How do you figure?



It's not the toppling of the Berlin Wall, but it's - to my knowledge at least - the first major motion picture featuring two 70+ year old characters who are incredibly ingrained in our pop culture. That's gotta count for something.


----------



## wankerness

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's not the toppling of the Berlin Wall, but it's - to my knowledge at least - the first major motion picture featuring two 70+ year old characters who are incredibly ingrained in our pop culture. That's gotta count for something.









I guess Dracula was only 50 years old at that point, but Frankenstein was 130! There were the House of Frankenstein/House of Dracula movies before that too, as well as plenty of stupid cheapy Frankenstein Vs Dracula movies in the years after.


----------



## flint757

I sincerely hope this turns out great, but I have some serious reservations about how it will turn out. There's a lot from the trailers and plot that lead me to believe this is going to be a bloated disaster.

As far as DC goes I'm more looking forward to Suicide Squad.


----------



## Matyrker

wankerness said:


> What the heck does that mean? Yes, it will be in IMDB and future books that list movies, just like every other movie that's come out.  Do you mean it's an important historical event? How do you figure?



Batman....and Superman....the two most iconic super heroes of all time will be in a live action film for the first time ever. HISTORICAL.


----------



## wankerness

Matyrker said:


> Batman....and Superman....the two most iconic super heroes of all time will be in a live action film for the first time ever. HISTORICAL.



Even as a huge movie nut I wouldn't use "historical" to apply to virtually anything that's ever happened in filmdom, especially not a blatant cash-grab like this. This is the movie equivalent of the comcast/time warner merger. HISTORICAL

This all said, the last trailers looked sorta interesting. I'll watch it for sure. I liked his version of Watchmen, flawed as it was, and this at least seems to have an interesting concept behind it. It will probably still be a gigantic mess (largely due to cramming in auxiliary characters to try and spawn new franchises), but hey.


----------



## Matyrker

wankerness said:


> Even as a huge movie nut I wouldn't use "historical" to apply to virtually anything that's ever happened in filmdom, especially not a blatant cash-grab like this. This is the movie equivalent of the comcast/time warner merger. HISTORICAL
> 
> This all said, the last trailers looked sorta interesting. I'll watch it for sure. I liked his version of Watchmen, flawed as it was, and this at least seems to have an interesting concept behind it. It will probably still be a gigantic mess (largely due to cramming in auxiliary characters to try and spawn new franchises), but hey.



Well..not exactly historical just as far as film goes. This dips into comics and many types of entertainment that super hero lore spreads into.


----------



## awake69

I think that the whole plotline that puts Bruce Wayne at the scene of the whole Superman/Zod melee is basically their way of trying to make us think that the mayhem and brutality of MOS was intentional...and not the writers overcompensating for the lack of action in Superman Returns. I mean they REALLY messed up with Man Of Steel. I'm all for good action set pieces and expect a bit of destruction when pitting two Kryptonians against each other, but the level of carnage and collateral damage for a SUPERMAN movie was a bit much. 
I think, especially when re-introducing Superman to a new generation of movie goers, they should have kept it a bit more simple and somewhat inspiring. What we got was a very dour and melancholy film. I don't even recall smiling during the whole time I was watching it. Granted, I am one of the ones lucky enough to have been a kid when Donner's masterpiece came out in 78. Say what you want about how hokey and campy it is....that movie NAILED the essence of Superman.


----------



## Matyrker

awake69 said:


> I think that the whole plotline that puts Bruce Wayne at the scene of the whole Superman/Zod melee is basically their way of trying to make us think that the mayhem and brutality of MOS was intentional...and not the writers overcompensating for the lack of action in Superman Returns. I mean they REALLY messed up with Man Of Steel. I'm all for good action set pieces and expect a bit of destruction when pitting two Kryptonians against each other, but the level of carnage and collateral damage for a SUPERMAN movie was a bit much.
> I think, especially when re-introducing Superman to a new generation of movie goers, they should have kept it a bit more simple and somewhat inspiring. What we got was a very dour and melancholy film. I don't even recall smiling during the whole time I was watching it. Granted, I am one of the ones lucky enough to have been a kid when Donner's masterpiece came out in 78. Say what you want about how hokey and campy it is....that movie NAILED the essence of Superman.




Not sure how much more I could disagree. I believe Man of Steel was a brilliant film. And in regards of the destructionit has all been planned for years. This next movie is about how humanity views Superman and the destruction that took place is a big time player as how we view him.

I also believe it was a very inspiring film

"You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun, Kal. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders."

Not sure how that could be viewed in any other way than inspiring.

All matter of opinion though.


----------



## flint757

I don't know, I found Man of Steel to be an exceptionally boring film and while the destruction is somewhat what you'd expect from a God-like character it didn't honestly make for a good viewer experience IMO.

If they are using those sub-par elements to bridge the movies though I'm all for it. It may even elevate the first film if the second turns out to be a good flick.

Also, it's not the dialogue that lacked inspiration, but the execution of the film. He's right, the film felt bleak all the way through.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

New trailer. 



I actually liked what I saw...

Except for Eisenberg. Don't like his Lex at all.

Actually, if I were you and are interested in the movie, don't watch the trailer. There's some Terminator: Genisys levels of spoiler in it.


----------



## wankerness

Yeah, I've seen a lot of people, even people that weren't very excited about the movie, get pissed about how much got spoiled by that. Basically it gives away the entire plot and includes late-plot revelations that haven't been mentioned before in any of the marketing since they're clearly supposed to be surprises. Terminator: Genisys level is right. We'll hope the movie is better than that.


----------



## rifftrauma

Yea there's a Reddit thread now giving people who haven't seen it a warning about the major spoilers.... I was pretty bummed they gave away so much.


----------



## Don Vito

Eisenberg would make a good Joker.


----------



## Static

The really short teaser they released before the trailer was enough to get hyped. Not this. :/


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Someone made an edited trailer that gets rid of the spoiler. Much better than the original. I wish I saved it, though.

But still, though, I REALLY hope this is just how Lex acts before going bald. I don't know much about the backstory of Lex, but I do remember my brother telling me one of the main reasons Lex has the anti-hots for Supes is because he caused his baldness.

I don't know, I just don't want a fvcking socially awkward Lex Joker.


----------



## Xaios

Judging by what I've read on the internet, I'm literally the only one who enjoyed Eisenberg's take on Lex Luthor. 

But that was literally the only thing I liked about the trailer. Too many big plot reveals, and some less than stellar CGI. This also confirmed my suspicions that Gal Gadot is way too small in physique to make a convincing Wonder Woman.


----------



## wankerness

Xaios said:


> This also confirmed my suspicions that Gal Gadot is way too small in physique to make a convincing Wonder Woman.



Yeah, that boat sailed a while ago. George Miller, who was in charge of a Justice League movie which never materialized, had been planning on casting the woman he later cast as the Valkyrie in Mad Max Fury Road. Now SHE had the right look (and still does, though she's too old for Hollywood execs to allow in this kind of a role).


----------



## awake69

If anything, I think the shining star of this will be Affleck's Batman. The look is perfect and the closest to the comics ever put on film. He's a combination of Jim Lee's more modern take and Miller's Dark Knight. Unfortunately, I don't think the rest of this looks promising at all. Man Of Steel was too drab and stoic and this seems to have much of the same. It's Spider-Man 3 all over again.


----------



## Demiurge

awake69 said:


> It's Spider-Man 3 all over again.



Is it wrong that this is the only part I remember?


----------



## wankerness

I watched Spider-Man 3 the other day. That is BY FAR the best scene in the movie. I could never say I dislike the movie, just cause that scene is so hilarious. I love how literally every woman that reacts to him at all gives him a look of disgust. People love to bash Spider-Man 3 as a terrible superhero movie, but the really odd scenes in it like that and the extended Bruce Campbell cameo and even the stupid dance scene where he's trying to hurt Kirsten Dunst's feelings make it much more entertaining than many more conventionally good movies. There are some great flashes of real personality in the film, and the boring CGI fight scenes can't totally squash Raimi's spirit. I'll watch it over either of the Andrew Garfield movies any day!


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

The reviews are....

...Uh...







Combing through reviews... Yeah, Batfleck's the star. Gotta give the dude props for stepping up his game.


----------



## wankerness

Yeah. Obviously all the advance one-post Twitter reviews from fans who got let into sneak previews were positive, but now that the critic embargo has ended we see the actual quality. I'm not surprised at all. I was expecting an interesting failure along the lines of his adaptation of Watchmen, but this sounds like it's several levels below that. I might end up watching it anyway if people drag me to it. My guess is it will be like, 3/5 material for me or something.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Wasn't the initial social media buzz about Green Lantern positive as well? I could have sworn I heard that somewheres. I wasn't paying attention to movies back then so I wouldn't know.


