1/6 Hot Toys - BvS: Dawn of Justice - Batman

[Bmacattack]

Just got the funds to pay for Batman today, only to have to join the waitlist...

 

[SilverStar17]

I agree, I don't think there is a wrong interpretation but I think there are one's that don't resonate as much as others because they don't tap into what the character tends to encompass for most people. I think that is what most people mean when they say and actor or director "gets the character".

Superman in BvS is a good example of that. If you asked people who Superman was, most people wouldn't respond with "a somber hero who is conflicted with his place in the world, trying to decide whether he should help or not" even though that has been part of Superman throughout many stories.

Based on what I saw and personally gleaned from BvS, it's actually Superman's traditional idealism that carries the story in BvS and ultimately prevails. The DC films are very grounded in today's reality with what we are actually going through in today's world, and a Superman that is forced to confront his idealism amid all of what is happening in today's world is by no means wrong or an abandonment of the character to me, it's a reinforcement of who he is and why he is still relevant after seemingly being tossed aside in favor of flawed heroes that people find more relatable to themselves, and I find it very interesting.

 

[Mike86]

The thing with the current DC films for me is I don't enjoy them that much (well I enjoyed Suicide Squad except for the awful Leto Joker) but I like certain aspects of them. The actors for the heroes have all been pretty decent so far. I really like Affleck as Bruce/Batman even though certain things about the portrayal of the character in Batman V Superman irritated me. Cavill is decent as well but Clark/Superman hasn't been very well written. Gadot seems good so far and the trailer for her solo film looks like a good time. So I guess while I don't necessarily love the films my love for the characters and liking the actors and actresses for the most part is making me want the figures.

 

[Chuck72586]

Based on what I saw and personally gleaned from BvS, it's actually Superman's traditional idealism that carries the story in BvS and ultimately prevails. The DC films are very grounded in today's reality with what we are actually going through in today's world, and a Superman that is forced to confront his idealism amid all of what is happening in today's world is by no means wrong or an abandonment of the character to me, it's a reinforcement of who he is and why he is still relevant after seemingly being tossed aside in favor of flawed heroes that people find more relatable to themselves, and I find it very interesting.

I'd love to know where that idealism was in the movie. At no point did I feel like Superman was fighting for any kind of ideals. He just seemed to wilt at the first sign of any kind of real backlash, and meander back and forth about being Superman. I wouldn't say it was because he wanted to be Superman, though. It just seems to come off as some kind of perceived obligation to him, rather then an actual choice. Maybe he had a grand speech planned for the senate hearing to really show people the kind of man he is, and what he's about, but oh wait... That would have taken a man in a silly blue leotard talking at length and giving a serious monologue. Can't have that according to the director. That would be far too silly. Let's just send him off to have a chat with ghost dad on a mountain, and learn...? What did he learn exactly? I'm still not quite sure. Find a good woman to quell your sorrows, I guess? Something like that as far as I can tell. So he comes back and appears to be ready to be Superman again, and show everyone his great ideals by... Suggesting if he can't convince Batman to help him he'll have to kill him, and just for good measure the very positive message that "No one stays good in this world". And that's exactly what Luthor wanted him to do, wasn't it? Call me crazy, but I would think a hero with ideals wouldn't really even entertain the thought of giving into the villain's demands. I know it was a tough situation, but if you have ideals you hold onto them even in the face of adversity.

It's very similar to the Joker and Batman in The Dark Knight. Now that I think about it, it really is considering Eisenberg was more like the Joker then Luthor, and Snyder has turned Superman into a dark, tortured individual like Batman, but that's neither here nor there. Just a funny observation. That movie, though, Joker was testing Batman's ideals, and trying to break him, but he didn't break. Even after Joker killed Rachel. He stood tall, and didn't let Joker get the best of him. Compare that Snyder's Superman, though, and we've seen what happens if Lois dies, and he entertained the idea of killing Batman as soon as he found out his mom was in trouble. Of course, he didn't want to, but the fact remains he entertained the idea of it, which I would think at that point of the film he would have been past given the fact he went on a mythical journey, and had what should have been an enlightening pep talk with his dead dad in the snow, but nope. More wilting in the face of adversity. Very similar to how he didn't seem to learn much of anything on his other journey around the world in MOS. He came back after all those years, and still had to go to a priest for advice when Zod showed up. We're two films in, and I don't think this Superman has learned anything, or come to any kind of peace with his situation. I guess we're supposed to think he has by the end of BvS, but I have no idea how or why he got there.

