Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (March 24th, 2016)

[Khev]

Yes and the 90's weren't very kind to colorful characters. They were all about Batman and Blade. **** Tracy and Phantom struggled. Obviously Cap didn't even get a US theatrical release. Barb Wire got greenlit instead of WW.

 

[EVILFACE]

The Phantom was a fun flick. "I could kill you and feed your pink ass to the sharks."

The Shadow was good too.

America just didn't care.

 

[jye4ever]

I think for the most part WW was never taken seriously. The TV show really isn't that good. And I never cared for the character until the Justice League cartoon.

The Catwoman flick is Capt's equivalent.

Yes and the 90's weren't very kind to colorful characters. They were all about Batman and Blade. **** Tracy and Phantom struggled. Barb Wire got greenlit instead of WW.

Oh man that's funny and painful all at the same time.

 

[Khev]

The Crow, Tank Girl, Barb Wire, Spawn. Dark Horse and even Image was cranking them out while Marvel was struggling to find distributors for no budget Roger Corman flicks.

 

[jye4ever]

Makes Blade stick out even more as an amazing movie.

 

[Khev]

Yes he pretty much saved the 90's for them and redefined traditional action movies as well as we saw with The Matrix the following year.

 

[chewblacca]

But does anyone else think that after the success of the first Superman film in 78, Warner Brothes should have been looking at other characters to bring to the big screen? Then for batman to come out 11 years later is nuts. All the characters DC has and no one could come up with anything?

 

[jpuli28]

But does anyone else think that after the success of the first Superman film in 78, Warner Brothes should have been looking at other characters to bring to the big screen? Then for batman to come out 11 years later is nuts. All the characters DC has and no one could come up with anything?

It may have been due to a lack of comic sales. If not enough ppl were buying comic A or B why make 6 or 7 $ figure film?

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

But does anyone else think that after the success of the first Superman film in 78, Warner Brothes should have been looking at other characters to bring to the big screen? Then for batman to come out 11 years later is nuts. All the characters DC has and no one could come up with anything?

Maybe they didn't have the technology to do them justice?

 

[ZombieRepublican]

But does anyone else think that after the success of the first Superman film in 78, Warner Brothes should have been looking at other characters to bring to the big screen? Then for batman to come out 11 years later is nuts. All the characters DC has and no one could come up with anything?

Apparently the success of that scared everyone away. Like "no I'm not gonna touch that!"

And with every new sequel it got worse and worse, so it makes little sense to me

 

[EVILFACE]

Maybe they didn't have the technology to do them justice?

Possible. Flash and Green Lantern would have looked silly with early 80's movie tech.

The first Swamp Thing movie was a good flick. Second one was too campy.

 

[Sundowner]

I don't buy it. Show me someone who says, "Superman I know, but Bat who?" If you know one you know the other. Everybody knows Superman, everybody knows Batman. But Batman's logo is almost a brand unto itself. It's way more integrated into not just his outfit but all of his gadgets, including the Batsignal. Superman just has the chest emblem and as an icon just hasn't remained as relevant as Batman, particularly over the last three decades.

I do think Superman is the most maybe iconic superhero but he didn't adapt to time as well as batman.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Possible. Flash and Green Lantern would have looked silly with early 80's movie tech.

The first Swamp Thing movie was a good flick. Second one was too campy.

Yeah, Green Lantern would look like Tron. Swamp Thing was awesome. They should make a new film.

I do think Superman is the most maybe iconic superhero but he didn't adapt to time as well as batman.

How can he adapt? When he does

Because he's not flawless or breaking the fourth wall by smiling at the camera as he flies away, and he's not saving cats from trees and **** And when they make that"classic" version, people complain that he's too perfect, he's not relatable and boring

 

[jye4ever]

Probably not about technology, comic sales or being scared.

It's always about money.

Why take a financial chance on a new character when you can just make sequels from a profitable Superman movie.

Once that well dried up they went straight to Batman.

Until MCU, DC always made one at a time.

 

[batfan08]

Yeah, Green Lantern would look like Tron. Swamp Thing was awesome. They should make a new film.





How can he adapt? When he does

Because he's not flawless or breaking the fourth wall by smiling at the camera as he flies away, and he's not saving cats from trees and **** And when they make that"classic" version, people complain that he's too perfect, he's not relatable and boring

The problem is that you're arguing which is the better or worse extreme. The '78 Superman movie holds up because people understand the limitations of the time. Now, I like Man of Steel, and, while it wasn't without its flaws, I try to make the best of it, but I fail to see the rationale behind picking and choosing a Superman who kicks ass, but who is also forced into situations where he has to kill to preserve life by writers, althewhile having a questionable track record when it comes to that aforementioned preservation of life or a Superman who saves kittens while pining for his ex-girlfriend by creepily peeping through her windows with his X-Ray vision. Why can't we get a Superman who kicks ass and saves kittens? Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive?

