The Official Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Movie Thread

[AkaDemiK]

Anybody got a link to the very 1st MOS trailer? I don't remember it but keep saying how good DC trailers are being brought up

I keep finding the 3rd and 4th trailers for TV though

 

[Jello Biafra]

He attacked Zod near his farm, smashed his ass through some fields and then punched him into a gas station in the heart of Smallville, breh. He literally took the fight to a heavily populated area. Kind of a fukked up thing to do for, you know, a guy who's supposed to be an ideal for us to look up to.

But the character in MOS was not supposed to be the ideal for people to look up to. He was a young man searching for answers.
You can't criticize the movie for not giving you the idealized Superman that has existed for 75 years. That character was never going to be in that movie.

 

[Disgustya Stallone]

imho, movie lived up to every bit of the hype

 

[Jello Biafra]

yeah, but it was addressed at the end of the movie
the whole "these HEROES done cause millions upon millions of damage to this city"
which will ultimately lead into the superhero registration act (Civil War)

And the MOS destruction seems to be being addressed in BvS.

 

[Greenstrings]

Superman "killed" doomsday . He didn't know he was immortal or whatever at the time so just because your favorite interpretation is one way stop trying to make it the only way . comics are a fluid medium man . Young idealist superman isn't the same as the superman from the 60s 70s . You Might as well be lamenting Adam west campy pow bam batman and saying how serious dark batman
Sucks

(Putting aside the fact that in that issue Superman died in the act of killing Doomsday)
The reason why Superman killing Doomsday was significant is because it had been established in previous iterations that that is something that Superman wouldn't normally do.If the first thing Dan Jurgens had done in his Superman run was to have him kill somebody it would have felt unnatural and wouldn't have had the same impact

Comics are fluid but different interpretations stand on their own in terms of mythmaking whilst referring back to archetypal tropes.

 

[23Barrettcity]

I think the collateral damage element could have been handled better. In all other iterations he's been hyper-aware of the effects his powers could have on even an individual life and that didn't come through very well but that shyt is a bit of a red herring.

When it comes down to it the biggest mistake they made was they way they used Zod as the first villain. Superman has no time to establish himself as this mythic, the benevolent force on the planet before somebody else just like him is trying to destroy it. In fact most humans found out that Superman existed as a result of Zod, so what reason would ordinary people have to lionise him and trust him when the first thing they know about him is that his presence brought invaders and destruction?

The spectacle was great, but it didn't do a good job setting the scene and building goodwill at least on a scale that matched the destruction that introduces him to the world. As a result all the imagery they've put forth of Superman as a godly/ascendant figure feels implausible.

Your main criticism is what they seem to be addressing in the trailer the fact of who is superman and what role Should he play in the lives of humanity . Clearly lex and in the beginning batman , and whoever is ripping down and defacing his statue don't see him as a godlike figure . And really people lionize regular guys and join their cults you don't think people a freaking superhero who actually displayed superhuman abilities and saved a city wouldn't get followers? Come on man that's ridiculous. Even mos addressed the fact that if Zod was allowed to get full powers like Clark he'd probably kick his ass as he's a decorated trained solider and Clark was a farm boy with superpowers and no real training .

 

[Jello Biafra]

This stupid debate again

You are right and I am pumping the brakes on getting dragged back into it starting right now.

 

[Jello Biafra]

Superman "killed" doomsday . He didn't know he was immortal or whatever at the time so just because your favorite interpretation is one way stop trying to make it the only way . comics are a fluid medium man . Young idealist superman isn't the same as the superman from the 60s 70s . You Might as well be lamenting Adam west campy pow bam batman and saying how serious dark batman
Sucks

My favorite interpretation of Superman is the one who murders women when they reject him.

 

[23Barrettcity]

(Putting aside the fact that in that issue Superman died in the act of killing Doomsday)
The reason why Superman killing Doomsday was significant is because it had been established in previous iterations that that is something that Superman wouldn't normally do.If the first thing Dan Jurgens had done in his Superman run was to have him kill somebody it would have felt unnatural and wouldn't have had the same impact

Comics are fluid but different interpretations stand on their own in terms of mythmaking whilst referring back to archetypal tropes.

