The Official Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Movie Thread

[Ed MOTHERFUCKING G]

X-men made $739 million
Fast and furious 6 made like $780

Both of their next sequels will son out all marvel films but MAYBE avengers

So..yeah...youre exadgerating

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

Exactly..

- NYC was gettin torn apart and no one complains.. 2 kryptonians go head to head within the city and there's complaints
- Hawkeye and Black Widow can hold their own in an alien invasion with minimum weaponry yet Batman basically in Iron Man's Hulkbuster suit can't go against Superman..... we haven't even seen the movie yet.. we don't know if Bats gon use red sun, kryptonite or anything else to slow him down

I ain't tryna start a Marvel/DC debate cuz I f*ck with both but its crazy how a movie is bad because of THIS yet another movie gets acclaimed and has the same thing in it ppl complained about in the other movie

You can't hold both movies to the same standard because they didn't set out to achieve the same things. Avengers was a light hearted action romp whereas MOS was (or tried to be) an earnest movie. One movie has characters practically winking at the camera while the other movie has everyone playing it 100% straight.

Also in the Avengers movie there was an effort to show how they went out of their way to protect as many civilians as they could during the invasion. Meanwhile in MOS Superman begs and pleads Zod to spare the life of a single family as if the 2 of them didn't just have a hand in slaying thousands.

And lastly... and this is important.... the Avengers aren't Superman. They don't have the same place in culture nor do they occupy the same space in our minds as Superman does. Superman is THE superhero. The greatest of them all. The one who absolutely, positively must save the day above all else. If not even Superman can arrive to the scene and prevent thousands upon thousands of people from dying then perhaps they should have written a movie about another superhero. Because that definitely doesn't sound like a job for Superman.

 

[Ed MOTHERFUCKING G]

You can't hold both movies to the same standard because they didn't set out to achieve the same things. Avengers was a light hearted action romp whereas MOS was (or tried to be) an earnest movie. One movie has characters practically winking at the camera while the other movie has everyone playing it 100% straight.

Also in the Avengers movie there was an effort to show how they went out of their way to protect as many civilians as they could during the invasion. Meanwhile in MOS Superman begs and pleads Zod to spare the life of a single family as if the 2 of them didn't just have a hand in slaying thousands.

And lastly... and this is important.... the Avengers aren't Superman. They don't have the same place in culture nor do they occupy the same space in our minds as Superman does. Superman is THE superhero. The greatest of them all. The one who absolutely, positively must save the day above all else. If not even Superman can arrive to the scene and prevent thousands upon thousands of people from dying then perhaps they should have written a movie about another superhero. Because that definitely doesn't sound like a job for Superman.

The avengers dont play for the stakes superman does. You clearly dont read superman comics; he always chooses defeating the enemy over nearby casualties. He gets tunnel vision on one foe or one person to save. He basically left earth to the hands of darkesid and got batman killed to save lois lane in final crisis.

You dont know the charactor...as do most who have your hollow criticism.

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

The avengers dont play for the stakes superman does. You clearly dont read superman comics; he always chooses defeating the enemy over nearby casualties. He gets tunnel vision on one foe or one person to save. He basically left earth to the hands of darkesid and got batman killed to save lois lane in final crisis.

You dont know the charactor...as do most who have your hollow criticism.

Are you suggesting that Superman is defined MORE by "fighting the bad guy" than he is "saving the day"?

 

[Ed MOTHERFUCKING G]

Are you suggesting that Superman is defined MORE by "fighting the bad guy" than he is "saving the day"?

I'm saying in comics he fights multiverse level threats and kills them or defeats them in order to save the day and that if others die in the process he often knows thats part of the stakes.

 

[gluvnast]

It doesn't matter if the movies aren't great because they're still succeeding in spite of it. Thor 1 was the definition of a "by the numbers" summer movie but the Thor brand and the Thor character became stronger as a result of it. It got people interested. Meanwhile the Green Lantern movie was released the same year and was a huge bomb... so obviously Marvel did something right.

Right now the Marvel brand is so strong that they're allotted a few missteps here and there. Iron Man 2 was complete and utter shyt but the first one was so good that most people are willing to forgive and forget. In fact I'm quite sure most people did forget after they saw how good Avengers was.

There is no bigger movie franchise right now than Marvel. You can speak all you want about the varying quality from movie to movie but you know as well as I know that each new entry in that franchise demands a certain level of attention. GOTG was a fukkin no name supergroup and now they have the entire geek world at notice. That's the kind of power Marvel has right now. And what's even scarier is that there's no telling how far or how long they could keep going. We might still be heavily anticipating Marvel movies well into the 2020's if they keep this up.

