Wolverine has been killing people in the comics for decades, its an expected part of his character. Outside of Elseworlds stories and a few terrible mistakes (like byrne's horrible junk), Superman isn't a killer. Him not killing is usually a big part of his character. So, yeah, it is ok when Logan kills, but not when Superman does it. Same with, say, Punisher killing but not Batman (not counting golden age Batman who killed for a bit, but that never stuck to the character). A comic book hero or antihero killing being acceptable is very much decided on a case by case basis, based on who the character is.
I wasn't talking about killing, I was talking about movies being "dark and depressing". Batman killed after that "golden age", contrary to popular belief, and left other characters ( such as KGBeast ) in circumstances intended to lead to their death. ( Not to mention the fact that Batman has killed in all the other Batman movies with the exception of Batman and Robin. ) It's just that Batman fandom always insists that a certain era of the comics and its no-kill rule is the only acceptable portrayal of the character.
Well, same thing. Wolverine, because of who he is, makes sense as a character that can have a dark and depressing story. Hes a violent guy with a messed up past. Superman doesn't work like that. I mean, he can have stories with dark moments and bad things happening, but he's not a grim, broody character for a dark, depressing story. Doing that misses the point, and just sucks (as Snyder has proved fairly well in my opinion).
I never saw neither MoS nor BvS as depressing. Guess I was corrupted by watching all those Bergman films in my youth
Yeah, and Man of Steel isn't depressing just because he kills Zod. its depressing because he's constantly brooding, we have crap scenes like his Dad telling him to let kids die and to not save him, the "color" is extremely muted because Snyder is scared of normal colors (much less bright colors), etc. You can be dark, violent and still not be depressing. I'm certainly not gping to stick up for Logan, which looks like a bad movie, but Man of Steel was a grim dark, depressing film for several different reasons, doing things I'm pretty sure Logan didn't do (hugh Jackman's Wolverine having a personality that isn't just brooding probably helps with that all by itself).
Except for the times when he isn't, such as when he's in action, or when he's relaxed, happy or even jubilant, and all together this adds up to a sizable percentage of the film. For some reason, you're coming off like someone who never watched it. That only makes the character appear more realistic. Apparently Jonathan Kent is yet another character who must be rendered as a selfless paladin from some kind of fairy tale, or else. This kind of thing is getting increasingly tiresome. Putting aside the nonsense about Snyder being "scared" because he has a preference you don't approve of, anyone who gets depressed when not being bombarded with bright colors might need to be on medication. Whatever.
Yeah, right. He's just so not broody for all of 30 seconds, I must have missed it in the 3-4 times I've watched the movie. Plus, Johnathan Kent is so realistic and not a fairly heartless idiot. Whatever. The Old Mixer is right, this isn't a Man of Steel thread. Its a thread about possibly the first really good DCEU movie. It shouldn't be filled with posts about one of Snyder's crap movies.
Well observed, which is why no thinking individual would ever place much stock in the easily manipulated Razzies as a measure of...anything if Ghostbusters 2016 was spared the voting body's usual wrath, when few films in cinema history deserved it as much. Interesting and generally well-founded categories,but you have some comic movie fans swearing such films are--or should be--like the Power Rangers-esque Avengers films as a standard.
Oh, one thing I've learned on this forum, some people (you know who you are ) will take ANY change to bring up old complaints about movies the rest of us have simply accepted exist and have agreed to disagree on. Some people (you still know who you are) NEED to convince us of their opinions.
Genuinely good movies get razzie awards? I get it. You're an apologist, but at least concede the film has its share of detractors and they have reasons for feeling that way. It's okay with Logan because the Marvel universe is already firmly established and therefore they can experiment a bit. WB has been floundering as far back as the bad Batman sequels in the Burtonverse, then the development hell that eventually resulted in Superman Returns. The only bright spot has been Nolan's Batman trilogy which could never function as the foundation of a cinematic universe. Now that they decide to follow the Marvel formula they decide to go uber dark with a guy who glorifies violence for violence's sake in things like Sin City, 300, and Sucker Punch? That's how to bring in the widest audience?? Really?? From a corporate strategy perspective, it was totally stupid and the longer they double-down on Zack's approach the worse it's going to get.
Yeh their hardly the Titanic By default aren't all comic book movies depressive? tons of people tend to die in them and violence is at the heart of their very foundations. However seeing bad ass fights in a fictional world with people with super powers or amazing gadgets is fucking amazing and fun as hell I think anything that touches Batman should be a dark film by nature, Suicide Squad is about villians and has the Joker in it so not being dark would be odd and I think Man of Steel tried and for the most part succeeded in being of both worlds. Wonder Woman, I expect to be about hope in dark times and will be more similar to Captain America: First Avenger than anything in the DCEU.
I agree.... so bringing it back to WOnder WOman...hopefully that change in distinct storytelling style will let Warner Brothers know what really interests people about superhero movies. Zack Snyder might have been good for a darker movie, like Logan on the Marvel side, and maybe even Batman for DC. But bad choice for Superman. Hopefully Patty Jenkins can show us how DC heroes should be presented. See my post on the other thread (regarding the DC Film Universe as a whole) for some other thoughts...
This is a subjective term though, aren't their different versions of the same character in DC history.
Zack Snyder had nothing to do with Sin City, that was Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller (and Quentin Tarrentino for one scene).
What does Robert Rodriguez have to do with anything? If you're gonna trash talk the fella at least have the decency to know which films he made.
Actually, the above makes it pretty obvious you don't get it, just like any true believer. What does Logan have to do with the Marvel universe? Sucker Punch glorifies violence for violence's sake? Don't give a project like this to someone with a particular vision, just focus on what makes the most money... so this really isn't about quality at all.
If you have to ask, it might as well be a rhetorical question as there's no way you'll see it. Snyder's comic-book movies make money, but not the MOST money, which is why a quick google search will show you the degree of hand-wringing going on over whether Snyder should get booted.