----------



## wankerness

I dunno. I just remember the second any real reviews came out it was viewed as a disaster, and it bombed horribly too. I had 0 interest in that whatsoever and thus didn't pay attention to random advance review people on....Myspace, or whatever social media they had back then 

(I do remember the advance Aint it Cool News review of Attack of the Clones, though - one of the funniest in retrospect of all time)


----------



## Ibanezsam4

ehh, not surprised by the reviews coming out. 

Snyder has a problem stuffing unnecessary amounts of backstory and filler into his films and weaving incoherent narratives. 

His best works are ones where the script is strong and he has little part in writing it. 

good examples of his work: 

Dawn of Dead (James Gunn wrote the script) - punchy and gritty. his job was to make the script a reality and he pulled it off. 

300 - the story is already stripped down enough to be interpreted as a Hollywood film. the slow boring parts (queen of sparta) were all his doing. 

Watchmen - He did the best anybody could do in making that story for the screen. once again, the clunky parts are his writing, but the story is strong enough.. what sucked more than anything was the terrible performances minus what's his face nailing Rorschach (by playing clint eastwood lol). 


why i have no confidence in his super hero films: This is the guy who wrote and directed Sucker Punch...


----------



## awake69

I'm not at all surprised by the growing numbers of less than enthusiastic/negative reviews coming out. Given the amount of characters/subplots being crammed into an already long 155 minutes was bound to destroy any semblance of a narrative. 

I know there are people out there who will vehemently defend Man Of Steel, but it was a mediocre film at best. It took a simple and well known character like Superman and turned it into a self-serious mess with Michael Bay levels of mayhem thrown in for good measure. I don't recall smiling once through the entire two-and-a-half hours of it. It was merely...ok. I equate the last third of MOS to a 4th of July fireworks display that just got louder and louder to the point where you say "enough already". 

Apart from Affleck's Batman, I expected much the same with this film.

I might consider watching On Demand when it happens (this summer in all likelihood).


----------



## wankerness

Ibanezsam4 said:


> ehh, not surprised by the reviews coming out.
> 
> Snyder has a problem stuffing unnecessary amounts of backstory and filler into his films and weaving incoherent narratives.
> 
> His best works are ones where the script is strong and he has little part in writing it.
> 
> good examples of his work:
> 
> Dawn of Dead (James Gunn wrote the script) - punchy and gritty. his job was to make the script a reality and he pulled it off.
> 
> 300 - the story is already stripped down enough to be interpreted as a Hollywood film. the slow boring parts (queen of sparta) were all his doing.
> 
> Watchmen - *He did the best anybody could do in making that story for the screen. once again, the clunky parts are his writing,* but the story is strong enough.. what sucked more than anything was the terrible performances minus what's his face nailing Rorschach (by playing clint eastwood lol).
> 
> 
> why i have no confidence in his super hero films: This is the guy who wrote and directed Sucker Punch...



There's some serious dissonance right there...clearly if Snyder was responsible for the worst aspects, someone else could have done a better job! If they'd A) removed the idiotic Snyder-esque fight scenes which made the heroes into superheroes and thus undermined the point of the story and B) cast someone that didn't look like a villainous mincing nancy as Ozymandias it would have been way, way better right there alone. Take out the Hallelujah usage, and we'd really be talking good movie!


----------



## wankerness

awake69 said:


> I'm not at all surprised by the growing numbers of less than enthusiastic/negative reviews coming out. Given the amount of characters/subplots being crammed into an already long 155 minutes was bound to destroy any semblance of a narrative.
> 
> I know there are people out there who will vehemently defend Man Of Steel, but it was a mediocre film at best. It took a simple and well known character like Superman and turned it into a self-serious mess with Michael Bay levels of mayhem thrown in for good measure. I don't recall smiling once through the entire two-and-a-half hours of it. It was merely...ok. I equate the last third of MOS to a 4th of July fireworks display that just got louder and louder to the point where you say "enough already".
> 
> Apart from Affleck's Batman, I expected much the same with this film.
> 
> I might consider watching On Demand when it happens (this summer in all likelihood).



MoS was weird in that the reviews were pretty decent, but based on the internet buzz around it since it came out, it's one of the worst movies of all time. See also: Star Trek Into Darkness. The fans HATE those movies, while the reviewers were generally positive.


----------



## flint757

The movie tried to be too serious and then gave us the most goofy CGI fight I've ever seen (MoS). The ending felt like an episode of Dragonball Z and went on for way too long. 

I didn't mind Into Darkness as much. On its own merit it was alright. The story itself was just not spectacular to begin with and didn't work IMO as part of the Star Trek universe.


----------



## Church2224

Kind of mad I already got my tickets to see it at 9:30 tomorrow night now I see the reviews. I am not surprised. When I saw they got Snyder to do these films I did not set my hopes up too high.


----------



## awake69

wankerness said:


> Take out the Hallelujah usage, and we'd really be talking good movie!



That scene was just plain gratuitous and not in the book. I took my son to see Watchmen when he was 14. I had read the book and expected a faithful adaptation. Did NOT expect that scene at all. Violence was expected (again taken to the Nth degree) and the mature themes certainly warranted the R rating. I just didn't think he would take the R and run with it as much as possible. Definitely made for an uncomfortable viewing experience...and a lesson learned by me.


----------



## wankerness

awake69 said:


> That scene was just plain gratuitous and not in the book. I took my son to see Watchmen when he was 14. I had read the book and expected a faithful adaptation. Did NOT expect that scene at all. Violence was expected (again taken to the Nth degree) and the mature themes certainly warranted the R rating. I just didn't think he would take the R and run with it as much as possible. Definitely made for an uncomfortable viewing experience...and a lesson learned by me.



So wait..you were fine with him seeing the unbelievably gory scenes with Rorschach cleaving a guy's head and the prison fight, but the silly almost-pg-13-level sex scene was too much?  Or are you saying BOTH were terrible? I don't recall the comic being anywhere close to that gory, either, so my guess is you mean the latter. 


Re: MOS, I kind of liked it. Mainly because I watched it on a surround system with the volume set very high and it was the best sound demo I had heard up to that point besides maybe Skyfall. As a movie, I don't think it was very good. The bizarre flashback structure through much of it really didn't work for me. However, I had no problem with the killing at the end, which seems to be the point of contention for many people. I guess I'm not a real Superman fan!


----------



## setsuna7

Still going to see this, despite the review. But here's my dilemma/curiosity; In relevance in the modern world we live today, I don't think the Superman we grew up with can co-exist with his alter ego(CK). With facial reg software shouldn't they figured it out already? Besides he even told that General that he's from Kansas. I'm might be crazy for thinking this, but what do you guys think? A Superman that everyone knows he's Clark Kent, kinda like Tony Stark?...


----------



## awake69

wankerness said:


> So wait..you were fine with him seeing the unbelievably gory scenes with Rorschach cleaving a guy's head and the prison fight, but the silly almost-pg-13-level sex scene was too much?  Or are you saying BOTH were terrible? I don't recall the comic being anywhere close to that gory, either, so my guess is you mean the latter.
> QUOTE]
> 
> That was definitely not a PG-13 sex scene. It didn't bother me so much, but was reaaalllllly awkward with it going on right next to my kid. I would definitely say it was late night Cinemax/Game Of Thrones kinda graphic. But to answer your question it was over the top across the board. The book was certainly aimed at mature readers, but Snyder went above and beyond what was necessary. I still think that movie could have been 30 minutes shorter. A lot of unnecessary exposition for sure.


----------



## awake69

wankerness said:


> However, I had no problem with the killing at the end, which seems to be the point of contention for many people. I guess I'm not a real Superman fan!



Honestly, I don't have a problem with Supes killing Zod either. I really don't think that was the point of contention with people, so much as it having come completely from left field. Clearly the only way to stop Zod was to kill him. Drastic measures and all that.....

I just think it was sloppy storytelling. He couldn't have done that WAY before destroying more of the city and, in all likelihood, killing more unseen bystanders? All in all, though, I think the way he killed Zod is the least of that film's problems.


----------



## wankerness

Snyder just gave an interview where he addressed the problem of the mass destruction and loss of life in Man of Steel and this new one:



> I went, really? And I said, well, what about [Star Wars: Episode VIIThe Force Awakens]? In Star Wars they destroy five planets with billions of people on them. Thats gotta be one of the highest death toll movies in history, the new Star Wars movie, if you just do the math.



Batman/Superman = Darth Vader in his mind, apparently


----------



## awake69

wankerness said:


> Snyder just gave an interview where he addressed the problem of the mass destruction and loss of life in Man of Steel and this new one:
> 
> 
> 
> Batman/Superman = Darth Vader in his mind, apparently



So essentially Snyder's argument for the mindless carnage and destruction in these films is that, since Star Wars did it (long before the new one when they destroyed Alderaan in 1977), then it's okay. Sorry Zack. Seeing a planet go boom and seeing wholly realistic cities being destroyed by the actions of people we are supposed to be rooting for are completely different things. 