It's called upon so many times that it's borderline cliche in our circles, but I'm constantly reminded of the scene in All-Star Superman when he consoles a young girl who's about to commit suicide. That is what Superman is. He shouldn't be struggling to find himself. His purpose is in using his gifts to help those who can't help themselves. Superman is not someone people relate to, he's someone people should aspire to be. At the same time, though, I can't blame Snyder and Goyer for the direction they've taken because we've become so cynical and so jaded that it was clearly the easier route to take. Ultimately, my hope is that they're trying to ease us past those feelings, though. Draw us in with the gritty, uncertain Clark Kent, and, gradually, build him into that symbol of hope.

 

[Devil_666]

Just for the record, I had no problem with Superman killing the living **** out of Zod. None. Also didn't have a problem with the damage done to Metropolis either considering Zod's original plan was to wipe out the entire human race. So it was collateral. If Superman hadn't of stepped in, everyone would've died. And that's the thanks he gets, whining about him being a murderer and blaming him for that ****hole of an imaginary city getting a little F'd up. People had more respect for Supes when he wore his draws on the outside of his suit.

 

[VintijDroidGutzz]

The first Swamp Thing movie was a good flick.

I don't think I've ever seen it. I should correct that.

 

[batfan08]

I do think the Superman's a murderer bull**** was bull****, as well. He did what he had to do, but then, there's the other part of me that's like "Zod couldn't have just been sucked into the Phantom Zone with everybody else, Goyer? Same with the collateral damage. We saw him save the oil rig, and a bunch of soldiers, but, at the same time, I can kind of see the flip side where people are like "you were on a secluded farm in the middle of nowhere, and you knocked him into the most populated part of Smallville because you got pissed off that he threatened your mom (a realistic response, putting emotion over reason, but, also, just more ammunition for the people who are like "Superman doesn't give a **** about anybody but himself).

Truthfully, though, those things never really bothered me that much. My logic has always been that he's supposed to be inconsistent, because it's literally his first day on the job and he's faced with the responsibility of saving the planet from a group of genocidal maniacs who are just as strong as he is. He might not pay the most attention to his surroundings, but it's the equivalent of grabbing a dude off the street and expecting him to be mindful of the rules when he's going up against 5 amateur boxers. My problems can be summed up with a single name: Jonathan Kent. I call it as I see it, and they ****ed up big time on that one.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

The problem is that you're arguing which is the better or worse extreme. The '78 Superman movie holds up because people understand the limitations of the time. Now, I like Man of Steel, and, while it wasn't without its flaws, I try to make the best of it, but I fail to see the rationale behind picking and choosing a Superman who kicks ass, but who is also forced into situations where he has to kill to preserve life by writers, althewhile having a questionable track record when it comes to that aforementioned preservation of life or a Superman who saves kittens while pining for his ex-girlfriend by creepily peeping through her windows with his X-Ray vision. Why can't we get a Superman who kicks ass and saves kittens? Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive?

It's called upon so many times that it's borderline cliche in our circles, but I'm constantly reminded of the scene in All-Star Superman when he consoles a young girl who's about to commit suicide. That is what Superman is. He shouldn't be struggling to find himself. His purpose is in using his gifts to help those who can't help themselves. Superman is not someone people relate to, he's someone people should aspire to be. At the same time, though, I can't blame Snyder and Goyer for the direction they've taken because we've become so cynical and so jaded that it was clearly the easier route to take. Ultimately, my hope is that they're trying to ease us past those feelings, though. Draw us in with the gritty, uncertain Clark Kent, and, gradually, build him into that symbol of hope.

I agree that there should be a balance, but I don't agree that Superman shouldn't be reletable. How can anyone aspire to be like him if they can't even relate to him? That's like aspiring to be a god, you can't, but you can aspire to be someone who learns from their mistakes, someone who isn't flawless, but tries his best no mater what, to do the best that they can in any given situation....even if the outcome isn't always ideal. Considering that MOS is an origin story, there's plenty of room for Superman to grow as a character, something he couldn't do if he was a perfect being from the start.

I do think the Superman's a murderer bull**** was bull****, as well. He did what he had to do, but then, there's the other part of me that's like "Zod couldn't have just been sucked into the Phantom Zone with everybody else, Goyer? Same with the collateral damage. We saw him save the oil rig, and a bunch of soldiers, but, at the same time, I can kind of see the flip side where people are like "you were on a secluded farm in the middle of nowhere, and you knocked him into the most populated part of Smallville because you got pissed off that he threatened your mom (a realistic response, putting emotion over reason, but, also, just more ammunition for the people who are like "Superman doesn't give a **** about anybody but himself).

People also have to remember that it was his first fight ever. He might not know his own strength in a situation like that. He knows he's strong because he can lift heavy objects, but he's never used his strength in a fight against several opponents of equal strength .

 

[jye4ever]

I don't think I've ever seen it. I should correct that.

It was good in the 80's, I haven't seen it since then, I wonder how well it holds up. I'm too lazy to rewatch it.