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

[morphosis]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

Marvel just appears to get what comic books do, that is to deal with real world concerns in a hyper-exaggerated fun kind of way where the good guys win in the end. WB/DC seems to think that their characters have to be something they're not; Batman is ultimately a quitter and Superman is a careless crybaby. They're looking at us not like undersized Steve Rogers with a heart of gold just waiting for the right circumstances (or movie hero) to come around and properly kick ass. It's like they think we have self esteem issues so they don't want their heroes to be too awesome lest we'd reject them out of hand because they don't appeal to our underachieving selves.

No, we want our superheroes to have it all and win it all in the colors they were born in. They shouldn't need to jump through hoops in order to justify their actions, that's why they're superheroes. They may be simple that way, but I think that's why they generate so much appeal.

I personally don't agree with this at all because your basically saying TDK Trilogy was a failure and that is by far from the truth. What you wrote here was just your own personal opinion about what you like, but there are MILLIONS of people all over the world that love the TDK Trilogy and even MoS. Sure some will agree with you, of course, but the vast majority of everyone who have seen this films think they are amazing movies, especially the TDK Trilogy. The geek nit picking on message boards is not the world view of these films.

The wish fulfillment part of it all is huge. That's why most of us first get into these characters as kids. We see heroes as bigger than life, and don't see any reason why they should be ashamed of it. And I do think Marvel gets that part of it, embraces it, and has succeeded because of it.

Having said that, I can also appreciate an approach that treats some of these characters are fundamentally flawed and troubled. I'm a huge fan of Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, Moore-era Swamp Thing, much of Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis, and Mark Millar's work, etc. But to do that effectively, filmmakers have to be pretty careful IMO, and of course, pretty skilled. It is easier to do a mindless action movie well than it is to do a thoughtful character-driven drama well (not that I'm saying the Marvel films are the former, but they tend to migrate in that direction if you think of this as a continuum). I think Nolan did a good job with a dramatically-oriented comic film, at least through the first two films. But I don't think Snyder did, and I don't think that is his strength based on his overall body of work. Hopefully Superman vs. Batman will have a better script that can, at least, help to push him in more of the right direction.

mostly agree!!! I am a huge fan of all that work you mentioned above, but I am in the camp of loving MoS. Was it perfect, not at all, but its definitely one of my favorite comic book films. I really enjoyed their treatment of Superman and we finally got a sense of what would happen if someone with those kind of powers could do to our world. With so many discussions about Superman over many decades, and one I always loved was that he really has to be able to control himself or he could just destroy anything he touches even if he doesn't mean to destroy it. They showed that in MoS to some extent. To have that ability and to control it to protect people is a very difficult thing and i think its cool they showed how he struggled with it and then I hope in later films they show how much he embraces it.

All the superheroes have flaws, they all have since the beginning. I think exposing their flaws or vulnerability makes are more intriguing story. As much as I love Avengers, i thought it was fantastic, but my one personal feeling is I never felt they were in any sort of danger. Everything felt too easy. Taking down all those leviathan ships was like a piece of cake. Its was fun to watch of course, but I think it lacked some sense of danger. But thats just my opinion

 

[chewblacca]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

Last year when MOS came out Irish and I were going back and forth about the same things that everyone else is talking about here. Back then everyone pretty much thought the film was great. Now all the flaws are coming out.

 

[Khev]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

Nah some people like to slag Aliens. Hardcore fans of the first film resent its popularity over the original. Sounds familiar....

Nah, for it to be a backlash there'd have to be some sort of pendulum swing after a huge positive response. With ALIENS there have always been fans of the original that were put off by Cameron turning the unstoppable beast from the first film into cannon fodder bugs. But overall the prevailing opinion has consistently been that it was a masterpiece of a sci-fi action/war movie.

 

[The Josh]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

LOTR needs to give back that oscar, total crap of a trilogy wasn't it.

 

[a-dev]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

Nah, for it to be a backlash there'd have to be some sort of pendulum swing after a huge positive response. With ALIENS there have always been fans of the original that were put off by Cameron turning the unstoppable beast from the first film into cannon fodder bugs. But overall the prevailing opinion has consistently been that it was a masterpiece of a sci-fi action/war movie.