He's Michael Bay, basically.

As a matter of fact, I'll go so far as to say that this movie's premise is primarily due to the backlash of the last third of MOS. He's been out there saying that the mayhem was intentional to set up this film...but I simply must grab my broom and declare shenanigans.


----------



## wankerness

If he'd said "well, Luke destroyed the Death Star and killed thousands of people" maybe he'd have had something, but I think this better reflects his thought process.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

wankerness said:


> There's some serious dissonance right there...clearly if Snyder was responsible for the worst aspects, someone else could have done a better job! If they'd A) removed the idiotic Snyder-esque fight scenes which made the heroes into superheroes and thus undermined the point of the story and B) cast someone that didn't look like a villainous mincing nancy as Ozymandias it would have been way, way better right there alone. Take out the Hallelujah usage, and we'd really be talking good movie!



hardly a dissonance, it's two different story forms. as a director i thought he was the perfect choice to tell the story visually without sacrificing too many of the original elements; because he is a comic nerd. 

i've read treatments for watchmen prior to Snyder coming on board... they were not great.. and the loyal ones failed with the studios because its not a property that does well on a mass market level. 

him directing made the picture possible. he brings his own elements to it but that would've been the case regardless of who directed it. (read terry gilliam's version)

however when he gets his hand in the scripting process things go southward. as a rule, the director has control over the scripting and can dictate whatever they choose. this can be kept in check with a great producer who can reign in the filmmaker with the power of the purse...

here's the snag... Snyder's wife is the producer. so we get the gratuity because thats how he cut his teeth on film-making (look up propaganda films and see if you recognize a few names on that list that suffer from the same ailment). 

Thats why i consider dawn of the dead his best film; he was kept in check and had a great writer (james gunn).

any other project has suffered from his excessive snyder-ness because he turns out films studios make money on.. so execs trust him despite his dubious critical success. 

that being said, he took a step forward with MoS.. the first act shows maturity, but the third act completely ruined the what he built up.

this will just be him being excessive because he's allowed full control... hell, the studio okayed an R rated version to be released on Blue Ray


----------



## Bloody_Inferno

Ouch, this is savage.

Spoiler alert in the middle bit...


----------



## setsuna7

Just saw the film. Utterly disappointed..

I agree with the yt reviewer above. Here's my take.



Spoiler



All of it was total cluster.... of cluster....ses.. But Batfleck proves me wrong, he can be the Bat. Imagine Michael Keaton's Batman went through all the .... that all the Batman after him goes through, that is Afleck's B.Wayne. Bruised , battered and broken.. He doesn't trust anyone but Alfred.we don't need another backstory of BW(parents death/falling into the batcave etc etc), but maybe on how he lost Robin would be good(wether it's Damian or Dick G) would've been better. Lex Luthor was a pain in the ass to watch. It seems like they cannot decide which way to go in the storyline, plot wise. and the fight between Batman and Supes....disappointing.. it's like listening to an album where the first song is the only good thing but the title track sucks.


 my 2 cents.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Having not seen the movie, but respecting this writer's past opinions, i predict this review will match my opinions post-viewing 

Forbes Welcome


----------



## flint757

The comment section for that review has a lot of people living in denial. DC vs marvel has really turned into overly political nonsense. Anyone who's critical of DC is a 'simpleton, Marvel fanboi' is the general gist I get from die hard fans.

I think Suicide Squad will be the first across the board good DC film to come out personally, aside from Batman. Unlike BvS it caught my attention from the first trailer. You can tell based on the trailers for BvS as they progressed and the reviews that this movie has an identity crisis problem.

I'll probably see it either way, but it's annoying how people are so dismissive these days of negative criticism. I'm genuinely surprised that anyone could think Man of Steel was excellent though. I can understand people enjoying the film, but it could have been better and we get better results by being more critical, not less.

I don't get why people think no one's critical of Marvel either. More than a couple of their films are mediocre. Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Age of Ultron, Ant-Man were all middle-of-the-road/mediocre at best and bad at worst. That's if you only include Disney/Marvel productions. The majority of films made outside of Marvel Studios border on horrible (Daredevil, Hulk, Fantastic Four, Wolverine, Ghost Rider, etc.).If we just accepted those films as is we wouldn't be getting at least some better film going forward from the bunch.


----------



## awake69

flint757 said:


> The comment section for that review has a lot of people living in denial. DC vs marvel has really turned into overly political nonsense. Anyone who's critical of DC is a 'simpleton, Marvel fanboi' is the general gist I get from die hard fans.
> 
> I'll probably see it either way, but it's annoying how people are so dismissive these days of negative criticism. I'm genuinely surprised that anyone could think Man of Steel was excellent though. I can understand people enjoying the film, but it could have been better and we get better results by being more critical, not less.



I can't tell you the number of times I've been trolled by DC fanboys and Nolan apologists for my low opinion of Dark Knight Rises and Man Of Steel. There are way too many people that think the Nolan trilogy is cinematic perfection. While I enjoyed Begins and Dark Knight, Rises was absolutely horrible and as far away from Batman mythos than any prior deviations Nolan made. It was a way too long train wreck...yet some swear it was the best one he made. 

The Man Of Steel fans vehemently defend it's chaos and choppy narrative with the "how it would be in reality" defense. The problem is...it's NOT reality. Superman's history is the epitome of wishful thinking. Why is it so hard to believe that someone can be good right down to the core? Why is it necessary to have our heroes be conflicted and neurotic? Snyder tried to "Batman" Superman...and it didn't work for me. These are comic book movies, not Schindler's List. The Reeve films may have been hokey to people under 30, but the fact is Reeve and Donner NAILED him in that first movie. I would have been glad to get behind the new Supes if Snyder and Goyer didn't make him so damn dour and pouty.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Compared to 2 days ago, the reviews dropped nearly 10%.

It's at 32% with an overall rating of 5.2/10. 
(EDIT: Now it's 30% with a 5/10 rating.)

Good job Zack Snyder. Good job. 

Still hyped up for Suicide Squad, though. The trailers looked excellent. And given all the praise for Batfleck


Spoiler



even though he murders and mows down people left and right


 I'm all for a Affleck-directed/starred standalone Batman.



flint757 said:


> Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Age of Ultron, Ant-Man were all middle-of-the-road/mediocre at best and bad at worst. That's if you only include Disney/Marvel productions.



Wow, the Thor movies were so bad/boring that you completely forgot about them.


----------



## flint757

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Wow, the Thor movies were so bad/boring that you completely forgot about them.





It took me 2 years to even get around to watching Thor: Dark World. Yeah, add them to the list as well. First one was mediocre and the second was simply bad.



HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Still hyped up for Suicide Squad, though. The trailers looked excellent. And given all the praise for Batfleck
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> even though he murders and mows down people left and right
> 
> 
> I'm all for a Affleck-directed/starred standalone Batman.



Agreed on both counts.


----------



## A-Branger

well I just watched it last night at the cinema. Despite all the hate I do really liked the movie

Its not THE movie. But its a pretty good one. They did tried to add too many things into a single movie so the whole movie/plot is not tight enough. But I enjoy it.

Maybe was because all the crap MArvel has been putting out there that the bar was set pretty low for me, but I really liked it. It was a serious movie, not a carnival of happiness and colors afternoon kids show like the Avengers is. It did have all the elements to be a cheesy movie, but it didnt came accross as a cheesy movie.

only couple of things I didnt quite like. Once scene part where it had nothing to do with anything on this movie at all (maybe its something for a future movie?? ) but I was like WTF!!, a range of scenes created just for the trailer. Aaand the ending. it was bit cheesy to me, but the other option would have been far far more cheesy, so I didnt mind it. Also the reason why the finish/stopped fighting was pretty lame

Also Affleck did a pretty good job on the Bats, I also had my doubts about the Lex Luttor being payed by that guy. He did a good job, I usually cant stand his movies anymore, but it didnt upset me in this one. I much muhc much have rather an "older" Lex luttor, so same character but being played by a much older actor. But meh wasnt too bad


----------



## Church2224

I saw it last night. Overall it was decent and I enjoyed it. It did have a few issues though

The Good:

Ben Affleck was actually a pretty decent Bat Man. I liked him and you could tell this was an older Bruce Wayne, albeit a little more twisted. You could also get the vibe that he has been Bat Man for so long that it has taken its toll on him and wearing him down to the point of a borderline mental break. Watch it and he seems just a little.... twisted. 

The story was pretty good, however it could have been told in a much more coherent way.

Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman... I am in love. 

The Bad:

Jesse Isenberg as Lex Luther was a terrible choice. I hated his character and he got more and more annoying as the movie went on. This, to me, was not Lex Luther. He seemed more like the Joker or even the Riddler. 

The ending was pretty bad. Watch it and you will see. It just seems to fall off and is weak.

