Hot Toys Batman V. Superman Dawn of Justice Speculation Thread

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
MOS wasn't as bad the second time I saw it. But it's still not a good movie. And that's a shame.

To each its own. Let me put it this way, if both the 1978 Sups and MOS are playing on tv simultaneously on different channels, I will watch MOS more. I'll still watch some scenes from the original, probably during the MOS tornado scene, but overall despite some flaws, I find MOS more entertaining. The first hour of the 78 film is kind of slow for me, and it's not until Clark finally shows up in Metropolis that the story picks up, imo. The first time you watch it is fine, but after that I just want to skip certain things and get to the best parts.
 
It was the way it was framed, and that's on Goyer. Clark asked Pa "what was I supposed to do? Let those kids die," and Pa Kent responds with "maybe." You just don't do that ****. Pa Kent can be uncertain, but you don't paint one of the most wholesome characters in the history of comics as so callous as to suggest that it might've been alright to let nature take its course if it meant preserving his son's secret.

Just off the top of my head.

"Did I do the right thing, dad?"

"I don't know, Clark. I don't have all the answers, and I really don't know what will happen, now, but what I do know is that all of those kids are alive right now because of something you did. So, you tell me. Do you think you did the right thing?"

See how easy that was? And Goyer gets paid how much?:lol

Your replacement line is not much better. It was "maybe" in the film...followed by more dialogue. Yours is "I don't know"...followed by more dialogue. That both arrive at the same point. But your saying "i don't know" is light years ahead of "maybe". Lol
 
It was the way it was framed, and that's on Goyer. Clark asked Pa "what was I supposed to do? Let those kids die," and Pa Kent responds with "maybe." You just don't do that ****. Pa Kent can be uncertain, but you don't paint one of the most wholesome characters in the history of comics as so callous as to suggest that it might've been alright to let nature take its course if it meant preserving his son's secret.

Ah, interesting perspective. However, I've seen the film a few times and I feel that was indeed touched on, based on what I saw and what was said. It wasn't about just protetcting his son, it was also about protecting the sanctity of the human race. So he was essentially having to play the keeper of both and make the right choice in the interest of both parties. He did state, "There's more at stake here than just our lives Clark, but the lives of everyone around us."

Just off the top of my head.

"Did I do the right thing, dad?"

"I don't know, Clark. I don't have all the answers, and I really don't know what will happen, now, but what I do know is that all of those kids are alive right now because of something you did. So, you tell me. Do you think you did the right thing?"

Well put. However, I feel that what Clark's question was, answering, "Maybe" is essentially stating what you just said, albeit more succinctly. From there, he went on to explain that it was about more than just merely keeping a "secret", and what the repercussions are based on the way our society views and tends to treat such matters and things.

At least that's how I interpreted it based on what I gleaned from the conversation.
 
This is a great point which I realize since the first BvS traile, and it's not stupid, today's cynic society would undoubtedly react that way to someone like Superman.


I've come to the conclusion that Zod wasn't a very good hand 2 hand combatant, he was a genetically designed as a strategist, hence why the grunts (Faora & Nam-Ek) showed a lot more proficiency in combat, they were designed that way.

Shouldn't he still be able to beat Jor El easily? As a villain you want to make him look strong.
 
People give Goyer a lot of ****, myself included, but I'm not trying to discredit the guy. He has great ideas, but I just think that it kind of seems like he's so caught up in getting his point across that he overlooks the fact that his characters should feel "whole." I look at it as a comic book. Primarily, you have the writer and the penciler who get all the credit, but you also have the colorist, the inker, the letterer; all of these different people involved in creating the comic book you see on shelves. I know this is kind of a weird analogy, but I imagine Goyer as a penciler. He does excellent framework, but you can't just publish a book with rough sketches (unless it's one of those collector's edition "director's cuts" they're doing, now, but I think you understand my point). I like Pa Kent being uncertain, I like Pa letting go to make sure his son was safe; I just thought the execution could've been better is all.

As far as why I think BvS will be better. I can't say that it will or not, but, from what I saw of Terrio's previous work, I thought Argo was a tightly scripted, fantastic film, and I'm hoping his work for BvS will be, too. I've liked everything I've seen in the trailers, but, still, there are? What? Two hours and twenty plus minutes that we haven't seen? So, anything can happen. The other part of it is just them not putting all their eggs in one basket. Like I said, as an idea man, I won't complain about Goyer in the slightest, but, with that being said, I do think it's a little more reassuring to know that, after what I would classify as a bit of a stumble with Man of Steel, they aren't putting all the power in one man's hands.