He died to kill doomsday because he had no way to stop him and that established how big of a threat it was he was willing to kill. The problem with your argument is it makes more sense to have superman kill when he just became superman than in movie 3, he would understand it better at that point . Also they seem to be addressing all this in the movie so it was a conscious decision to have the city get destroyed and him kill Zod not just for cool visuals . If it's in service of the story it works and it seems to have ramifications going forward so again stop complaining about how it's not the version of superman you prefer and either not watch it or go along for the ride . Nolans batmans were their own thing too same with Mcu , xmen universe . It's fine

 

[23Barrettcity]

My favorite interpretation of Superman is the one who murders women when they reject him.

I'm gonna stop this debate too because it's pointless . I just can't get how when the teaser seems to be addressing the same concerns people' raised about mos meaning it's part of the story they sllll complaining

 

[jwinfield]

Your main criticism is what they seem to be addressing in the trailer the fact of who is superman and what role Should he play in the lives of humanity . Clearly lex and in the beginning batman , and whoever is ripping down and defacing his statue don't see him as a godlike figure . And really people lionize regular guys and join their cults you don't think people a freaking superhero who actually displayed superhuman abilities and saved a city wouldn't get followers? Come on man that's ridiculous. Even mos addressed the fact that if Zod was allowed to get full powers like Clark he'd probably kick his ass as he's a decorated trained solider and Clark was a farm boy with superpowers and no real training .

Agree with all of this.

We got people in real life idolizing serial killers and school shooters, but the idea that people woulda dude that can fly and has superhuman strength is far fetched And as one of the sides to the "Is Superman a danger?" debate is that Superman saved the world from doom, of course people are going to see him as godlike.

The teaser made it CLEAR as fukk that people are questioning Superman's place in the world, yet people are complaining that the destruction wasn't handled correctly or it doesn't explain why Batman and Superman are going at it.

Snyder said shortly after the release of MoS that all of that destruction was intentional and that it would play a part in the next film. The trailer is showing the aftermath. Luthor is supposed to have played a large part in rebuilding the city, probably has a shyt ton of goodwill and is going around telling people Superman is a danger.

 

[Disgustya Stallone]

I just wanted to throw some numbers out there to shut some of you f*ggots up:

Total gross:

Captain America: $370.6 million
Iron Man: $585.1 million
Man of Steel: $668.1 million

 

[Greenstrings]

Your main criticism is what they seem to be addressing in the trailer the fact of who is superman and what role Should he play in the lives of humanity . Clearly lex and in the beginning batman , and whoever is ripping down and defacing his statue don't see him as a godlike figure . And really people lionize regular guys and join their cults you don't think people a freaking superhero who actually displayed superhuman abilities and saved a city wouldn't get followers? Come on man that's ridiculous. Even mos addressed the fact that if Zod was allowed to get full powers like Clark he'd probably kick his ass as he's a decorated trained solider and Clark was a farm boy with superpowers and no real training .

No, you've gently skipped over my point. I was referring specifically to Man of Steel as an individual movie. The trailer for its sequel doesn't retroactively make it better realised or more convincing as a singular experience. It's possible to make a good standalone movie that's open ended and leaves ample questions to be resolved in sequels. I happen to think mos wasn't that movie.

The problem with mos is that it already has established a tone for Superman's involvement with humanity and if they're really following through with the realism bent it would logically be fear. The chalice has been poisoned from the get go.

If the first thing you hear about a guy is that he's an alien and somebody from his home planet came looking for him and in the process destroyed a major city, you're not thinking what role should he should play in human lives, you're thinking he should play none at all seeing as there's no way of knowing if there are any other Kyrptonians out there.

We're talking about the interaction of superman with humanity in general. How exactly are cult followers a useful baseline for that?