A pendulum swing, hmmm. I wonder which of the films I mentioned have actually had the most significant such swing. I'd say Titanic and Avatar. Granted Titanic has had since 1997 for a negative sentiment to have built up. It frequently makes ''overrated'' lists, so much so that I think its almost apt to call it underrated at this point.

 

[Khev]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

I think to really have an observable backlash a film needs to break some barrier with regard to box office and/or Academy Award nominations/wins. Titanic and Avatar really didn't have a chance at avoiding one. Similarly most people are currently singing the praises of TWS but you know that if it somehow grossed $500 million domestic or won Best Picture people would be weighing in left and right on how it wasn't that great and didn't deserve such praise even if they enjoyed the film.

There really seems to be a bit of a sweet spot of just enough (but not too much) success/praise for any given movie for audiences to feel that continued praise and positivity is justified. Because once it crosses that threshold, look out.

 

[a-dev]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

You're right, I mean some films do seem to be immune whereas with others people seem to take pride in going against the grain with their views.

I do it too in some instances, I guess we all do.

 

[Frank]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

I personally don't agree with this at all because your basically saying TDK Trilogy was a failure and that is by far from the truth. What you wrote here was just your own personal opinion about what you like, but there are MILLIONS of people all over the world that love the TDK Trilogy and even MoS. Sure some will agree with you, of course, but the vast majority of everyone who have seen this films think they are amazing movies, especially the TDK Trilogy. The geek nit picking on message boards is not the world view of these films.

The world is full of contrary opinions, why should the world of CBMs be any different? Truth be told is that the further we get from the release of any popular film, the less popular and relevant it becomes to the current population. How many treat Gone With The Wind with the kind of awe you'd expect from the all time leading blockbuster adjusted for inflation? Nobody in my generation. Veneration is probably closer to the word I'm looking for. When stripped of all the fancy modernized film techniques, some of these films seemed embarrassed by their own subject matter. In retrospect, how can we respect films that have the CBM equivalent of Woody Allen neurosis running through them?

I'd like for WB to realize how important it is to make the protagonists solution not only the best way, but the only way to go. MOS was waaaaaay too sloppy with all the easy alternatives that could have been taken to avoid the needless loss of life and property. TDKR gave Batman magic powers of healing and teleportation while dulling every other thing about Bane and Ra's (no Venom, no Lazarus Pit). The only upgrade for Bat's arsenal was "The Bat" which looked like an aborted lego project compared to 89's Batwing. I know it's harder to stay ahead of your audience now, but I know a lame Wile E. Coyote scheme when I see it.

All the superheroes have flaws, they all have since the beginning. I think exposing their flaws or vulnerability makes are more intriguing story. As much as I love Avengers, i thought it was fantastic, but my one personal feeling is I never felt they were in any sort of danger. Everything felt too easy. Taking down all those leviathan ships was like a piece of cake. Its was fun to watch of course, but I think it lacked some sense of danger. But thats just my opinion

The overcoming of those flaws usually come in the form of major power upgrades pure and simple. Weakness of character is something you generally don't want to end a film on. Batman's broken hermetic spirit wins out in the end in The Dark Knight Retires and Superman's great cathartic moment comes at the death of his arch nemesis, not the untold multitude of innocents taken out by his amateur battlefield awareness. Then of course he only learns how to be Superman in his 30s as a power-shamed late bloomer. Tell it to your therapist and get with the program Kal!

The wish fulfillment part of it all is huge. That's why most of us first get into these characters as kids. We see heroes as bigger than life, and don't see any reason why they should be ashamed of it. And I do think Marvel gets that part of it, embraces it, and has succeeded because of it.

Having said that, I can also appreciate an approach that treats some of these characters are fundamentally flawed and troubled. I'm a huge fan of Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, Moore-era Swamp Thing, much of Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis, and Mark Millar's work, etc. But to do that effectively, filmmakers have to be pretty careful IMO, and of course, pretty skilled. It is easier to do a mindless action movie well than it is to do a thoughtful character-driven drama well (not that I'm saying the Marvel films are the former, but they tend to migrate in that direction if you think of this as a continuum). I think Nolan did a good job with a dramatically-oriented comic film, at least through the first two films. But I don't think Snyder did, and I don't think that is his strength based on his overall body of work. Hopefully Superman vs. Batman will have a better script that can, at least, help to push him in more of the right direction.

