4 Batman films planned for 2019.
- Thread starter Samtemdo8_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I wonder how many of these are actually Batman films, though. More "Batman-related" than actual "movies about Batman." With that said, yeah, it's over-saturation to be sure. It's like they're screaming "Batman is that DC character people actually care about, right? He's in this movie! Please watch it!"
It didn't bother me nearly as much. In fact, I went back and checked out the final Zod fight scene again, and now I think Snyder basically produced a master-class in how to use shaky-cam correctly. Watch it:Kyrian007 said:
What I noticed is that he doesn't keep the camera unstable all the time. He steadies it when he wants the audience to focus on something - like Zod learning to fly, or Superman being thrown through four or five skyscrapers - and he kicks in the shaky-cam whenever he wants to convey a sense of motion, like when the camera is following Superman as he flies at high speed or starts grinding Zod's face on the side of a building.
He uses the shaky-cam when something gets broken, or someone gets hit, and times it perfectly, then steadies it when he wants you to appreciate the details of something. So when Zod throws Superman through a bunch of skyscrapers at 1:12, it's shaky asthey exchange blows, then it steadies briefly, gets shaky while he's being spun around but steadies briefly just at the height of the spin - you also get a freeze-frame of Superman's eye, which I just now noticed - then steadies completely to show us Superman crashing through all the buildings one by one. Then, when the camera starts following Superman tumbling through the building, it gets shaky again until he's out, when it steadies to give us a half-second of Superman floating limp before Zod tackles him into space and it gets shaky again.
It's all very well timed, down to the split-second level, and the absence of slow-motion is a huge benefit, because it really helps convey the speed with which the Kryptonians are moving. When you get down to it, slow-motion is meant to say "This guy's moving really fast," but it does so by showing us a guy moving really slowly, which has the opposite effect on our primitive monkey brains. But having the Kryptonians moving basically as fast as they would be moving if they were real, he showed us... well he showed us exactly how fast they'd appear to be moving if they were real.
He uses the shaky-cam when something gets broken, or someone gets hit, and times it perfectly, then steadies it when he wants you to appreciate the details of something. So when Zod throws Superman through a bunch of skyscrapers at 1:12, it's shaky asthey exchange blows, then it steadies briefly, gets shaky while he's being spun around but steadies briefly just at the height of the spin - you also get a freeze-frame of Superman's eye, which I just now noticed - then steadies completely to show us Superman crashing through all the buildings one by one. Then, when the camera starts following Superman tumbling through the building, it gets shaky again until he's out, when it steadies to give us a half-second of Superman floating limp before Zod tackles him into space and it gets shaky again.
It's all very well timed, down to the split-second level, and the absence of slow-motion is a huge benefit, because it really helps convey the speed with which the Kryptonians are moving. When you get down to it, slow-motion is meant to say "This guy's moving really fast," but it does so by showing us a guy moving really slowly, which has the opposite effect on our primitive monkey brains. But having the Kryptonians moving basically as fast as they would be moving if they were real, he showed us... well he showed us exactly how fast they'd appear to be moving if they were real.
Also: this was a fight scene where Zod tackles Superman into space and then throws a satellite at him, and I can't express in words how happy that made me when I watched it for the first time. Maybe I'm easily impressed, but I can picture Snyder throwing his storyboards onto the floor of the WB studio and shouting "What more do you want!" after filming that scene.
I would answer "Better pacing, a plot that makes sense, and dialogue that doesn't make me feel like I'm eating cardboard." But I still think that fight scene cinematography is something that Snyder has nailed right down.
To be fair, I saw it in IMAX 2D. It was super easy to see the shakycam at the full aspect on such a huge screen with no faux 3d pop images or dark glasses blurring everything. And its very difficult for me to say that the shaky effect ever turns off when I know the shaky cam effect didn't even turn off during scenes where Clark was standing still and talking to Lois, or his mom, or that priest... they didn't even turn it off for stationary shots of just dialogue dump. That actually makes turning it off for effect during action sequences even more bizarre and off-putting. I'd rather someone admit they hit the shaky cam effect button while editing a Krypton scene and forgot to turn it off, than think about the idiocy that the shaky effect was left on for 99% of the film to set up a couple of 1 or 2 seconds of decent camerawork to punctuate an action scene.bastardofmelbourne said:
Good I want Superman to suffer and feel regret, it makes me care about him more than an infallable Superman that can close Black Holes with his hands and move planets.Natemans said:
Superman is practically invulnerable. The only things that can properly hurt him are things he can't punch, relationships, death, and the like. I don't particularly care what Superman goes through as long as he comes through it all with optimism, charisma, and a smile. I've always thought of Superman as the shining sun of the DC Universe. If Superman doesn't shine then the DC has no sun. Just a bunch of pale imitations of Batman and his grimdark bullshit. Which is fine for him, it's why I like him, but I don't need every character to be a tortured soul like Bruce Wayne. A little variety would be nice.Natemans said:
I wouldn't mind it if they nerfed Superman. If losing the ability to hold up infinity, hold black holes in his clenched fist, and haul solar systems means he can keep being a boy scout, then so be it. God, I miss Justice League/Unlimited.
