Early screening of Justice League deem it 'unwatchable'

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Dirty Hipsters:

It's 2 different movie studios doing two different movies. Justice League is WB, Mission Impossible is Paramount, the mustache is for Mission Impossible.

Why would Paramount inconvenience themselves and have extra make-up time and costs just to let Henry Cavill shave his mustache so that he can better play Superman in a different movie by a different studio which will not make Paramount any money?

I was thinking more like having the two studios work out an agreement and have WB be the ones footing the bill on the fake mustache and makeup, especially since THEY are the ones who are going to be effected by this digital mustache removal and thus the ones saving money by doing that. Even a really good fake mustache and makeup would come to a really minuscule cost compared to the cost in time and money for the digital removal.

Agent_Z:
I?ve watched Whedon?s work just fine. At best I get something like Buff which I start out as liking but over time the cracks start to show. This isn?t even getting into more troubling aspects of his work like his fetshism is skinny, white women clobbering things twice their size (no one would have been whining about Gal Gadot?s body if she were cast by Whedon)...

Are you so superficial you're incapable of looking past the dress size of a female lead? Make up your mind; either athletic figures [in populist action roles] are bad, or they're not.

I can say the same of your attitude towards Snyder?s DCEU work.

In what sense? I refuted specific threadbare criticism. What on earth is there in Snyder's work to defend in the first place? Masculinist power fantasies? Rage? What's 'cool' (seemingly his only guiding star)?

If you define idiocy as not being omniscient and being unable to read the script to know the plot ahead of time, I suppose I can see how they come across as idiots to you.

No, Bruce Wayne being incapable of reason beyond that of an absolutist neocon Bush-era nutjob is how I define idiocy in this instance.

The idiocy goes beyond Batman (and Clark 'Fool me with a kryptonite gas grenade once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me' Kent), though, it permeates the entire film and almost every single plot point. Each detail's been discussed to death by now so I won't repeat them.

And frankly, given how notoriously contradicting the depiction of DC?s characters are across stories and media, sometimes even within the same month of released comics, I can?t take Snyder just doing his own thing like everyone else has as reason to rip him apart.

'Cept that's not what Snyder's doing at all - he has absolutely no vision beyond that of the surface level visual (I don't count holding longer on wider single shots in action sequences as a 'vision', either, that just makes him an occasionally adept action director). At best he's shoveling 'iconic' imagery and ideas by the bucketload onto a screen, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea or whether it's best for the story or the extended universe.

If one assumes that everything Marvel does is Holy Writ, then of course, every other way is the bad way it seems.

Oh, sure - which is apparently why I feel, as far as technical filmmaking and 'art' goes, the MCU will never have an equal of The Dark Knight, or perhaps even Logan (they're fulfilling different pop-culture needs so don't benefit much comparison, but still).

The Marvel method pertaining to the MCU isn't the only one by any means. But Warner don't have a method, yet - they have desperation, appalling scripts, and intrusively unintelligent studio interference. A way is the one thing they've dearly lacked since the start.

Snyder has zero control in editing.

That's clearly absurd given the critical importance of editing, but I suppose it might help explain why MoS and BvS were so bad.

And between being wall paper in every film he?s appeared in, getting killed off in Smallville and basically having to be re-written into a completely unrecognisable character on Supergirl, I can hardly blame Snyder for being one of many to come to the conclusion of ?yeah this guy really adds nothing of value, does he??.

I think Superman's a fairly dull superhero, for all the obvious reasons. But if Snyder couldn't find something worthwhile for Supes to do in a film called Batman v Superman, then he should've stepped away from the project, or insisted on it being a solo Batman film (or something else entirely).

I have a lot of difficulty taking this argument seriously when you champion the MCU, whose version of Steve Rogers is nothing more than a self righteous, hypocritical war hawk whose only true skill and calling is beating the crap out of people and yet has somehow amassed a ridiculous amount of popularity.

The MCU's Steve Rogers is a much better Superman - as far as incorruptible icons fighting for truth and justice goes - than the DCEU's... which is a sad reflection on the mischaracterisations Warner started with.

Rogers is a soldier, so a trained killer (though even on duty in a mission he still tries to KO his opponents, e.g. the opening to Winter Soldier), and self-sacrifice is always his instinctual course of action. His moral compass is made clear in The First Avenger when he states he has no interest in specifically killing anyone (Nazi's or no) - he simply wants to stop bullies, be they guys in alleyways or fascist nations.

Are you Whedon?s auto biographer or something? Cause I really do not get why you?re trying this hard to shill him to me and honestly, it?s getting a little creepy.

I was pointing out Snyder's obvious limitations with regards to trying to go for a more light-hearted tone. Nothing suggests he's equipped to do it.

Something the MCU has avoided in Phases 1 and 2 and fantastically bungled in Phase 3 in Civil War. It?s amusing to me how Snyder is accused of promoting fascism in his DCEU films...

No, they accuse him of that in some of his other films, too.

...yet the MCU is the one that champions putting unearned faith in charismatic individuals, while depicting the authorities put in place as inherently corrupt and incompetent, while the people they defend are helpless peons with no agency, their voices drowned out by the sounds of the melodramatic whining by the main characters.

I wouldn't try to deny there is an allure of power fantasies with some disturbing ethical and philosophical ramifications at the heart of so many superheroes and mythologies.

So much of the medium's history has concerned itself with either surface level reflections or deconstructions of that (be it in the form of specific characters and/or arcs). So yes, if you choose to look at the MCU's Avengers in a certain light, there is that same individualised lawless corruption.

But beyond a certain point, and dependent on tone, we just have to accept the internality of the worlds for what they are and roll with it. In the MCU I was wholly Team Cap - in reality I'd be Team Stark, for very obvious reasons.

In a way I'd like the MCU to get darker, to delve deeper into the ideas of cause and consequence. But that really isn't its grand intent, nor should it be; Thanos is next up on their list of direct antagonists, so pondering vigilantism won't exactly be a priority... The conceit of the Avengers is that they are earth's protectors, when no government or nation is capable of it. These individuals aren't paragons or gods, but they still give themselves for the greater good.

We have The Dark Knight and, hell, Daredevil and the Punisher shouting at each other on a rooftop to mull over cause, consequences, morality, and threat escalation.

...Civil War was supposed to be a valid examination of the Avengers? actions.

Was it? I thought everyone knew it had barely any connection to the comics run (given how wildly the rosters differed, and how different the two universes were at their respective timelines), and was going to be much smaller scale and more about a personal conflict? That's what I expected, and that's exactly what I got.

And frankly, the Martha thing has been taken out of context so often for a cheap shot, I'm not even going to bother dignifying it by trying to explain it for the millionth time to someone who doesn't bother actually paying attention to that scene.

No one ever mistook it or took it out of context. It was simply an infantile piece of plotting and characterisation, presented embarrassingly which cut short a terribly filmed action sequence that many had waited decades to see.

Though I suppose it can potentially be viewed as internally consistent given the adolescent psychology of the entire script.

You know it helps if you actually pay attention to what people say or do some damn research instead of saying, ?I heard it from a guy? (which interestingly enough describes just about every click bait report on the DCEU).

Reputations precede people, but you're right, it'd be unfair to dismiss the potential influence Johns might have - though I suspect he has been brought in for precisely the reason I intimated. He sure as hell knows the characters better than Snyder ever has or ever could, so I hope he elevates this Batman, at least, as I think Affleck could be great in the role.

Ditto Cavill, but he's had two whole films to be screwed over already. Long gone is the hopeful promise of the original MoS teaser.

Whedon is not reshaping anything. he's the guy directing some additional acenes and completing the post-production work already started by Zack. At least, that's what we've been told DOZENS of times. Of course, this movie could be a Snyder movie from top to bottom and people would insist was the Holy Grail just because Whedon was involved in it.

We'll have to wait and see. Or, rather, we more likely won't ever truly know exactly who shot what, and how Whedon's cut would've differed from Snyder's. That's partly why I'm so disappointed he agreed to do it; if it ends up a clusterfuck he'll either be the guy who helped ruined it, or the guy who couldn't save it. Either way, it's a black mark.

And if some dumb clickbait sites/articles try to simplistically assert Joss 'saved' it if it turns out good? That'll also be unknowable, and just as speculative without anything to compare it to. It's almost certainly going to be frustrating to deconstruct no matter what happens.

immortalfrieza:

Dirty Hipsters:

It's 2 different movie studios doing two different movies. Justice League is WB, Mission Impossible is Paramount, the mustache is for Mission Impossible.

Why would Paramount inconvenience themselves and have extra make-up time and costs just to let Henry Cavill shave his mustache so that he can better play Superman in a different movie by a different studio which will not make Paramount any money?

I was thinking more like having the two studios work out an agreement and have WB be the ones footing the bill on the fake mustache and makeup, especially since THEY are the ones who are going to be effected by this digital mustache removal and thus the ones saving money by doing that. Even a really good fake mustache and makeup would come to a really minuscule cost compared to the cost in time and money for the digital removal.

But why would Paramount agree to that? They have nothing to gain from an arrangement like that even if WB did foot the bill for it.

Darth Rosenberg:
Are you so superficial you're incapable of looking past the dress size of a female lead? Make up your mind; either athletic figures [in populist action roles] are bad, or they're not.

When did I say anything about athletic figures in action roles are bad? I simply pointed out a reoccurring trend in Whedon's works.

Darth Rosenberg:
No, Bruce Wayne being incapable of reason beyond that of an absolutist neocon Bush-era nutjob is how I define idiocy in this instance.

"Criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot."
"I am vengeance, I am the night."
There is a reason why these are two of the most well known quotes attributed to the Dark Knight. The man has never been a picture of compassion and mental stability no matter how much his fans try to sugar coat him. Aside from not being a killer (which isn't even consistent), the guy doesn't have much going for him morality wise. He's a manipulative, abusive and self-destructive jerk with no respect for laws, civil rights, and even the friggin' Geneva Convention given his treatment of minors under his care. There's a reason none of the cinematic iterations would touch that little bundle of joy with a fifteen-foot pole. You can base entire psychology textbooks around how this particular tidbit gets completely ignored by the same fans that decry and preach against lethal action with regard to unrepentant criminals.
What Snyder has done with Batman has shown just how crazy you'd have to be to think dressing up in a fetish suit and beating the hell out of people is a good way to combat crime and poverty.

Darth Rosenberg:
The idiocy goes beyond Batman (and Clark 'Fool me with a kryptonite gas grenade once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me' Kent), though, it permeates the entire film and almost every single plot point. Each detail's been discussed to death by now so I won't repeat them.

You know it really does not do to whine about masculinist power fantasies when your complaints boil down to Superman not curb stomping every obstacle he comes across with ease. Seriously, not only is this the first time he's encountered Kryptonite, he didn't want an actual fight and was still clearly recovering from the effects. And given how many times Superman in other media gets smacked by Kryptonite, I can't help but see this as yet another double standard.

Darth Rosenberg:
'Cept that's not what Snyder's doing at all - he has absolutely no vision beyond that of the surface level visual (I don't count holding longer on wider single shots in action sequences as a 'vision', either, that just makes him an occasionally adept action director). At best he's shoveling 'iconic' imagery and ideas by the bucketload onto a screen, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea or whether it's best for the story or the extended universe.

He's done more to make Superman feel like a person than any other person who's written or directed him. Brian Singer more aptly fits your description.

Darth Rosenberg:
Oh, sure - which is apparently why I feel, as far as technical filmmaking and 'art' goes, the MCU will never have an equal of The Dark Knight, or perhaps even Logan (they're fulfilling different pop-culture needs so don't benefit much comparison, but still).

The Marvel method pertaining to the MCU isn't the only one by any means. But Warner don't have a method, yet - they have desperation, appalling scripts, and intrusively unintelligent studio interference. A way is the one thing they've dearly lacked since the start.

They do have a way. It's one you dislike because it slaughters sacred cows.

Darth Rosenberg:
That's clearly absurd given the critical importance of editing, but I suppose it might help explain why MoS and BvS were so bad.

If you know anything about franchises like this, you'd know just how little control directors have over this stuff. Just ask Whedon or Favreau.

Darth Rosenberg:
I think Superman's a fairly dull superhero, for all the obvious reasons. But if Snyder couldn't find something worthwhile for Supes to do in a film called Batman v Superman, then he should've stepped away from the project, or insisted on it being a solo Batman film (or something else entirely).

Um, I was talking about Jimmy Olsen.

Darth Rosenberg:
In what sense? I refuted specific threadbare criticism. What on earth is there in Snyder's work to defend in the first place? Masculinist power fantasies? Rage? What's 'cool' (seemingly his only guiding star)?

Darth Rosenberg:
The MCU's Steve Rogers is a much better Superman - as far as incorruptible icons fighting for truth and justice goes - than the DCEU's... which is a sad reflection on the mischaracterisations Warner started with.

Incorruptible? Is this what we're calling a man who recruits terrorists, lies to his team mates and continually ignores the sovereign rights of foreign lands even when confronted with the damage his reckless actions have wrought all the while hypocritically railing against "people with agendas"? MCU Steve Rogers is basically Big Boss from Metal Gear except the MCU writers don't know they've created a villain. That's what he became the moment he went all Incredibles about how people are weak and corrupt for not wanting to put up with an increasingly unstable loon whose only purpose in life is battle. But this gets ignored by fans due to the moral luck of every character who challenges him being a villain or a hypocrite. You wanna talk about masculine power fantasies? There's your guy.
What is their to defend in Snyder's work? How about the fact that his Superman is very much the opposite of the war hawk Steve is? DCEU Clark avoided fighting his entire existence until the invasion (which he fought off with the aid of normal humans. Snyder also remembers to give humans agency in his films which the MCU does not). Even in BvS, it was shown the guy prefers merely using his powers to stop disasters or fight of inhuman monsters than get into international brawls. The incedent in Nairobi was the exception and he was willing to answer for it unlike Steve with his blunder in Lagos. He actually is shown learning from his mistakes and the people who call him out aren't dismissed as villains (except Lex).
He also has the decency not to mack on his girlfriend's niece.

Darth Rosenberg:

Rogers is a soldier, so a trained killer (though even on duty in a mission he still tries to KO his opponents, e.g. the opening to Winter Soldier), and self-sacrifice is always his instinctual course of action. His moral compass is made clear in The First Avenger when he states he has no interest in specifically killing anyone (Nazi's or no) - he simply wants to stop bullies, be they guys in alleyways or fascist nations.

Yeah, interesting how his idea of helping people always seems to involve fists and guns.
And Rogers isn't a soldier. He's a propaganda tool who was thrown into a war with minimal training and elevated to icon status after his supposed death. You can clearly see this in Civil War when people just blindly follow him simply because he' Captain America despite the numerous tactical and political blunders he makes.

Darth Rosenberg:

I was pointing out Snyder's obvious limitations with regards to trying to go for a more light-hearted tone. Nothing suggests he's equipped to do it.

His Legend of the Guardians movie suggests otherwise.

Darth Rosenberg:

No, they accuse him of that in some of his other films, too.

The only film that could remotely be accused of this is 300 and that should be blamed more on Miller the guy who wrote the comic it was based on.

Darth Rosenberg:

I wouldn't try to deny there is an allure of power fantasies with some disturbing ethical and philosophical ramifications at the heart of so many superheroes and mythologies.

So much of the medium's history has concerned itself with either surface level reflections or deconstructions of that (be it in the form of specific characters and/or arcs). So yes, if you choose to look at the MCU's Avengers in a certain light, there is that same individualised lawless corruption.

But beyond a certain point, and dependent on tone, we just have to accept the internality of the worlds for what they are and roll with it. In the MCU I was wholly Team Cap - in reality I'd be Team Stark, for very obvious reasons.

In a way I'd like the MCU to get darker, to delve deeper into the ideas of cause and consequence. But that really isn't its grand intent, nor should it be; Thanos is next up on their list of direct antagonists, so pondering vigilantism won't exactly be a priority... The conceit of the Avengers is that they are earth's protectors, when no government or nation is capable of it. These individuals aren't paragons or gods, but they still give themselves for the greater good.

We have The Dark Knight and, hell, Daredevil and the Punisher shouting at each other on a rooftop to mull over cause, consequences, morality, and threat escalation.

I can accept the internality of a fictional world provided the writers don't try to wring drama out of tropes they know cannot deconstruct for the sake of the status quo. As I said, had the MCU just stuck to mindless superhero fun, I'd have forgiven them. But then we started talks about accountability as far back as Iron Man 2 and the cracks began to show. If the writers want me to suspend my disbelief, they need to know their limits. Why should I just accept that these guys are necessary for the survival of the human race given the movies focus solely on how their personal issues cause as much damage as the villains? Whether it's Thor causing an interplanetary war in his first film, Tony's messiah complex leading to him creating Skynet Jr, Steve's blood knight tendencies and overemotional nature causing him to defy both the authorities and the people or Wanda's vengeance getting innocents killed and suffering no consequences for it.
It's the same issue with stories about whether or not irredeemable murderers who treat prison time like a ten minute vacation should be put six feet under ultimately decide that it is better for the hero to maintain an arbitrary high horse rather than do everything within their power to ensure more innocents do not die. Man of Steel at least had the stones to answer the question of what to do with a relentless mad man hell bent on committing genocide on an innocent planet. Superman writers could actually stand to learn a few lessons on focusing on a hero's purpose rather than his questionable status as a moral icon which only has any real weight within the fictional worlds they occupy.
Honestly, I don't have any faith future movies will portray Thanos as the cosmic nightmare he is given this franchise's treatment of any villain not named Loki. Instead, I fully expect that he'll be a foot note in a story that is more concerned with seeing if the Avengers will kiss and make up. Basically, movie length version of a CW DC tv show episode.
Look at it like this; starting out darker but going lighter in the future (whether they pull it off is honestly a matter of opinion) means the DCEU largely avoids the problems the MCU has.

Darth Rosenberg:

Was it? I thought everyone knew it had barely any connection to the comics run (given how wildly the rosters differed, and how different the two universes were at their respective timelines), and was going to be much smaller scale and more about a personal conflict? That's what I expected, and that's exactly what I got.

Then maybe they shouldn't have called it "Civil War" and gone for something more appropriate like "When Adults Fight Like School Children".

Darth Rosenberg:

No one ever mistook it or took it out of context. It was simply an infantile piece of plotting and characterisation, presented embarrassingly which cut short a terribly filmed action sequence that many had waited decades to see.

Though I suppose it can potentially be viewed as internally consistent given the adolescent psychology of the entire script.

You know what, I've had this argument too many times, so maybe we'll just agree to disagree on this.

Darth Rosenberg:

Reputations precede people, but you're right, it'd be unfair to dismiss the potential influence Johns might have - though I suspect he has been brought in for precisely the reason I intimated. He sure as hell knows the characters better than Snyder ever has or ever could, so I hope he elevates this Batman, at least, as I think Affleck could be great in the role.

You'll be the first Batman fan I know who thinks Johns can elevate Batman. He's become to Batman fans what Frank Miller has become to Superman fans.
To be honest Johns is a hit and miss type of person. He's written great stuff like Justice Society and is Superman run back in the 2000s started out strong. On the other hand, he doesn't have a good handle on many women, minority and legacy characters and he tends to worship the Silver Age a bit too much. The truth is merely knowing stuff about the characters isn't enough as Brian Singer showed us.

