• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

Yep.

I fed it my Western Civ final essay exam questions and it spit out a B grade level response for one question and an A- grade level response for the other—took 15 seconds.
 
Write a 150 word review of the film Batman vs Superman. Take the view that the movie is terrible because of the involvement of Zack Snyder.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a terrible film that is plagued by the involvement of Zack Snyder. The plot is incoherent and the characters are poorly developed, making it difficult to care about what is happening on screen. The action scenes are poorly choreographed and the special effects are subpar. Snyder's heavy-handed direction is evident throughout the film, with overly long and dull scenes that fail to engage the viewer. The film is also plagued by poor casting choices, with wooden performances from the lead actors. Overall, Batman v Superman is a disappointing and forgettable entry in the superhero genre, and is a testament to the dangers of allowing a single, overbearing filmmaker to have too much control over a project.


Write a 150 word review of the film Batman vs Superman. Take the view that the movie is awesome because of the involvement of Zack Snyder.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is an awesome film that is elevated by the involvement of Zack Snyder. The plot is complex and thought-provoking, challenging the viewer to think about the themes of power, justice, and morality. The character development is strong, particularly in the case of Ben Affleck's Batman, who is given a new depth and nuance. The action scenes are epic and the special effects are top-notch. Snyder's distinctive visual style is on full display, with stunning cinematography and attention to detail. The film also features strong performances from its cast, particularly Affleck and Henry Cavill as Superman. Overall, Batman v Superman is a bold and ambitious film that successfully brings together two iconic characters in a way that feels fresh and exciting. It is a must-see for any fan of superhero films or simply great cinema.
 
Please write a review of the same film focusing on what Batman vs. Superman says about the human condition and write it is the style of Hemingway.

In Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, we see the true nature of man laid bare. These two iconic superheroes represent opposing forces within ourselves: the desire to do good and the temptation to succumb to anger and vengeance. The film asks us to consider where the line between justice and vigilantism lies, and forces us to confront our own moral compass. The characters are complex and their struggles are palpable, making for a deeply thought-provoking and introspective viewing experience. As the two titans clash, we are reminded that we all have the power to choose our own path, for better or for worse. This is a film that will stay with you long after the credits roll.

Okay--I'm having too much fun now:

Sure, here is a 150-word essay on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and its connections to specific DC Comics stories in the style of Greg Cox:

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice draws heavily from a number of classic DC Comics storylines. The film's central conflict is inspired by Frank Miller's iconic The Dark Knight Returns, in which an older Batman battles a Superman who has become a tool of the government. The film also borrows elements from the 1992 crossover event "The Death of Superman," in which Superman is killed by the monstrous Doomsday. However, Batman v Superman puts its own spin on these stories, creating a fresh and exciting interpretation of these beloved characters. Overall, the film serves as a love letter to DC Comics fans, incorporating a wide range of references and Easter eggs that will delight and satisfy audiences.

Sure, here is a 150-word essay on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and its connections to specific DC Comics stories in the style of Christopher L. Bennett:

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a film that is deeply rooted in the rich history of DC Comics. The film draws heavily from a number of classic storylines, including Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and the 1992 crossover event "The Death of Superman." These stories provide the foundation for the film's central conflict, which pits the two iconic superheroes against each other in an epic battle of good versus evil. However, the film also incorporates a number of other DC Comics references, including nods to other well-known characters such as Wonder Woman and Lex Luthor. Overall, Batman v Superman is a film that is sure to delight fans of the source material, as it lovingly incorporates elements from the comics into its narrative.

I'll leave it to Greg and Christopher to determine how accurate it is.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This AI is in currently sandboxed from the internet. The developers are trying to prevent a repeat of that AI that became a racist/sexist fascist after being exposed to Twitter and Social Media. It currently has data up until 2017 or similar, so asking it about more contemporary events wouldn't work. --that said, I don't know how quickly, if at all, the developers are updating its database.
 
Last edited:
Christopher said:
But that's not the in-story logic behind Batman. The core idea is that Batman presents himself in a way that's only terrifying to those with guilty consciences, to those who fear retribution for their own wrongdoing. Also, that "criminals are a superstitious, cowardly lot," that they're dumb enough to believe Batman might be a demonic figure out to punish them for their evils, while law-abiding people are likely to be better-educated and not as prone to superstitious dread.

The Nolan films got this right. Batman's first big action scene was played from the perspective of the mobsters, and Batman was treated as a horror movie monster, a vaguely glimpsed figure striking out of nowhere. He was terrifying to the mobsters because he was coming after them in a way they couldn't see or defend against. But the good people of Gotham saw him as a symbol of hope, someone who would protect them from the people who preyed upon them.




It's not that random. There are some elements you can change without losing the essence of the character, but there are other elements that are key to that essence and need to be preserved in order for it to be a valid interpretation of the character. You can redesign the chassis or the seats or the dashboard of a car and it'll still be a car, but if you replace the engine with a kiddie pool or the wheels with wooden crates, then it's not gonna work. I mean, Sherlock Holmes in present-day New York is still Sherlock Holmes, but a dimwitted Victorian gentleman in a deerstalker hat is not Sherlock Holmes. Some changes are variations on a theme; others are just missing the point.