There's plenty of room to bend the genre I think. They just have to figure out if it's really a superhero movie or an anti-hero movie. DKR is actually Batman as anti-hero so it wouldn't make sense to follow an optimistic arc. Watchmen kind of fell into that trap I felt. You've got to be prepared to tell people something they don't like about themselves and their society... and not flinch. The willingness to take a financial hit to get your point across is also mandatory. Just ask Dredd.

 

[Darth Zangetsu]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

I think to really have an observable backlash a film needs to break some barrier with regard to box office and/or Academy Award nominations/wins. Titanic and Avatar really didn't have a chance at avoiding one. Similarly most people are currently singing the praises of TWS but you know that if it somehow grossed $500 million domestic or won Best Picture people would be weighing in left and right on how it wasn't that great and didn't deserve such praise even if they enjoyed the film.

There really seems to be a bit of a sweet spot of just enough (but not too much) success/praise for any given movie for audiences to feel that continued praise and positivity is justified. Because once it crosses that threshold, look out.

The backlash for Avatar was immediate in some circles. I remember lots of people pointing out that while it was pretty to look at, the story had been done multiple times and done better in previous films. Avatar was hurt popularity wise in my opinion by it getting nominated for a best picture Oscar. It really didn't deserve it. Had the academy ignored it, it would have gently faded away. And the rabid fans, who wanted to die and come back as Navi didn't help. I own it on blu-ray, but it's not something I will watch all the time. It's an okay film, but nothing special unless we are talking about special effects.

 

[karamazov80]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

With so many discussions about Superman over many decades, and one I always loved was that he really has to be able to control himself or he could just destroy anything he touches even if he doesn't mean to destroy it. They showed that in MoS to some extent. To have that ability and to control it to protect people is a very difficult thing and i think its cool they showed how he struggled with it and then I hope in later films they show how much he embraces it.

Yeah, credit where it is due, MOS did show us the kind of damage Supermen types would incur if they started battling it out. Also, related to that, they gave us the balls out, unrelenting, punch guys through buildings type action that people were clamoring for after Superman Returns failed to deliver that. I think Snyder was trying to address specific, existing complaints there, and succeeded at doing so. So I guess my next hope is that he will be equally responsive to some of the criticisms of MOS, and will better tell a film that can connect with audiences and tell a compelling story. But even if there is a will, is there the ability?

I also agree that I didn't feel much of a real threat in Avengers, though I think that was probably appropriate considering that this was the first major cross-franchise superhero super party film. Avengers 2 would be better served for bringing out genuine threat and consequences. Whedon tried to go there with Coulson's death, but I didn't think anyone else of importance was going to bite it. And now that all the major deaths in the Marvel U turn out to not actually be deaths (Coulson, Fury, Loki), I do wonder if I will ever worry much about a death in these movies again!

There really seems to be a bit of a sweet spot of just enough (but not too much) success/praise for any given movie for audiences to feel that continued praise and positivity is justified. Because once it crosses that threshold, look out.

Yeah, I think that's right.

You're right, I mean some films do seem to be immune whereas with others people seem to take pride in going against the grain with their views.

I do it too in some instances, I guess we all do.

I can't think of a single person other than myself who doesn't engage in that kind of behavior.

 

[a-dev]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

I can't think of a single person other than myself who doesn't engage in that kind of behavior.

 

[jye4ever]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

I can't think of a single person other than myself who doesn't engage in that kind of behavior.

Post of the day

 

[Khev]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

The backlash for Avatar was immediate in some circles. I remember lots of people pointing out that while it was pretty to look at, the story had been done multiple times and done better in previous films. Avatar was hurt popularity wise in my opinion by it getting nominated for a best picture Oscar. It really didn't deserve it. Had the academy ignored it, it would have gently faded away. And the rabid fans, who wanted to die and come back as Navi didn't help. I own it on blu-ray, but it's not something I will watch all the time. It's an okay film, but nothing special unless we are talking about special effects.