Darth Rosenberg:

Ditto Cavill, but he's had two whole films to be screwed over already. Long gone is the hopeful promise of the original MoS teaser.

Whether or not you think MoS delivered on its promise depends on what you want out of Superman. If you want the lionization of a guy who has never known an ounce of suffering and is treated as morally superior due to him benefiting from contrivances provided by his writers (like time warping powers that reverse deaths he doesn't like) you'll be disappointed. If you prefer a guy who isn't perfect, something both he and the script and acknowledge but at the end of the day does the best he can and strives to do better which is much more relatable, I'd say you'll be satisfied. Alas, far too many Superman fans are enamored of his status as an untouchable paragon as opposed to his duty.

Agent_Z:
When did I say anything about athletic figures in action roles are bad? I simply pointed out a reoccurring trend in Whedon?s works.

No, you pointed out a recurring trend/norm in populist entertainment and society, so to try to claim it is essentially distinct to Whedon as a creator is disingenuous.

The man has never been a picture of compassion and mental stability no matter how much his fans try to sugar coat him. Aside from not being a killer (which isn?t even consistent), the guy doesn?t have much going for him morality wise. He?s a manipulative, abusive and self-destructive jerk with no respect for laws, civil rights, and even the friggin' Geneva Convention given his treatment of minors under his care. There's a reason none of the cinematic iterations would touch that little bundle of joy with a fifteen-foot pole.

I'd say The Dark Knight addressed the moral and philosophical ambiguity and turmoil well enough, but it did so whilst mostly retaining Wayne's logical faculties and sense of [albeit damaged] humanity. The conflict between wanting to do what's just and still being drawn over the line to vigilantism was well realised, and Nolan's broader moral framework is established in the short but brilliant scene between Bruce and Rachel in the first film, where he sheepishly reveals his initial plan of vengeance against Joe Chill.

Then there's the line at the end of Begins regarding escalation, which sets up TDK and the idea that he and the Joker are simply equal and opposite reactions as a consequence of transgressing against all laws and order, and imposing one's own order/disorder upon the world by force.

Nolan's films portray his dark side well enough without needing to make him behave like a violent, unthinking, insecurely macho halfbrain.

Also, in BvS we have no real context as to how this psychotic Batman came to be, nor do we have time or space to explore the world's morality (and for the most part Alfred just goes along with his killing sprees - a few snarky comments aren't enough of a challenge). There is no time, of course, but it isn't a work of art or a cohesive story; it is a corporate byproduct of one studio fumbling to ape another's business model without understanding why it succeeded (any critic or admirer of the MCU could've told 'em, for free, I'd guess).

Feck knows how Batman will come across in Justice League, although Affleck's already said he'll be more "traditional". If so it won't be because of a character arc - it will simply be because people didn't like BvS's bleakly stupid iteration. Again; a corporate reaction as opposed to anything creative.

What Snyder has done with Batman has shown just how crazy you?d have to be to think dressing up in a fetish suit and beating the hell out of people is a good way to combat crime and poverty.

Right, and he did that by presenting it through his own fetish; violence... Kinda takes the edge off the 'message' or theme, doesn't it? When the audience is sitting there cooing at Batman murdering people? Nothing says 'isn't he a nutjob' like 'Hey, watch him smash a car into other cars and kill people in this really nifty stunt!'.

Who knows, maybe Snyder's trying to be subversive...

You know it really does not do to whine about masculinist power fantasies when your complaints boil down to Superman not curb stomping every obstacle he comes across with ease.

Incorrect, I was specifically objecting to Superman being perhaps dumber than Batman in their fight.

Seriously, not only is this the first time he?s encountered Kryptonite...

Is he so dim he can't learn? Even children and animals tend to learn 'fire bad' by touching it once.

He?s done more to make Superman feel like a person than any other person who?s written or directed him. Brian Singer more aptly fits your description.

Yikes, you really are on of The Few with regards to MoS and BvS, aren't you (or perhaps just Snyder?).

The original MoS teaser pointed towards a more traditional expression of the icon, and that was a film I wanted to see. However, it was a lie, given the actual film - in tone and plotting - absolutely contradicts the potential of hope and vibrancy. Instead we got a morose, sullen Supes' bullying random civvies, a [suicidal] Pa Kent who wondered whether someone with power and the means to save lives should instead let lives be snuffed out for the sake of self-interest, and of course an orgy of carnage to give everyone headaches at the end.

This was a surly Superman film reveling in violence and destruction. Not every retelling of a character should be rigidly orthodox, but there is such a thing as simply going against the grain to such an extent that you fail to grasp why a character is cherished and valued.

They do have a way. It?s one you dislike because it slaughters sacred cows.

Well, yeah, we can agree Snyder, Terrio, and Goyer certainly butchered icons.

If you know anything about franchises like this, you?d know just how little control directors have over this stuff. Just ask Whedon or Favreau.

Directors still work with their editors and have input, so to try to assert Snyder had "zero input" over his own film's editing is patently ridiculous.

Jeese, we're not talking about giving a director say over the final cut or anything.

Um, I was talking about Jimmy Olsen.

Hah, fair enough, though it's amusing I could be talking about BvS's use of Olsen or Supes and the text barely changes.

Still, it shows how unthinkingly callous or selfish Snyder is in terms of just offing such a character with no regard as to who might want to use him later. Now they can't. Just as Doomsday's ruined, the death arc is ruined, 'Lex' Luthor's ruined (though I suppose there's a tradition on the bigscreen in making Luthor an incompetent buffoon), and so on.

Incorruptible? Is this what we?re calling a man who recruits terrorists, lies to his team mates and continually ignores the sovereign rights of foreign lands even when confronted with the damage his reckless actions have wrought all the while hypocritically railing against ?people with agendas??

You are aware it's not real, right? That comicbook universes operate by their own rules?

If you have issue with all power fantasies in any comicbook property, then sure, go ahead and fault that entire need in human culture going back through our history.

The MCU operates within its own internal rules, and so their actions are to be judged against that - not our own. As I said: in reality Team Stark is correct, but on the page (or on the screen) given all we know of the universe and the potential threats - and that we know Cap always has the best of intentions - Team Cap is a valid path.

Yeah, interesting how his idea of helping people always seems to involve fists and guns.

Again, newsflash! It ain't real. If you want action films with no action, then--- well, go right ahead, I guess.

His Legend of the Guardians movie suggests otherwise.

Are you a Snyder completionist then? I can't comment on its tone as it looked dreadful and its reputation is less than stellar.

The only film that could remotely be accused of this is 300 and that should be blamed more on Miller the guy who wrote the comic it was based on.

I've only seen it once and a half, and not recently so I couldn't go into detail, but Watchmen is another nasty masculinist film from Snyder, where I always felt wary of his sympathies and put off by the depictions of violence.

Again he's clearly not the author, but you can tell a lot from the execution of an idea.

I can accept the internality of a fictional world provided the writers don?t try to wring drama out of tropes they know cannot deconstruct for the sake of the status quo.

Most constructed worlds try to have their cake and eat it - it's a given as far as internal creative tension goes, frankly.

Is it ideal? Perhaps not. Is it almost always inevitable? Yes.

As I said, had the MCU just stuck to mindless superhero fun, I?d have forgiven them. But then we started talks about accountability as far back as Iron Man 2 and the cracks began to show.

For me IM2's probably the outright worse film in the MCU, but its thematic narrative focus was - by and large - still inspired by the Demon In A Bottle plot beat, ergo it was heavily entrenched in iconic elements of the entire character.

If nodding to late '70's era arcs counts as deconstruction of a "mindless superhero" world, then so be it... but I think you'll find most people just see that as coherent to the medium's way of telling stories for characters that span decades or even generations. Part of a continuum. There aren't many stories you can tell if you rigidly restrict yourself to the box marked "mindless", funnily enough.

Honestly, I don?t have any faith future movies will portray Thanos as the cosmic nightmare he is given this franchise?s treatment of any villain not named Loki. Instead, I fully expect that he?ll be a foot note in a story that is more concerned with seeing if the Avengers will kiss and make up.

You seem confused as to why people want to see stories about people...

It's paraphrased as it was maybe about a decade ago, but I remember a good line Michael Caine had in a short interview with Channel 4 News. The question was about him being becoming a 'star', I think, and the reply was along the lines of 'When people come to the cinema they don't come to see me - they come to see themselves reflected up there on the screen'.

That's an essential element of storytelling, frankly, so it's no wonder the MCU's struck a global chord by engaging normal punters with these larger than life avatars of all kinds of themes and ideas. The Silver Age thankfully presented characters who were flawed, who we could identify with and relate to. That's kinda the point of art as a whole... To explore who and what we are, and art externalises and then collectivises that ongoing process.

Something like the MCU plays a very modest populist part in that, sure, but it's still a relevant part of the whole, just like The Dark Knight and The Bourne Identity were in terms of a post-9/11 reaction to a world which suddenly felt far more hostile and, crucially, far less certain in terms of 'us and them' and right and wrong (obviously that mood continued, and that same mistrust of our own supposedly moral power structures is found in The Avengers and most brazenly The Winter Soldier, with Cap providing a moral conduit of wish fulfilling empowerment when in reality we have no such power, and the solutions aren't as simple as blowing up some helicarriers).

As for Thanos? I'm kinda disappointed in his MCU depiction already, just as I was in Ultron (I loved his eventual characterisation, and Spader was perfect for the voice, but I felt it was a waste to have that potent a threat on the page depicted as barely more than a localised Big Bad. Ultron's origins should've been subtly spread across at least another film [or two] before AoU. and for a character who's had such a great visual design over the decades, the MCU's was incredibly bland). Thanos' full reveal as a character was pitiful, for starters.

Apparently the leaked Infinity War teaser hints they could be doing him some justice, though, so we'll see.