From a human standpoint whether or not he saved the city, he destroyed it in the process in a fight that wouldn't have happened were he not on the planet. At that point no rational human being would want him to have anything to do with humanity. In mos they tried to marry the moment of his (tragic)victory with catharsis and to me it felt ridiculous and unearned.

I've made no complaint about him being stronger than Zod so I don't know why you brought that up.

 

[23Barrettcity]

No, you've gently skipped over my point. I was referring specifically to Man of Steel as an individual movie. The trailer for its sequel doesn't retroactively make it better realised or more convincing as a singular experience. It's possible to make a good standalone movie that's open ended and leaves ample questions to be resolved in sequels. I happen to think mos wasn't that movie.

The problem with mos is that it already has established a tone for Superman's involvement with humanity and if they're really following through with the realism bent it would logically be fear. The chalice has been poisoned from the get go.

If the first thing you hear about a guy is that he's an alien and somebody from his home planet came looking for him and in the process destroyed a major city, you're not thinking what role should he should play in human lives, you're thinking he should play none at all seeing as there's no way of knowing if there are any other Kyrptonians out there.

We're talking about the interaction of superman with humanity in general. How exactly are cult followers a useful baseline for that?

From a human standpoint whether or not he saved the city, he destroyed it in the process in a fight that wouldn't have happened were he not on the planet. At that point no rational human being would want him to have anything to do with humanity. In mos they tried to marry the moment of his (tragic)victory with catharsis and to me it felt ridiculous and unearned.

I've made no complaint about him being stronger than Zod so I don't know why you brought that up.

Your holding humanity to some elevated standard that isn't realistic . The point I'm making is just the fact that a man with godlike abilities exists would get him some followers no matter what his initial interactions is . Cults and religions have existed for years with no proof and negative interactions abounding yet people still follow them so it's not unbelievable some people won't follow him for various reasons . Another factor is some people also use common sense and Won't automatically blame superman for the actions of all the kryptonians due to the reporting of the events . Superman looks like a handsome guy who just happens to have powers ,some people are going to give him a chance based off that . I mean serial killers get marriage proposals in jails and they have absolutely nothing to offer . You don't have to love the story but this isn't a standalone movie and it's suppose to have ramifications going forward for the character but even without that aspect it shows how far superman would go to protect human life when he was willing to turn on his own people to save humans .He turned himself in also to try and save the earth . Your not liking the story doesn't negate the validity of the story

 

[Greenstrings]

He died to kill doomsday because he had no way to stop him and that established how big of a threat it was he was willing to kill. The problem with your argument is it makes more sense to have superman kill when he just became superman than in movie 3, he would understand it better at that point . Also they seem to be addressing all this in the movie so it was a conscious decision to have the city get destroyed and him kill Zod not just for cool visuals . If it's in service of the story it works and it seems to have ramifications going forward so again stop complaining about how it's not the version of superman you prefer and either not watch it or go along for the ride . Nolans batmans were their own thing too same with Mcu , xmen universe . It's fine

The first part makes no sense. How would it be the case that he'd better understand the implications of killing better at the first movie than the third?

Do people really pay money to go to a movie theatre expecting to be dissatisfied whilst hoping that the sequel addresses their fundamental concerns? Because that's silly to me. If you enjoyed the movie that's cool but expecting trailers for the next movie to change the minds of people that didn't makes no sense.

Is the bolded supposed to be a general statement? because if so, no. Some narrative arcs are unsalvageable. I wouldn't go as far as to say that's the case with this franchise but I'm not overly optimistic.

This isn't about which iteration I prefer. I've enjoyed many different versions of the character in varying mediums but I believe the way in which they attempted to establish the character in mos was tone deaf and inherently flawed.

And this is pretty tired but we're not children. "Then don't watch it" isn't an argument. It is a juvenile stance taken by people that don't like criticism of things that they like. I watched mos and I'll almost definitely watch the next one and I hope it will be a better movie than mos but I'm not obliged to go along with a narrative that I feel doesn't work.