Way too many explosions

All in all, what you expect from work done by Zack Snyder. Something that when you look at it could have been much better if it were polished off just a little bit more.


----------



## wankerness

Most of the bad reviews acknowledge that Ben Affleck is good, and that they hope he gets his own movie instead of being shoehorned into another overstuffed mess of a movie trying desperately to launch a Justice League series.

Most of the good reviews sound more negative than positive when you read them. I'd kind of like to see this, but I feel like actually spending money on it will be encouraging hollywood to make more bad movies since it will show that no amount of negative press and disappointed word-of-mouth can hurt the box office receipts. Maybe I'll buy a ticket for 10 Cloverfield Lane or something and sneak in.


----------



## awake69

wankerness said:


> Most of the bad reviews acknowledge that Ben Affleck is good, and that they hope he gets his own movie instead of being shoehorned into another overstuffed mess of a movie trying desperately to launch a Justice League series.
> 
> Most of the good reviews sound more negative than positive when you read them. I'd kind of like to see this, but I feel like actually spending money on it will be encouraging hollywood to make more bad movies since it will show that no amount of negative press and disappointed word-of-mouth can hurt the box office receipts. Maybe I'll buy a ticket for 10 Cloverfield Lane or something and sneak in.



Probably not a bad idea. I just rarely go to the flicks anymore because...
1) They're WAY too expensive to get the full experience (ticket, popcorn, etc..).
2) The movies I get interested in are often way longer than they should be. By the time you've watched 20 minutes of trailers (you've already likely seen online), arrived a bit early to get a good seat, a movie experience can be near three and a half to four hours. 
3) They get released on BluRay and On Demand typically four to six months later. So unless it's a "gotta see" film, I can wait to watch at home.

I've heard much the same about Affleck's Batman. His Bats and Gadot's Wonder Woman seem to be getting praise. I just don't want to pay "movie money" and have my senses assaulted by CGI and loud sound only to come out bummed out over how dismal the story and overall film is.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

awake69 said:


> Probably not a bad idea. I just rarely go to the flicks anymore because...
> 1) They're WAY too expensive to get the full experience (ticket, popcorn, etc..).
> 2) The movies I get interested in are often way longer than they should be. By the time you've watched 20 minutes of trailers (you've already likely seen online), arrived a bit early to get a good seat, a movie experience can be near three and a half to four hours.
> 3) They get released on BluRay and On Demand typically four to six months later. So unless it's a "gotta see" film, I can wait to watch at home.



I wish people understood this when they keep spouting "well you should go see it for yourself without trusting reviews!"

Not everyone has the money or free time.


----------



## setsuna7

Affleck definitely need a standalone Batman movie that he will direct,he has to. The instagram filter that Snyder used in MoS and DoJ is a pain in the ass for my eyes to watch for 2.5 hours.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

He STILL didn't get rid of that?

I couldn't stand watching MoS because of that.


----------



## Rev2010

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Not everyone has the money or free time.



I haven't seen the movie yet, and won't in the theater with the reviews, but to add to this post I'd also like to say the sad thing is that the movie studies care only about the net income of the movie in their decision of whether it was successful or not. The movie could suck, but if it rakes in 500 million in it's first week or two it's a huge success in their eyes. That, I personally think, leads to further disappointing releases in the series. I mean, this _has_ happened in the past. 

Even the lastest Star Wars movie IMO, and in the opinion of all but *one* person I personally know and spoke to, have agreed it was merely "ok", not great or amazing, yet I've read it's the highest grossing film in history. Is it the best film in history? Hell no, but with a long time super strong fanbase it just happened to be that so many people went to see it in the theater, myself included. 


Rev.


----------



## Lorcan Ward

Just back from seeing it, its definitely not as bad as its being made out to be on Rotten Tomatoes but its not a very good movie. It should have been an hour shorter for starters, everything after the main fight was just dragging the film out. It felt like 3 different movies crammed into one so there was a few missing parts. I expect there will be an unedited version that fills in most of the plot holes.

On the plus side Batfleck was awesome and so was the main fight.


----------



## setsuna7

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> He STILL didn't get rid of that?
> 
> I couldn't stand watching MoS because of that.



Apparently yes..


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

.... it, gonna wait until Netflix. 

Still having high hopes for Suicide Squad and Batfleck, though. And given what I've heard from Gadot's performance, the solo WW movie, as well.


----------



## Rev2010

Have you guys seen this interview video? With the song and zoom in it's hilarious, but somehow watching it I also feel bad for Ben here... he just looks soooo down.

[YOUTUBEVID]cwXfv25xJUw[/YOUTUBEVID]


Rev.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

There was a part in that interview (he cut it out) where Cavil and the interviewer joked. They all laughed, but Ben seemed like he forced himself to laugh. I legit felt bad for the dude. The dude's gutted because of a divorce he's going through. 

Here's an interview with Graham Norton where he seems more lively, though.


----------



## flint757

An issue I'm not hearing much about is the misleading title used purely to build 'controversy'. If I'm understanding correctly the fight between Batman and Superman is pretty short and ultimately the movie goes into full on Justice League vs Doomsday mode for a descent chunk of the film. The movie should have just been called Superman: Dawn of Justice. It's a much more accurate title. Although I'm also hearing that Batman was the best part of this film so perhaps it should have been called Batman: Dawn of Justice.


----------



## A-Branger

yeah but it also is the lead up to the fight. 

and the fight of Doomsday is pretty short too.

funny how this movie supposed to be a sequel/continuation of Superman, or the beginin of Justice League, but in everyones eyes its been a "Batman" movie from the first look at the suit years ago


----------



## wankerness

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> There was a part in that interview (he cut it out) where Cavil and the interviewer joked. They all laughed, but Ben seemed like he forced himself to laugh. I legit felt bad for the dude. The dude's gutted because of a divorce he's going through.
> 
> Here's an interview with Graham Norton where he seems more lively, though.



The guy's in the midst of a divorce with three kids involved where it sounds like she broke it off and over the last week or two details are getting spread all over the place, so I think people are misattributing the fact he looks like a depressed mess to reviews for this stupid movie. He was in Gigli and Pearl Harbor, I'm sure he's immune to them by now!


----------



## Skyblue

Just saw it last night, and I have to admit that in my opinion it was a terrible movie. It's strong points are Affleck-Irons as Batman-Alfred, and Gal Gadot looking not too bad as Wonder Woman, but Lex Luthor was incredibly annoying to me, and the plot was... was... what plot, actually? 

And to be more specific:


Spoiler



Batman desert dream sequence. WHAT?! I seriously had no idea what's going on. Is that future dude Flash? And if he is why does he look different than the one in Luthor's files? And what the F was that whole thing about? Is that an alternate timeline? A possible future? Maybe it's clearer to someone who knows the comics better, but to me it was completely unclear. Also, fight choreography sucked. Hard. (in this specific scene)
Second, Lex Luthor. Can someone please explain to me what was his motive to get Superman and Batman fighting? Because up to this point I have no idea. Nor do I have any idea why Superman was so caught-up on Batman. Why does he care about him? Is he jealous and wants to be the only superhero around?
Also Luthor's plan with creating Doomsday was... Stupid. He obviously can't control him. What did he expect to gain?



I have no qualm with DC. I'm no Marvel fanboy, and I'm actually quite hyped about Suicide Squad. I even think MoS wasn't that bad. But with the Justice League concept DC are kinda like that guy that came late to the party, tried to catch up with everyone's drinking so he chugged half a bottle of Jack and then puked on himself and fell asleep in the corner.


----------



## wankerness

Skyblue said:


> But with the Justice League concept DC are kinda like that guy that came late to the party, tried to catch up with everyone's drinking so he chugged half a bottle of Jack and then puked on himself and fell asleep in the corner.



That's really good. If you came up with that, you should get it copyrighted!


----------



## setsuna7

> I have no qualm with DC. I'm no Marvel fanboy, and I'm actually quite hyped about Suicide Squad. I even think MoS wasn't that bad. But with the Justice League concept DC are kinda like that guy that came late to the party, tried to catch up with everyone's drinking so he chugged half a bottle of Jack and then puked on himself and fell asleep in the corner.



This is exactly what I thought when they announce that the follow up to MoS will be a Batman V Superman as a precursor to JLA movies. I think there should be a standalone Batman movie first, maybe something like him taking on the entire S.Squad;Robin dies in the aftermath, which would set up with whatever the .... that we saw on DoJ. They're trying to cram so many .... into one movie that it became a cluster.... of information for us to grasp or swallow all at once! 

I am not a Marvel fanboy, I'm a fan of everything nerd. Given that W.Bros has given us great DC films via the Nolan Batman series, I expect more of the same. When the storyline focuses on Batman it reminded me of the Nolan films,
when the narratives switched to Supes' side, it felt forced, and disjointed..

I mean it's a decent effort, but not great..

my 2 cent...