Look at it like this; starting out darker but going lighter in the future (whether they pull it off is honestly a matter of opinion) means the DCEU largely avoids the problems the MCU has.

I see tonal contradiction as a result of Warner's corporate flipflopping, wanting to adjust to what sells better as established by Marvel. They swung and partly missed with MoS, and swung and missed hard on BvS (and Suicide Squad, though I've not seen that clusterfuck yet).

Moving from grimdark to something more conventional - and popular - clearly isn't an artistic choice for them. It's creative cowardice (they might've made even worse films had they kept doubling down on the grimdark, but I'd have respected their desire to be distinct).

If Warner wanted to learn how to do gritty and genuinely mature and not chicken out, then perhaps they could've just first looked to their own The Dark Knight, or to Netflix's Daredevil and Jessica Jones.

Then maybe they shouldn?t have called it ?Civil War? and gone for something more appropriate like ?When Adults Fight Like School Children?.

Maybe they called it Civil War because the essential idea is the same as the comic arc Civil War and the same leaders represented the same sides in an inter-superhero conflict? I know, I know, I'm going out on a limb with that one...

You?ll be the first Batman fan I know who thinks Johns can elevate Batman. He?s become to Batman fans what Frank Miller has become to Superman fans.

I said "...so I hope he elevates this Batman", not "think" he will, and I'm comparing him against the incompetent baseline of Terrio and Goyer so he has a low benchmark to beat.

The truth is merely knowing stuff about the characters isn?t enough as Brian Singer showed us.

In this scenario it clearly can't hurt. I find it hard to believe they could mangle these characters any more than they already have.

Whether or not you think MoS delivered on its promise depends on what you want out of Superman.

Maybe I mostly just wanted what the teaser teased?

In case you've forgotten:

If you want the lionization of a guy who has never known an ounce of suffering and is treated as morally superior due to him benefiting from contrivances provided by his writers (like time warping powers that reverse deaths he doesn?t like) you?ll be disappointed. If you prefer a guy who isn?t perfect, something both he and the script and acknowledge but at the end of the day does the best he can and strives to do better which is much more relatable, I?d say you?ll be satisfied. Alas, far too many Superman fans are enamored of his status as an untouchable paragon as opposed to his duty.

He sparked imaginations in children across the globe by representing a hopeful ideal. That was the point of the character. Snyder, Goyer, and Chris Nolan (never was there a man better suited to the Dark Knight as opposed to the big blue boy scout) betrayed that in Man Of Steel, and then Goyer and Terrio doubled down on that in BvS.

Superman Returns isn't a great film, but it's certainly a superior Superman film to anything Snyder's put his hand to so far.

Darth Rosenberg:

Seriously, not only is this the first time he?s encountered Kryptonite...

Is he so dim he can't learn? Even children and animals tend to learn 'fire bad' by touching it once.

How exactly is Superman dim in that fight scene? He got hit with a Kryptonite gas grenade twice. Once before he knew what Batman had in his launcher then again when he was jumping/flying towards Batman and was unable to dodge the grenade.
Though Superman did quickly realize that Kryptonite would royally fuck up Kryptonians, which is why he used the spear to kill Doomsday.

And the teaser trailer for Man of Steel had clearly somber tone with hints of hope, evidenced by the music and the scenes shown, which was pretty close to what we got in the film proper.

twistedmic:

Darth Rosenberg:

Seriously, not only is this the first time he?s encountered Kryptonite...

Is he so dim he can't learn? Even children and animals tend to learn 'fire bad' by touching it once.

How exactly is Superman dim in that fight scene? He got hit with a Kryptonite gas grenade twice. Once before he knew what Batman had in his launcher then again when he was jumping/flying towards Batman and was unable to dodge the grenade.
Though Superman did quickly realize that Kryptonite would royally fuck up Kryptonians, which is why he used the spear to kill Doomsday.

What!? We see Superman fly at supersonic speeds multiple times in these movies, but he can't dodge a grenade? I totally give him the first one, which is why Darth stated the "Fool me once" quote.

But there was a bunch of dimness involved with Superman's part in this fight, and not avoiding the second grenade is hardly the worst of it. He comes to ask Batman for help, because apparently his super-hearing that can pick out Lois Lane in danger half a world away can't find his mom in the same or neighboring city. Batman came to pick a fight so Superman gives him one instead of keeping his distance and talking!? He starts knocking Batman around because he needs to prove he has the bigger dick!?

Just by throwing a punch, Superman had already lost that fight, because it threw out any thought of goodwill or the idea he could be there for something else. The simple words, "Please stop, I need your help," would have prevented the entire fight, following it up with, "to rescue my mother," would have done the same thing the ridiculous "Martha" bit did, with about 135% less cheese.

twistedmic:
How exactly is Superman dim in that fight scene? He got hit with a Kryptonite gas grenade twice. Once before he knew what Batman had in his launcher then again when he was jumping/flying towards Batman and was unable to dodge the grenade.

As I referenced earlier; as Nick Mason from the Weekly Planet podcast's review put it 'one kryptonite gas grenade to the face shame on you, two kryptonite gas grenades to the face shame on me', particularly given he watches his adversary for eight whole seconds (a veritable eternity for Superman) as he reloads. People can try their hardest to claim he was still recovering, but only moments before he was able to tank punches without flinching, hovering, able to push Bats' through the floor, and then toss him across the room. What did he think Batman was going to fire at him - another smoke round?

Then there's the fact that "You don't understand. There's no time!" whilst striding menacingly towards a person you apparently don't want to fight is also, to put it mildly, the actions of a dimwitted character, particularly one who's pretty much alien-Jesus who can tank any and all conventional attacks of the aforementioned opponent.

Sure, anyone can look at fight scenes in various films with all kinds of characters and over-analyse them moment to moment, but this wasn't supposed to be just any ol' film fight, this was a clash of icons. Icons who barely knew anything about each other and had no time whatsoever to build up a rapport which then made their fight mean anything, but still...

Sprinkle such a poorly crafted anticlimactic scene with lines like "You're not brave. Men are brave!", and end with the infamous Martha moment, and there you have one of the dumbest head to heads in action film history, as opposed to anything that delivered on the potential. Fans of both characters deserved much better in every sense.

And the teaser trailer for Man of Steel had clearly somber tone with hints of hope, evidenced by the music and the scenes shown, which was pretty close to what we got in the film proper.

You really got suicidal Pa Kent's, 'maybe let a bus full of kids drown to save your identity', neck snapping, bullying, and 9/11 flavoured town and citywide carnage from that, which ends on the line 'In time they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders'? Not sure I got sunlight and wonder from Man Of Steel... or BvS, for that matter. Who knows, maybe 'in time' really meant 'maybe in Justice League after we've junked the Death Of Superman arc but probably after that'.

COMaestro:
Batman came to pick a fight so Superman gives him one instead of keeping his distance and talking!? He starts knocking Batman around because he needs to prove he has the bigger dick!?

After he takes out the turrets and proves his punchy-throw-y credentials there's about 34secs until his next line - which isn't anything about Luthor's inane plan, but a threat to Batman.

So yeah, for any normal grown adult that's dumb given the circumstances, but for Superman that's all kinds of moronic given the more dangerous Batman seems, and the more he keeps fighting, the greater the risk he chooses to put Martha in. The fight occurs simply because of the film's title - nothing else coherently motivates it.

undeadsuitor:
Look. I'll give dc credit if they do one thing.

Have cyborg say Booyah

That's it. Do it.

Agreed. I'm definitely not expecting much, but I'd love it if Cyborg says that.

Darth Rosenberg:
(though in retrospect AR's probably been displaced by Scott's newly atrocious Prometheus flicks for the joint wooden spoon in the franchise).

Prometheus, yes, Covenant, no.

Darth Rosenberg:

As for "undemanding popcorn entertainment": and? Are mass market comicbook universes supposed to be something else specific?

Entertainment that's a bit more fulfilling than popcorn? Something a bit more meaningful than "good guy beats bad guy?"

There's multiple examples of action films still fulfilling the elements of what counts as good story. Even superhero films have done this (Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2, Logan, etc.). As action films, the MCU works, at least. But so often I find them lacking in emotion or narrative/thematic depth. Every so often we get an Iron Man (excels in character), Iron Man 3 (excels in themes), but these are the exceptions rather than the rule. I can enjoy "good guy beats bad guy," but when you're sitting in a cinema for 1.5-2hrs, you want bang for your buck.

Darth Rosenberg:

I'd say The Winter Soldier had more socially relevant depth and punch than Civil War, and I'd personally never try to make the case for Civil War having anything particularly worthwhile to 'say' about anything. That's not the point, surely.

It's not the point, but a piece of fiction can usually be elevated if it has a theme/motif behind it. The MCU has done this on motif level a few times, and usually, it's elevated for it. To be frank, I think The Dark Knight & Rises are the only films of this genre that really have a significant enough theme to provoke critical analysis, but even if a theme/motif is only on the surface level, a work is usually better off for it.

Darth Rosenberg:
Er, a setpiece action sequence isn't really a "tale, told" at all, so the comparison doesn't really work.

The Russo's knew the end was going to be relatively grim, they had a plot point to provide a low stakes yet still consequential conflict, and so they crafted a phenomenal sequence out of it to wow the audience before the tone shifted. Isn't that, y'know, kinda the point of populist entertainment? That's the director's raison d'etre?

Fight scenes are still part of the overall story. I will say that as an amateur writer I hate writing action scenes, one of the reasons being that plot usually takes a backseat (the other being that one needs a specific writing style to write action scenes that I don't like applying), but at the end of the day, an action scene should still serve at least one of the five elements of story. One of the most infamous blunders of this philosophy is the lightsaber duel in 'The Phantom Menace', where we have two characters (Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon) fighting a third character (Darth Maul), where they've barely interacted with him at all up to this point. So while the combat in of itself is good, as is the music, there's very little emotion behind it. I don't think it's completely bereft of emotion (Qui-Gon dies, and it does serve as a good microcosm for the divide between the Jedi and Sith, especially with the laser walls), but most people agree that it lacks the emotional punch of the OT duels.

