The Official Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Movie Thread

[jwinfield]

Didn't the point from Zod arriving and the public at large finding out about Superman/aliens only encompass like a couple days? There was no reveal of Superman and then time to get public perception...all of the action happened in a very short time span.
BvS is addressing the issues you are talking about based on the teaser.

Nope, there should've been a 10 minute sequence at the end where we see Obama and other world leaders discussing Superman at the UN and having a bunch of cuts with people voicing opinions like in Meteor Man

He had done nothing else to engender goodwill besides stop a catastrophe that was a result of his presence. Whatever danger he could promise to prevent is mitigated by the fact that the biggest ever threat to humanity's existence occurred because he was here and there's no guarantee that he won't attract other such disasters

And the same can be said for Iron Man, Hulk or Thor but that didn't stop the joy shown by some at the end of the Avengers.

 

[Jello Biafra]

You read comics from what I can tell, how many stories have you read about the problem of escalation and heroes being a lightning rod for disasters that counterbalance whatever good they do? These stories work and can even be great but with mos there was no counterbalance. He had done nothing else to engender goodwill besides stop a catastrophe that was a result of his presence. Whatever danger he could promise to prevent is mitigated by the fact that the biggest ever threat to humanity's existence occurred because he was here and there's no guarantee that he won't attract other such disasters

Last I checked our introduction to the Kardashians wasn't through alien invasion and wide-scale death and destruction. Most sane human beings have a pretty keen sense of self-preservation. Most people would be terrified had such a thing as in the movie occured.

MOS wasn't about the divided public perception of Superman though. The movie ended with Superman killing Zod and then we got the coda of Clark Kent joining the Daily Planet. There was nothing in that film about the popularity of Superman or even the hatred/distrust of him. All of that looks to be what is addressed in BvS but neither a pro-Superman or anti-Superman side was a part of MOS.
So I am a bit confused about what you are arguing...are you bothered that none of this stuff was included in MOS?

 

[Jello Biafra]

That's exactly the problem. By the end of the movie, nobody knows who Superman is or what his intentions are but can see what his presence has caused. There's no realistic way to build trust on that.

That is preposterous. All it would take is some favorable press from Lois Lane and The Daily Planet to get the ball rolling on pushing a positive portrayal of Superman.
And the people know that aliens attacked and Superman saved them. Some people will blame him for the aliens arrival while some will look at him as a hero because he saved the world in a decidely public fashion. Or do you think there was no press or reporting of a major incident like the aliens attacking a major US city?

 

[jwinfield]

MOS wasn't about the divided public perception of Superman though. The movie ended with Superman killing Zod and then we got the coda of Clark Kent joining the Daily Planet. There was nothing in that film about the popularity of Superman or even the hatred/distrust of him. All of that looks to be what is addressed in BvS but neither a pro-Superman or anti-Superman side was a part of MOS.
So I am a bit confused about what you are arguing...are you bothered that none of this stuff was included in MOS?

They even throw in the scene where Superman destroys a drone that was tracking him, tells the general he'll work with the government but it'll be on his terms, the general asks how can they be sure he won't turn on them and Supes goes The chick with the General is even going and says Superman is hot

 

[Greenstrings]

Nope, there should've been a 10 minute sequence at the end where we see Obama and other world leaders discussing Superman at the UN and having a bunch of cuts with people voicing opinions like in Meteor Man


And the same can be said for Iron Man, Hulk or Thor but that didn't stop the joy shown by some at the end of the Avengers.

Where have I exonerated the Marvel movies? Iron man isn't so much the issue because by that point he's established himself as a public figure over 3 movies. But definitely the Hulk and Thor (The tesseract was stolen from Asgard/ Loki is his brother) are problematic.

What helped that movie was the existence of Shield, which seems to have the power to override governments and react to threats autonomously and the fact that it has a lot more moving parts than mos. It's easier for people to dismiss such complaints as nitpicking when there was so much else going on involving so many other characters.

 

[23Barrettcity]

The boldest is among the daftest things i've read today. First off I don't believe Superman has to be done in any particular way. I just believe, same as I do with any story, that the narrative has to make sense and with mos I don't think it does. Second we all carry ideals with regard to everything whether we want to or not, pointing that out in defense of this is banal.

I have said that I have no problem with modernism/realism element of the story but they didn't follow through with it.

He's inexperienced, it is ok that they chose to show that but that is also why its dumb to throw him right into the deep end off the bat, as at that point humanity should want nothing to do with him. They shouldn't be asking what they want him to do they should be asking him to leave.

