From the brief glance I got at it, I assumed it was a grappling hook gun.
‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
From the brief glance I got at it, I assumed it was a grappling hook gun.
It's a fart gun.
Pretty much.
Why would he aim it? Batman's going to grapple Zod/Doomsday to death.
It's a gritty and interesting take - unlike the Marvel sausage factory. Shame on you!
Nah...I'll take sausage over runny cheese any day.
Why couldn't they just shave Clancy Brown's head and put him in?
I find it interesting that Superman: The Movie maintains a somber tone through a significant span of the movie, but then there is a rather jarring tonal shift after Clark really becomes Superman, the setting moves to Metropolis, and we get goofy Lex Luthor and his bumbling assistant.
Kor
Yeah. I've seen it argued (in ComicsAlliance's review series of the Superman movies, which are indexed here) that Superman III was actually a more effective movie in some ways than the first two because, even though it went for silly comedy, at least it was consistent in its sense of itself and its tone, whereas the first two were trying to be both serious and goofy at the same time and thus didn't really come together.
Yeah there is that shift in tone, but I've always been fine with that since I far prefer the lighter and more comic booky later stuff to the overly serious Krypton and Smallville scenes.
Plus for me it's always made sense the way the movie kicks into a higher and more energetic gear once Superman appears on screen and we shift to the busy city of Metropolis. It kinda feels like things should feel a bit different and more fun at that point.
Plus for me it's always made sense the way the movie kicks into a higher and more energetic gear once Superman appears on screen and we shift to the busy city of Metropolis. It kinda feels like things should feel a bit different and more fun at that point.
It was a deliberate choice on Donner's part to shoot the Krypton and Smallville sequences as if they were separate movies, each with its own style.
That said, after years of watching the film on home video, I find that the first scenes of Otis and Luthor bring the momentum of Superman's origin sequence to a screeching halt. I have no problem getting to that point, but that sequence, the first that doesn't follow Kal-El/Clark's journey, comes off as a huge tangent. There was a better way to structure that part of the film.
That said, after years of watching the film on home video, I find that the first scenes of Otis and Luthor bring the momentum of Superman's origin sequence to a screeching halt. I have no problem getting to that point, but that sequence, the first that doesn't follow Kal-El/Clark's journey, comes off as a huge tangent. There was a better way to structure that part of the film.
Here's a reaction video that's pretty interesting. Like most people, they enjoy the Clark/Bruce scene a lot. They also seemed to find Lex's "would not want to fight this guy" line funny. Their non-reaction to Lex's line about small minds confirms my opinion that it's a pretty meh line (and come to think of it, Lex's line about the devil is also weak; getting a bad feeling about his 'evil' dialogue). They have nerdgasms when Doomsday appears, and laugh at the "I thought she was with you" exchange.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCU72A4xoFI[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCU72A4xoFI[/yt]
Maybe he was busy? Maybe he wasn't interested? Maybe Snyder had no interest in just adapting the cartoon cast?
I'm pretty sure we also saw her in at least one or two dresses other than the white she appears to be wearing at the party. So unless she wears multiple dresses at one party she should be in more scenes than just those two.
The gold standard of Superman films for me is still the 1978 film. Even though I noted numerous flaws in the theater, at the end I felt like I'd really had a good time at the movies. It was, no pun intended, a moving experience, on many levels.
As far as new and different interpretations: bring 'em on! MoS set a good enough foundation to interest me going forward, and getting the JL together on the big screen will be a long-time dream come true.
By the way, does anybody know whether Frank Miller will receive credit for TDKR? I searched the other day, and found no mention. Based on what we've seen in the trailers, I'm thinking he might deserve it.
As far as new and different interpretations: bring 'em on! MoS set a good enough foundation to interest me going forward, and getting the JL together on the big screen will be a long-time dream come true.
By the way, does anybody know whether Frank Miller will receive credit for TDKR? I searched the other day, and found no mention. Based on what we've seen in the trailers, I'm thinking he might deserve it.
Why should Frank Miller have gotten a credit for TDKR? The writer of Knightfall, whom I forget right now should have gotten one not Miller.
What I meant was, does anybody know whether Frank Miller will receive credit for the elements in BvS: DoJ that have obviously been influenced by Miller's seminal 1986 masterpiece The Dark Knight Returns.
Well, maybe not a "based on ..." credit. Warren Ellis didn't get one for "Iron Man 3", Ed Brubaker didn't get one for "Captain America: Winter Soldier" and Bill Finger certainly didn't get one for any of the Batman movies so far.
But those creators still living, as far as I know, get royalties when the movies use some of their work, and often enough their names are found in the "Special Thanks" section of the credits.
But those creators still living, as far as I know, get royalties when the movies use some of their work, and often enough their names are found in the "Special Thanks" section of the credits.
'Scuse me! Obviously Lex Luthor by way of the Riddler with money is a much better option.
'Scuse me! Obviously Lex Luthor by way of the Riddler with money is a much better option.
Obviously you've seen the entire movie and Eisenberg's entire performance, so I will bow to your prescience.
'Scuse me! Obviously Lex Luthor by way of the Riddler with money is a much better option.
Obviously you've seen the entire movie and Eisenberg's entire performance, so I will bow to your prescience.
The point of a trailer is to make you want to see the whole movie. Nothing about Eisenberg's scenes in the trailer makes me want to have anything to do with his "entire" Luthor performance.
But hey, you're welcome to it.