The airport scene isn't as emotionally vapid as that, but it does show signs of this philosophy. Why is Spider-Man forced into the movie? Because it would be cool. Why is Ant-Man literally dragged to the airport? Because it would be cool. Why is it made clear that the airport is free of civilians? Because the writers/producers/whoever didn't want anything getting in the way of the fun (as opposed to something like Man of Steel, which does show the human cost of super-powered beings duking it out). So, yes, the airport scene is 'fun,' and does have some emotional punch (e.g. Rhodes being crippled), but at the end of the day, it's mainly an action scene for the sake of an action scene.

Darth Rosenberg:
What's your ideal comicbook film, then?

"Comicbook film" is too broad a term. Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets is a comicbook film that I saw this year (unfortunately...), but it's a different one from the films discussed so far.

If you want my idea of an ideal superhero film, then that's still a bit broad, but if you asked me to name my top three superhero films, at the drop of a hat, I could nominate:

3) Spider-Man 2
2) Logan
1) The Dark Knight

Each of these films have good action and good storytelling. The Dark Knight excels with its themes and its villain. Logan excels with its setting, atmosphere, and the 'rawness' of the emotion. Spider-Man 2 succeeds with its action (e.g. the train scene) and characters, with Peter struggling to lead a double life, while also giving us an emotionally compelling villain.

The three MCU films I can call "good" are Iron Man, Iron Man 3, and Doctor Strange. DS is a weird outlier for me, but if we look at parallels, Iron Man is kind of like SM2 (focus on character, well developed villain), while IM3 is more like The Dark Knight (focus on similar themes). I don't think either Iron Man film equals their parallels, but the potential is there. Potential that I don't think will be met, as the MCU has no reason to change (while the DCEU has great potential marred by flawed execution), but I could see them exceeding the standard set.

Darth Rosenberg:
No, you pointed out a recurring trend/norm in populist entertainment and society, so to try to claim it is essentially distinct to Whedon as a creator is disingenuous.

Except I never claimed it was distinct to Whedon. I said it was reoccurring in his work.

Darth Rosenberg:
I'd say The Dark Knight addressed the moral and philosophical ambiguity and turmoil well enough, but it did so whilst mostly retaining Wayne's logical faculties and sense of [albeit damaged] humanity. The conflict between wanting to do what's just and still being drawn over the line to vigilantism was well realised, and Nolan's broader moral framework is established in the short but brilliant scene between Bruce and Rachel in the first film, where he sheepishly reveals his initial plan of vengeance against Joe Chill.

Then there's the line at the end of Begins regarding escalation, which sets up TDK and the idea that he and the Joker are simply equal and opposite reactions as a consequence of transgressing against all laws and order, and imposing one's own order/disorder upon the world by force.

Nolan's films portray his dark side well enough without needing to make him behave like a violent, unthinking, insecurely macho halfbrain.

Also, in BvS we have no real context as to how this psychotic Batman came to be, nor do we have time or space to explore the world's morality (and for the most part Alfred just goes along with his killing sprees - a few snarky comments aren't enough of a challenge). There is no time, of course, but it isn't a work of art or a cohesive story; it is a corporate byproduct of one studio fumbling to ape another's business model without understanding why it succeeded (any critic or admirer of the MCU could've told 'em, for free, I'd guess).

Nolan's Batman was conveniently self aware enough to quit while he still was sane enough. Snyder's Batman didn't quit his self destructive life style and thus it took a toll on him as the film shows. This, however, is a feature not a bug. Portraying this guy as being immensely damaged without giving him a kill count would be about as believable as saying no one died in MoS. Snyder also doesn't ignore the kill count whereas Nolan Batman can burn down an entire fortress full of people (including the guy he swore he didn't want to kill), kill Harvey Dent and blow Talia sky high yet still be considered moral enough to chastise Catwoman about not killing. Not that he raises a finger of protest after she blows Bane up.
Snyder's Batman is also stated numerous times to have become more ruthless over time as opposed to most other iterations that have that be his default personality.

Darth Rosenberg:
Feck knows how Batman will come across in Justice League, although Affleck's already said he'll be more "traditional". If so it won't be because of a character arc - it will simply be because people didn't like BvS's bleakly stupid iteration. Again; a corporate reaction as opposed to anything creative.

Sure, we'll ignore the fact that they've been talking about going in a different direction since before BvS was released. Whatever helps maintain your bias I suppose.

Darth Rosenberg:
Right, and he did that by presenting it through his own fetish; violence...

Yeah because no other Batman scribe has ever shown him as violent.

Darth Rosenberg:
Kinda takes the edge off the 'message' or theme, doesn't it? When the audience is sitting there cooing at Batman murdering people? Nothing says 'isn't he a nutjob' like 'Hey, watch him smash a car into other cars and kill people in this really nifty stunt!'.

And yet the fact that so many were turned off by his brutality should show you that Snyder wasn't trying to glorify his actions. Then again, given how the Bat fandom reacts to Batman taking a life while ignoring his other crimes like torture and child endangerment, it seems like him killing people is the only time his vicious nature is fair game for criticism.

Darth Rosenberg:
Who knows, maybe Snyder's trying to be subversive...

He is. But since he tries to go after a sacred cow, you're not buying it.

Darth Rosenberg:
Seriously, not only is this the first time he?s encountered Kryptonite...

Is he so dim he can't learn? Even children and animals tend to learn 'fire bad' by touching it once.[/quote]
You try learning something when you're in crippling pain and having your entire biology screwed around with while some lunatic beats down on you. I also, see you ignored my point about it taking a while for him to recover.

Darth Rosenberg:
Instead we got a morose, sullen Supes' bullying random civvies,

I think you confused him with Reeves and Silver Age Superman.

Darth Rosenberg:
a [suicidal] Pa Kent who wondered whether someone with power and the means to save lives should instead let lives be snuffed out for the sake of self-interest,

It amazes me how people aren't just unsympathetic to the Kents' plight, they're aggressively ignorant to it. If Clark had been exposed when he was a child or a teen, his life would have been over. he'd have to consider every angle when it comes to meeting new people. Are these people my friends or secretly my enemies? Are they plotting to kill me or latching themselves onto me for protection? Are they only with me because they've been coerced in some way? The guy would be way to busy trying to figure out who is and isn't his friend to actually help anyone. And this isn't even ignoring authority figures who'd want him either dead or controlled for less noble purposes.
Jonathan and Martha knew their son could and should help people. They also knew this would come with a cost. And as we saw in BvS, it did.

Darth Rosenberg:
and of course an orgy of carnage to give everyone headaches at the end.

So every action or superhero movie then?

Darth Rosenberg:
This was a surly Superman film reveling in violence and destruction.

Darth Rosenberg:
Not every retelling of a character should be rigidly orthodox, but there is such a thing as simply going against the grain to such an extent that you fail to grasp why a character is cherished and valued.

There are about four things Superman fans consider to be acceptable; being born, rescuing a plane, hitting on Lois and flying off at the end while mugging for the camera. Even diverging from one of these is enough to spark flame wars about "not muh Superman". And the types of stories that many Superman fans hold in regard and the ones they dislike start to make me wonder what they actually like him for.
Consider this; when Superman killed Zod in MoS, plenty protested that he should have done it immediately. They resented the fact that their hero was shown being forced into a situation and that without any of the usual cushions, he was no more superior to us regular people, in spite of his powers.
Contrast this to how they champion Joe Kelly's What's So Funny About Truth, Justice And The American Way? I cannot believe this was a story DC actually published instead of telling Joe Kelly to keep it confined to fanfiction.net where it rightfully belonged. Here we have a thinly veiled bash fic in which a writer vents his frustration that the The Auhtority dared to be more successful financially than Superman and turns the competition into straw men for Superman to knock down. Then after displaying that the only true reason Superman can stand up for his ideals is because he's powerful enough to champion them, Kelly gives an utterly intelligence insulting speech about "dreams saving us" as if we didn't just witness him prove every single criticism levelled against the character.
Fans consider Superman to be the most "human of superheroes" but it seems a lot of them don't know what that actually means.

Darth Rosenberg:
Directors still work with their editors and have input, so to try to assert Snyder had "zero input" over his own film's editing is patently ridiculous.

Yet that's what happened and has happened before. Or do you seriously not hear of the type of horror stories that take place in Hollywood?

Darth Rosenberg:
Still, it shows how unthinkingly callous or selfish Snyder is in terms of just offing such a character with no regard as to who might want to use him later.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe no one would have any use for Olsen later? Or that whatever use they might supposedly have would be of such little consequence that his death wouldn't matter at all? Where is this wailing and gnashing of teeth every time the MCU offs a villain or supporting character? Jimmy Olsen is not the be all, end all of the DCU. The guy's been in five movies prior to BvS. Nothing substantial was done with him in them. He was equally superfluous in the DCAU, was outlasted by Chloe Sullivan (a character invented for the show) on Smallville and the Supergirl tv series struggled to come up with something to do with the guy when he's not being rescued by Superman or dating Supergirl. The universe can survive Jimmy Olsen's death. You still have thousands of comics where he does almost nothing of value to read.

Darth Rosenberg:
Now they can't. Just as Doomsday's ruined,

What was there to ruin? This character never had any dignity to him and only existed because the comics didn't want to do the Clois marriage before the Lois and Clark tv show.

Darth Rosenberg:
'Lex' Luthor's ruined (though I suppose there's a tradition on the bigscreen in making Luthor an incompetent buffoon), and so on.