If I told you 10 years ago that we would one day witness an epic Marvel superhero saga spanning the course of close to 20 movies all unified under one cohesive continuity... featuring all types of teamups and crossover events... what would your reaction might have been? Don't you think one bad or mediocre movie every few years would still be worth it?

I really don't see your point. We ARE talking about QUALITY over QUANTITY are we not? I mean within a 8 year span, we gotten 9 Marvel films going on TEN!! Out of those 9-10 films, ONLY 3 and if the sources are proven so with GotG, maybe just FOUR of those films were great. There's no debate on successful. It's really no point for that even to be INCLUDED, because even the shytty as TRANSFORMERS franchise can shyt a BILLION globally without even trying like they JUST RECENTLY DID.

But we are speaking on QUALITY.... most of those Marvel films weren't THAT GREAT. They were mediocre to trash. DC just coming off from one of the greatest trilogies of all time, they just recently had a SUCCESSFUL reboot to jumpstart their own cinematic universe. It is unfair to say Marvel shytting on DC when BOTH films are making money. The only true flop turn setback with DC was really with Green Lantern and they regrouped and kept it pushing.


And lets get one more thing clear since you speaking on Marvel's "power". Lets remember they are still DISNEY's bytch. We CAN address how powerful the MOUSE is all day, because nothing can top that evil empire and how it is consuming all the franchises into one roof, but Marvel is just one of the fortunate ones that is able to join under that umbrella. Best believe, this wouldn't be able to be as huge as it is WITHOUT Disney.

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

I'm saying in comics he fights multiverse level threats and kills them or defeats them in order to save the day and that if others die in the process he often knows thats part of the stakes.

Superman protects first, fights second. I don't care what comic or story from the thousands upon thousands that have been published you pull from to try and support your argument. Batman once carried a gun.

In most classic and time honored depictions of the character he is seen above all else doing whatever it takes to keep casualties to a minimum.

 

[Ed MOTHERFUCKING G]

Superman protects first, fights second. I don't care what comic or story from the thousands upon thousands that have been published you pull from to try and support your argument. Batman once carried a gun.

In most classic and time honored depictions of the character he is seen above all else doing whatever it takes to keep casualties to a minimum.

LOL..."i have a belief and i dont care the evidence you present to prove it wrong."

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

I really don't see your point. We ARE talking about QUALITY over QUANTITY are we not? I mean within a 8 year span, we gotten 9 Marvel films going on TEN!! Out of those 9-10 films, ONLY 3 and if the sources are proven so with GotG, maybe just FOUR of those films were great. There's no debate on successful. It's really no point for that even to be INCLUDED, because even the shytty as TRANSFORMERS franchise can shyt a BILLION globally without even trying like they JUST RECENTLY DID.

But we are speaking on QUALITY.... most of those Marvel films weren't THAT GREAT. They were mediocre to trash. DC just coming off from one of the greatest trilogies of all time, they just recently had a SUCCESSFUL reboot to jumpstart their own cinematic universe. It is unfair to say Marvel shytting on DC when BOTH films are making money. The only true flop turn setback with DC was really with Green Lantern and they regrouped and kept it pushing.

Of course I don't want shytty movies but even the shytty movies... the IM2's, the Thor 2's... help layer and help keep the momentum going for that universe.

Again I'm just grateful that we're actually getting these movies. And if GOTG is in fact a hit that would be 2 in a row including Cap 2. So perhaps the bar has been raised and they have now mastered "the formula" on what it takes to make these movies worthwhile.

I'm very hopeful looking forward.

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

LOL..."i have a belief and i dont care the evidence you present to prove it wrong."

I've just posted factual evidence that Batman uses guns in his crusade against crime.

Care to debate me?

 

[gluvnast]

You can't hold both movies to the same standard because they didn't set out to achieve the same things. Avengers was a light hearted action romp whereas MOS was (or tried to be) an earnest movie. One movie has characters practically winking at the camera while the other movie has everyone playing it 100% straight.

Also in the Avengers movie there was an effort to show how they went out of their way to protect as many civilians as they could during the invasion. Meanwhile in MOS Superman begs and pleads Zod to spare the life of a single family as if the 2 of them didn't just have a hand in slaying thousands.

And lastly... and this is important.... the Avengers aren't Superman. They don't have the same place in culture nor do they occupy the same space in our minds as Superman does. Superman is THE superhero. The greatest of them all. The one who absolutely, positively must save the day above all else. If not even Superman can arrive to the scene and prevent thousands upon thousands of people from dying then perhaps they should have written a movie about another superhero. Because that definitely doesn't sound like a job for Superman.