Goyer wasn't the primary person on mos. and it feels like that's what your saying. Your comic analogy where goyers work is all that makes it out seems to indicate that. But that's just not how it worked. Zach and his wife where much more responsible.

As for the BvS being better....you can't tell me from the trailer you think the dialogue is any more subtle then mos.
 
Shouldn't he still be able to beat Jor El easily? As a villain you want to make him look strong.
I'm gonna guess that because Jor-El was the scientist, who knew the whole deal of the genetic template, he knew the combat skills imprinted in a soldier's genetic code.

But being a realist Crowe probably just said he wanted to punch someone.
 
As for bane. Again...I was addressing your gotta be unstoppable and never lose comment. Fact is, he both lost and was not unstoppable. Sure, it was a mass of folks he lost to. And no, he didn't die. But it was still old men and starving men. If he's unstoppable...then well, he can't be stopped. He was. And by not only mere mortals, but sick and dying ones. And sure, he latter kills people with easy. I don't see how that makes any diffenrece to this argument.

I already explained it. That scene where Bane's gets beat up by the mob was shown at the very end of the film in a flashback by the time he had already been defeated. Not during his character intro or during the film. When you watch the film for the first time...he IS unstoppable until the end. Zod gets his ass kicked by Jor El in the first 5 minutes of the film. Zod's big intro is getting dominated by a scientist....by the end of the film, he's dude who never won a single fight.


And given the comparison...that bane is a great villain but Zod wasn't...Zod started off killing people in krypton, beat up and killed jor-el. Came to earth and killed lots of people.

He killed Jor El with a cheap shot after he had been defeated...what a great intro.
 
I'm gonna guess that because Jor-El was the scientist, who knew the whole deal of the genetic template, he knew the combat skills imprinted in a soldier's genetic code.

But being a realist Crowe probably just said he wanted to punch someone.

Exactly. It just doesn't look good if Maximus gets his arse kicked. Especially after defeating Commodus and two tigers. A Kryptonian military general should be no contest. :lol
 
Your replacement line is not much better. It was "maybe" in the film...followed by more dialogue. Yours is "I don't know"...followed by more dialogue. That both arrive at the same point. But your saying "i don't know" is light years ahead of "maybe". Lol

"I don't know" indicates uncertainty. It means that he genuinely doesn't know. "Maybe" after "should I have let those kids die" is a pretty clear connotation. That preserving Clark's secret might just be so important as to let a bunch of innocent kids drown.

The actual conversation:

Jonathan Kent: You have to keep this side of yourself a secret.

Clark Kent: What was I supposed to do? Let them die?

Jonathan Kent: Maybe…
Pa Kent doesn't do that ****. Pa Kent doesn't say that ****. Anybody with any sense of decency wouldn't say that ****. The material speaks for itself, and when you factor in Costner's line delivery (which paints it in a light where that might've been the preferred outcome), I'd say "I don't know" is quite a bit different.
 
I'm gonna guess that because Jor-El was the scientist, who knew the whole deal of the genetic template, he knew the combat skills imprinted in a soldier's genetic code.

But being a realist Crowe probably just said he wanted to punch someone.

If that's the case, they needed to explain that :lol So, I'll go with the Crowe thing.
 
People give Goyer a lot of ****, myself included, but I'm not trying to discredit the guy. He has great ideas, but I just think that it kind of seems like he's so caught up in getting his point across that he overlooks the fact that his characters should feel "whole." I look at it as a comic book. Primarily, you have the writer and the penciler who get all the credit, but you also have the colorist, the inker, the letterer; all of these different people involved in creating the comic book you see on shelves. I know this is kind of a weird analogy, but I imagine Goyer as a penciler. He does excellent framework, but you can't just publish a book with rough sketches (unless it's one of those collector's edition "director's cuts" they're doing, now, but I think you understand my point). I like Pa Kent being uncertain, I like Pa letting go to make sure his son was safe; I just thought the execution could've been better is all.

As far as why I think BvS will be better. I can't say that it will or not, but, from what I saw of Terrio's previous work, I thought Argo was a tightly scripted, fantastic film, and I'm hoping his work for BvS will be, too. I've liked everything I've seen in the trailers, but, still, there are? What? Two hours and twenty plus minutes that we haven't seen? So, anything can happen. The other part of it is just them not putting all their eggs in one basket. Like I said, as an idea man, I won't complain about Goyer in the slightest, but, with that being said, I do think it's a little more reassuring to know that, after what I would classify as a bit of a stumble with Man of Steel, they aren't putting all the power in one man's hands.

Goyer wasn't the primary person on mos. and it feels like that's what your saying. Your comic analogy where goyers work is all that makes it out seems to indicate that. But that's just not how it worked. Zach and his wife where much more responsible.