Oh I don't know. He hasn't come up with any stupid schemes revolving around real estate so I think there's still more hope for him. Especially given his motivation is a hell of a lot better than petty jealousy.

Darth Rosenberg:
You are aware it's not real, right? That comicbook universes operate by their own rules?

Okay, you do not get to play this card after all you've said about BvS.

Darth Rosenberg:
If you have issue with all power fantasies in any comicbook property, then sure, go ahead and fault that entire need in human culture going back through our history.

So you don't have an issue with power fantasies? Then what the hell is your beef with Snyder?

Darth Rosenberg:
The MCU operates within its own internal rules, and so their actions are to be judged against that - not our own. As I said: in reality Team Stark is correct, but on the page (or on the screen) given all we know of the universe and the potential threats - and that we know Cap always has the best of intentions - Team Cap is a valid path.

The Looney Tunes operate within their own internal rules but you don't see anybody advertising them as a moral example for people to follow. Either there are realistic qualities to the stances Steve embodies or, since he's a fictional character, he just stands for pipe dreams that have no prayer of existing in reality. You might as well argue that the Lone Ranger is more heroic than real life cops or soldiers because they can't shoot guns out of their enemies' hands.

Darth Rosenberg:
Again, newsflash! It ain't real. If you want action films with no action, then--- well, go right ahead, I guess.

I want action films that don't pretend to be smarter than they actually are. If the writers have neither the skill nor the freedom to truly interrogate the structure of their stories, then they'd best leave out discussions of registration and just focus on having their heroes plough through enemies like the Power Rangers go through the Putties.

Darth Rosenberg:
Are you a Snyder completionist then? I can't comment on its tone as it looked dreadful and its reputation is less than stellar.

It was light hearted in tone and I enjoyed it.

Darth Rosenberg:
I've only seen it once and a half, and not recently so I couldn't go into detail, but Watchmen is another nasty masculinist film from Snyder, where I always felt wary of his sympathies and put off by the depictions of violence.

Again he's clearly not the author, but you can tell a lot from the execution of an idea.

Again, why are you complaining about masculinist power fantasies in Snyder's movies if you don't seem to have an issue with them in MCU films?

Darth Rosenberg:
Most constructed worlds try to have their cake and eat it - it's a given as far as internal creative tension goes, frankly.

Is it ideal? Perhaps not. Is it almost always inevitable? Yes.

Darth Rosenberg:
For me IM2's probably the outright worse film in the MCU, but its thematic narrative focus was - by and large - still inspired by the Demon In A Bottle plot beat, ergo it was heavily entrenched in iconic elements of the entire character.

And whoever okayed this idea should have been smart enough to know what does not work for a film. They've got no one to blame for themselves. It was once considered iconic that Captain America went through WW1 without killing anybody yet the MCU left even that bit of idiocy out.

Darth Rosenberg:
If nodding to late '70's era arcs counts as deconstruction of a "mindless superhero" world, then so be it... but I think you'll find most people just see that as coherent to the medium's way of telling stories for characters that span decades or even generations. Part of a continuum. There aren't many stories you can tell if you rigidly restrict yourself to the box marked "mindless", funnily enough.

This type of storytelling is already stupid enough in the comics but there it can at least be considered forgivable by the fact that the comics are ongoing and thus need new stories. A movie franchise, however, is a finite venture. As you said, these characters spanned decades and generations. They did not have to adapt "Demon in a Bottle".

Darth Rosenberg:
You seem confused as to why people want to see stories about people...

It's paraphrased as it was maybe about a decade ago, but I remember a good line Michael Caine had in a short interview with Channel 4 News. The question was about him being becoming a 'star', I think, and the reply was along the lines of 'When people come to the cinema they don't come to see me - they come to see themselves reflected up there on the screen'.

That's an essential element of storytelling, frankly, so it's no wonder the MCU's struck a global chord by engaging normal punters with these larger than life avatars of all kinds of themes and ideas. The Silver Age thankfully presented characters who were flawed, who we could identify with and relate to. That's kinda the point of art as a whole... To explore who and what we are, and art externalises and then collectivises that ongoing process.

You can have a story about people without resorting to cheap soap opera telling in which the fears and pain of regular folk on the street plays second banana to a bunch of garishly dressed prima donas. If the MCU gave an iota about telling stories about people they'd show their perspective and not just the so called heroes.

Darth Rosenberg:
Something like the MCU plays a very modest populist part in that, sure, but it's still a relevant part of the whole, just like The Dark Knight and The Bourne Identity were in terms of a post-9/11 reaction to a world which suddenly felt far more hostile and, crucially, far less certain in terms of 'us and them' and right and wrong (obviously that mood continued, and that same mistrust of our own supposedly moral power structures is found in The Avengers and most brazenly The Winter Soldier, with Cap providing a moral conduit of wish fulfilling empowerment when in reality we have no such power, and the solutions aren't as simple as blowing up some helicarriers).

The Dark Knight and The Bourne Identity had the maturity to acknowledge that the world they took place in was bigger than just one handful of people. The former best demonstrates this when Rachel shows Bruce how much worse than him others in Gotham have it. The events were treated as events in their own right and not just from the perspective of a handful of faves. Over in the MCU, we've got Whedon trying to replicate the Buffy/Angel romance in AoS, horrific events are ignored at the writers' choosing (Johannesburg) or when they are it's to be used as emotional torque for one or two characters instead of a tragedy in its own right.
It's not unlike how over in Game of Thrones, the story is more about the blue blood characters with little to no attention paid to the common folk. It's this sort of attitude - that "The common people [...] don't care what games the high lords play" and so are to be relegated to hapless extras, that prevents both GOT and the MCU from being an actual thoughtful take on the underpinnings of the setting, be it a fantasy world. Instead, it's every bit as self-indulgent in sex and violence as LOTR is bombastic in its pathos.
There are few things in this world more immature than a story that claims to be mature yet ignores how the characters' actions impact the greater world around them. The DCEU has handled this much better.

Darth Rosenberg:
I see tonal contradiction as a result of Warner's corporate flipflopping, wanting to adjust to what sells better as established by Marvel. They swung and partly missed with MoS, and swung and missed hard on BvS (and Suicide Squad, though I've not seen that clusterfuck yet).

Moving from grimdark to something more conventional - and popular - clearly isn't an artistic choice for them. It's creative cowardice (they might've made even worse films had they kept doubling down on the grimdark, but I'd have respected their desire to be distinct).

http://www.ign.com/videos/2016/03/24/why-justice-league-wont-be-as-dark-as-batman-v-superman
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/One-Key-Way-Justice-League-Different-From-Batman-V-Superman-117997.html
http://io9.gizmodo.com/justice-league-will-be-lighter-in-tone-than-batman-v-su-1764317329

Darth Rosenberg:
Then maybe they shouldn?t have called it ?Civil War? and gone for something more appropriate like ?When Adults Fight Like School Children?.Maybe they called it Civil War because the essential idea is the same as the comic arc Civil War and the same leaders represented the same sides in an inter-superhero conflict? I know, I know, I'm going out on a limb with that one...

The Civil War comic, for all its flaws actually felt like an event that affected numerous people and showed numerous people's thoughts and views on it. The movie is 2 hours of two grown ass men acting like tweens while everyone else indulges them. See my response regarding the MCU and GoT above.

In this scenario it clearly can't hurt. I find it hard to believe they could mangle these characters any more than they already have.

Darth Rosenberg:
In case you've forgotten:

I haven't. what about it?

Darth Rosenberg:
He sparked imaginations in children across the globe by representing a hopeful ideal.

And what is this hopeful ideal that you keep parroting? Is it something people actually have a prayer of achieving or just another empty platitude that only means something in the fictional world in which he resides?
There is a reason Superman has been struggling for relevancy for decades. Because until now, people were more in love with the idea of him rather than the reality. Because writers treated the consequence free world he occupied as an intrinsic trait rather than author fiat. And the second the curtain gets pulled, the fans lose their minds. It's funny the stance you've taken in regards to Snyder's work given how you seem to be all about how the MCU are stories about "people". Seems less like you want stories about people but rather you want your favorite characters to be unchallenged mouth pieces for whatever views you believe in.
It might be disillusioning to some to realize that a lot of the elements typically considered inherent in Superman are really just strokes of luck or the result of other people doing stuff for him; the guy is literally been living on other people's sacrifices from day one. On the other hand, it's interesting to see what is still left once those conveniences are removed. To measure him solely by his own actions and accomplishments, rather than as a pile-up of desirable traits to gush over.

COMaestro:

twistedmic:

Darth Rosenberg:

Is he so dim he can't learn? Even children and animals tend to learn 'fire bad' by touching it once.

How exactly is Superman dim in that fight scene? He got hit with a Kryptonite gas grenade twice. Once before he knew what Batman had in his launcher then again when he was jumping/flying towards Batman and was unable to dodge the grenade.
Though Superman did quickly realize that Kryptonite would royally fuck up Kryptonians, which is why he used the spear to kill Doomsday.

What!? We see Superman fly at supersonic speeds multiple times in these movies, but he can't dodge a grenade? I totally give him the first one, which is why Darth stated the "Fool me once" quote.

But there was a bunch of dimness involved with Superman's part in this fight, and not avoiding the second grenade is hardly the worst of it. He comes to ask Batman for help, because apparently his super-hearing that can pick out Lois Lane in danger half a world away can't find his mom in the same or neighboring city. Batman came to pick a fight so Superman gives him one instead of keeping his distance and talking!? He starts knocking Batman around because he needs to prove he has the bigger dick!?

Just by throwing a punch, Superman had already lost that fight, because it threw out any thought of goodwill or the idea he could be there for something else. The simple words, "Please stop, I need your help," would have prevented the entire fight, following it up with, "to rescue my mother," would have done the same thing the ridiculous "Martha" bit did, with about 135% less cheese.

