The Official Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Movie Thread

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

Jurassic World was really not an all ages film though. It was pretty damn violent and death was treated way too casually especially the callous way they killed that British assistant chick. It was like they wanted it to be scary but not too scary so they made the actual killings of (mostly) innocent people meaningless as fukk.

There was a shytload of kids in my theater. All ages. They marketed it to everyone.

Kids are fine. I was watching shyt like Die Hard and Terminator 2 as a kid.

 

[TheGodling]

25. Zack was surprised by the reaction to Man of Steel.
“I was surprised because that’s the thesis of superman for me, that you can’t just have superheroes knock around and have there be no consequences, says Snyder.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he just doesn't get the thesis of Superman, at all.

 

[Ain't That Something]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he just doesn't get the thesis of Superman, at all.

No that's just your opinion on what superman is suppose to be.

 

[wire28]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he just doesn't get the thesis of Superman, at all.

but you can have them knock around as the golden boy watches thousands of citizens perish (many due to his own knocking around)

 

[Ain't That Something]

but you can have them knock around as the golden boy watches thousands of citizens perish (many due to his own knocking around)

Yeah this has never happen before in any medium

 

[TheGodling]

Yeah this has never happen before in any medium

I'm pretty sure no buildings or property are destroyed or people are threatened/literally murdered in that first clip, breh.

Also notice how they deliberately show nobody in the streets or if it shows people none of them are in danger? Compare that context to watching thousands of people running through the streets from collapsing buildings as hundreds of people are continuously, meticulously, shown to be pulled up in the sky and smashed to the ground. The entire atmosphere is different because him punching Darkseid is a moment of triumph, whereas him killing Zod is a moment of grim (personal) defeat. But continue to keep pretending like context doesn't exist.

 

[Ain't That Something]

I'm pretty sure no buildings or property are destroyed or people are threatened/literally murdered in that first clip, breh.

Also notice how they deliberately show nobody in the streets or if it shows people none of them are in danger? Compare that context to watching thousands of people running through the streets from collapsing buildings as hundreds of people are continuously, meticulously, shown to be pulled up in the sky and smashed to the ground. The entire atmosphere is different because him punching Darkseid is a moment of triumph, whereas him killing Zod is a moment of grim (personal) defeat. But continue to keep pretending like context doesn't exist.

Stop it cuz now you just reaching. So we suppose to believe a metropolitan city is empty. shyt that whole series was a major metropolitan city getting destroyed every other episode.

 

[Ain't That Something]

I'm pretty sure no buildings or property are destroyed or people are threatened/literally murdered in that first clip, breh.

Also notice how they deliberately show nobody in the streets or if it shows people none of them are in danger? Compare that context to watching thousands of people running through the streets from collapsing buildings as hundreds of people are continuously, meticulously, shown to be pulled up in the sky and smashed to the ground. The entire atmosphere is different because him punching Darkseid is a moment of triumph, whereas him killing Zod is a moment of grim (personal) defeat. But continue to keep pretending like context doesn't exist.

And that's also why Snyder said his movies are more realistic in that it show real consequences with superpower showdowns.

 

[TheGodling]

Stop it cuz now you just reaching. So we suppose to believe a metropolitan city is empty. shyt that whole series was a major metropolitan city getting destroyed every other episode.

I'm talking context, breh. You don't focus on the deaths in these things ever (that goes for disaster movies as well) because when you do (Man Of Steel), it doesn't just become grim, it becomes morbid. Collateral damage happens all the time, but you don't put it in people's faces because there would be nothing left to root for.

Think about Civil War (the comic event). Several city blocks including a public school get decimated, with hundreds of casualties. But outside of one frame showing the silhouettes of playing children looking up at the light of the explosion before the moment, they don't depict the deaths. Because doing so would drastically change the tone.

And that's also why Snyder said his movies are more realistic in that it show real consequences with superpower showdowns.

I get that, and while that would make an interesting angle, Superman is not the character you use to tell that story because he is a symbol for the complete opposite of what Snyder is trying to do here. If he wanted to tell that story he should've chosen to adapt something like Mark Waid's Irredeemable instead.

It's the same problem how in Watchmen Rorschach and The Comedian are supposed to be completely off the handle right wing psychopaths/sociopaths, but in a fight scene Snyder depicts Nite Owl and Silk Spectre (both being closer to romanticizing thrill seekers) to be almost as ruthless and violent fighting criminals as the former two because that fits Snyder's idea of 'realistic superhero fights', with no regard of the narrative context. That's a big problem with Snyder's adaptations (it wasn't with 300 only because that pretty much fit his vision perfectly), and as long as he doesn't that get that in order, his movies will suffer from it.

