Glad there are others who see it this way as well!
‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
Glad there are others who see it this way as well!
I did enjoy MoS, and I have a feeling I will probably enjoy BvS, but at the same time I do think the approach they're taking is a bit of a mistake.
I just watched the animated The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 for the first time, and it was also my first experience with that story. I know it probably lost quite bit in the translation, but I does make me think using it as the basis for our first encounter with the new Batman is a mistake. From what I saw in the movie, I got the impression that this is supposed to be a Batman who is retired, but sees things going so badly that he is forced back into the cape and cowl, and when he does come back he goes to farther extremes than ever before. I kind of took it as being an extreme situation, and that we are supposed to compare what Batman does here, to how he usually opperates. I think using this as our first experience with a new Batman is a mistake, because now it's not a darker Batman going farther than he usually does, now it's the default. I could see doing it as the end of a trilogy or at least a latter in a series, but it does seem like a mistake to use it as our introduction to the character.
I haven't gotten to the big Batman/Superman fight in Part 2, but that also seems like mistake for their first encounter. I have gotten the impression from what I've heard about it, the whole idea was they were former allies whose different ideologies became so extreme that they ended up fighting. It seems kind of weird to me to do the big fight before they were allies, and before their ideologies had really been well established.
I just watched the animated The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 for the first time, and it was also my first experience with that story. I know it probably lost quite bit in the translation, but I does make me think using it as the basis for our first encounter with the new Batman is a mistake. From what I saw in the movie, I got the impression that this is supposed to be a Batman who is retired, but sees things going so badly that he is forced back into the cape and cowl, and when he does come back he goes to farther extremes than ever before. I kind of took it as being an extreme situation, and that we are supposed to compare what Batman does here, to how he usually opperates. I think using this as our first experience with a new Batman is a mistake, because now it's not a darker Batman going farther than he usually does, now it's the default. I could see doing it as the end of a trilogy or at least a latter in a series, but it does seem like a mistake to use it as our introduction to the character.
I haven't gotten to the big Batman/Superman fight in Part 2, but that also seems like mistake for their first encounter. I have gotten the impression from what I've heard about it, the whole idea was they were former allies whose different ideologies became so extreme that they ended up fighting. It seems kind of weird to me to do the big fight before they were allies, and before their ideologies had really been well established.
Then you have completely missed the point of my criticism. I can't imagine how you could think that was what I meant, since I was talking specifically about how his actions in the climax of the film failed to live up to the name of Superman. I actually think he was more like Superman in the beginning than he was in the end. As I've said over and over, I think the first two acts of this film were mostly great (aside from Jonathan), and it was ruined by a profoundly mishandled third act. But you seem determined to perceive me as some kind of cartoon adversary who simplistically hated everything about the film, and so we're talking completely past each other rather than having a dialogue.
See, this is what you're completely misunderstanding about my position. I agree that it's about the birth of the icon. I've acknowledged over and over again that that's the story it was trying to tell. I just do not agree that it succeeded in telling that.
Again, yes, it's obvious that that was the intention and we don't need you to explain that to us. We just don't agree that that was the best way to tell a story about Superman. For other heroes, fine, but not every character needs to kill someone before deciding that killing is wrong. Look at the two screen incarnations of Daredevil. The movie featured a Matt Murdock who started out as a killer before deciding it was better to choose not to kill. But the series featured a Murdock who started out refusing to kill, came close to breaking that conviction, and then realized he'd been wrong to try and reaffirmed his refusal to kill. And that worked just as well, if not better.
And here's a second person who's completely and utterly missing my point. Of course I'm not saying I expect that. I'm saying that if someone makes a wrong decision, I'm going to acknowledge that it's wrong. I don't know why you'd think that means I "expect" it not to happen at all. Those are two completely different notions. Of course I expect people to do wrong things. I was a bullied child throughout my life -- I've had abundant experience with people doing wrong. But that experience also means that if people are doing wrong, I'm damn well gonna complain about it. There is a huge difference between disapproving of something and not understanding it. Sometimes, understanding something just makes it more clear how wrong it is.
Apparently, that's his job now. With necks. (Sorry, easy target.)
^ Well then of course we'll never see eye to eye. But that is ok. I live the movie, I think it works well and it's telling us a different story than before which I think is wise.
Do the actions live up to the name Superman... I say yes, were they perfect, no. I understand where you are coming from. It worked for me and not for you. Just a difference of opinion.
Do the actions live up to the name Superman... I say yes, were they perfect, no. I understand where you are coming from. It worked for me and not for you. Just a difference of opinion.
I always love the "many others" part of these one-upping constructions.
How many others, exactly - never mind, how many others approximately? Given that the movie made close to 700 million dollars, can you quantify that "many" beyond the anecdotal observation that there are "a lot" of squeaky-wheeled critics posting and voting in Internet forums?
And by "a lot," are we talking about a few hundred or as many as a thousand? Given that these "critics" are self-selected participants, do we know if they represent the audience in any statistically significant respect at all?
Or we could, you know, just speak for ourselves.
Maybe "less sense" wasn't the best choice of words as neither approach has a good basis in science. I don't know as much as a could about Superman's early portrayals, so its likely they were specifically referencing that (which leaves them room to retcon his powers in follow-up movies just like the did over the years of the comic books), but I found it awkward in the movie.
In a movie with superpowered aliens who look just like humans and who (apparently) speak English back home, at least with the solar radiation explanation it is so implausible that you just have to go with "it's comic book physics" but the atmospherics explanation is just weird. In the movie, it just seems to just be based on the atmospheric content - Lois isn't adversely affected by radiation, gravity, or air pressure on the ship, she just has a mask to provide her with earth-type air. I just can't see how breathing a different air composition can make Superman not have any of his super powers anymore, sure you could get weak, cough up blood, pass out and die from "bad" air, but lose super powers? I just don't see it.
No, that's a cheap shot.
The problem is when you inevitably fasion that acknowledgement into a club to beat people over the head with. Repeatedly.
A decision that you don't like is not a wrong decision. It's a decision you don't like.
BTW, the word you want isn't "acknowledge," but "claim" or "assert."
Okay, if we're talking about cheap shots, then that seems like a cheap shot if any. Not sure if that comment was necessary, Dennis.
It looks like there'll be more material for the sequels. 
http://kotaku.com/frank-millers-working-on-another-sequel-to-the-dark-kni-1700033876
http://kotaku.com/frank-millers-working-on-another-sequel-to-the-dark-kni-1700033876
Someone else was talking about cheap shots. I made an inarguable observation.
Fantasy is easy. Comedy is hard.
http://collider.com/man-of-steel-color-corrected-video/
Man Of Steel looks much better with color level restored. IMHO
Man Of Steel looks much better with color level restored. IMHO
Since I don't see a Suicide Squad thread and don't feel like starting one, say hi to the Joker.
Yikes! Great look!