He was still recovering from the first grenade when the second one hit. he tried to talk it out at first but Bruce wouldn't listen. his senses also don't work the way you're describing either. when he uses them in full in MoS they overwhelm him. he saved Lois because he was following her in Africa.

To avoid a giant textwall I'll put both replies behind clicky's.

I get the need to use the spoiler boxes, but it's going to make quoting a bitch. So I'm going to make things more simple:

"You're only intimating it, but a figurative comicbook shelf full of films in the mold of TDK and Logan would be joylessly bleak, and the scope of the broader genre would shrink or simply vanish - forgive the mixed metaphors - for lack of populist oxygen to sustain it."

It would be bleak, but I'm not intimating it - there's a reason why I keep including Spider-Man 2, and that's because I feel it's set the gold standard for this kind of entertainment on the lighter end of the spectrum. So far though, I haven't seen the MCU equal or surpass that film, even though its films are closer in tone. Likewise, if the DCEU's mission statement has been to emulate the Dark Knight, it's also failed.

To be frank, I think the entire idea of cinematic universes has led to a reduction in overall film quality, since the best examples of the genre are either outside the cinematic universes, or very much stand-alone (see Logan). This is even the same in the "Monsterverse" (compare Kong: Skull Island to Jackson's King Kong for example). And scuttlebutt is that The Mummy reboot was shot in the foot by worldbuilding and is inferior to the Fraser ones.

"Well, there we have a fairly significant difference of opinion re what makes a good film or one worth discussing; I feel Dark Knight Rises is a bad film, or at least a horribly mangled and empty headed one compared to the two genre classics that preceded it."

TDKR is the weakest of Nolan's Batman films, but I'd argue it's the most thematically heavy. Main issues with it are the pacing, which makes it feel like two separate movies have been combined into one (pacing up to Bane taking over Gotham, and the pacing after that).

"Now that's a, erm, strange line-up given Winter Soldier and The Avengers are absent."

Haven't seen Winter Soldier, and I don't consider The Avengers to be a good film. It's average, at the end of the day. An average film with cliche characters engaging in cliche dialogue, fighting a cliche villain over a cliche McGuffin.

twistedmic:
How exactly is Superman dim in that fight scene? He got hit with a Kryptonite gas grenade twice. Once before he knew what Batman had in his launcher then again when he was jumping/flying towards Batman and was unable to dodge the grenade.

After he recovers from the first grenade and gets the upper hand he doesn't disarm Batman or destroy his weapon.

Imagine you were in a fight with someone who had a handgun, a weapon that you know will mess you up if it hits you. You manage to close to striking/grappling distance and gain the upper hand. At that point you'd be doing absolutely everything you could to get that weapon away from your enemy. You'd have to be very dim to do anything else.

Instead Superman knocks Batman around a bit then sits there and watches while he slowly reloads the grenade launcher. Because apparently he's a super dimwit.

Zhukov:

twistedmic:
How exactly is Superman dim in that fight scene? He got hit with a Kryptonite gas grenade twice. Once before he knew what Batman had in his launcher then again when he was jumping/flying towards Batman and was unable to dodge the grenade.

After he recovers from the first grenade and gets the upper hand he doesn't disarm Batman or destroy his weapon.

Imagine you were in a fight with someone who had a handgun, a weapon that you know will mess you up if it hits you. You manage to close to striking/grappling distance and gain the upper hand. At that point you'd be doing absolutely everything you could to get that weapon away from your enemy. You'd have to be very dim to do anything else.

Instead Superman knocks Batman around a bit then sits there and watches while he slowly reloads the grenade launcher. Because apparently he's a super dimwit.

He hadn't recovered from the first grenade

Agent_Z:

Zhukov:

twistedmic:
How exactly is Superman dim in that fight scene? He got hit with a Kryptonite gas grenade twice. Once before he knew what Batman had in his launcher then again when he was jumping/flying towards Batman and was unable to dodge the grenade.

After he recovers from the first grenade and gets the upper hand he doesn't disarm Batman or destroy his weapon.

Imagine you were in a fight with someone who had a handgun, a weapon that you know will mess you up if it hits you. You manage to close to striking/grappling distance and gain the upper hand. At that point you'd be doing absolutely everything you could to get that weapon away from your enemy. You'd have to be very dim to do anything else.

Instead Superman knocks Batman around a bit then sits there and watches while he slowly reloads the grenade launcher. Because apparently he's a super dimwit.

He hadn't recovered from the first grenade

Yes he had.

Starting at 1:00 in that video there's a whole sequence of shots to show you exactly that. The bit where Batman is punching him in the face repeatedly and then each punch becomes less effective until the last one doesn't even make his head move. (Actually one of the best bits in the movie.) Then he even flies a little bit. Then he throws Batman around for a bit. There's even a shot where he has a hold of Batman and the grenade launcher is right fucking there but instead of getting rid of the weapon that he now knows can render him vulnerable he instead throws Batman through a wall, creating distance. Then kneels there for a bit watching while Batman slowly reloads the bloody thing.

You can handwave it if you want and it's far from the biggest problem in the movie, but there's no denying that Superman fights like a complete fuckwit.

Zhukov:

twistedmic:
How exactly is Superman dim in that fight scene? He got hit with a Kryptonite gas grenade twice. Once before he knew what Batman had in his launcher then again when he was jumping/flying towards Batman and was unable to dodge the grenade.

After he recovers from the first grenade and gets the upper hand he doesn't disarm Batman or destroy his weapon.

Imagine you were in a fight with someone who had a handgun, a weapon that you know will mess you up if it hits you. You manage to close to striking/grappling distance and gain the upper hand. At that point you'd be doing absolutely everything you could to get that weapon away from your enemy. You'd have to be very dim to do anything else.

Instead Superman knocks Batman around a bit then sits there and watches while he slowly reloads the grenade launcher. Because apparently he's a super dimwit.

Just because Superman can tank a few punches, hover a bit and throw Batman around a bit doesn't mean that he has all of his mental faculties up and running. A drunken moron can preform most of those feats but I doubt he'd be able to dodge a baseball lobbed at his head or think clearly enough to try and take a gun from someone.
Also someone who has been given anesthesia will still be loopy for (easily) several hours after they regain consciousness, just look at videos of people who have just had their wisdom teeth removed.

Zhukov:

Starting at 1:00 in that video there's a whole sequence of shots to show you exactly that. The bit where Batman is punching him in the face repeatedly and then each punch becomes less effective until the last one doesn't even make his head move. (Actually one of the best bits in the movie.) Then he even flies a little bit. Then he throws Batman around for a bit. There's even a shot where he has a hold of Batman and the grenade launcher is right fucking there but instead of getting rid of the weapon that he now knows can render him vulnerable he instead throws Batman through a wall, creating distance. Then kneels there for a bit watching while Batman slowly reloads the bloody thing.

You can handwave it if you want and it's far from the biggest problem in the movie, but there's no denying that Superman fights like a complete fuckwit.

Notice how Superman struggled to throw Batman, when he was able to easily lift and carry the crew capsule of an exploding rocket, drag and overturned tanker ship through ice with little visible effort and punch Doomsday into lower orbit without breaking a sweat? Superman was not even physically recovered from the first gas grenade, let alone mentally/cognitively recovered.

twistedmic:
[snip]

He was physically recovered enough to fly and throw a big dude in a big armour suit around like a ragdoll. That's enough to break his bloody weapon. He was clearly shown to have the upper hand and know it.

He was never shown to be cognitively impaired. He appears fully cognizant when he's doing the Oh-ho-I've-got-my-powers-back-you're-fucked-now face. Even if that wasn't the case, how smart do you have to be to realize GUN BAD GET RID OF GUN? If you have the brain power to grab someone and throw them then you have the brain power to grab their gun and throw that.

Guy fights like a fuckwit. No amount of frantic grasping excuses are going to change that.

Zhukov:

twistedmic:
[snip]

He was physically recovered enough to fly and throw a big dude in a big armour suit around like a ragdoll. That's enough to break his bloody weapon. He was clearly shown to have the upper hand and know it.

He was never shown to be cognitively impaired. He appears fully cognizant when he's doing the Oh-ho-I've-got-my-powers-back-you're-fucked-now face. Even if that wasn't the case, how smart do you have to be to realize GUN BAD GET RID OF GUN? If you have the brain power to grab someone and throw them then you have the brain power to grab their gun and throw that.

Guy fights like a fuckwit. No amount of frantic grasping excuses are going to change that.

more like he fights like a guy who's never been trained to fight and didn't even want this fight to begin with.

Agent_Z:
more like he fights like a guy who's never been trained to fight and didn't even want this fight to begin with.

Zero training is required to get one's head around GUN BAD GET RID OF GUN.

I refer you to my previous scenario involving a handgun. If you were tangling with someone using a weapon that you knew could mess you up, you'd have to be crazy to focus on anything but getting that weapon out of the equation.

Hell, I've seen footage of real life hand-to-hand fights involving random untrained people tackling people with guns. They grab the gun (or the hand holding the gun) and cling on for dear life. Because they're not fuckwits.

Zhukov:

Agent_Z:
more like he fights like a guy who's never been trained to fight and didn't even want this fight to begin with.

Zero training is required to get one's head around GUN BAD GET RID OF GUN.

I refer you to my previous scenario involving a handgun. If you were tangling with someone using a weapon that you knew could mess you up, you'd have to be crazy to focus on anything but getting that weapon out of the equation.

Hell, I've seen footage of real life hand-to-hand fights involving random untrained people tackling people with guns. They grab the gun (or the hand holding the gun) and cling on for dear life. Because they're not fuckwits.

Was that person exposed to a substance that screwed with their biology?

Also, grabbing a gun is a sure fire way to accidentally set it off if the safety is off. Unless you have combat training, which again Superman does not have, trying to grab a gun from someone only increases your chance of dying.

