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.
The origins of the Hulkbuster are explained before it appears. The 'armoured batsuit' is not mentioned at all. Was it made with the specific intentions of using it against Superman? Is it an older suit that has been used in the past? Is it mechanical, or just a suit with armour plates? Just a couple of lines would've cleared things up. As for a lot of the dreams, they contribute NOTHING to the story in hand..
Really? When did they explain Hulkbuster? I don't remember.

As for the Batarmor, you don't need to know if it was made for Supes, if it was or wasn't is irrelevant, it only matters that it was used for Supes, re purposed or not.

It obviously isn't just armor plates on top of each other, and Bruce is obviously not carrying it himself so it's obviously mechanical, which is why I keep saying that he had no time to put it back on and that he couldn't put it on by himself.

There's only one dream that you could say it doesn't contribute to the current story and that's the knigthmare/flash vision, but that one is important for world building, which makes it important. You don't need to know anything about the Batarmor.
 
Really? When did they explain Hulkbuster? I don't remember.

As for the Batarmor, you don't need to know if it was made for Supes, if it was or wasn't is irrelevant, it only matters that it was used for Supes, re purposed or not.

It obviously isn't just armor plates on top of each other, and Bruce is obviously not carrying it himself so it's obviously mechanical, which is why I keep saying that he had no time to put it back on and that he couldn't put it on by himself.

There's only one dream that you could say it doesn't contribute to the current story and that's the knigthmare/flash vision, but that one is important for world building, which makes it important. You don't need to know anything about the Batarmor.

It is mentioned by Tony in conversation with Bruce, where it is referred to as 'Veronica'.

Why is that obviously the case? And if it is mechanical (and therefore stronger than the normal suit) why doesn't he just use it all the time?

And why is world building so important? Why not just let things develop naturally? We don't need to see snippets from future films every five minutes. Little eggs here and there are fine, but anything beyond that is simply a distraction.
 
Normally I would agree but his visions were directly tied into the plot of the movie, they motivated him even more to push forward with his confrontation with Supermopey.

They were as much a catalyst for a call to arms as they were for setting up future threats and alliances.
 
It is mentioned by Tony in conversation with Bruce, where it is referred to as 'Veronica'.

Why is that obviously the case? And if it is mechanical (and therefore stronger than the normal suit) why doesn't he just use it all the time?

And why is world building so important? Why not just let things develop naturally? We don't need to see snippets from future films every five minutes. Little eggs here and there are fine, but anything beyond that is simply a distraction.
Oh right.

Jeeeeeeez. Why do I feel like this is trolling? Are those honest questions? I'll entertain you this once, but man, those questions.... You see Superman having trouble lifting it and throwing it a couple feet away, this is when the Kryptonite fart was starting to wear off, right before he was shot with another one, which tells you Bruce is NOT lifting that thing on his own, therefore, it's mechanical, therefore, he most likely can't put it on on his own.

Why doesn't he use it all the time? Why is world building so important? Seriously?

Normally I would agree but his visions were directly tied into the plot of the movie, they motivated him even more to push forward with his confrontation with Supermopey.

They were as much a catalyst for a call to arms as they were for setting up future threats and alliances.
Exactly, not only they're possibly vision of the future, Bruce sees this as straight up a nightmare, fueled by his hate and fear towards Superman.

I guess a line kind of like "Alfred ;_; I had a bad dream on which Superman was evewl" could've made things a little clearer for the audience.
 
Normally I would agree but his visions were directly tied into the plot of the movie, they motivated him even more to push forward with his confrontation with Supermopey.

They were as much a catalyst for a call to arms as they were to setting up future threats and alliances.

:lecture :exactly:

The first time I saw the movie I was aware of the negative reviews and enjoyed it but kept waiting for the other shoe to drop and for it to just start being terrible. That never happened and I loved it and came away thinking the critics were idiots.

The second time though I couldn't help but wonder if I was just pleasantly surprised the first time and feared the movie might drag or that the climax might be unsatisfying. Once again I was captivated from beginning to end and still loved it in spite of two or three (relatively unimportant) missteps. It isn't perfect but it delivers in ways that few cbm's have.

I suppose if it was really important to me that Superman and Doomsday be exactly a certain way then I'd probably be less forgiving but they both worked well within the story and for me this film is all about Bruce and Diana.
 
Five minutes from the start of my third viewing. Watching in 2D 70mm IMAX again. Theater is packed. Only the two front rows remain vacant.
Too bad it was just those two rows. The film works best for the vacant. :monkey3



Khev like any parent is free to raise his kid as he seems fit and lecturing him on how to do it is as pointless as it is ridiculous.

Please give that a rest.
Agreed. Like 12Bar says, we should be encouraging honest conversation without folks have to deal with that kind of response. C'mon. Khev's opinion is perfectly valid.