----------



## Skyblue

setsuna7 said:


> This is exactly what I thought when they announce that the follow up to MoS will be a Batman V Superman as a precursor to JLA movies. I think there should be a standalone Batman movie first, maybe something like him taking on the entire S.Squad;Robin dies in the aftermath, which would set up with whatever the .... that we saw on DoJ. They're trying to cram so many .... into one movie that it became a cluster.... of information for us to grasp or swallow all at once!
> 
> I am not a Marvel fanboy, I'm a fan of everything nerd. Given that W.Bros has given us great DC films via the Nolan Batman series, I expect more of the same. When the storyline focuses on Batman it reminded me of the Nolan films,
> when the narratives switched to Supes' side, it felt forced, and disjointed..
> 
> I mean it's a decent effort, but not great..
> 
> my 2 cent...



While I'm fine with them doing a joint Batman-Superman movie now, they had so many possibilities as to where to take it. Hell, if they only stuck with literally just Batman vs Superman and ditched the whole


Spoiler



Doomsday


 idea, it could have been much better. What if they made Superman to be a sort-of villain? After the american people turn against him and accusing him of killings and so on, and then he gets mad, and Batman comes to the rescue to try and fight him. I dunno, I'm throwing random Ideas here, but you get the point. But they went and crammed EVERY idea they had into this movie, and well, all the good bits spilled from the sides and we're left with the yucky mess.



wankerness said:


> That's really good. If you came up with that, you should get it copyrighted!



Why thank you, I did feel kinda proud of myself for coming up with that  
I always like to come up with analogies for everything, the more unrelated-yet-fitting the better!


----------



## Cameron French

If you go into this one with realistic expectations (i.e. NOT expecting it to be like the recent batman and superman films), I think you'll find it enjoyable. There are definitely some cheesy moments, but it's genuinely fun.


----------



## wankerness

Cameron French said:


> If you go into this one with realistic expectations (i.e. NOT expecting it to be like the recent batman and superman films), I think you'll find it enjoyable. There are definitely some cheesy moments, but it's *genuinely fun.*



Well, you're the first person I've ever seen use THAT phrase to describe it!


----------



## PunkBillCarson

I personally enjoyed the movie. Not sure if it's because I had lower expectations than everyone else or what, but I personally don't think the movie is terrible at all.


----------



## A-Branger

^^agree


----------



## tjrlogan

I actually think the negative reviews did a good thing by lowering my expectations. It was better than I thought it would be. 

Have some of these reviewers ever read a comic book? Seriously...I love comics, but high art most of them are not.

The only thing I found annoying was Zach Snyder's weird, abrupt style of cutting from scene to scene. It irked me with Man of Steel and again with this movie, but ah well.


----------



## BIG ND SWEATY

Saw this last night and I liked it for the most part. The first 45 minutes are completely unnecessary imo, no one needs to see how Batman became Batman again since its the exact same thing every time, I did really enjoy Bens take on Bruce/Batman. Wonder Woman was better than I thought she'd be but the actress isn't even close to the look of WW, she's so thin and dainty compared to WW but i understand that its got to be quite hard to find a woman who has the build of WW and can act. I like this kind of Superman, I like that he isn't just some noble boy scout helping old ladies cross the street. I didn't like Lex at all at first but as the movie went on I started to enjoy him more, I liked that he was just some ....ty kid with too much power/money. I thought Alfred was mostly forgettable, I couldn't stop thinking about how much he looked like and older Robert Downey Jr.



Spoiler



The fight between Batman and Superman was entertaining for the most part, especially when Batman really started kicking Supermans ass but the way they team up at the end of it is so ....ing stupid imo. Who would have thought that it only took the name "Martha" to make Batman suddenly not want to kill a god. I though the fight scene in the dream sequence looked lame as hell, the guys were basically just running up to Batman and falling, it definitely didn't showcase the fighting skill that Batman actually has. I did like that he wasn't afraid to straight up kill guys though. I really liked when they showed The Flash cutting into Bruce's dream to warn him only to realize he may have been too early. I thought the ending was dumb, I wish they would just let Superman die and be done with it.


Overall 6.5-7/10


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

The movie was supposed to break a Warner Bros. record for biggest opening... But, uh... It broke a different record instead. 

Biggest Friday - Sunday drop for a superhero movie. It "beat" _Fan4stic_ of all movies.


----------



## wankerness

Unfortunately I'm sure China will still carry it over the 1.2 billion mark or whatever it needs to breaks even, much like the last Transformers movie where the American public finally had enough. Hooray for international marketed movies!


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Didn't the last Transformer's climax happen in China for that exact reason? Also, I believe it debuted in China.

Not saying you're wrong, but Transformers 4 was strategically planned to milk the Chinese market.


----------



## flint757

I do hope DC continues with the franchise, but lets hope they either finally get a new director for these films or some sort of creative strategy team to work with them. Even if they end in the green it still will not bank as much as they were hoping. Hopefully the lack of dollar signs gets Snyder booted.


----------



## wankerness

The budget and marketing on this was so astronomical i read they had to more than clear a billion for it to be considered a success. Best case scenario would be if they only make like 700 million (probably impossible, unfortunately) and fire Snyder for someone with more interest in the plot side of things. I don't know if it would fix their problems that were quite succinctly summed up with that alcohol metaphor a couple pages ago, though!


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

I kept laughing at all of the slow mo shots. The character motivations were dumb, the plot contrived, Jesse Eisenberg was a ....ty Joker imitation, and the ending fight very meh. Huge miss and a wasted opportunity.


----------



## A-Branger

saw this on youtube



does anybody knows what this means? or who is that guy? or what?


speaking off did anyone stayed till the end credits?. I couldnt be bothered so dont know if there was something after the credits


Funny how that "deleted scene" is on the WB youtube account. So what, now this is going to be a regular thing? like the fact that now almost every movie has to have a end of credits scene?, so now there would be "deleted" scenes on youtube after the movie things?, please dont make this a thing


----------



## Varcolac

A-Branger said:


> saw this on youtube
> 
> 
> 
> does anybody knows what this means? or who is that guy? or what?
> 
> 
> speaking off did anyone stayed till the end credits?. I couldnt be bothered so dont know if there was something after the credits
> 
> 
> Funny how that "deleted scene" is on the WB youtube account. So what, now this is going to be a regular thing? like the fact that now almost every movie has to have a end of credits scene?, so now there would be "deleted" scenes on youtube after the movie things?, please dont make this a thing






Spoiler



It's Darkseid's dad.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga_Khan



In comparison to Marvel movies I think it's far too much too soon. Marvel hinted at a wider world in its first standalone movies (Iron Man hints at SHIELD, IM2 hints at Captain America and post-credits set up Thor, both of which set up elements which come together in the Avengers, by the time Phase 2 comes around the universe is all set up and you can have movies with talking raccoons and trees and set up Netflix shows without having to go "OK so we live in a world where the Norse pantheon are real people and billionaires fly around in mechanical armour suits fighting terrorists with a 90-year-old WW2 vet and a big green dude"). DC seems like they've put all of the stuff in the parentheses into one movie, and forgot that even with all that stuff, Phase 1 Marvel movies have plots that hold together without the "OMG guys Thanos wants his cosmic cube back" stuff.

Here? It's all "OMG GUYS A BIG FITE IS COMING SEE LOOK THERE'S GON' HAVE TO BE A LEAGUE FOR GREAT JUSTICE," with not enough reason to care about the plot of the current movie.

I prefer world building to be subtle, like in the original Star Wars trilogy or the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I get that DC are making up for lost time and want to fast-forward to the main event of the Justice League, but it felt like sensible plot decisions were overridden in favour of setting up the future of the franchise. 



Spoiler



like the gorram encrypted files. Was there any reason for that other than to set up the Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman? And why did Lex freaking Luthor give them their logos? No plot reason, just throwaway "hey guys we're setting up a uuuuuniverssse" padding.



Still, Batfleck was cool and Wonder Woman didn't disappoint too much. Movie let down by trying too much long-term set up for too little short-term pay off.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

wankerness said:


> Unfortunately I'm sure China will still carry it over the 1.2 billion mark or whatever it needs to breaks even, much like the last Transformers movie where the American public finally had enough. Hooray for international marketed movies!



not quite. Transformers was partially funded by a Chinese movie studio so the film could skirt the 2 week theatrical release rule for Hollywood films.


----------



## wankerness

A-Branger said:


> saw this on youtube
> 
> 
> 
> does anybody knows what this means? or who is that guy? or what?
> 
> 
> speaking off did anyone stayed till the end credits?. I couldnt be bothered so dont know if there was something after the credits
> 
> 
> Funny how that "deleted scene" is on the WB youtube account. So what, now this is going to be a regular thing? like the fact that now almost every movie has to have a end of credits scene?, so now there would be "deleted" scenes on youtube after the movie things?, please dont make this a thing




I wish they were a thing, I'd rather go home and watch them on YouTube than sit through a list of CGI artists in the theater for 10 minutes to see it!


----------



## bostjan

I know DC wants to do Justice League so bad because of the Avengers, but that's the wrong reason to want to do it. Maybe I'm just saying that as someone who is not really a fan of DC outside of Batman.

This whole movie seems like a set-up for more merchandising. Introducing more characters means selling more action figures, right? The fact of the matter, though, is that no one cares about Aquaman, Elongated Man, or Martian Manhunter. I'd argue that characters like Green Lantern, the Flash, and Green Arrow are most popular now (as opposed to any other time period), and they still aren't to the level of popularity of Marvel's characters. DC has to think outside of the box Marvel pioneered, or risk coming off as "me too!" If DC and Marvel were playing poker, DC would have the ace of spades with Batman, and the jack of hearts with Superman, then a couple off-suit low number cards with Green Lantern, the Flash, even Wonder Woman. Marvel has a straight flush with the X-Men, or the ace of diamonds with Spider Man (which, sadly, they traded to Disney), and the whole rest of the diamond face cards with the rest of the Avengers.


----------



## awake69

bostjan said:


> This whole movie seems like a set-up for more merchandising. Introducing more characters means selling more action figures, right? The fact of the matter, though, is that no one cares about Aquaman, Elongated Man, or Martian Manhunter. I'd argue that characters like Green Lantern, the Flash, and Green Arrow are most popular now (as opposed to any other time period), and they still aren't to the level of popularity of Marvel's characters. DC has to think outside of the box Marvel pioneered, or risk coming off as "me too!" If DC and Marvel were playing poker, DC would have the ace of spades with Batman, and the jack of hearts with Superman, then a couple off-suit low number cards with Green Lantern, the Flash, even Wonder Woman. Marvel has a straight flush with the X-Men, or the ace of diamonds with Spider Man (which, sadly, they traded to Disney), and the whole rest of the diamond face cards with the rest of the Avengers.



This is the exact reason I have to laugh when WB and the fanboys explain the grim and dark themes and plotlines are because these films are more "adult themed" and an alternative to the shiny/happy Marvel films. If that were so, why are they being marketed so heavily at children? Go to any Target, WalMart and look in the toy aisles...and these aren't even the high end adult collector toys. They even sell toddler clothing tied in to this movie. 
It's evident that WB and DC want it BOTH ways. They want that Marvel money, yet they also want to steer "darker" with the thematic elements. Being dour and grim means nothing if you don't have a vested interest in the characters. This movie might have been more effective if MOS were a bit lighter and uplifting. 

It's such a shame...because DC has such a vast universe with great movie potential. If they hadn't screwed up Green Lantern so badly...THAT could have been a franchise unto itself. Whole galaxies, aliens, and threats to explore there.


----------



## Triple-J

Reading through the thread and I'm a bit tired of this idea that a Justice League movie is an attempt to imitate the success of the Avengers because WB have made several failed attempts at JL movies/tv in fact George Miller (Mad Max) had one all cast costumed and ready to film back in 2009 but writers strikes and Christopher Nolan not being happy about it shut it down.

As for the movie itself I feel like it's a mirror of Batman & Robin because that movie took the Adam West style cheese elements to an extreme whereas this takes the grim negative Dark Knight Returns elements to an extreme which is a shame because I believe that some of the best Batman tales strike up the balance between light and dark.

My only hope for DC's future is that if Snyder does go onto direct JL he drops the DKR influence and goes in a direction similar to that of the DC animated shows because those shows managed to get the balance right and did justice (no pun intended!) to all the characters involved while managing to tell a coherent story.


----------



## bostjan

awake69 said:


> This is the exact reason I have to laugh when WB and the fanboys explain the grim and dark themes and plotlines are because these films are more "adult themed" and an alternative to the shiny/happy Marvel films. If that were so, why are they being marketed so heavily at children? Go to any Target, WalMart and look in the toy aisles...and these aren't even the high end adult collector toys. They even sell toddler clothing tied in to this movie.
> It's evident that WB and DC want it BOTH ways. They want that Marvel money, yet they also want to steer "darker" with the thematic elements. Being dour and grim means nothing if you don't have a vested interest in the characters. This movie might have been more effective if MOS were a bit lighter and uplifting.
> 
> It's such a shame...because DC has such a vast universe with great movie potential. If they hadn't screwed up Green Lantern so badly...THAT could have been a franchise unto itself. Whole galaxies, aliens, and threats to explore there.



Well, right, but, then, Marvel does .... like this:
Deadpool Kiddie Toys at Walmart:


----------



## wankerness

The problem is they confused darkness with intelligence. The Nolan movies weren't good just because they were grimdark, they were good because they had smart scripts and developed their ideas properly. The studio learned all the wrong lessons from them. The Snyder movies seem to have ideas, but they don't get developed worth a crap and the stories are filmed in an incoherent manner in which half the scenes could happen in a different order and it wouldn't make any LESS sense. They need better writing, and a director with something to his credit other than visual style would be smart, too. :/ 

It might be too late for their Justice League "Universe" taking off, since they're going to have a frickin Aqua Man movie before their next major tentpole one, and I can't imagine THAT succeeding with their approach to these things (it is cast with a hulking badass instead of a Paul Rudd, so I'm sort of doubting it's going to be something tongue-in-cheek and fun like Ant Man). Not to mention that standalone Wonder Woman movie, which is a fine concept, but Gal Gadot does not seem to have anywhere near the acting chops to carry a whole movie, since they cast her for her looks and athleticism, because that is how Zach Snyder operates! 

Some more high profile failures might result in them having to do the Sony thing where they just go "ah hell, we'll just sell you (Disney) Spider-Man, we can't do anything right with him."

It's too bad, too, because I consider all three Nolan movies to be superior to anything the Marvel universe has pulled off, even though I quite like most of them.

From what I've heard, Mask of the Phantasm may be the single best Batman film. I should probably watch that some day.


----------



## Triple-J

wankerness said:


> The problem is they confused darkness with intelligence. The Nolan movies weren't good just because they were grimdark, they were good because they had smart scripts and developed their ideas properly. The studio learned all the wrong lessons from them. The Snyder movies seem to have ideas, but they don't get developed worth a crap and the stories are filmed in an incoherent manner in which half the scenes could happen in a different order and it wouldn't make any LESS sense. They need better writing, and a director with something to his credit other than visual style would be smart, too. :/
> 
> It might be too late for their Justice League "Universe" taking off, since they're going to have a frickin Aqua Man movie before their next major tentpole one, and I can't imagine THAT succeeding with their approach to these things (it is cast with a hulking badass instead of a Paul Rudd, so I'm sort of doubting it's going to be something tongue-in-cheek and fun like Ant Man). Not to mention that standalone Wonder Woman movie, which is a fine concept, but Gal Gadot does not seem to have anywhere near the acting chops to carry a whole movie, since they cast her for her looks and athleticism, because that is how Zach Snyder operates!
> 
> Some more high profile failures might result in them having to do the Sony thing where they just go "ah hell, we'll just sell you (Disney) Spider-Man, we can't do anything right with him."
> 
> It's too bad, too, because I consider all three Nolan movies to be superior to anything the Marvel universe has pulled off, even though I quite like most of them.
> 
> From what I've heard, Mask of the Phantasm may be the single best Batman film. I should probably watch that some day.




Pretty much all of this but I feel like things can be turned around because.... 

Suicide Squad seems to have gotten attention for the right reasons it looks more enjoyable than BvS and seems to be in a similar vein to GotG with a blend of action and humour I could be wrong but I feel like this will be their real success this year.
Aquaman is supposed to be more of an epic fantasy/adventure movie sort of like Conan meets Indiana Jones and the director (James Wan) has already stated it'll be very different tonally to BvS.

BTW Mask of the Phantasm is a very good mystery story which feels a lot like an unofficial sequel to the Burton Bat-movies which in my book is a good thing infact I like to imagine Batman Forever/Batman&Robin didn't happen and it's the third movie in the series.


----------



## wakjob

Just saw it. Good, not great. Really liked the Ben/Jeremy dynamic. 

At what point does Eisenberg become the Green Goblin in this story line?


----------



## Rev2010

Slightly off topic, but am I the only one with a mental tick that can't get over seeing images like the below and thinks, "Come on... his hands would go right through that rocket! The whole weight of it wouldn't be able to be supported by the small area of metal his hands are holding! Come on now!" 






And the capes, man they'd be constantly tripping over them! Or at least getting constantly wrapped up in them. 


Rev.


