‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
I have no idea what you are on about - what 'scientific basis' is is required in a film which features flying god like aliens who shoot lasers from their eyes.
It's seem rather odd to be ok with that but out of sorts that the made-up technology needs to be placed in two locations.
?
To recap, you claimed there is no good storytelling reason for it, I pointed out a rather obvious storytelling reason for it.
We talk about Metropolis, what about Smallville? The 7 Eleven, The IHOP, That bank, Sears, The train yard, little critters in the corn fields.
Yeah, that sequence had the same problem of prioritizing destruction over protection. The only cursory thing Superman did to "protect" the Smallvillians was to tell them to get indoors -- and then he immediately got into a fight that smashed through a bunch of buildings, so the Smallvillians probably would've been safer if they'd ignored his advice and stayed outdoors!
Well, it could've been -- if the film had bothered to establish Metropolis as significant for Clark in any way, shape, or form. That's another of its mindbogglingly inept structural choices. The script just takes it for granted that the audience will find Metropolis significant and thus doesn't bother to do the work to make it significant to the characters. It doesn't earn the emotions it expects us to feel.
Didn't Zod & Co. Need one at one place and the other on the opposite side to transform The Earth into Krypton? That makes some sense to me.
Not that much sense. I mean, the Earth is a sphere, so it takes more than two points to define it. Sure, maybe two oppositely place engines could cover the whole thing more easily than one could, but theenglish's suggestion of multiple engines distributed across the globe works even better (although if it were a symmetrical distribution, the odds of any of them being in actual cities would be low; permanent human habitations occupy only about one percent of the planet's total surface area). And if there were some reason you needed two opposing points to define an axis, wouldn't it make more sense to put them at the North and South Poles? That's the one axis on the planet that actually has some physical meaning, and that would avoid the complicating variable of the Earth's rotation.
The point theenglish is making is simply that the writers weren't forced to have the World Engine work that way, that they were free to do it any way they wanted. So it wasn't like the writers had no choice but to have Superman on the opposite side of the planet; they wanted to have him on the opposite side of the planet, and designed the World Engine's operation in a way that would achieve that result.
It's not about whether they do that at all, it's about their reasons for doing it in each particular case. The story reason for giving Superman flight and heat vision is that it gives him a power he can use to save lives and fight crime. The story reason for sending Superman to stop a machine at the antipodes of Metropolis was to get him out of the way so that Snyder could indulge in an orgy of CGI disaster porn. The former choice serves Superman's role as a hero and rescuer; the latter choice deliberately undermines it.
As I've posted, twice already actually, the reason why he goes to the other side of the world is to visually illustrate he's saving the entire world.
I know it doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to sell here that the third act is just "blargh, boom, pointless explosion!", which it isn't, but surely you can't be that blinded by your hate not to realize this...
What the review said about Batman does make me a little nervous. I'm really hoping there's something going on with the character to explain that, and that it isn't normal behavior. He's always been a dark character, but that's taking it to more of an extreme than we usually see.
They're probably trying to draw as sharp of a contrast between Batman & Superman as possible. I actually like it. Just from the trailers Batfleck has already surpassed Bale's version in my eyes. Bale is ok, but he lacked a real intimidation factor with that goofy voice. This batman has a crippled batgirl & dead Robin, he's probably snapping spines like Bane at a dance party.
Great. If Superman is already a dark, gritty, tragic version, I guess they felt they had to make Batman even more EXTREME to compensate. I hope they actually let Wonder Woman have some of her positive qualities instead of just playing up the warrior stuff, though that doesn't seem likely.
I'm not reading the spoiler, but I thought the The Dark Knight Returns reasoning for an even crueler Batman was merely the fact he's been doing it for so long, seen his basically adopted family be killed in various ways, and is in many ways at his moral endpoint, or close to it.
Seems simple enough to me; it can't be easy being the Bat.
It also Superman a nigh impossible task.
Plus there's the fact that it was meant to be a satirical deconstruction of superhero comics, which is why everything was pushed to an almost farcical extreme. Superman was the unthinking lap dog for an eternal Reagan administration, Batman was the kind of deranged, violent figure that might realistically be more likely to be a costumed vigilante, etc. The problem is, comics creators since have missed the point that it was a deliberate exaggeration and critique of mainstream comics and have used it as a template for mainstream comics.
Yeah, I like it too. They've been talking about this Batman being in a very bad place, psychologically and emotionally, at the start of the movie. Makes sense to me that befriending Superman and Wonder Woman would start to bring Batman back from that dark place a bit.
In the comics, didn't Batman start heading for a dark place after the death of Jason Todd? I think in the immediate six months after Batman was getting more vicious in dealing with criminals, and that's why Tim Drake came forward because he understood that Batman needs a Robin to prevent that from happening. A darker Batman in this movie wouldn't be unheard of, since it nearly went that way in the comics for a time.
It's been a while since I've read A Lonely Place of Dying, but I thought it was more about Batman getting reckless than getting violent, although there was probably an element of both. It was more that he was hurting himself that was the issue, getting injured more often and more severely. Without a Robin, he didn't have anyone to feel responsible for, and thus to keep himself safe for.
Is he Batman or The Punisher? You decide.