 

[ZaCHw117]

have the ex on wait list, I really hope it converts.

 

[Ronnie Rags]

Backdrop Visuals for FREE! Feel free to visit my facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/AZO-Custom-Visuals-Ideas-1102607059833590/

Thanks...

AMAZING Pics

 

[gaunted]

If you take out the mouth plate and the eyes, does it look like an armoury display of the suit?
Not sure if anyone has posted a pic of the figure without the eyes and mouth

 

[gaunted]

I thought and still think that the SS version was nonexistent and the rebreather comes with Deadshot...

SS version has its own SS base and backdrop, it's a different figure

 

[SilverStar17]

I'd love to know where that idealism was in the movie. At no point did I feel like Superman was fighting for any kind of ideals. He just seemed to wilt at the first sign of any kind of real backlash, and meander back and forth about being Superman. I wouldn't say it was because he wanted to be Superman, though. It just seems to come off as some kind of perceived obligation to him, rather then an actual choice. Maybe he had a grand speech planned for the senate hearing to really show people the kind of man he is, and what he's about, but oh wait... That would have taken a man in a silly blue leotard talking at length and giving a serious monologue. Can't have that according to the director. That would be far too silly. Let's just send him off to have a chat with ghost dad on a mountain, and learn...? What did he learn exactly? I'm still not quite sure. Find a good woman to quell your sorrows, I guess? Something like that as far as I can tell. So he comes back and appears to be ready to be Superman again, and show everyone his great ideals by... Suggesting if he can't convince Batman to help him he'll have to kill him, and just for good measure the very positive message that "No one stays good in this world". And that's exactly what Luthor wanted him to do, wasn't it? Call me crazy, but I would think a hero with ideals wouldn't really even entertain the thought of giving into the villain's demands. I know it was a tough situation, but if you have ideals you hold onto them even in the face of adversity.

It's very similar to the Joker and Batman in The Dark Knight. Now that I think about it, it really is considering Eisenberg was more like the Joker then Luthor, and Snyder has turned Superman into a dark, tortured individual like Batman, but that's neither here nor there. Just a funny observation. That movie, though, Joker was testing Batman's ideals, and trying to break him, but he didn't break. Even after Joker killed Rachel. He stood tall, and didn't let Joker get the best of him. Compare that Snyder's Superman, though, and we've seen what happens if Lois dies, and he entertained the idea of killing Batman as soon as he found out his mom was in trouble. Of course, he didn't want to, but the fact remains he entertained the idea of it, which I would think at that point of the film he would have been past given the fact he went on a mythical journey, and had what should have been an enlightening pep talk with his dead dad in the snow, but nope. More wilting in the face of adversity. Very similar to how he didn't seem to learn much of anything on his other journey around the world in MOS. He came back after all those years, and still had to go to a priest for advice when Zod showed up. We're two films in, and I don't think this Superman has learned anything, or come to any kind of peace with his situation. I guess we're supposed to think he has by the end of BvS, but I have no idea how or why he got there.

Every time Superman intervenes around the world to help, we have a choice on how we want to react. When people react with anger and violence, that's not because Superman's good actions/intentions are at fault or not present to begin with, it's because he didn't fully realize nor appreciate just how rotten, negative, pessimistic, cynical, corrupt and ugly humanity can really be. At the end of MoS, he chose to have a faith in the world and mankind, so he just simply presumed that we would eventually have faith in him. This is what he meant when he told Lois during the balcony scene that he was concerned that he didn't see the bomb because he wasn't looking. He didn't feel like he needed to because as mentioned, he just assumed that people would learn to see the world as he sees it. When the world keeps questioning him, he makes it clear that he won't stop fighting for what he feels is right. Of course there are unintended side effects for his actions, but those actions are caused by humanity itself in how we choose to react to Superman's good acts.

When Clark leaves to confront his idealism, it shows that he can indeed have them challenged, but he will refuse to give up on mankind, even in the face of a world that doesn't want to change and tells him to essentially stop and just go home because it rejects the idea of hope. He's simply wondering about the consequences of his actions on whether or not it's possible to stand for absolute good in today's world when every action he takes seems to create complicated side effects, as mentioned.

