We have single panel cameos in comics all the time. I'm not aware of people complaining about it "over-stuffing" the plots in the books, so why does it hurt to bring in familiar faces in the same way for a movie?
WB's Justice League 2017 movie pre-discussion thread
- Thread starter Samurai8472
- Start date
It just seems like a waste of talent. Would you really want to go to the trouble of bringing in Mike Colter, Krysten Ritter, Finn Jones and Charlie Cox (even Liv Tyler!) and not let them act? Not give them something worthy of their chops? Or do you waste them on a gratuitous action scene in a movie that is sure to have enough of them already?
Last edited:
Sleazy tabloid editor with no integrity? How do you get that from him riding Clark about not doing a story on Batman and crime in Gotham but instead telling Kent to do sports?
I wonder what you think of the totally OOC portrayal of "Snapper" Carr on Supergirl. Hahaha
Yeah, I read that completely opposite as well, to me The Daily Planet is shown as the pillar of integrity in journalism.
While other news outlets(mainly TV ones) are depicted with some of the worst tendencies of sensationalism, speculation and scapegoating, Perry sends Lois to bring facts and, crucially, actual evidence.
I've seen people often say stuff like "Lois parts could have been cut, we know Lex is the villain, so why go through all that?", but to me that's a really important theme in the movie.
We are presented with a world in which the media gives a distorted image of the facts, where Lex is seen as a good guy, innovator, benefactor, philanthropist, and Superman is viewed with fear, suspicion and questioning.
Lois knows Superman isn't at fault, but she doesn't just write a passionate opinion piece, she goes out to find the evidence, to find the truth and prove it and that's a very relevant topic in this day and age where opinion trumps evidence in public conversation. Lois is as much of a superhero as any of the costumed ones in BvS.
As for Perry's character, yeah, he's a snarky guy but he shows genuine concern for both Clark and Lois, and I don't think his comments on journalism are meant as indications of how he actually runs the Daily Planet, but as general comments on the state of journalism.
"Good morning, Smallville. The American conscience died with Robert, Martin, and John."
"When the Planet was founded,it stood for something, Perry."
"So could you, if it was 1938, but it's not 1938. WPA aren't hiring no more. Apples don't cost a nickel. Not in here. Not out there. You drop this thing."
Those are the lines of a shallow cynic who holds the idea of journalistic integrity in contempt as a historical relic and is only interested in making money. The classic Perry White would despise that.
I don't see that at all, because they're his justifications for preventing Clark from doing actual good journalism. Perry would definitely be the type to rail against how far journalism has fallen, but he'd do so in the process of imploring his reporters to do better. He'd admire Clark's determination to get to the truth and demand to know why he wasn't already on the next flight to Gotham. This "Perry" has totally given up and sold out. He reacts to Clark's desire to do real news with absolute scorn and assigns him to do sports, because he holds his own readership in contempt.
That's a pretty cynical reading, the way I see it is that the same way he treats his employees he also treats his profession, outwardly he's mean and snipey, but he respects and cherishes them all and the work they do.
As for only being interested in making money, I never saw anything remotely resembling that, the way it looked to me was that he's struggling to keep The Planet afloat in the current climate so that they could actually do real and important stories.
The movie earns it. Really, this is one of the least contemptible things about BvS.
I don't see a trace of that in BvS's version of the character. But then, it's such an incredibly superficial and incoherent movie that the characters are barely given a shred of development anyway, so it's hard to tell.
He shows genuine concern for Clark when he's missing after the bombing, and for Lois when she needs a chopper to Gotham.
As for being superficial and incoherent, I completely disagree.
One cannot pay attention to the film and call him a sleazy--anything. Seems like an audience member trying to read their own negative views into a benign character.
Who knows, but its revealing that some of the same people who would tear down the MoS/BvS character (unsuccessfully) have praised the Cat Grant character as some sort of decent mentor figure (yeah, sure), when she was largely a conscience-free, hate filed woman attacking employees, males and anyone not bowing to her.
Revealing indeed.
True--its all there, if one actually watched the film sans agenda or preconceived notions about the production.
As for being superficial and incoherent, I completely disagree.
Agreed. See my previous reply.
Wrong, on both counts.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether he has any regard for journalistic standards and integrity, which is what I was talking about.
Not too happy with that "family friendly" announcement either. If D.C starts becoming another Marvel I'm done.
Since when does "family friendly" mean it's automatically bad?
Whenever I hear "make it more family friendly" it usually means :
+ Explain everything and leave nothing to the imagination.
+ Violence and anything scary toned WAY down so as not to upset the kiddies
+ No sexual overtones.
+ Fight scenes, fight scenes and more fight scenes for those with short attention spans.
+ Make sure to show as much "cool" characters and props as possible so that the studio can sell more toys
+ Have everyone cracking silly one liners to the point everyone becomes a caricature of themselves.
No thanks.
Sure, if you want to go to the extreme, it could very well mean all of that.
At the same time, there are degrees and it could really mean absolutely none of that, or the smallest sample of that.
Again, none of which needs to mean the quality is lessoned. Unless you think violence and sex automatically makes something better?
Batman: The Animated Series was family friendly, and still head and shoulders above anything the recent movies have done.
At the same time, there are degrees and it could really mean absolutely none of that, or the smallest sample of that.
Again, none of which needs to mean the quality is lessoned. Unless you think violence and sex automatically makes something better?
Batman: The Animated Series was family friendly, and still head and shoulders above anything the recent movies have done.
Last edited:
Clark is a newbie and a freelancer who has worked with The Daily Planet for less than two years. He would really have to make his bones professionally before Perry would allow him to take on meatier assignments. And I don't see him getting excited over a costumed vigilante who has been around for nearly 20 years . . . in another city.
It depends upon the plot.
From Zack Snyder. We have more intense Batman scenes to look forward to.
http://comicbook.com/2017/02/17/zack-snyder-batman-fight-parademons-justice-league/
http://comicbook.com/2017/02/17/zack-snyder-batman-fight-parademons-justice-league/