Again none of that happened in mos so how is that relevant to this discussion?

That's ridiculous! I'm starting to think you didn't watch the movie man . He went to the government and was willing to assist them and left the planet but that backfired and he then killed his own people for humans . People would want him to be on the earth especially now that they know aliens are real and are stronger more advanced . Also how the hell can they get him to leave if they wanted that ? The mos didn't have to go into the whole earth reaction ( even though they kind of addressed it when Zod was requesting they turn him over ) the story of this movie wasn't that ohh how will humanity react to him after the events of metropolis , that's what bvs s will be .

 

[TheGodling]

My point is it wasn't the end of the world that it happened and it was his interpretation of the character and there are many many fans of it and of his first batman movie in which he had missiles rockets and Gatling guns on the batwing and tried(but failed miserably) to shoot the joker. If you have a problem with all of that then cool go ahead and have your issues with superman not taking 5-10 min out of a fight to drag it away from a farm or away from an IHOP or be upset at him for fighting in a city that was in the process of being evacuated. But if you don't then let the shyt go and wait till the new movie comes out. If you still got beef then cool have it but until then let the shyt go because it's been debated to death.

It wasn't the end of the world because it was a throwaway moment that only got brought to the spotlight when Nolan fanboys needed every excuse they got to discredit Burton's Batman back when that argument was fully popping. Kinda like Supes throwing a depowered Zod down a deep-ass pit in Superman II. Yes, technically he killed that guy, but in no way does the way that scene plays out compare to the way Supes kills Zod in MoS. I'm not excusing it (other than it being different times), but like in most of my arguments, context is key.

And the reasons I take a lot of issue in the MoS shyt is because the way it's mishandled literally affects the entire movie. And it's funny how you only tell me to let the shyt go when last time I checked there have to be at least two sides to a debate, but apparently the "let it go" shyt only goes for the party that's not on your side, at which point I like to remind you that this debate is only back on fire because in the past few days other people brought it up again starting with that nonsense in the Daredevil thread about it being 'confirmed' that hundreds died in the Avengers battle (which everyone already knew). And again, I don't hear your ass telling any of them to "let the shyt go".

So why don't you do yourself, and subsequently me, a favor and let this shyt go, so I don't have to respond to your ass until the movie comes out. Thankyouverymuch.

 

[lutha]

i wouldn't have minded it. part of me still wants to see the lighthearted, more traditional version of supes and bats. i feel like those characters have still yet to be defined on the big screen the way they should be (well supes has but that was 35 fukkin years ago)

the marvel formula really is pitch perfect. in fact it really isn't that far off from what donner did with the original superman. they take the material seriously but they also don't forget to have fun. and most importantly, they adapt the characters right. iron man isn't some variation of iron man, it's iron man. cap isn't just some directors vision of cap, it's cap.

BVS looks like it could be a real cool movie but it still feels like some grim interpretation instead of a true to form adaptation. more cynical and pessimistic.

still trying to be 'that guy' I see.....cause the shyt you asking for from supe was displayed in MoS...he was exactly like that most of the movie except for when he was fighting...also, bats isnt a lighthearted character, so why would you want a defined big screen version?...hell, now that i think, we already got that version: George Clooney's batman.....

marvel hasnt gotten their characters 'right' meaning like they are in the comics, what are you talking about?.....they've made all the characters the same: witty and smartasses like iron man...when the only one that should be like that is iron man...not thor, cap, ant-man, falcon, black widow, hawkeye, etc...

....like I suggested early: stop trying to be that guy, stop trying to find reasons why not to like this shyt, and just enjoy...cause the only person you ruining this shyt for is yourself....

 

[23Barrettcity]

MOS wasn't about the divided public perception of Superman though. The movie ended with Superman killing Zod and then we got the coda of Clark Kent joining the Daily Planet. There was nothing in that film about the popularity of Superman or even the hatred/distrust of him. All of that looks to be what is addressed in BvS but neither a pro-Superman or anti-Superman side was a part of MOS.
So I am a bit confused about what you are arguing...are you bothered that none of this stuff was included in MOS?