----------



## A-Branger

one of the things I really dislike bout it was the end and what a waste of it



Spoiler



"oh no, Superman is dead"..... zzZZZ... reaaaally???
the only thing they forgot to do to make that whole final more cheesy was to slowly zoom into his face and at the last frame....bam!, he open his eyes.... that would be cheesy....oh no wait, they did it, by slowly zooming into the coffin and bam!... dirt is moving 

seriously what they were thinking with that end?... did I suposed to feel sad about a character "dying" when I know 200% sure he wont really die in this movie??.... do they know how emotions work?... seriously?... there are 2 (for now) justice league movies coming!! Superman is THE character of it, one of the main 3!! do you really really think I was going to believe the whole "oh noes he dies" 15 min crap you gave me???.... 

the only thing it actually made me feel a bit sad was his dog  seeing the poor fella laying down next to his master's coffin in the house, as a owner of a dog (a border collie too lol) THAT made me sad, the rest of it was zzzZZZZZ



having said that.....

I though it was awesome they "killed" Superman, because if you really though about it, having him survive Doomsday and just kill it, it would make a far far more cheesy ending... "yay good guys won.. high five everyone" so I really liked he got a beating and got "killed" in the process, plus it kinda stays "true" to the comics where he dies trying to kill doomsday too, so big plus for not flipping the finger too much to the comic books 

but,.......

with all the sequels coming do you really think I was going to believe taht crap and feel "sad"......

my solution?

dont use Doomsday in this movie!!, let him for the "end" of Justice League!!!.

think about it, make this same ending on the last movie of the JL saga (the second or third or whatever... last one) make the last villan to defeat to be Doomsday, make the same fight, and the same ending process, have everyone "fails" and Superman to sacrifice himself to kill Doomsday and have Superman actually dies in the process, and really actually be Dead this time and leave him dead!!, have the guys do a "we wold continue the JL in his honor" cheesy crap, but let him die with the funeral and everything..... now THAT would be an ending!!


----------



## Bloody_Inferno

Saw it last night with rock bottom expectations... and still came out disappointed. I got the same feeling that I got from the 2 Fantastic 4 movies, X3 Last Stand, Origins Wolverine, Amazing Spiderman and Revenge Of The Fallen. Ok, it's better than all of those, but this makes Thor 2 and Iron Man 2 look good in comparison. 

One of the few good things about this movie is the whole 'collateral damage' that I used to make fun of The Avengers for not assessing (at least until the TV Series came out and when Civil War comes out), though the movie could have told it better. 

By far the worst incarnation of Lex Luthor, and possibly the worst super villain on film. With a completely unexplained motive, it's like they tried to make him into a second Joker...

I've never been a fan of the whole Doomsday premise. Of all the things to end with that conclusion, DC had to do it with a boring giant monster. He looks even more forgettable here. That whole arc also brought some of Superman's more baffling stories. 

I could go on with other things I disliked, but it's too much effort. The whole thing, tried to be serious but it felt so damn joyless, I'd much prefer the sunny day party vibe of the MCU movies. Civil War can't come much sooner.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

End-of-movie spoilers, but LexCorp's Instagram just posted this message.

I love ARG/tie-in stuff, so this is pretty cool.


----------



## wankerness

Triple-J said:


> Suicide Squad seems to have gotten attention for the right reasons it looks more enjoyable than BvS and seems to be in a similar vein to GotG with a blend of action and humour I could be wrong but I feel like this will be their real success this year.



SUICIDE SQUAD Reshoots Bode Well For The DC Movieverse | Birth.Movies.Death.



> A couple of weeks ago I spoke with an excellent source who told me something surprising: the trailer for Suicide Squad, the one with the Queen song, did not represent the film as it then existed. "Every joke in the movie is in that trailer," this source told me. The enormous positive response to the trailer led to Warner Bros requesting reshoots that would alter the tone of the film, bringing in some more of the lightness to which audiences responded.



We need a "trainwreck" emoticon!


----------



## Bloody_Inferno

Dammit Warner Brothers... 

Side note: Am I the only one looking forward to Aquaman only on the sole reason that James Wan is directing?


----------



## flint757

If Aquaman is anything like the video game character he has the potential to be quite awesome...or cheesy. 

Hearing that the trailer was incredibly deceptive is quite the disappointment, but I'm not surprised either (Suicide Squad).


----------



## A-Branger

Im looking forward for a cool Aquaman movie. I never understood why so much hate towards the guy?, I know its a bit "dumb" the fact that he can "only" fight in water but every fight is on land, but still I dont see the bad on him?. I think he is suffering from a false internet meme thing where everyone "knows" he is a dumb character of some sort, like saying "Nickelback sucks" internet thing

the only thing I still dont understand is why they choose to put a guy who looks nothing like the comic books, they made the guy look more of a New Zealand rugby player, to be fair it does look pretty badass, but the comics its jsut a blonde guy so what gives???

and I was really disapointed in the way they chose to show him on the movie. A ..... scary cat approaching the submarine and running away from it. Instead to approach to it with attitude standing straight like "tha FF you doing here, get FF yourself *bam!* "


----------



## Ibanezsam4

A-Branger said:


> the only thing I still dont understand is why they choose to put a guy who looks nothing like the comic books, they made the guy look more of a New Zealand rugby player, to be fair it does look pretty badass, but the comics its jsut a blonde guy so what gives???



Because this guy: 







is infinitely more intimidating than this guy:


----------



## A-Branger

LOL


----------



## Bloody_Inferno

I'm also pretty sure they were going for the 90s Aquaman look:






The 90s were a weird time for the whole comic industry. Since the dawn of The Dark Knight Returns and The Watchmen in 1986, they were going for the whole "gritty-serious" look, hence Aquaman above, Scarlet Spider, and everything involving Todd MacFarlane. Hell incidentally, the 90s was exactly where one of the main story lines from Batman V Superman came from. And since this decade is in a 90s retro paradigm at the moment, Warner Brothers felt the need to exploit that often forgetting the goofy side of DC. Remember Batman Zun-En-Arrh?






...because Hollywood sure seems to make sure you don't.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

A-Branger said:


> LOL



maybe there's a happy medium? between rugby player aquaman and cracker jack aquaman???? 


Maybe... Just maybe....



























this just got weird


----------



## sakeido

Rev2010 said:


> Slightly off topic, but am I the only one with a mental tick that can't get over seeing images like the below and thinks, "Come on... his hands would go right through that rocket! The whole weight of it wouldn't be able to be supported by the small area of metal his hands are holding! Come on now!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the capes, man they'd be constantly tripping over them! Or at least getting constantly wrapped up in them.
> 
> 
> Rev.



Some comic book guy way back in the day made up some .... about Superman actually levitates things around him, so he's not actually lifting the whole rocket up by his hands. That's why when he started flying in Man of Steel rocks from the ground and stuff would take off with him. If Superman didn't have this levitating power, he'd kill everybody he tries to catch with whiplash 

BvS saw what they were trying to do with it, some respect for that, but it could have been so much better. 2.5 star sout of 5


----------



## A-Branger

Ibanezsam4 said:


> this just got weird








but in all seriousness at least they could had keep the guy blonde. Im all for a badass looking Aquaman like in those latest comics, I do not want a happy smiling pretty boy, but at least keep the guy blonde like in the comics? or that is not "politically correct" anymore lol


----------



## asher




----------



## wakjob

Superman has the power of the force?

Introducing Jedi Clark.


----------



## wankerness

A-Branger said:


> but in all seriousness at least they could had keep the guy blonde. Im all for a badass looking Aquaman like in those latest comics, I do not want a happy smiling pretty boy, but at least keep the guy blonde like in the comics? or that is not "politically correct" anymore lol



That guy looks hilarious and so does the comic book guy. I'm glad they went for the badass rugby player look. It's not anti-PC to complain in this case since Jason Momoa is not a minority that's protected by the carelords.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Welp...

I believe this is the first superhero movie to match (or even break) 2003 Hulk's weekend drop of 70%. If this keep going lower and lower, this doesn't bode well for at least Zack Snyder, or at most the DCEU in general.


----------



## wankerness

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Welp...
> 
> I believe this is the first superhero movie to match (or even break) 2003 Hulk's weekend drop of 70%. If this keep going lower and lower, this doesn't bode well for at least Zack Snyder, or at most the DCEU in general.



All I want is for it to make less than 1 billion and thus not break even. Please don't let us down again, China!!!


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

I've heard some people say that China will be taking BvS off a majority of their screens (up to 90%) either this weekend or over the next week. Apparently China lost interest in this movie quicker than we did. 

There's no way in hell this will break even if you account for marketing, nor will it meet WB's expectations. They were aiming for a billion, yet the 2nd weekend will suffer an estimated 70 - 72% drop as well as a major loss of one of the biggest movie markets.

EDIT: You got your wish.


----------



## wankerness

WOW, Sammo Hung is still a thing in China! I love watching season 2/3 episodes of The Office, and how the single most dated joke seemed to be someone asking someone else if their "WELLHUNG" license plate meant they were a big Sammo Hung fan.


----------



## Bloody_Inferno

wankerness said:


> WOW, Sammo Hung is still a thing in China!



Look beyond his films and he's got some serious directing chops, both action and otherwise. Most of his post 90s success has been behind the camera. 