As for the BvS being better....you can't tell me from the trailer you think the dialogue is any more subtle then mos.

I never said I did. In fact, I pretty clearly stated that you can't judge that based on a trailer, and then I proceeded to give you a laundry list of reasons why I'm excited for BvS and hopeful that the script will be better than MoS'.:lol As for your point about Goyer, if that's true, then it sucks to be him. His name being the only one on there and all, but, then, you'd probably know better than me about this stuff, so I'll take your word for it.

Point still stands, though: having another set of eyes on the work with some actual street cred doesn't strike me as a bad thing.
 
You seem to be over simplifying it. No, he doesn't have to be unstoppable to be a good villian. And a hero doesn't have to be perfect to be a hero.

I never said a hero needs to be perfect. I said the best villains are usually unstoppable until the end. Not every villain is the same, some don't have any powers and they are weak. It's not just about losing or winning physical fights. The Joker for example is not a fighter or very strong, but in TDK, he was always ahead of everyone and he had the power in every scene. Even when Bats beats him up, he just laughed at him, making Batman completely powerless. It's not until the end that Batman wins...sort of.

I don't think Zod is bad, but he's not great, Shannon was fine in the role and he looked cool, but the way they used him was not very smart. If the whole climax of the film relies on a big physical battle between the hero and the villain, ideally you want the villain to be a monster of a threat and to go into that final battle with a winning record. Imagine if Darth Vader gets beat up in episode 4 and 5, would you take him seriously in the last fight against Luke? Would it even mean anything when Luke finally beats Vader if he wasn't so dominant in the first two films?
 
"I don't know" indicates uncertainty. It means that he genuinely doesn't know. "Maybe" after "should I have let those kids die" is a pretty clear connotation. That preserving Clark's secret might just be so important as to let a bunch of innocent kids drown.

The actual conversation:

Jonathan Kent: You have to keep this side of yourself a secret.

Clark Kent: What was I supposed to do? Let them die?

Jonathan Kent: Maybe…

Pa Kent doesn't do that ****. Pa Kent doesn't say that ****. Anybody with any sense of decency wouldn't say that ****. The material speaks for itself, and when you factor in Costner's line delivery (which paints it in a light where that might've been the preferred outcome), I'd say "I don't know" is quite a bit different.

I didn't have a problem with that scene. I thought the acting was good and he came across as someone who was primarily concerned for his son's safety...which is how most parents are in real life. Usually after a tragedy, you don't see parents hugging other kids first..they hug their own kids. He seemed conflicted about saying that Clark should have let the kids died. He knows the right thing is to save those kids, but at the same time, he knows the world is not ready for someone like Clark and as a parent his primary responsibility is to protect his son. If he doesn't put his son's safety first...wouldn't that make him a bad parent?

He was basically telling him to be more careful and perhaps not to intervene in certain situations....I guess that sounds kind of bad, but I think his heart was in the right place...I mean, the dude literally committed suicide because he wanted to protect Clark :lol At least he's not a hypocrite. Also, if I remember correctly, Pa Kent also told Clark not to use his powers in the 1978 film...different scenario, but the concern for Clark to hide his abilities was still there.
 
The one thing I did like was how the woman said "this was an act of God." I think that'd be a cool thing to touch on, in some sort of story. Clark saving someone in broad daylight and the people chalking it up to some miracle and parading him around some tent revival in the middle of Kansas.:lol
 
Yeah, maybe in BVS some people will worship him, while other see him as the devil or some kind of demon from hell :lol The one line that bothered me from the Pa Kent flashbacks were the, "one day, you will change the world" or something like that. He said that several times and it just sounded so pretentious, like they wanted to remind the audience that,"hey this is Superman...the greatest hero ever created!! He's going to change EVERYTHING!! He's so ******* awesome!!! Everything else is **** compared to this guy!" Clark should have said, "Alright!! I get it, I'm special...I'm only 12!!" :lol
 
But being a realist Crowe probably just said he wanted to punch someone.

The more I think about, I don't think he just wanted to punch someone. I'll take it a step further, he wanted to be Superman. From the very beginning of the film he's doing heroic stuff and involved in action sequences, even saving the future of his race with the codex and beating the main villain in a battle.

Later on, he does one of Superman's signature poses/moves...he "rips" the shirt and shows the "S" underneath.

AncwHTo.png


Then later on, he does something only Superman does in the films, he saves Lois Lane's life. When has Jor El ever done that? Finally he figures out how to defeat Zod and he tells Lois and Sups how to do it...he even had one final scene with Zod before the final battle. :lol
 
Back
Top