Exactly . Hes mad that it was a different movie than it was

 

[23Barrettcity]

still trying to be 'that guy' I see.....cause the shyt you asking for from supe was displayed in MoS...he was exactly like that most of the movie except for when he was fighting...also, bats isnt a lighthearted character, so why would you want a defined big screen version?...hell, now that i think, we already got that version: George Clooney's batman.....

marvel hasnt gotten their characters 'right' meaning like they are in the comics, what are you talking about?.....they've made all the characters the same: witty and smartasses like iron man...when the only one that should be like that is iron man...not thor, cap, ant-man, falcon, black widow, hawkeye, etc...

....like I suggested early: stop trying to be that guy, stop trying to find reasons why not to like this shyt, and just enjoy...cause the only person you ruining this shyt for is yourself....

Well actually Hawkeye should be the wisecracking one lol but your right . Do you remember all the talk of how uninteresting superman was Before the movie and how he was corny and safe and bland unlike batman . Now it's this wasn't safe superman who would never do anything wrong ever !!! Niccas just want to complain

 

[Greenstrings]

That is preposterous. All it would take is some favorable press from Lois Lane and The Daily Planet to get the ball rolling on pushing a positive portrayal of Superman.
And the people know that aliens attacked and Superman saved them. Some people will blame him for the aliens arrival while some will look at him as a hero because he saved the world in a decidely public fashion. Or do you think there was no press or reporting of a major incident like the aliens attacking a major US city?

Seriously? Are you really thinking this through? all that disaster would be mitigated by "some favorable press?"

"All we know about him is that he's an Alien like the dudes that just tried to kill all of us but he's a nice guy really!!"

You're right to point to publicity and perception as key but follow it through. In order to make up for what happened and justify the need for his presence he would at least have to avert a disaster on a similar scale that wasn't at all related to himself.

It would be mighty convenient if the press was able to get footage of Superman flying around saving the day in the midst of all that destruction but as far as we can tell nobody has any way of making heads or tail of what happened besides at a few moments most prominently of which would be the killing of Zod which just serves to add another layer of controversy.

 

[lutha]

A Superman who doesn't give it his all to protect innocents ain't a Superman done right, breh. Don't give me that "Well, he's just starting out", if they wanted to show that they could've made him fail, but don't have him not even try, because every iteration of the character would at least try, because that's the heart and soul of the character.

Downey's Iron Man might've been different from the Tony in the comics (up to that point, because since then he's written as Downey's Tony), but the performance was true to the character's essence and that's what matters most.

so him stopping the machine and saving the world wasnt him giving his all to protect the innocents?...lol aight man....yep, just another example of cats wanting to complain just to complain.....

and you're wrong about tony: he was always portrayed that way in the comics....seriously, he's a fukking womanizing alkie, that's why downey plays the character so well lol...

 

[wire28]

Sure, he threw some guy with dynamite down a hole. And Nolan's Batman spent three movies emphasizing that he doesn't kill movie yet ending up with a far larger body count. What's your point?



Why don't people grasp that a Superman who shows no concern for collateral damage is a terrible interpretation of the character? It doesn't matter that he's green, he just flat out showed no signs that he even cared, which is the least they could do.

And aliens killed half of Manhattan, while the Avengers actively tried to save and evacuate as many people as possible while holding an entire alien army at bay. Again, Supes showed no signs that he could give a shyt, which again, is the least they could do.

Because, as I've said again and again, he doesn't necessarily have to succeed at rescuing people, but you got to, at the very least, show him trying to do so.

Don't do it to em

 

[23Barrettcity]

so him stopping the machine and saving the world wasnt him giving his all to protect the innocents?...lol aight man....yep, just another example of cats wanting to complain just to complain.....

and you're wrong about tony: he was always portrayed that way in the comics....seriously, he's a fukking womanizing alkie, that's why downey plays the character so well lol...

The difference with tony is the wise cracking which isn't a big deal but your right . Superman gave up any chance to save krypton to save earth and that's not giving his all ?????

 

[Greenstrings]

MOS wasn't about the divided public perception of Superman though. The movie ended with Superman killing Zod and then we got the coda of Clark Kent joining the Daily Planet. There was nothing in that film about the popularity of Superman or even the hatred/distrust of him. All of that looks to be what is addressed in BvS but neither a pro-Superman or anti-Superman side was a part of MOS.
So I am a bit confused about what you are arguing...are you bothered that none of this stuff was included in MOS?

No.
As you sit in a movie theatre watching Superman fly around, you ask yourself what his actions mean to those around him, as you do with any character.

My point is that a because of the nature of what occurred, it is impossible to address these concerns adequately whether they had decided to do it in that movie or in the sequel.