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

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
this scene.......... superman does not even flinch at getting shot like you said before.

imagine those bullets having kryptonite..... movie is over

its like, batman thought of shooting him for some reason... he had a trap set up... but he didnt think to make one of those bullets with kryptonite?

MTM0ODc3MTA1ODc0ODM1OTM0.gif

:exactly:
 
I'll be honest here, I miss older movies like the Reeve and Keaton ones where all this wasn't such a big deal. It was just fantasy, good guys against bad guys. This whole modern, post 9/11 world where these superheroes have to be accountable for trying to do good is getting old. It's so grey and cynical. Even Civil War is dabbling in this with the whole "muh New York", "muh Washington D.C.", and "muh Sokvia" crap with Cap taking on the blame like Superman and Iron Man taking the role of Batman. I don't want to go to theaters and see art imitate the atrocities of life, I want to see the ideologies of the characters in an exciting way. Not everything has to be an allegory for terrorism. I'm all for depth, but this current trend which I think stems from the Dark Knight seems so superficial. All superheroes in general are kind of illogical when you apply them to the real world . . . SO DON'T!

Imagine if this came out today,




The entire sequel would be about the ethics of collateral damage or some bull **** instead of this whacky fairy tale about animal people.

The funny thing is that this was all pretty interesting in the '80s (and to some extent the '70s with the Hard Traveling Heroes) when Alan Moore really spearheaded the post-modern comic book story of, "what if this silly comic stuff happened in the real world?" It was novel, it was really interesting to think about, etc. But, it really peaked in 1986. Then, it had been done, and there wasn't much else to get from it. The idea of a super hero as a WMD, the S&M subtext to so much of it, the Cronenberg-like, graphic sadism, etc. etc. Everything since then that we've seen in that vein has been variations on that theme explored in Miracleman and Watchmen.

But Alan Moore got bored with that pretty quickly, and went the other direction in the '90s and beyond. Instead of treating Superman as a perverted science experiment gone wrong, he treats him like a noble, cheesy, perfect hero. But it's like Snyder and pals are still marveling at the what Moore did 30 years ago while lacking the insight into human behavior, knowledge regarding the history and subtext in comics, and generally, the storytelling prowess that Moore had. In fairness of course, Moore was the Orson Welles or Ingmar Bergman of the comic book world. These movies. . .don't have that. But they still aspire in a ham-fisted way to recreate those themes through the medium of film.
 
The funny thing is that this was all pretty interesting in the '80s (and to some extent the '70s with the Hard Traveling Heroes) when Alan Moore really spearheaded the post-modern comic book story of, "what if this silly comic stuff happened in the real world?" It was novel, it was really interesting to think about, etc. But, it really peaked in 1986. Then, it had been done, and there wasn't much else to get from it. The idea of a super hero as a WMD, the S&M subtext to so much of it, the Cronenberg-like, graphic sadism, etc. etc. Everything since then that we've seen in that vein has been variations on that theme explored in Miracleman and Watchmen.

But Alan Moore got bored with that pretty quickly, and went the other direction in the '90s and beyond. Instead of treating Superman as a perverted science experiment gone wrong, he treats him like a noble, cheesy, perfect hero. But it's like Snyder and pals are still marveling at the what Moore did 30 years ago while lacking the insight into human behavior, knowledge regarding the history and subtext in comics, and generally, the storytelling prowess that Moore had. In fairness of course, Moore was the Orson Welles or Ingmar Bergman of the comic book world. These movies. . .don't have that. But they still aspire in a ham-fisted way to recreate those themes through the medium of film.

image.jpg
 
The funny thing is that this was all pretty interesting in the '80s (and to some extent the '70s with the Hard Traveling Heroes) when Alan Moore really spearheaded the post-modern comic book story of, "what if this silly comic stuff happened in the real world?" It was novel, it was really interesting to think about, etc. But, it really peaked in 1986. Then, it had been done, and there wasn't much else to get from it. The idea of a super hero as a WMD, the S&M subtext to so much of it, the Cronenberg-like, graphic sadism, etc. etc. Everything since then that we've seen in that vein has been variations on that theme explored in Miracleman and Watchmen.

But Alan Moore got bored with that pretty quickly, and went the other direction in the '90s and beyond. Instead of treating Superman as a perverted science experiment gone wrong, he treats him like a noble, cheesy, perfect hero. But it's like Snyder and pals are still marveling at the what Moore did 30 years ago while lacking the insight into human behavior, knowledge regarding the history and subtext in comics, and generally, the storytelling prowess that Moore had. In fairness of course, Moore was the Orson Welles or Ingmar Bergman of the comic book world. These movies. . .don't have that. But they still aspire in a ham-fisted way to recreate those themes through the medium of film.