They really didn't did they?

 

[Khev]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

Whedon tried to go there with Coulson's death, but I didn't think anyone else of importance was going to bite it. And now that all the major deaths in the Marvel U turn out to not actually be deaths (Coulson, Fury, Loki), I do wonder if I will ever worry much about a death in these movies again!

At least Thor's mom died, though my wife mentioned not knowing whether she was supposed to be worried or not because they're not very clear on how much damage Asgardians can take. His one Robin Hood friend was impaled by a ton of ice spears in the first Thor movie and was simply pulled off by his friends and then he was off fighting again. But Thor's mom stabbed once? Dead. And until Coulson shows up in another movie he is dead as far as I'm concerned. I don't count that TV stuff. But otherwise I agree with your overall point. If they wanted Fury's "death" to have any impact they really shouldn't have made his "I guess you're giving the orders now Cap" line so prominent in the previews.

 

[jye4ever]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

AOS and Coulson kick ass.

But what you're saying is actually pretty valid because even though there's an entire TV show built around him, none of the Avengers have been advised yet that he's still alive, therefore technically you are correct, he's still dead.

 

[karamazov80]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

His one Robin Hood friend was impaled by a ton of ice spears in the first Thor movie and was simply pulled off by his friends and then he was off fighting again. But Thor's mom stabbed once? Dead.

Well in fairness, she was merely a female. Not a fool exactly. Merely a female.

 

[Darth Zangetsu]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

They really didn't did they?

Yes https://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/stories/avatar-brings-depression-and-suicidal-thoughts-to-some-moviegoers they did.

 

[Khev]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

Oh I remember those reports. I just meant that those people really didn't help the overall impression of Avatar did they?

 

[Darth Zangetsu]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

Oh I remember those reports. I just meant that those people really didn't help the overall impression of Avatar did they?

Yeah it's a bad look on the fandom. I love Batman, but I dont think about killing myself so I can be reborn as Robin living in Gotham Ciity

 

[morphosis]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

The world is full of contrary opinions, why should the world of CBMs be any different? Truth be told is that the further we get from the release of any popular film, the less popular and relevant it becomes to the current population. How many treat Gone With The Wind with the kind of awe you'd expect from the all time leading blockbuster adjusted for inflation? Nobody in my generation. Veneration is probably closer to the word I'm looking for. When stripped of all the fancy modernized film techniques, some of these films seemed embarrassed by their own subject matter. In retrospect, how can we respect films that have the CBM equivalent of Woody Allen neurosis running through them?

I'd like for WB to realize how important it is to make the protagonists solution not only the best way, but the only way to go. MOS was waaaaaay too sloppy with all the easy alternatives that could have been taken to avoid the needless loss of life and property. TDKR gave Batman magic powers of healing and teleportation while dulling every other thing about Bane and Ra's (no Venom, no Lazarus Pit). The only upgrade for Bat's arsenal was "The Bat" which looked like an aborted lego project compared to 89's Batwing. I know it's harder to stay ahead of your audience now, but I know a lame Wile E. Coyote scheme when I see it.



The overcoming of those flaws usually come in the form of major power upgrades pure and simple. Weakness of character is something you generally don't want to end a film on. Batman's broken hermetic spirit wins out in the end in The Dark Knight Retires and Superman's great cathartic moment comes at the death of his arch nemesis, not the untold multitude of innocents taken out by his amateur battlefield awareness. Then of course he only learns how to be Superman in his 30s as a power-shamed late bloomer. Tell it to your therapist and get with the program Kal!



There's plenty of room to bend the genre I think. They just have to figure out if it's really a superhero movie or an anti-hero movie. DKR is actually Batman as anti-hero so it wouldn't make sense to follow an optimistic arc. Watchmen kind of fell into that trap I felt. You've got to be prepared to tell people something they don't like about themselves and their society... and not flinch. The willingness to take a financial hit to get your point across is also mandatory. Just ask Dredd.

Yah, i just can't agree with anything you say at all...I'll leave it at that....