You can't hold both films to the same standard, I agree to give you that. Avengers was set out to prove to have big named Superheros be able to have the chemistry to work together in one epic film, and it succeed. Whereas, Man of Steel was set up to reboot the Superman origin story to jumpstart the DC cinematic universe and that SUCCEEDED as well. So, what's the argument?

If you didn't like MoS due to your PERSONAL reasons, I can respect that. But best believe, people won't call out the hypocrisy to some of the arguments if you are a fan of another film based on the SAME GENRE which Avengers and Superman are. They are both comic book movie epics. Yes, Avengers is lighthearted and meant to be comic relief, but your complaints with MoS versus your dismissal for the same things in Avengers have NOTHING to do with TONE. And if it did, then it CAN be ignored or suspend belief that no human was killed in NYC during the so-called invasion and only damaged property was cause versus, the truth of two GODS fighting and human casualties end of being a huge collateral damage. You cannot have it both ways. If you are stating that they aren't the same standard, then accept the fact that human lives weren't at all lost and Avengers is a film where Disney would never allow to go there in that regard. OR, if they are the same STANDARD, then call out the bullshyt in BOTH films then and not just ignore it from one and not the other.

 

[TheGodling]

You lose all credit on the topic then...

Those movies are two different takes on superman and both are solid representations of the charactor but you despise both.

You just dont like superman...why watch the films LOL?

I don't like Superman? He's my favorite superhero of all time dumb-ass, that is precisely why I'm so critical of the movies. You think dead-beat dad Superman is a solid representation? You think mass-destruction Superman is a solid representation? It doesn't matter how much they got right when the things they got wrong outweigh them.

And let's not act as if a 'different take' excuses everything. Neal Adams did a Batman series a few years back where he killed people with guns. You could call that a different take on the character, sure. You could also call it for what it is, a fukking horrible characterization.

 

[gluvnast]

I don't like Superman? He's my favorite superhero of all time dumb-ass, that is precisely why I'm so critical of the movies. You think dead-beat dad Superman is a solid representation? You think mass-destruction Superman is a solid representation? It doesn't matter how much they got right when the things they got wrong outweigh them.

And let's not act as if a 'different take' excuses everything. Neal Adams did a Batman series a few years back where he killed people with guns. You could call that a different take on the character, sure. You could also call it for what it is, a fukking horrible characterization.

You really are unfamiliar to the comic book Superman if you are complaining the mass-destruction. But from the LOOKS of it you are one that most likely stuck on those old Richard Donner films. With that said, the most confused assumption with MoS is that Superman was the reason for the mass destruction (which I am certain would be fuel for the upcoming Dawn of Justice movie). The truth is that Zod and his terra-forming machine pretty much the cause of 90% of the mass destruction. The rest were based on mostly property damage, since you witnessed them crashing into buildings that were already evacuated.

 

[Ed MOTHERFUCKING G]

I've just posted factual evidence that Batman uses guns in his crusade against crime.

Care to debate me?

Batman and superman do whatever it takes if the stakes are high enough

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

You can't hold both films to the same standard, I agree to give you that. Avengers was set out to prove to have big named Superheros be able to have the chemistry to work together in one epic film, and it succeed. Whereas, Man of Steel was set up to reboot the Superman origin story to jumpstart the DC cinematic universe and that SUCCEEDED as well. So, what's the argument?

If you didn't like MoS due to your PERSONAL reasons, I can respect that. But best believe, people won't call out the hypocrisy to some of the arguments if you are a fan of another film based on the SAME GENRE which Avengers and Superman are. They are both comic book movie epics. Yes, Avengers is lighthearted and meant to be comic relief, but your complaints with MoS versus your dismissal for the same things in Avengers have NOTHING to do with TONE. And if it did, then it CAN be ignored or suspend belief that no human was killed in NYC during the so-called invasion and only damaged property was cause versus, the truth of two GODS fighting and human casualties end of being a huge collateral damage. You cannot have it both ways. If you are stating that they aren't the same standard, then accept the fact that human lives weren't at all lost and Avengers is a film where Disney would never allow to go there in that regard. OR, if they are the same STANDARD, then call out the bullshyt in BOTH films then and not just ignore it from one and not the other.

If there's nothing that Superman could have done to protect those people during his fight with Zod then at the very least he could have shown some remorse afterwards. You saw how upset he was after he killed Zod? Why wasn't he equally as distraught over the death of all those innocents?

nikka stood atop a fukkin barren wasteland and he's out there sharing a passionate kiss with Lois Lane.

Sorry, something isn't right here.