That and he's spent the last decade in highly popular TV series in Mainland China.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

wankerness said:


> WOW, Sammo Hung is still a thing in China! I love watching season 2/3 episodes of The Office, and how the single most dated joke seemed to be someone asking someone else if their "WELLHUNG" license plate meant they were a big Sammo Hung fan.



He asks if he's a _William_ Hung fan, not Sammo. Still a fairly dated reference, but it was slightly less dated when that episode aired than a Sammo Hung reference would've been. It also makes more sense with a WLHUNG (not WELLHUNG) plate.

This message was brought to you buy a guy who has watched The Office waaaaaay too many times.


----------



## Lorcan Ward

Its made $587 million so far. Looking at the budget and guessing further advertisement costs that looks like a success.


----------



## MFB

Lorcan Ward said:


> Its made $587 million so far. Looking at the budget and guessing further advertisement costs that looks like a success.



Last I heard, the number floating around for it's total budget was $410 million; so making all that back and only a ~25% profit isn't really a great success for what WB/DC were hoping would launch a cinematic universe. Not to mention that that figure comes from it being a sequel to a movie that divided it's fans as much - if not moreso - than this one.


----------



## Demiurge

MFB said:


> Last I heard, the number floating around for it's total budget was $410 million; so making all that back and only a ~25% profit isn't really a great success for what WB/DC were hoping would launch a cinematic universe. Not to mention that that figure comes from it being a sequel to a movie that divided it's fans as much - if not moreso - than this one.



Oh definitely. When WB wanted to have what the MCU has, they certainly wanted the balance sheets, too, and likely was expecting to make Avengers money here.


----------



## wankerness

Grand Moff Tim said:


> He asks if he's a _William_ Hung fan, not Sammo. Still a fairly dated reference, but it was slightly less dated when that episode aired than a Sammo Hung reference would've been. It also makes more sense with a WLHUNG (not WELLHUNG) plate.
> 
> This message was brought to you buy a guy who has watched The Office waaaaaay too many times.



Haha, wow. You're right, that is way worse. At least it's cross-referential with Arrested Development that way.


----------



## wankerness

Lorcan Ward said:


> Its made $587 million so far. Looking at the budget and guessing further advertisement costs that looks like a success.



Not even close. That box office is the amount the theaters take, and on average theaters keep about half the ticket price and the studio gets the other half (or more like the other 25% in the case of exports to some countries like China). That's why movies are so frequently said to have to make double their budget to "break even."

It was stated repeatedly well before its release that it needed to break 1 billion to be considered a success. I was off by a hundred million, I guess 1 billion is only the point at which it will not be considered a flop, they'll break even in the 800 million range 

When Does a Movie Break Even at the BoxOffice?

What Batman V Superman Needs To Gross To Break Even | Comicbook.com


----------



## flint757

Theaters were losing tons of money from the old sliding scale so good for them for finally doing something about it; although it doesn't explain why everything has only gotten more expensive when they get a bigger cut than they have in the past. It certainly isn't going to staff or maintenance as only the 'premium' theaters in my area keep the place nice. 

The AMC in my town is gross: bathrooms always overflowing, they brush old food behind the ....ing counter where they won't be able to clean it, and the floors are stained and sticky. They charge $10-$14 to watch something in their 'fine' establishment.


----------



## wakjob

My local Marquee is the same way. It's only about 15 yrs. old and beat to hell.
When the bright fluorescent house lights come on, it's horrifying. 
The seats are disgusting. And every single time I go, there's black plastic garbage bags over at least half a dozen seats.

Last three movies I've seen there, there was problems with either the sound or picture.
BvS had to get rewound about 15-20 min. and the people were waiting in the hall when we got out for the next showing.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

wankerness said:


> It was stated repeatedly well before its release that it needed to break 1 billion to be considered a success. I was off by a hundred million, I guess 1 billion is only the point at which it will not be considered a flop, they'll break even in the 800 million range
> 
> When Does a Movie Break Even at the BoxOffice?
> 
> What Batman V Superman Needs To Gross To Break Even | Comicbook.com



Exactly. People are saying this movie is doing fine since it made back over twice it's production budget, but this movie had an INSANE marketing budget. WB NEEDS 800m - 900m to get their entire budget back, and were aiming for 1bil+. JUST breaking even won't cut it for WB, and this might not end well for the rest of the DC movies, and Snyders association with the series.


----------



## bostjan

Our cinema in St. Johnsbury is pretty sweet. Ticket prices are less than half what they are in the city, and besides being small and understaffed (just like every other business here), the place is at least twice as clean as cinemas in the city. If you go for a matinee, you could take a date and still be under $10. It's odd to me, because everything else here is very expensive.



HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Exactly. People are saying this movie is doing fine since it made back over twice it's production budget, but this movie had an INSANE marketing budget. WB NEEDS 800m - 900m to get their entire budget back, and were aiming for 1bil+. JUST breaking even won't cut it for WB, and this might not end well for the rest of the DC movies, and Snyders association with the series.



Suicide Squad might be a turning point for better or for worse. Conventional wisdom is that Batman is invincible as far as movies go, but now that Nolan has done such a good job, I think it might be difficult for anyone trying to make more ....ty batman films. Maybe DC needs to stay focused on TV shows.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

I'm sure Suicide Squad is happening no matter what given how far into production it is. Although there's rumors they're doing reshoots to make the tone closer to the trailers. According to rumors, the trailers were deceiving and the movie was a similar tone to BvS, instead of having the black humor of the trailers. 

I'm sure a Batman and Wonder Woman movie will be happening given the positive reception Batfleck and Gal Gadot got. If BvS keeps up this downward spiral, not sure how the rest of the slate will end up


----------



## flint757

Well if all the rest end up doing well I suspect they'll continue forward with their original plans, but with new directors and writers.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

They'll need to make decisions preeeetty soon. Justice League starts filming in only a week.


----------



## wankerness

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> They'll need to make decisions preeeetty soon. Justice League starts filming in only a week.



Giving Snyder the boot, and doing some serious rewrites is the only way I can see it being any good. I don't know if they can do rewrites fast enough. I hope they won't just keep him for convenience, but they might.

All reports suggest that the Supergirl show actually has the right tone for a Superman show, and that it's what you should watch if you want to see something uplifting and about a positive heroic character. Well, that or the Captain America movies! I really liked this first succinct post and the two follow-ups from a birthmoviesdeath article's comments:







That scene in the first Captain America movie where he jumps on the grenade gets me every time! 

But yeah, Supergirl looks like fun. I should probably watch it sometime. One benefit of the movies being made in the Zach Snyder Murderverse is that at least they probably won't mess with Supergirl in the meantime.


----------



## A-Branger

NOOOOOOOO supergirl NOOOOOO, such a bad tv show

I get the "heroic" part of it, cmon is a supergirl on a tv show, she HAS to save people, thats the show about. But man that show its crap. I watched for a long time and I got to the point where I said "no more", sooooooo cheeeeeassyyyyyyy so bad action made, so many many many plot holes, NOTHING makes sense there.


----------



## wankerness

So even after the financial disappointment of this and the intensely negative comicbook fan reactions, they're going ahead with Snyder in control on the Justice League movie. Should be awful.

In better news, Ben Affleck is directing a solo Batman movie, so there's definite hope for that one!


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

^Saw the news last night.  News that cool deserves it's own thread, so I'mm do it.


----------



## wankerness

I watched Superman Returns last night, I previous saw it in the theater and I basically remembered nothing about it.

The plane scene towards the beginning is like, 10/10 material that perfectly encapsulates the character of Superman. It's exciting as hell, and even inspiring. That's the kind of stuff I want to see in a Superman movie!!

Then the rest of the movie happens, and it is quite ponderous, takes itself way too seriously (especially in the extended part where the thugs beat him up), and has what may be the single worst casting decision of all time in making this a direct sequel to Superman II but having "Margot Kidder" several years later now played by a 23 year old who doesn't look a day older. It doesn't even make sense. Like, if she was 30 or something at least they could say "oh, they made her younger," but to make her 23 and give her a kid that seems to be about 8?! I guess Superman knocked her up when she was 15, and she'd already been a high-class reporter at the time. AWFUL! The actress doesn't really bring anything to the role, either, it's not like Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook where she was miscast way too young but is so good in the role that you can get why they did it.

Anyway, yeah. I don't really like Kevin Spacey in it, but I like the general idea of that Lex Luthor, with his cheesily extravagant hideouts and silly entourage. And Kevin Spacey looks exactly like Russell Crowe when in that long stringy wig in the scene towards the beginning.

SO, in conclusion, it is overlong, takes itself way too seriously, but clearly loves the character and has a couple of great action scenes, and reusing John Williams' music was the best thing they could have done. That score is frickin iconic, I'd rate it at as high as the Star Wars or Indiana Jones themes.


----------