The story that Jonathan told him about how when faced with a rising flood threatening to wipe out the family farm and him having to dig a trench to divert the floodwater's path that indirectly sent it to another another farm ultimately destroying it, was meant to be an analogy to Clark's current situation. Keep in mind also, he's not actually talking to "Ghost Dad". Clark is having this conversation with himself and already knows the answers in his own mind. The point was that Jonathan couldn't refuse to act and not save his family, so he did so without taking into consideration that it would create a flood elsewhere and harm something else. The entire point is that the flood water is ultimately the one responsible that caused the action, not Jonathan himself. All he was able to do and all any of us could do, is act to do good when we see it in front of us. Sure you consider possible consequences, but you either choose to not do anything at all, or you do what you can knowing the side effects, but continue having faith. And when he found Martha, that was his reminder that there is still good in this world and what helped him to continue having faith.

He made it quite clear that he never wanted to kill Batman. When he returns, he realizes what has happened to Batman because he found the exact same thing happening to himself, but he chose to continue having faith as opposed to going off the deep end, the way Batman did. When he said, "Nobody stays good in this world," I interpreted that as him referring to Batman because as mentioned, he now knows what has happened to Batman and what he's going through, having just faced the same predicament himself.

At least that's how I interpreted it based on what I saw.

 

[Remy]

Every time Superman intervenes around the world to help, we have a choice on how we want to react. When people react with anger and violence, that's not because Superman's good actions/intentions are at fault or not present to begin with, it's because he didn't fully realize nor appreciate just how rotten, negative, pessimistic, cynical, corrupt and ugly humanity can really be. At the end of MoS, he chose to have a faith in the world and mankind, so he just simply presumed that we would eventually have faith in him. This is what he meant when he told Lois during the balcony scene that he was concerned that he didn't see the bomb because he wasn't looking. He didn't feel like he needed to because as mentioned, he just assumed that people would learn to see the world as he sees it. When the world keeps questioning him, he makes it clear that he won't stop fighting for what he feels is right. Of course there are unintended side effects for his actions, but those actions are caused by humanity itself in how we choose to react to Superman's good acts.

When Clark leaves to confront his idealism, it shows that he can indeed have them challenged, but he will refuse to give up on mankind, even in the face of a world that doesn't want to change and tells him to essentially stop and just go home because it rejects the idea of hope. He's simply wondering about the consequences of his actions on whether or not it's possible to stand for absolute good in today's world when every action he takes seems to create complicated side effects, as mentioned.

The story that Jonathan told him about how when faced with a rising flood threatening to wipe out the family farm and him having to dig a trench to divert the floodwater's path that indirectly sent it to another another farm ultimately destroying it, was meant to be an analogy to Clark's current situation. Keep in mind also, he's not actually talking to "Ghost Dad". Clark is having this conversation with himself and already knows the answers in his own mind. The point was that Jonathan couldn't refuse to act and not save his family, so he did so without taking into consideration that it would create a flood elsewhere and harm something else. The entire point is that the flood water is ultimately the one responsible that caused the action, not Jonathan himself. All he was able to do and all any of us could do, is act to do good when we see it in front of us. Sure you consider possible consequences, but you either choose to not do anything at all, or you do what you can knowing the side effects, but continue having faith. And when he found Martha, that was his reminder that there is still good in this world and what helped him to continue having faith.

He made it quite clear that he never wanted to kill Batman. When he returns, he realizes what has happened to Batman because he found the exact same thing happening to himself, but he chose to continue having faith as opposed to going off the deep end, the way Batman did. When he said, "Nobody stays good in this world," I interpreted that as him referring to Batman because as mentioned, he now knows what has happened to Batman and what he's going through, having just faced the same predicament himself.

At least that's how I interpreted it based on what I saw.

 

[SilverStar17]

 

[Ppk487]

I'm having flashbacks of the Martha debate. "They stop fighting because their moms have the same name?"

 

[creasy]

Mines just arrived in the uk, hopefully have it by Friday at the latest.
This is my most anticipated figure since batman returns


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gj1980]

Hopefully they'll release a BvS armory

 

[Helghan]

Every time Superman intervenes around the world to help, we have a choice on how we want to react. When people react with anger and violence, that's not because Superman's good actions/intentions are at fault or not present to begin with, it's because he didn't fully realize nor appreciate just how rotten, negative, pessimistic, cynical, corrupt and ugly humanity can really be. At the end of MoS, he chose to have a faith in the world and mankind, so he just simply presumed that we would eventually have faith in him. This is what he meant when he told Lois during the balcony scene that he was concerned that he didn't see the bomb because he wasn't looking. He didn't feel like he needed to because as mentioned, he just assumed that people would learn to see the world as he sees it. When the world keeps questioning him, he makes it clear that he won't stop fighting for what he feels is right. Of course there are unintended side effects for his actions, but those actions are caused by humanity itself in how we choose to react to Superman's good acts.

When Clark leaves to confront his idealism, it shows that he can indeed have them challenged, but he will refuse to give up on mankind, even in the face of a world that doesn't want to change and tells him to essentially stop and just go home because it rejects the idea of hope. He's simply wondering about the consequences of his actions on whether or not it's possible to stand for absolute good in today's world when every action he takes seems to create complicated side effects, as mentioned.

The story that Jonathan told him about how when faced with a rising flood threatening to wipe out the family farm and him having to dig a trench to divert the floodwater's path that indirectly sent it to another another farm ultimately destroying it, was meant to be an analogy to Clark's current situation. Keep in mind also, he's not actually talking to "Ghost Dad". Clark is having this conversation with himself and already knows the answers in his own mind. The point was that Jonathan couldn't refuse to act and not save his family, so he did so without taking into consideration that it would create a flood elsewhere and harm something else. The entire point is that the flood water is ultimately the one responsible that caused the action, not Jonathan himself. All he was able to do and all any of us could do, is act to do good when we see it in front of us. Sure you consider possible consequences, but you either choose to not do anything at all, or you do what you can knowing the side effects, but continue having faith. And when he found Martha, that was his reminder that there is still good in this world and what helped him to continue having faith.

He made it quite clear that he never wanted to kill Batman. When he returns, he realizes what has happened to Batman because he found the exact same thing happening to himself, but he chose to continue having faith as opposed to going off the deep end, the way Batman did. When he said, "Nobody stays good in this world," I interpreted that as him referring to Batman because as mentioned, he now knows what has happened to Batman and what he's going through, having just faced the same predicament himself.

At least that's how I interpreted it based on what I saw.

Excellent post.

 

[DBoz]

I thought and still think that the SS version was nonexistent and the rebreather comes with Deadshot...

I also think that the SS version is nonexistent. Both the rebreather and handcuffs are included with the exclusive Deadshot. It seems odd that they would do that if they intended on releasing a SS Batman.

SS version has its own SS base and backdrop, it's a different figure

It is possible that they only made that base to display Batman with the other SS items at all the shows. And Sideshow having the pic from SDCC with it labeled "coming soon" is not a reliable indicator, as they have done this before with stuff that has turned out to be incorrect (the damaged Iron Man MK42 with car battery comes to mind).

What I find kind of interesting is that people always get pissed about rehashing and repaints (Iron Man, Captain America Battling Version), but there doesn't seem to be much of an uproar about the possibility of a Suicide Squad Batman that would most likely be 100% the same as the BvS version with accessories that are 100% the same as ones included with another figure. The only difference being a stand with a cardboard back drop.

Who knows, though. Maybe they will do it, I just highly doubt it.

 

[RGVCOLLECTOR]

Hopefully they'll release a BvS armory

They have to they wouldnt let the chance go by.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

 

[mynameschris]

ive used co.uk twice before and it was fine ( also note, if you go to .com the price is higher... so use co.uk! )

When i ordered the figure ( say its gonna be in warehouse 30th november ) they took 1p from my credit card, but im not sure if that was just because i had to update the card since i last used it and they wanted to verify. But in my order they did say they dont take anything until its time to dispatch the item to us.

Sounds good, might be a £15 saving over the co.uk site for an extra month but saving here and there on these things help to pay for other figures (all mounts up)

Well one significant thing that I can say that Batfleck and Bale had in common is I despised their batman voices. Seriously why does Nolan and Snyder think that Batman has to sound like he has a sore throat that exploded in their mouth.

It's not even scary..more annoying

hey directors Keaton and Kilmer killed it with their bat voices and all they did is lower their own voice. Learn from it please

I always liked Keaton's Batman voice plus all of the little smirks he made. Bales voice was best in Begins especially when he was just talking and not trying to scare people but in the sequels it got a little out of control. I really like the voice modulator used in this film as its a great way for him to sound different without having to put something on the whole time (plus I imagine its smart enough to give audio forensics a headache)

Hopefully they'll release a BvS armory

Would you want them to do it as an add on like the original Iron Man HoA bays or more like the Dark Knight Armoury? I think its a really great idea but if they did it like the DK version then that means getting either a whole new Batman or a statue version (which the open Mark 7 appeals a static Batman doesn't) so I think I would like it if they did it as an empty chamber with a small wall of spare weapons and the additional empty cowl.

I am hoping they still consider selling the signal even if it ends up being a stand alone, Im not considering picking up the Armoured but I could see myself buying one of those to display with the regular version, maybe they will hold off and keep it to go with Gordon if hes shown with it in JL.

 

[dario2739]

I always liked Keaton's Batman voice plus all of the little smirks he made. Bales voice was best in Begins especially when he was just talking and not trying to scare people but in the sequels it got a little out of control. I really like the voice modulator used in this film as its a great way for him to sound different without having to put something on the whole time (plus I imagine its smart enough to give audio forensics a headache)

Totally agree, and quite frankly don't understand people who don't get the whole point of Affleck's Batman using the voice modulator... It just makes perfect sense, and I thought it sounded fantastic.

 

[dario2739]

I'd love to know where that idealism was in the movie. At no point did I feel like Superman was fighting for any kind of ideals. He just seemed to wilt at the first sign of any kind of real backlash, and meander back and forth about being Superman. I wouldn't say it was because he wanted to be Superman, though. It just seems to come off as some kind of perceived obligation to him, rather then an actual choice. Maybe he had a grand speech planned for the senate hearing to really show people the kind of man he is, and what he's about, but oh wait... That would have taken a man in a silly blue leotard talking at length and giving a serious monologue. Can't have that according to the director. That would be far too silly. Let's just send him off to have a chat with ghost dad on a mountain, and learn...? What did he learn exactly? I'm still not quite sure. Find a good woman to quell your sorrows, I guess? Something like that as far as I can tell. So he comes back and appears to be ready to be Superman again, and show everyone his great ideals by... Suggesting if he can't convince Batman to help him he'll have to kill him, and just for good measure the very positive message that "No one stays good in this world". And that's exactly what Luthor wanted him to do, wasn't it? Call me crazy, but I would think a hero with ideals wouldn't really even entertain the thought of giving into the villain's demands. I know it was a tough situation, but if you have ideals you hold onto them even in the face of adversity.

It's very similar to the Joker and Batman in The Dark Knight. Now that I think about it, it really is considering Eisenberg was more like the Joker then Luthor, and Snyder has turned Superman into a dark, tortured individual like Batman, but that's neither here nor there. Just a funny observation. That movie, though, Joker was testing Batman's ideals, and trying to break him, but he didn't break. Even after Joker killed Rachel. He stood tall, and didn't let Joker get the best of him. Compare that Snyder's Superman, though, and we've seen what happens if Lois dies, and he entertained the idea of killing Batman as soon as he found out his mom was in trouble. Of course, he didn't want to, but the fact remains he entertained the idea of it, which I would think at that point of the film he would have been past given the fact he went on a mythical journey, and had what should have been an enlightening pep talk with his dead dad in the snow, but nope. More wilting in the face of adversity. Very similar to how he didn't seem to learn much of anything on his other journey around the world in MOS. He came back after all those years, and still had to go to a priest for advice when Zod showed up. We're two films in, and I don't think this Superman has learned anything, or come to any kind of peace with his situation. I guess we're supposed to think he has by the end of BvS, but I have no idea how or why he got there.

That highlighted sentence... it seemed very, very clear to me that it was simply saying that all actions have consequences... by stopping the flood water on the Kent farm, they didn't actually solve the bigger problem, just moved it elsewhere. An analogy that works in today's world with problems around the world – look at how the 'best interests' of western forces have caused bigger problems around the world... is Iraq better off for our intervention... is Libya, Syria?
Now apply Superman to our world – can you imagine the political landscape... he's seen as an American, regardless of his heritage, a lot of countries would see him setting even a foot on their soil as an act of war.