Yup, well put.

Like I said in my post, when these filmmakers try to achieve the same thing, it just comes off as superficial. Like they don't even really understand the depth or research it and just attempt it because "it's cool".
 
The funny thing is that this was all pretty interesting in the '80s (and to some extent the '70s with the Hard Traveling Heroes) when Alan Moore really spearheaded the post-modern comic book story of, "what if this silly comic stuff happened in the real world?" It was novel, it was really interesting to think about, etc. But, it really peaked in 1986. Then, it had been done, and there wasn't much else to get from it. The idea of a super hero as a WMD, the S&M subtext to so much of it, the Cronenberg-like, graphic sadism, etc. etc. Everything since then that we've seen in that vein has been variations on that theme explored in Miracleman and Watchmen.

But Alan Moore got bored with that pretty quickly, and went the other direction in the '90s and beyond. Instead of treating Superman as a perverted science experiment gone wrong, he treats him like a noble, cheesy, perfect hero. But it's like Snyder and pals are still marveling at the what Moore did 30 years ago while lacking the insight into human behavior, knowledge regarding the history and subtext in comics, and generally, the storytelling prowess that Moore had. In fairness of course, Moore was the Orson Welles or Ingmar Bergman of the comic book world. These movies. . .don't have that. But they still aspire in a ham-fisted way to recreate those themes through the medium of film.

:goodpost:
Superbly succinct and well-written. Bravo!

If you want to completely sum up the differences between the creativity at play in the Marvel and DC Movie Universes, just look at what they did with longstanding characters Patsy Walker and Jimmy Olsen.

Here is what Zack Snyder said about Jimmy Olsen in EW:


“We just did it as this little aside because we had been tracking where we thought the movies were gonna go, and we don’t have room for Jimmy Olsen in our big pantheon of characters, but we can have fun with him, right?”


This is an easter egg(!) for Snyder. He kills one of Superman’s key supporting characters for “fun.”
He thinks watching the characters that comics nerds want to see get murdered on-screen is “fun.”
And this is the man in charge of putting the entire universe of DC’s superheroes on screen . . .

raw


Marvel seriously crapped the bed when they killed Ben Urich in Daredevil, but at least they developed his character so his death meant something.
Snyder's MURDERVERSE is another thing altogether . . .
The DCU deserves so much better!

5364460266_6507416359_b.jpg

dc75th.jpg



__
 
:goodpost:
Superbly succinct and well-written. Bravo!

If you want to completely sum up the differences between the creativity at play in the Marvel and DC Movie Universes, just look at what they did with longstanding characters Patsy Walker and Jimmy Olsen.

Here is what Zack Snyder said about Jimmy Olsen in EW:


“We just did it as this little aside because we had been tracking where we thought the movies were gonna go, and we don’t have room for Jimmy Olsen in our big pantheon of characters, but we can have fun with him, right?”


This is an easter egg(!) for Snyder. He kills one of Superman’s key supporting characters for “fun.”
He thinks watching the characters that comics nerds want to see get murdered on-screen is “fun.”
And this is the man in charge of putting the entire universe of DC’s superheroes on screen . . .

To be fair, Jimmy Olsen dying in BVS is the single most interesting and significant thing that character has ever done in any film or live action series :lol

Snyder's MURDERVERSE is another thing altogether . . .
The DCU deserves so much better!

:lol :goodpost:
 
Yeah, I think that little quote regarding Olson speaks volumes.

Yup, well put.

Like I said in my post, when these filmmakers try to achieve the same thing, it just comes off as superficial. Like they don't even really understand the depth or research it and just attempt it because "it's cool".
Moore was essentially behaving as an academic, piecing together extremely well thought out, sometimes profound explorations through comics. And he extensively researched much of the work he was involved in. Particularly something like Watchmen, where he had a firm grasp on relevant aspects of international politics during the Cold War, physics, criminology, psychology in various forms (early childhood development in the face of trauma, reactions to being a victim of sexual violence, difficulties adjusting to changing roles and relationships), history, even ornithology. And the symbolism!

Every character was fleshed out and believable.

To say that we don't have that in these movies would be an understatement.
 
To be fair, Jimmy Olsen dying in BVS is the single most interesting and significant thing that character has ever done in any film or live action series

But not ever ever:

check-out-the-best-superman-jimmy-olsen-comic-book-covers-350235.jpg

jo53june1961.jpg



Jimmy Olsen Turtle-Man is rumored to appear for three minutes in Aquaman.
Then he gets killed.
Brutally and violently.
Bring the kids! :yess:
__
 
Would actually be kind of funny if Jimmy became like Kenny from South Park. He appears in each movie, and gets killed off in some crazy way, only to re-appear again and again.
 
Back
Top