‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’

[theenglish]

I was going to post the same thing. I'm trying to think of a Comic Book movie that honed closer to the source material then Watchmen. While I like a few other comic book movies more, it's up there with the all the good ones.

I still need to see the Director's Cut. I really enjoyed this film although I only rewatched it once. While it lacked the literary depth and subtlety of the original story, I thought it did a wonderful job of translating the actual plot and characters to the screen.

 

[Set Harth]

I still haven't seen the "Ultimate Edition". The director's cut and TOTBF are enough for me.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

I always thought the biggest problem with Watchmen, like all Snyder movies, was Snyder. For example, you know from the first moment you see Ozymandius he's the bad guy. Lost is any mystery.
Even the very first scene is a huge epic brawl with bricks getting smashed... Way too over the top, as is Snyder's way, where he completely and head-shakingly misses the whole point of the scene, that the Comedian has given up and has no fight left. Yet we see the complete opposite.

Like BvS, Snyder is capable of seeing an image from the comic, but is clueless when it comes to understanding what the image means.

 

[theenglish]

I always thought the biggest problem with Watchmen, like all Snyder movies, was Snyder. For example, you know from the first moment you see Ozymandius he's the bad guy. Lost is any mystery.
Even the very first scene is a huge epic brawl with bricks getting smashed... Way too over the top, as is Snyder's way, where he completely and head-shakingly misses the whole point of the scene, that the Comedian has given up and has no fight left. Yet we see the complete opposite.

Like BvS, Snyder is capable of seeing an image from the comic, but is clueless when it comes to understanding what the image means.

Thanks. Those are great examples of what I was trying to get at in my earlier post.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Thanks. Those are great examples of what I was trying to get at in my earlier post.

Yup, you were right, the plot and characters were all there, putting that on a screen was well done and one of the first times someone at least attempted to be faithful to the page. But I attribute the plot more to Moore than to Snyder, as anything that had Snyder's fingerprints on it seemed to serve to contradict what Moore and Gibbons gave us. Save for the end, somehow, that seemed more organic than the original.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Perhaps it's the triumph of low expectations, but I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. A bit of a mess, closer to the bloated excess of TDKR than the perfection (for me) of it's predecessors but not the disaster some say. Too long and yet I'll definitely be buying the extended blu-Ray.

 

[davejames]

Watchmen definitely looked pretty great, but for me Snyder just took the completely wrong approach to the story. He took what was supposed to be a gritty and realistic story about troubled and very damaged people who like to dress up as superheroes... and then made them a bunch of really cool-looking, superpowered heroes in a flashy and stylish superhero movie.

It just seemed to completely miss the point of what the comic was doing. At least the way I had always interpreted it anyway.

 

[Starbreaker]

Dawn of Justice made $27 million last night. It's going to be fine box office wise.

 

[kirk55555]

Its funny, because I HATE the comic of Watchmen (its the only Alan Moore story that I've read that I would call terrible), but find the movie watchable (its probably the best Zach Snyder movie I've seen). It keeps my attention better then the book, ups the pace past glacial, adds some very needed action and isn't quite as full of itself as the comic. I'd have cut it down a bit (since I have no attachment to the comic there are parts I wouldn't miss if they were cut, like the Nite Owl/Silk Spectre "romance" stuff), but as a superhero movie its solidly watchable, if not anywhere near my top 10 or even top 20 superhero films.

It helps that Watchmen fits Snyder's worldview, unlike normal heroes like Batman or Superman. The Watchmen characters are violent, dark, cynical and generally not very heroic when you get down to it. That's exactly what Snyder likes, and it shows in the movie. Its when he transplants that type of tone to other heroes where he completely fails. Well, fails when it comes to superhero movies. Sucker Punch was a completely different kind of horrible.

Dawn of Justice made $27 million last night. It's going to be fine box office wise.

We live in a world where the Transformers movies make huge amounts of money. So, I don't know why anyone would be surprised that a movie with Batman in the title would make a lot of money, regardless of quality.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I've always felt that Watchmen is far better than its reputation would suggest.

Watchmen is the one Snyder movie that I do like. And I agree that his change to the ending was an improvement.

But 300? Sucker Punch? Meh.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I HATE the comic of Watchmen

You are dea...wait, you were already dead to me, weren't you?

Your next life is dead to me, too.

 

[Mr Light]

I'm sorry to say I had a lot more problems with Batman v Superman than I expected to. I mostly liked it... but I had a lot of big issues. It definitely suffered from the same issue Age of Ultron and Amazing Spider-man 2 had of trying to shoehorn in a bunch of set up for future movies. But there were moments and aspects of it that I completely loved.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

I just got home from the cinema. Maybe all that negativity made me expect the worst, but I really, really enjoyed this movie. Maybe it's because I was afraid they'd do something really, really wrong, and that didn't happen (or at least not that obvious). But I really don't get all the negative reviews. Maybe I need another viewing without the fears to actually let the flaws really bug me, but I'll be seeing this movie again, anyway.

And now, I'll go off into the spoiler-thread and read how and why I'm wrong.

 

[Tosk]

And now, I'll go off into the spoiler-thread and read how and why I'm wrong.

You're not wrong to have enjoyed it. We all just like different stuff.

 

[John Clark]

Just got back from seeing it too. I enjoyed it, but Lex didn't work for me as well as he could have.

 

[eyeresist]

I always thought the biggest problem with Watchmen, like all Snyder movies, was Snyder. For example, you know from the first moment you see Ozymandius he's the bad guy. Lost is any mystery.

I've never read the book, and I didn't get that impression at all. He was a cool, ambivalent character, but by no means an obvious villain.

He took what was supposed to be a gritty and realistic story about troubled and very damaged people who like to dress up as superheroes... and then made them a bunch of really cool-looking, superpowered heroes in a flashy and stylish superhero movie.

Again, this is the opposite of what I saw. "Gritty", "troubled", "damaged", is exactly what I saw on the screen. In fact, did you even see the movie?

 

[davejames]

Again, this is the opposite of what I saw. "Gritty", "troubled", "damaged", is exactly what I saw on the screen. In fact, did you even see the movie?

Yeah they had issues, but they were still depicted as a bunch of flashy, nearly invincible superheroes striking cool poses before kicking all kinds of ass in slow motion.

In the comic it was only Manhattan who had any real powers, and the rest were just a bunch of rather pathetic, damaged, and ordinary people playing vigilante, who were the furthest thing from the flashy superheroes of the comics and movies... which is what makes it so great when we finally see them come together at the end to stop Ozymandias.

Yet Snyder couldn't resist making them (and the movie itself) look as cool and flashy and badass as possible all the way through.

 

[Set Harth]

The comic even says that he put up a fight. It's just that Veidt was stronger. He fought and lost. This is the case whether you're looking at the comic or the film. There's no "complete opposite" here.

In the comic it was only Manhattan who had any real powers

And how is that any different in the film?

they were still depicted as a bunch of flashy, nearly invincible superheroes striking cool poses before kicking all kinds of ass in slow motion.

They kicked the same asses in the comic.

 

[davejames]

Not in the same superhuman way though. And I don't remember Rorschach being able to leap halfway up the side of a building in the comic.

 

[Set Harth]

Not in the same superhuman way though.

The outcome is the same in either medium. Same number of asses kicked. How does this make one version any more superhuman than the other?