I'd only add her Super Friends invisible jet to that list. :lol Did she really NEVER have a single live-action portrayal between Lynda Carter and Gadot? Just that one failed TV pilot a couple years ago and that's it? Damn. What a drought for such an "iconic" character.
I'm not someone who throws this around too much, but I think sexism probably played a role here. Sexism from studios thinking she wouldn't sell, and, perhaps, sexism from audiences who wouldn't have watched. We did get Catwoman a couple of times, but we really should have had Wonder Woman in some capacity.

I might be the only person on Earth who feels this way (and it would be VERY difficult to pull off) but I would love for there to be a big-budget, live action film with the same tone and sensibilities of Batman: The Brave & The Bold some day. Man, I loved that show.
oPDdfxV.gif


You aren't the only one, pal. This is what I want the whole damn DC movie-verse to be. B&B is up there with B:TAS and Young Justice as just about my favorite non-comic DC stuff in existence.

 
Hulkbuster was explained right there in its name. Besides there is a history of why it was made. we DO have some context.

Imagine if iron Man had the Hulkbuster ready in Avengers 1... it wouldn't make as much sense. but after the Hulk attacks in Avengers 1, it makes a lot of freaking sense that IRon Man would have it right?

But imagine Iron Man having the Hulkbuster before Hulk attacks the first time, that would be pretty stupid
 
Last edited:
But it doesn't matter that we know nothing about it, it's a huge mech-armor capable of punching a weakened Supes, and it was a bit hard to lift for a weakened Supes too, you can infer a couple things from that, it's just a cool gadget. You don't need to know anything that matters in the story related to that armor. Like the Hulkbuster, it's just a tool to punch a heavy hitter a couple times, that's all you need to know.

The Dream sequences are much more important.

My point you just quoted, he did not have time to put it back on even if he could put it on by himself, which I highly doubt, even wondering if he had enough time to put it back on is ridiculous.

People try real hard to nitpick this film. I caught on to that from day one.

90% of the nitpicks are bull****.
 
I'm intrigued by Brave and the Bold with the way you guys are praising it. This is a TV series that ran from 2008-2011 (according to a quick Google search) right? Looks more colorful than the Burton-esque B:TAS. I think I'll check it out after I get caught up on the classic Miller trades.

As I'm finishing up TDKR I'm intrigued with the idea of him having a female Robin sidekick. Do you think it's a sure thing that Jena Malone will be portraying Batgirl or might they be prepping her for Carrie Kelley?
 
They showed alfred constructing the suit (eg the helmet was on his workbench), he specifically mentions working out some of the kinks.. it's pretty obvious it was built in reaction to the arrival of the kryptonians and completed during the 2 year period it took lex to manipulate batman
 
Hulkbuster was explained right there in its name. Besides there is a history of why it was made. we DO have some context.

Imagine if iron Man had the Hulkbuster ready in Avengers 1... it wouldn't make as much sense. but after the Hulk attacks in Avengers 1, it makes a lot of freaking sense that IRon Man would have it right?

But imagine Iron Man having the Hulkbuster before Hulk attacks, that would be pretty stupid.

There's history for the armor to be used on Supes too, context and motive as well. BvS is not Hulkbuster before Hulk attacks.
 
I'm intrigued by Brave and the Bold with the way you guys are praising it. This is a TV series that ran from 2008-2011 (according to a quick Google search) right? Looks more colorful than the Burton-esque B:TAS. I think I'll check it out after I get caught up on the classic Miller trades.

As I'm finishing up TDKR I'm intrigued with the idea of him having a female Robin sidekick. Do you think it's a sure thing that Jena Malone will be portraying Batgirl or might they be prepping her for Carrie Kelley?

It's a lot of fun.... Much more light hearted and campy.... And Aquaman is a blast in it... :lol
 
I think Brave and the Bold is on Netflix. That's where I saw it. Give it a shot. I thought it was just for kids initially, as that seems to be who it was marketed to, with the team-up gimmick focusing mostly on non traditional Justice Leaguers like Plastic Man and new Blue Beetle. And it works great for kids. But it is pure joy for an adult fan who appreciates the Golden Age of comics. And you get more obscure characters spotlighted in that show than anywhere else, like B'Wana Beast. They even reference Dark Knight Returns there.
 
I'm intrigued by Brave and the Bold with the way you guys are praising it. This is a TV series that ran from 2008-2011 (according to a quick Google search) right? Looks more colorful than the Burton-esque B:TAS. I think I'll check it out after I get caught up on the classic Miller trades.

It had one of the best endings of any Batman show...and I mean the last 30 seconds. :monkey2
 
Why wouldn't you use a more powerful suit all the time? What's the point in risking stab wounds when you could wear the mechanical suit and just backhand the bad guys through walls?

It was already blindingly obvious that Bruce didn't like Supes. So why did we need the Knightmare scene to reinforce that?
 
Back
Top