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

[a-dev]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

Can you ground (dig) it?

 

[karamazov80]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

I always wondered, what the **** does "gritty" even mean? Just like Webb and McG (for Terminator Salvation), Nolan and Co. used the same exact terminology for their Batman costumes. Uhh, the Begins suit and TDK/TDKR always looked pristine and fresh off the assembly line to me. The only time any suit was ever "gritty" was the garage scene, but what happened then? He upgraded to a nice and shiny suit.

Are you trying to get me angry Fabio? Because you're succeeding. Next thing you know you'll say he doesn't need a totally black suit, with black face paint to cover his mouth, black contacts for his eyes, and for him to be blaring Cure songs out of his Batmobile at all times.

 

[snoop101]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

yet the Rock was great in it. great performance. Paul walker was good.
vin Diesel was good too. jordana brewster was good. (they should have hired her )

 

[GasparZizou]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

Spoiler

Standard: "something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example." So when you are using comic books as a general example of something, you are in fact referring to a standard.

I'm not questioning the definition but unless I use the word standard, I'm not referring to the standard.

Spoiler

That was the standard I was talking about since you laid down those comic book pics of yours. The pr0n comparison doesn't quite hold up, because every actress in p0rn isn't trying to depict the same woman (read: Ww). In general you hate the big bust, and while there is enough room for a variety of looks within the WW archetype, Gadot falls short of what would be required at minimum.

You completely missed the point of the pron comparison, pron is arguably one of the lowest forms of entertainment and mainstream comic books are a form of art that has a very respectable status these days, yet pron has a wider variety of the female form in peak shape, with or without fake ****s.

Spoiler

In general comics do have a higher baseline as far as bustline goes, but Wonder Woman is really not the worst offender out there. Now, the standard for Wonder Woman as a single character, is more varied due to the sheer amount of artists depicting her in various states of physical fitness and builds, but in her case I can't think of the last time she ever looked below the C line in that respect. Love it or hate it, and you do hate it, it's one of the consistencies as far as her appearance goes and to be fair her bust really isn't all that big in the comics. The point is that Gadot is so noticeably slight and small. The rest of the argument has been over the difference between Lynda Carter and Gal Gadot's physique.

I'm aware Wonder Woman is not "the worst offender", and yes, the amount of artists that have drawn WW in different ways make Gadot fall not so far from any given spectrum, and yes, big ****s is the only constant in WW's designs, but that doesn't make it NOT be a petty complaint.

Spoiler

Now I'm starting to question your assessment of le pron. That is pretty much a given in the overwhelming majority of those "actresses" today. Variety doesn't begin to compare to the baseline amount of augmentation they go through. Actual female athletes would be a better comparison and one that I could agree with as preferable, especially in this case.

Now where did I say that exactly? The context was the standard WW bust size. You're cornered because you're trying to use **** as an example of variety of female bust size. Sure, varieties above C-Cup. As far as WW goes, why would we necessarily need a boatload of variety? She's never had the pretense of even being average, why should we accept someone who doesn't have a hope of meeting the baseline physical description?

No wonder why comicbooks don't have variety in female bodies, you can't even grasp the concept, you reduced the entire concept of "variety of female form" to "bust size".... You want to think you're cornering me, you're not succeeding.

Why should you accept it? You don't, but other than the bust size, Gadot does fit on some WW representations, you're eluding that point a lot.

Spoiler

That's your problem right there. "Some" does not amount to "typical".

That's not my problem, it's yours, you're still the one ignoring key parts of my posts, I never said she was "typical", I clearly said she's not ideal, but the fact that some designs fit her, make her not atypical.

Spoiler

I didn't bring up diversity as a preferred trait in comic book females, that was you. You want more diversity than is readily observable in comics (at least in WW's case) and therefore you like what Gadot has to offer on the low end of the spectrum. I get it. Why Superheroes or WW in particular have to be as "varied" as pr0nstars physically isn't entirely clear Problem solved.

Should be clear at this point.

Spoiler

You could just compare them up to the point I cut off Lynda's head.

'cept that's not the end of her head.

Spoiler

Except for the fact that Lynda runs out of arm by the end of Gadot's wrist. That's how I know there is significant distortion in the Gadot image.

If the only difference is from the wrist down, that clearly indicates that the only difference is their hand size and the angle the arm is bent, you can see Gadot's arms is a bit more bent.

Spoiler

She can add definition all she wants, but not add any bulk to her pigeon-boned frame. That's the breaks.

She can add some bulk, she doesn't need much anyway.

Spoiler

So far as we know, we were only talking about peak female form to begin with.

and I still stand by that.

Spoiler

Now take that epiphany and apply it to WW. Does it still sound right to you? Skinny and Wonder Woman are not and should not be synonymous. And to be perfectly clear, when I say "skinny" I mean lack of curves. In all categories. At once.

Yes it does, there are skinny WW designs, that has been the whole point of this discussion.

PS: Just so it's clear and you don't keep making the same mistakes and wrong assumptions over and over like you've been doing.... I don't hate comic book standards, just that aspect of the female form and the reluctance to introduce more variety, I'm not even against having perfect, round and shinny exploding **** every once in a while not as a signature trait of comic books.

And in the entire argument I've never mentioned my taste for WW, but you're making assupntions about it, I'm just debating the validity of someone like Gadot representing her, I've said before that my taste would have been a big muscular more traditional Wonder Woman, I'm not favoring one style over the other.

 

[VintijDroidGutzz]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

I'm glad the new film suit looks nothing like the Arkham Knight one. That thing is an over designed monstrosity whose only function is to show off super duper hi-def, next gen graphics that will be obsolete in a couple of years.

That earlier Keaton meme is so true as well.