Okay, I'll take your word for that. I found the execution staggeringly incompetent, but if the intent was that that wasn't the right way for Batman to be, then I'll grant that it wasn't missing the point.
Click to expand...


But the good people of Gotham didn't ALL see him as this symbol of hope that protected them. There were people who thought he was as much a criminal as the people he was fighting. The concept of the Batman being universally seen as amazing EXCEPT by those he fought against is false. I know that some takes did that, the '66 version for example. But that brings us back to my earlier point, that Batman (and every superhero) is not a completely set concept and can vary in many details. And yes, that also means you don't have to like certain versions. I don't really enjoy the '66 take on Batman anymore, except for nostalgia reason, I watched it as a little kid. I prefer the Nolan, Snyder and Reeves version quite a lot, even though they all are different takes on the character.
Just as I enjoyed different takes on the character in the comics.
 
Mage said:
But the good people of Gotham didn't ALL see him as this symbol of hope that protected them. There were people who thought he was as much a criminal as the people he was fighting. The concept of the Batman being universally seen as amazing EXCEPT by those he fought against is false.
Click to expand...

There is no "false" in an imaginary universe. There are only the choices that storytellers make in depicting fictional characters. I was saying that if a storyteller chose to portray Batman as terrifying to everyone, civilians and criminals alike, that was a misunderstanding of the character. I have subsequently had it clarified for me that that scene was meant to show that Batman had lost his way, that the creators intended it to be a failure on Batman's part that he had to learn to overcome, which would mean they did not misunderstand the character after all. So I have already retracted my objection and you can stop arguing with it.
 
thribs said:
Don’t be ridiculous. You know what I mean. I wouldn’t want to do crime in Gotham with him about
Click to expand...

It does not matter what you so obviously meant, because that which you address: the running, ever-limp attack on the Affleck Batman is born of a belief standing on the opposite side of the character's most defining comic-book roots, and a gross, conscious misunderstanding that "hope" is a delivery & personality--meaning the Batman as portrayed by West, or Soule, or a sort of kindly uncle aberration, utterly failing to understand that in the historical sense, hope is also felt / drawn from from strength and a martial purpose when facing unrelenting criminal opposition--which defines Gotham in the greatest of Batman stories.

Of course, this ridiculous idea of a Batman inspiring hope is tied to some child-proofed version that misguided TV producers decided was Batman's character and nature. The stories which guided the Affleck version near-perfectly zeroed in on how a Batman would function in the world, why he's as brutal as he needs to be (public perception be damned during his war on crime), and his idea to create a team was about the consolidation of necessary talent the regular world never be equipped to generate / use on their own. That is the hope he provided, which--thankfully--had nothing to do with Batman (or Wayne) being that aforementioned kindly uncle.

Mage said:
The concept of the Batman being universally seen as amazing EXCEPT by those he fought against is false.
Click to expand...

True, but it only takes a glance at Batman published history to see that the character--at his best--was not the "people's champion" like some manufactured politician, Mighty Mouse, or the one found in the Super Friends adaptation. The argument that he was seen in some broad, positive light to all except criminals is--frankly--self-deceiving nonsense.


I know that some takes did that, the '66 version for example. But that brings us back to my earlier point, that Batman (and every superhero) is not a completely set concept and can vary in many details. And yes, that also means you don't have to like certain versions. I don't really enjoy the '66 take on Batman anymore, except for nostalgia reason, I watched it as a little kid. I prefer the Nolan, Snyder and Reeves version quite a lot, even though they all are different takes on the character.
Just as I enjoyed different takes on the character in the comics.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Christopher said:
I was saying that if a storyteller chose to portray Batman as terrifying to everyone, civilians and criminals alike, that was a misunderstanding of the character.
Click to expand...

According to who? Where is it literally stated that that is the only correct way to portray this character? That was my point. He has been portrayed in both comics AND other media in different ways. According to you, he must be that way, because that is the interpretation of the character you enjoy the most and feel the most connected to. There is no written rule that he MUST always be like that.
 
TREK_GOD_1 said:
True, but it only takes a glance at Batman published history to see that the character--at his best--was not the "people's champion" like some manufactured politician, Mighty Mouse, or the one found in the Super Friends adaptation. The argument that he was seen in some broad, positive light to all except criminals is--frankly--self-deceiving nonsense.
Click to expand...

That's basically what I'm saying, yes.
 
Last edited:
Mage said:
According to who? Where is it literally stated that that is the only correct way to portray this character? That was my point. He has been portrayed in both comics AND other media in different ways. According to you, he must be that way, because that is the interpretation of the character you enjoy the most and feel the most connected to. There is no written rule that he MUST always be like that.
Click to expand...

I have no interest in continuing this argument.
 
Mage said:
According to who? Where is it literally stated that that is the only correct way to portray this character? That was my point. He has been portrayed in both comics AND other media in different ways. According to you, he must be that way, because that is the interpretation of the character you enjoy the most and feel the most connected to. There is no written rule that he MUST always be like that.
Click to expand...
This is the struggle with interpreting any character or adapting them to a different medium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top