Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Ar-Pharazon, May 20, 2020.
Well, Verhoeven wouldn't use it because it would distract from the blood.
Yikes. He wanted Bruce and Lois to have a relationship? Glad they said no to him on that.
Clark showed up late to the party.
There's at least ten years where she was sewing her wild oats, before tall dark and Alien Showed up.
Rachel Maddow is playing a gay Vesper Fairchild right? Small universe means that she is at least going to make out with Batwoman down the line, but in the Elseworlds cross over We found out that Oliver Queen slept with Vesper and then never called her.
I am not opposed to a Bruce Wayne-Lois Lane pairing -- there are some old imaginary stories around that idea, and there have been a couple of stories post-Crisis, including one post-Flashpoint that have shown then having chemistry. But I have trouble seeing how it would have even worked for Justice League -- "Lois, I tried to kill your boyfriend and you tried to stop me, but he's dead and you intrigue me. Let's date." I can see a guilt-stricken Bruce in the background using his wealth and privilege to be a kind of "guardian angel" for Lois and Martha, making a phone call to open a door when they need it. But wanting to date Lois and Lois being responsive to that? There I struggle.
I don't mind there being some gray, as long as it fits with the story, and there are consequences for being gray. The Black Lightning TV show, for example, shows a realisitic portrayal of heroes crossing (or coming close to) the line
But i agree -- this Joker could certainly do soemthing like is being pictured.
I don't know about "suspicion-inducing at the least." Holy exaggeration,Batman!
But i definitely agree that Joker mocking Christ is consistent especially with the DC Film Universe version of the character & as you said, Luthor's views as well.
My "concern" is more that it seems like Joker is being shoehorned in. Was this stuff originally supposed to be in B v. S.? (As well as some other added material). Also with Swanwick as Martian Manhunter.... how exactly will that work out? Are the parademons just focused in RUssia, or will they be attack all over the Earth? Just wondering why he wasn't a part of the JL? Or would be being eyeing them on intelligence reports to join them in the sequel?
And my pastor what say "What is that joker trying to do?"
Oh no! You've contracted Ovation's Disease!
Very true ... Though that does make me think, if they just HAD to re-make a Verhoeven movie, Zack Snyder would actually be the best person to it. His best films that I have seen (300 and Dawn of the Dead) really match that level of blood.
Funny, when I read that I thought it was a neat and plausible continuation of BvS, albiet one that would crank the angst factor up to 11 upon Supes' resurrection.
I don't get the justification for somebody telling Snyder "No" when the idea of a Bruce/Lois pairing was broached because there are story reasons for how and why it could've worked.
Um, because it was "too soon". Clark's body was barely in the grave (and couldn't have been in too long, for them to resurrect him, right?). Also, since they knew darn well he was coming back in the next movie, and that they never established any previous relationship with Lois, it feels out of the blue.
As an analogy... if Wolverine had hooked up with Jean Grey after the vents of X-Men 3, then a resurrection of Scott in Days of Future Past, THAT complication would have made sense. But not for the DCFU.
or if Clint had hooked up with Natasha between Infinity Wars and Endgame (or even during ENdgame) -- THAT would have felt natural and made some sense.
There isn't one besides the "Ick" factor that might occur from some segments of the audience. It would be a very human moment and we all know how people feel about those...
@Morpheus 02 You can't put a timetable on attraction.
Bruce and Lois could have been former partners from before Kal/Clark arrived, and the rekindling of those feelings could've been a slow burn that happened unintentionally and then became a complication when Kal/Clark came back.
As an aside, I'm pretty sure Justice League as we saw it takes place quite awhile after BvS.
Based on the interview that seemed to be the plan. Bruce is in love with Lois but to save the world he has to bring back the ex.....
It just feels too soon to me. It doesn't feel earned for a second Bruce Wayne appearance in this universe. Too much is happening too soon. I have the same opinion with Superman getting killed in the second movie. These are all ideas that would have a far greater impact later down the line when the audience has invested more in these characters.
It's Batman and Superman. If I'm watching I'm already invested.
I can see wanting to add some conflict for Bruce when it comes to bringing back Clark, but getting together with Lois just feels wrong.
Wouldn't the Lois/Bruce thing have messed with Snyder's intention of having Selina as Bruce's Ex Wife he's reconcile with?
It might have messed it up intentionally by creating conflict and drama.
I know...I was just as shocked as everyone else that they might have drama in a comic book movie...
Didn't Bruce & Lois go on a date or two back in the 1990s cartoon?
Great article. Pretty much confirms what I've been saying about Snyder's departure all along-- He left because of the suicide but probably would have stayed if it hadn't meant constantly arguing with the studio. Snyder comes across in the article as not only being incredibly nice but also extremely smart & perceptive. This is probably my favorite part:
"Initially, says Snyder, Warner Bros. just wanted to release the raw footage on his laptop. “I was like, ‘That’s a no, that’s a hard no,’” he says. “And they’re like, ‘But why? You can just put up the rough cut.’” Snyder didn’t trust their motivations. “I go, ‘Here’s why. Three reasons: One, you get the internet off your back, which is probably your main reason for wanting to do this. Two, you get to feel vindicated for making things right, I guess, on some level. And then three, you get a shitty version of the movie that you can point at and go, ‘See? It’s not that good anyway. So maybe I was right.’ I was like, No chance. I would rather just have the Snyder cut be a mythical unicorn for all time.”"
I never thought about it before but you're totally right. They have kinda similar sensibilities. They're very in-your-face & shameless. Their films are often controversial but almost never boring.
Yes, but it came off as a contrived way of creating conflict between him and Superman. And the animated version of Lois in that show wasn't terribly likable as a love interest anyways.
Very much disagree. Snyder does the stuff that we see on the surface EXTREMELY well, he's truly very gifted at that. Every frame is like a painted portrait and I really am in awe of that. So matching the look, yes, that part I can agree with.
But unlike Verhoeven, he can't do satire on any level as made painfully obvious by Watchmen. He would completely miss the point of Robocop.
Verhoeven’s the far superior, smarter, wittier, more interesting filmmaker.
Separate names with a comma.