 

[Khev]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

The funny thing with Superman is that he's so powerful he's one of the few superheroes who could wear whatever he wanted and get away with it. Let's say they wanted the movie to be so "realistic" that literally everything about it was just like our current world but with Superman inserted into it. If he showed up in the powder blue Reeve costume sure there'd initially be some snickers but everyone would shut the hell up the first time he saved a city from a rogue nuclear missile.

It's not like he has to look all badass and dark to "win people over." He's either going to be loved for his heroism or greatly feared because of all the destruction he causes. His suit colors and lack/non-lack of red underpants are beyond irrelevant when considering how he'd function "in a real and grounded world."

Having said all that I kind of miss the "in a world" trailer guy. Where is he when we need him? "In a world grounded in reality, where blue is black and Hope means death..."

 

[GasparZizou]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

I'm glad the new film suit looks nothing like the Arkham Knight one. That thing is an over designed monstrosity whose only function is to show off super duper hi-def, next gen graphics that will be obsolete in a couple of years.

Yeah I hate that suit, it detoured completely from the original designs, but people love it cause it's tactical and armored.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[franpincho]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

Yeah I hate that suit, it detoured completely from the original designs, but people love it cause it's tactical and armored.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

And realistic. Let's not forget that please.

Realistic and Batman should always be used in the same sentence no matter what.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Irvy]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

Realistic and gritty make absolutely zero sense when applied to superheroes.

 

[franpincho]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

Not according to Nolan fanboys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GasparZizou]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

Nolan version is indeed a bit more of a realistic approach, but like DiFabio said, it's not gritty at all, the new suit is already looking grittier with it's scratches in the Batlogo and stuff than Baleman's suit in it's worst day.

 

[Ultron-7]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

According to Kevin Smith the suit is Black and Grey so that will end speculation on that. Also potentially more than one suit....and batmobiles!
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MrBlackJack/news/?a=100458

Suit is supposed to be this suit "exactly" so black and grey:
View attachment 110749
View attachment 110750

 

[The Iron Koob]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

I like the arkham knight suit, way better than Nolan's. I think Affleck's suit is a little strange but weve seen so little of both them

 

[K07]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

So yellow belt?

 

[Ultron-7]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

So yellow belt?

Gold yeah, dark gold based on the monochrome pic I think but that could just be the lighting

 

[DiFabio]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

I always wondered, what is realism? Stating that a rubber cowl, an injection molded rubber suit and a cape is really a graphite shell, kevlar tri-weave and "military memory cloth"? That a character is actually inhabiting a world like my own?

That's a crock. That's called exposition, that's what that is. If these things actually existed in real life, like that crazy *** armored Arkham Knight suit, you wouldn't be able to move. These things are only realistic through explanation, not in appearance. The sonar eyes built into the cowl are just as implausible in TDK as they are in Forever. The difference? We didn't have Morgan Freeman reading it off to us in 1995. Those "action launching" arm blades are just as gimmicky and toyetic as anything Batman has ever been criticized of in terms of commercialism (toys for the kiddies).

Any great film strikes a balance between form and function. Making something because it "looks cool" isn't always a bad thing as long as there's substance to what you're making as a whole. Likewise, it shouldn't just be all about frivolous visuals, you should have some kind of meaning to what you're trying to achieve. I think the best example of this is Star Wars: The Original Trilogy. By simply having an aesthetic (a world that appeared to be lived in, actual grit to it), the audience was brought into the world. We didn't need to hear how lightsabers, speeders, or the force worked. We didn't need technical readouts for spaceships or the droids, you just bought it by visuals alone. The exposition used was to progress the story, not the world the characters inhabited.

Then you look at the Prequels and it's the exact opposite. The world is completely sterile thanks to modern technology. The entire world is explained, like the force becoming "midichlorians" for example. That doesn't make it any more "realistic". This idea of "grounding" a world isn't new. Every filmmaker worth their salt intends to have their audiences sit down for 2-3 hours to invest in their world. Every movie attempts to be based in some kind of reality. Batman or Superman can be made as believable as their worlds allow with a "cinematic plausibility".

 

[Baneofdemon22]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

To me, gritty means something very human that you can connect with completely. Serpico is one of my favorite "gritty" movies. If anyone has dealt with the corruption in the police force, it really hits a nerve. People know what it's like to have someone attack your moral compass, using lies for the greater good, bruising, dog bites, crime, corruption, heartbreak, loosing loved ones shown in a way very similar to what happened in the Dark Knight. I prefer it that way. That's why I hated the Avengers, because there wasn't anything like that there for me. Not saying it's bad, that's just a preference. I could be completely wrong.


I just think if you're wearing a costume, it should be practical. At least, that's how I like it. The bright colors were made to look non-threatening, since most DC heroes were concealing their faces, and it distracted from the idea that these heroes running around could bust up the planet. It helped give a clear distinction between good and evil, until super villains appeared. It works for the Justice League and Captain America because they set them up as a symbol, but there's other characters it doesn't work for.

 

[Ultron-7]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

Based on Kevin Smith's hint I think we're sure to see these now in the 3rd act fight between Batman and Superman:

 

[karamazov80]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

So in other words. . .no red undies makes it good?

 

[batfan08]

Re: Batman vs. Superman (2016)

I always imagined what it'd be like to be a real life Batman, logistically. I pictured Grey or Black Underarmour with a bullet proof vest over top (with a Bat decal, of course). Those Armstar taser gauntlets that Kevin Costner praises (they even have an iPod Dock and a Flashlight!), maybe some Black or Grey pants of some sort; possibly combat boots, and a Black cowl with Night vision goggles that formed the ears; TDKR Catwoman style. You'd probably need a grappling hook with a cable that would need to be thrown manually, 60's style, since there probably aren't any Grappling Guns like those in the movies in existence. I don't know; it's interesting to think about.