 

[Ain't That Something]

I'm talking context, breh. You don't focus on the deaths in these things ever (that goes for disaster movies as well) because when you do (Man Of Steel), it doesn't just become grim, it becomes morbid. Collateral damage happens all the time, but you don't put it in people's faces because there would be nothing left to root for.

Think about Civil War (the comic event). Several city blocks including a public school get decimated, with hundreds of casualties. But outside of one frame showing the silhouettes of playing children looking up at the light of the explosion before the moment, they don't depict the deaths. Because doing so would drastically change the tone.



I get that, and while that would make an interesting angle, Superman is not the character you use to tell that story because he is a symbol for the complete opposite of what Snyder is trying to do here. If he wanted to tell that story he should've chosen to adapt something like Mark Waid's Irredeemable instead.

It's the same problem how in Watchmen Rorschach and The Comedian are supposed to be completely off the handle right wing psychopaths/sociopaths, but in a fight scene Snyder depicts Nite Owl and Silk Spectre (both being closer to romanticizing thrill seekers) to be almost as ruthless and violent fighting criminals as the former two because that fits Snyder's idea of 'realistic superhero fights', with no regard of the narrative context. That's a big problem with Snyder's adaptations (it wasn't with 300 only because that pretty much fit his vision perfectly), and as long as he doesn't that get that in order, his movies will suffer from it.

But this is where I disagree with you. Superman is the perfect character to explore that with. It always bothered me why someone with damn near unlimited power was a good ol boy scout with perfect ideal. What motivated those ideals? Why is he so adamant with his no killing policy? Was it because of a traumatic exprrience? I think having him experience the weight of a person life is good character development

 

[TheGodling]

But this is where I disagree with you. Superman is the perfect character to explore that with. It always bothered me why someone with damn near unlimited power was a good ol boy scout with perfect ideal. What motivated those ideals? Why is he so adamant with his no killing policy? Was it because of a traumatic exprrience?

Because he's a kind hearted person who was raised by loving parents and accepted in the world even though he was different, breh.

Also, why would anyone need a traumatic experience to have a no killing policy? Most people tend to have a no killing policy, you know, that's called being a decent human being.

 

[Ain't That Something]

Because he's a kind hearted person who was raised by loving parents and accepted in the world even though he was different, breh.

Also, why would anyone need a traumatic experience to have a no killing policy? Most people tend to have a no killing policy, you know, that's called being a decent human being.

Most people don't have godlike powers either. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. But that's my take. If I had Supes power I would be an a$$hole
Loving parents or not. And most people would kill if they could get away with it.

 

[TheGodling]

Most people don't have godlike powers either. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. But that's my take. If I had Supes power I would be an a$$hole
Loving parents or not. And most people would kill if they could get away with it.

And that's why he's an idealistic character, and that is why he's not suitable for doing a 'realistic' treatment. Which is why writers who wanted to tell a story like that, made up their own 'Superman' like character (such as in the aforementioned Irredeemable book by Mark Waid).

 

[Ain't That Something]

And that's why he's an idealistic character, and that is why he's not suitable for doing a 'realistic' treatment. Which is why writers who wanted to tell a story like that, made up their own 'Superman' like character (such as in the aforementioned Irredeemable book by Mark Waid).

Now I finally understand your issues with M.O.S the movie is a betrayal to your ideal of what Superman is. I can understand and accept that as valid, but I don't have those same issues because the superman I grew up with was not the ideal poster boy you knew. He was the Superman TAS, and JL and JLU cartoon superman. And now I'm into reading comics the New 52 superman. The only time I saw a poster boy supes was in those old 70s movie. Different era breh different era.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Now I finally understand your issues with M.O.S the movie is a betrayal to your ideal of what Superman is. I can understand and accept that as valid, but I don't have those same issues because the superman I grew up with was not the ideal poster boy you knew. He was the Superman TAS, and JL and JLU cartoon superman. And now I'm into reading comics the New 52 superman. The only time I saw a poster boy supes was in those old 70s movie. Different era breh different era.

Yeah I see both of your points but I'm inclined to lean your direction because I like the more complex version of superman Bruce Timm brought to the table and the one currently in comics. That version is more compelling to me and the minute I began to really like his character. In the justice lords episode where he makes the deal with Luther and says that he had to make a touch decision but it was the right one, flash says to him "so you're really not a boy scout after all" and he responds with "didn't make it to my first meeting" and does it with a smile and a wink, that's the superman I like. The guy who's conflicted about the idea of superman and the reality of who he knows he is. I just got put on to Greg Ennis' Hitman comic and issue 34 is about that very thing. Check it out when you get the chance breh I think you'll like it