As for the Batman films... Fine. I'm more than happy to get Batgirl in a film that isn't about rape and creepy relationships. The Batman mythos is a vast one and, while there are plenty of other DC heroes and villains that deserve more recognition, I can't be too cynical about the inevitability of Batman appearing in every one of these movies. A Nightwing movie is a huge plus, even if I have to deal with even more Batman to get it. Whatever it takes to get a little more Dick in my life.
Mr. Freeze deserves way more than he's given. Especially for the more recent change to his origin, thanks to Snyder and the awful New 52. From the tragic story of a scientist desperately trying to cure his sick wife by any means necessary to just another psychopath with an obsession for a sick woman he doesn't know... and ice.undeadsuitor said:
Rebirth is fixing that, like most things, but I don't think it's enough.
Captain Marvelous said:
Lol love the reference to NC. They're not wrong. I've liked stories where Superman acts the way he is and be shown to the test of who he is as a character. That's why I love All Star Superman and What's So Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way? (and yes, I love the animated film adaptation of it too). Rebirth has fixed my problem with it. Yeah, I don't want Bruce Timm working on anything DC related anymore.
"Whatever it takes to get a little more Dick in my life."
Uh, dude, I know you mean to say that as his name, but it sounds really awkward that way.
Yeah, I liked Scott Snyder's run in parts, but the Mr. Freeze thing was bs.
I know, right? If you look at the frames when Superman is being hurled through the skyscraper, you can see that they actually went to the trouble of CGI-ing in some people desperately leaping away from him. They went out of their way to make sure we knew that those buildings were full of people.MrBoBo said:
I mean, on the one hand, that kind of approach to collateral damage is a breath of fresh air compared to the Marvel movies, where an alien invasion does nothing but turn a few streets of brownstones and parked cars into write-offs. But on the other hand, daaaaaaaaamn.
It's hard to top the 1979 movie. I mean, obviously MoS has better action scenes, but that's not really a valid comparison.Natemans said:
Man of Steel is best understood as a deliberate response to the main criticism of Superman Returns, which is that it was boring, had no action scenes, and didn't try anything new with the character. So Zack Snyder kicks us off with ten minutes of explosions for every minute of dialogue, a climax that looks like live-action Dragonball Z, and a...flexible interpretation of Superman's no-kill rule.
I still enjoyed it. I can see why many don't. It wasn't really a "Superman" film.
Because of Batman the Killing Joke and Batman v SupermanSouplex said:
All of a sudden, they don't know how to do Batman?
As if the Animated Series and Dark Knight trilogy and other Animated Movies that wasn't the Killing Joke never happened?
I don't know. I felt more depth and tension in Marvel movie climaxes. Man of Steel's was enjoyable, but I kinda got fatigued of it after about 20 minutes and was kinda waiting for it to be done. I'm not saying the action was bad even if I'm not a fan of the shaky cam or grey visuals. I just felt it went on for too long.bastardofmelbourne said:
Actually here's how to correct it imo. People don't know how to write everyone else because they don't get the characters and Zack Snyder doesn't understand Batman.Samtemdo8 said:
Hell, most iterations of Batman understood him. Even the Adam West did for the Silver Age Batman.
WB/DC isn't learning anything. They're oversaturating in hopes of getting investment returns in terms of ticket sales but honestly if they tank the DC Shared Universe with rushed and poorly made movies, it may well kill any hopes of a decent shared filmverse... and its not just oversaturating Batman (though yeah that is happening), its rushing out this stuff to compete with Marvel/Disney.
While I get the need to compete, they're not doing it well, they're just trying to push out as much as possible without regard to how to build this universe at all...
Its bound for failure.
While I get the need to compete, they're not doing it well, they're just trying to push out as much as possible without regard to how to build this universe at all...
Its bound for failure.
Like I give a shit concerning a charcater that has been re-interpreted differently for almost 100 years.Natemans said:
There is no True Portrayal of Batman or any heroes because they are all different from each other. And you claim to know how Batman is portrayed in all the 70+ years of his existance?