If you want an example of a fuckwit, see Steve Rogers escalating a battle in a busy area in Lagos, not alerting the authorities that a terrorist was in their city and then leaving the least experienced member of the team to fail to contain the explosion. Keep in mind unlike Superman, Steve is supposed to be a trained soldier. Superman prior to his confrontation with Batman had been in only one fight his entire life.

I mean, it's easy for you to sit there and talk about what an untrained civilian should or should not do with an unarmed enemy but I highly doubt you'd be so perfect in a similar situation, powers or no

Agent_Z:
Was that person exposed to a substance that screwed with their biology?

If he was, he's clearly recovered from it. Just like Superman!

Also, grabbing a gun is a sure fire way to accidentally set it off if the safety is off. Unless you have combat training, which again Superman does not have, trying to grab a gun from someone only increases your chance of dying.

Hahaha.

You're seriously trying to tell me that it's a bad idea to grab a gun that somebody is trying to shoot you with? Because it might accidentally go off? Y'know, instead of intentionally going off because the person holding it pulled the trigger while aiming it at you?

Deary me. The excuses were getting desperate before, now they're getting comical.

Also, it requires zero combat training to grab a thing and keep the shooty end from pointing at you. (See video.) Especially if one is many times stronger than one's opponent. It just requires that one not be a complete fuckwit.

If you want an example of a fuckwit, see Steve Rogers escalating a battle in a busy area in Lagos, not alerting the authorities that a terrorist was in their city and then leaving the least experienced member of the team to fail to contain the explosion. Keep in mind unlike Superman, Steve is supposed to be a trained soldier. Superman prior to his confrontation with Batman had been in only one fight his entire life.

Okay. Cool. You'll have to take that up with someone who cares about defending Steve Rogers.

Superman is still a fuckwit.

Zhukov:

If he was, he's clearly recovered from it. Just like Superman!

Show me proof that Superman was fully and completely recovered from the kryptonite and getting pummeled. Him hovering a little bit, tackling a guy through a floor (of dubious strength/sturdiness/state of repair) and toss him across a room is not at the same level of how he fought Zod in Man of Steel or Doomsday later in the film.
Also note that right before he got hit with the second grenade, Superman was running (on foot), not flying, most of the way towards Batman. He jumped, and was airborne, for the last few feet when he got hit again. Superman was never before, or afterward, shown running on foot towards an opponent.
If Superman is shown to be operating below his usual level of skill it stands to reason that he is not at full strength.

Deary me. The excuses were getting desperate before, now they're getting comical.

Your determination to believe that Superman is a 'fuckwit', despite several logical reasons/explanations to the contrary strikes me as desperate.

twistedmic:

Zhukov:

If he was, he's clearly recovered from it. Just like Superman!

Show me proof that Superman was fully and completely recovered from the kryptonite and getting pummeled. Him hovering a little bit, tackling a guy through a floor (of dubious strength/sturdiness/state of repair) and toss him across a room is not at the same level of how he fought Zod in Man of Steel or Doomsday later in the film.

If he's recovered enough to ignore punches from a big dude with metal gloves, throw the big dude like a doll and fly even a little bit then he's recovered enough grab the grenade launcher and break it.

The only explanation is that he's just too dumb.

Deary me. The excuses were getting desperate before, now they're getting comical.

Your determination to believe that Superman is a 'fuckwit', despite several logical reasons/explanations to the contrary strikes me as desperate.

It's not my fault the movie portrays him as a fuckwit.

If that upsets you I suggest taking it up with whoever wrote the screenplay.

Zhukov:
If he was, he's clearly recovered from it. Just like Superman!

No. Not like Superman.

Zhukov:
Hahaha.

You're seriously trying to tell me that it's a bad idea to grab a gun that somebody is trying to shoot you with? Because it might accidentally go off?

So you've never heard of a gun accidentally firing while two people are struggling? Is this some unheard of phenomena where you come from?

Zhukov:
Deary me. The excuses were getting desperate before, now they're getting comical.

Not as comical as your attempts to play armchair warrior.

Zhukov:
Also, it requires zero combat training to grab a thing and keep the shooty end from pointing at you. (See video.) Especially if one is many times stronger than one's opponent. It just requires that one not be a complete fuckwit.

Because as we all know, strength is clearly all that matters in a fight.
Seriously, this is how Superman gets beat by human or weaker enemies all the time. By your logic, he's been a "fuckwit" everytime he's gone up against Kryptonite and this one at least has the excuse of being in only one fight in his life prior to confronting Batman.

Zhukov:
Okay. Cool. You'll have to take that up with someone who cares about defending Steve Rogers.

I was pointing out an actual example of a fuckwit.

Zhukov:

If he's recovered enough to ignore punches from a big dude with metal gloves, throw the big dude like a doll and fly even a little bit then he's recovered enough grab the grenade launcher and break it.

He's clearly operating at a lower capcity before the second grenade hits. He's not moving at super speed and this is a guy almost entirely unfamiliar with extreme pain. He could have the genetically-endowed super-intelligence that many on this board seem to think he should have and it would be believable that he wouldn't have been able to use it while his mind and body were wracked with pain. People don't think clearly when they're hurt, sick, and in fear for their lives. Especially not if they're largely unfamiliar with those sensations.

Agent_Z:

Zhukov:
Hahaha.

You're seriously trying to tell me that it's a bad idea to grab a gun that somebody is trying to shoot you with? Because it might accidentally go off?

So you?ve never heard of a gun accidentally firing while two people are struggling? Is this some unheard of phenomena where you come from?

Like I said, if someone is trying to deliberately shoot you then getting accidentally shot is the least of your concerns.

I notice you clipped the last sentence where I already made that point.

Zhukov:
Deary me. The excuses were getting desperate before, now they're getting comical.

Not as comical as your attempts to play armchair warrior.

Except I used real life non-armchair examples of how even regular untrained people know to try and control the weapon when tackling armed opponents.

Here, have some more. Notice how they all go straight for the weapon instead of fucking around.

Because as we all know, strength is clearly all that matters in a fight.

If you're strong enough to throw your opponent around like a ragdoll, then yeah, it matters.

A bit of commonsense helps too. Sadly Superman didn't have any of that.

DC Movie
Watchable Movie

Only one can be true (only a single exception allowed).

Zhukov:

Agent_Z:

Zhukov:
Hahaha.

You're seriously trying to tell me that it's a bad idea to grab a gun that somebody is trying to shoot you with? Because it might accidentally go off?

So you?ve never heard of a gun accidentally firing while two people are struggling? Is this some unheard of phenomena where you come from?

Like I said, if someone is trying to deliberately shoot you then getting accidentally shot is the least of your concerns.

I notice you clipped the last sentence where I already made that point.

Zhukov:
Deary me. The excuses were getting desperate before, now they're getting comical.

Not as comical as your attempts to play armchair warrior.

Except I used real life non-armchair examples of how even regular untrained people know to try and control the weapon when tackling armed opponents.

Here, have some more. Notice how they all go straight for the weapon instead of fucking around.

Because as we all know, strength is clearly all that matters in a fight.

If you're strong enough to throw your opponent around like a ragdoll, then yeah, it matters.

A bit of commonsense helps too. Sadly Superman didn't have any of that.

I also noticed you clipped the part about him being in pain and having his biology screwed with. Funny how you keep ignoring that little detail. Whatever satisfies your bias I guess.

As for your examples, two of them had the element of surprise and a lot of dumb luck and one is a bouncer. You're trying to treat a situation as one size fits all. Like I said, easy to play arm chair warrior when you aren't in the trenches and aren't having your biology screwed with but context means nothing to you or any of the others who want perfect Superman

Agent_Z:
I also noticed you clipped the part about him being in pain and having his biology screwed with. Funny how you keep ignoring that little detail. Whatever satisfies your bias I guess.

Because I've already responded to that at least twice.

He was sufficiently recovered to ignore punches from a big dude with metal gauntlets, to throw that big dude around like a ragdoll and even fly a bit. That's recovered enough to grab the weapon and break it.

The gas is never shown to affect him mentally. He appears cognizant throughout the whole fight scene.

As for your examples, two of them had the element of surprise and a lot of dumb luck and one is a bouncer. You're trying to treat a situation as one size fits all.

Superman had the element of being ten times stronger than his nigh helpless opponent.

No dumb luck for him though. Just plenty of plain dumb.

Guys, guys, ya'll are asking the wrong questions. It's not about whether or not Supes is a dumbass who endangers the lives of innocent people.

The real questions is: if Supes returns for Justice League, will he continue his streak of personally and voluntarily killing at least one person per movie? One in Man of Steel. Two in BvS. Three in Justice League?

This thread has taught me that people will go to extreme means to justify why their spandex clad hero is more betterer than your spandex clad hero.

I like Marvel movies because they have characters with characterization. They're not all particularly deep or meaningful, but I can usually get where they're coming from. The plots don't usually take big risks or deviate from their master plan. But at the end of the day I would rather watch Iron Man 2 and Thor 2 before I would ever want to watch MoS or BvS again.

DC/Warner movies at best bore me and at worst physically and mentally exhaust me with their terrible characterization plot cul de sacs and bloat.

Justice League isn't going to be fixed because Joss Whedon is doing reshoots or punching up dialogue with quips and snark and interpersonal interactions. The foundation of this universe is flawed because it's inhabited by unlikable assholes who looking through MoS and BvS narratives we really shouldn't be idolizing because they're all pretty much errant gods who would just as soon snap your neck as they would save you.

So yeah, DC may be more "conceptually" interesting, but they're mostly terrible in every other conceivable way from concept to execution especially to editing.

That's just like, my opinion man. I'm sure there's at least two people here who would write PhD level thesis essays on why everything I wrote was wrong and how I don't get the subtle nuances of these tire fire movies.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked