‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
You don't really read well, do you? I said I liked the look, but I'm NOT judging anything about the character or performance based on that one shot. I simply like the look.
If can't read properly, don't comment on my posts.
Honestly, of all of the problems I have with "Man of Steel", Supes killing Zod isn't one of them. In the context of the movie and the scene it makes sense and in the grand scheme it was obviously agony for Superman to do it.
If someone is behaving in a manner that's heading in the direction of them soon taking innocent lives you don't always have the benefit of thinking over your options and must take action. This is what Superman is faced with. Even in an edgy climate we have now if a mad man was firing a gun in a similar manner with the spray of bullets (he has a mini gun with a long strand/clip of bullets or something) nearing a group of people we wouldn't blame a police officer or a military person for taking the guy out.
In hindsight we'd probably say there were probably other options but in that moment it was stop the mad-man or see innocent lives taken.
I've many problems with MoS, unlike many Superman killing Zod isn't one of them.
If someone is behaving in a manner that's heading in the direction of them soon taking innocent lives you don't always have the benefit of thinking over your options and must take action. This is what Superman is faced with. Even in an edgy climate we have now if a mad man was firing a gun in a similar manner with the spray of bullets (he has a mini gun with a long strand/clip of bullets or something) nearing a group of people we wouldn't blame a police officer or a military person for taking the guy out.
In hindsight we'd probably say there were probably other options but in that moment it was stop the mad-man or see innocent lives taken.
I've many problems with MoS, unlike many Superman killing Zod isn't one of them.
Master filmmaker Ted Turner would be proud.
The Joker has been drawn scary in the comics for quite a while now. Most likely, we will not be seeing Mr. J with his shirt off for the entire movie so I doubt that this will be the look people remember after the movie.
That's a pretty nice video. I like how it shows that it is not just Superman's costume that is washed out in the movie.
Last edited:
I actually had nightmares around the time of the Death in the Family storyline of people walking around with their facial skin hooked to their heads.
The Joker wasn't silly at first. He was a a serial killer.
This is not a kid friendly face.
Being a serial killer isn't how you describe his look. That's how you describeed his being.
I get that everything in media these days is about pushing the bar further into darker territory, be it the lead characters on TV shows (Sopranos, Dexter, Breaking Bad) or characters like the Joker. I personally think we lose too much in this process when things get pushed too far away from the adaptation trying too hard to appear edgy or relevant when these things have survived for as long as they have for a reason that may not be what's tapped into save the name and some small superficial similarities.
Which is why I mention his look and provided a picture.
The Joker was a dark character who got lighter. He killed people by turning their faces into a grinning rictus. Later he became a a character who use clown gimmicks.
This version seems like a return to his roots with a modern twist.
He has green hair, white skin and a rictus grin. I'd say that on the face of it, he's as faithful to the character as Heath Ledger's version, or Jack Nicholson's podgy middle-aged gangster.
^^
Heath Ledger was great, but I could never say he came close to a "faithful" version of the character.
For example, if we were to show a picture of the Ledger look to anybody in the world that didn't know he was cast in the upcoming role and asked these people "Who is he?", the Joker wouldn't be the first person to come to mind. Even though they share green hair and white skin. MAYBE they would, but if we're really being honest, it's doubtful.
Now that I think about this, I think my biggest problem is that Joker wasn't a subtle character to begin with, but they're literally writing on his skin now that he's crazy which half comes across as a lazy visual to me. It's more about trying to get the cool visual than anything else and it just seems forced.
Heath Ledger was great, but I could never say he came close to a "faithful" version of the character.
For example, if we were to show a picture of the Ledger look to anybody in the world that didn't know he was cast in the upcoming role and asked these people "Who is he?", the Joker wouldn't be the first person to come to mind. Even though they share green hair and white skin. MAYBE they would, but if we're really being honest, it's doubtful.
Now that I think about this, I think my biggest problem is that Joker wasn't a subtle character to begin with, but they're literally writing on his skin now that he's crazy which half comes across as a lazy visual to me. It's more about trying to get the cool visual than anything else and it just seems forced.
Last edited:
Speculation on my part about SvB, Suicide Squad and the rumoured solo Batman film and cameo in Suicide squad which spoils an alleged plot point of SvB.
SvB establishes that Dick Grayson is dead - killed by the Joker?
SS shows Joker in prison for the killing, recruited by the squad. One of the survivors - Batman Cameo establishes that Batman knows he's out
Batman solo film - Batman vs Joker.
SS shows Joker in prison for the killing, recruited by the squad. One of the survivors - Batman Cameo establishes that Batman knows he's out
Batman solo film - Batman vs Joker.
Why won't something more classic that leaps from the page not connect as well? It seems to work well for that other movie company for the most part...
That always a terrible reason for a creative choice.
Marvel? They've taken more than a few liberties from page to screen.
Continuity almost inevitably becomes poisonous, as the giant, bloated fuck-off mess that was the Prime Star Trek timeline showed, and it continues to astound / depress me that people want that poison killing the creativity of films, too.
Just tell me a good story. I don't give a shit about how well it aligns with the comics or other movies or whatever. Shit, the one good thing about comics is that they can appropriate whatever tone they want.
There are just as many terrible choices that went into this. That's the nice thing about "creative". There are a always opinions on it.
Nothing terribly drastic. Spider-Man, The Guardians, the Avengers, nothing at all is even close to as drastic as characters like Aquaman, Superman, and the Joker. Heck, unless you told someone who didn't know that the picture of Mamoa's Aquaman WAS Aquaman, there's zero chance they'd guess that based only on the information in the picture. For example.
Though Batman is looking great from what we've seen so far. More so than almost all other live adaptations.
Again, why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Like it's impossible to tell a fantastic story without also being a good adaptation of the source material? Why can't we have both? It's possible. I see it time and time again. And when it's not, you're right, the good story trumps the continuity or adherence to source material. But I have little hope in the story to begin with based on who's in charge, so if the look isn't there as well, that leaves pretty much nothing.
That would require people to actually know who the hell Aquaman is. I didn't until I played Injustice: Gods Among Us.
It is possible but the very idea is an artificial restraint upon the creative process: It becomes a game of "how do we color inside these lines" instead of "how do we do something great?"
Batman v. Superman might very well be dogshit. But if it's dogshit, I guarantee you that the problem will not be that it didn't hew closely to the comics.
Last edited:
