I thought they announced the R Rated thing before Deadpool was released? (As in one month before the movie came out?)Kyman102 said:
Forbes Article: "Zack Snyder Loves Superman, And 'Batman V Superman' Proves It"
- Thread starter Cicada 5
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, the cut that was sent to the MPAA in September received an R rating, which DC then whittled down to a PG-13 rating. This is pretty much standard for PG-13 movies, just like most R movies will initially get an NC-17, and then need to be edited down. There was no mention of releasing an R-rated cut came out until the 24th.Agent_Z said:
Civil War is did a week of pickups in order to get little pieces of scenes that were found to be needed in editing, which is done in just about every movie, and is part of those movies' budgets. Suicide Squad is spending additional tens of millions of dollars reshooting scenes in order to try to give a different tone to the movie. I don't know that anyone is panicking, but I'm definitely more skeptical of Suicide Squad since they apparently tried to hoodwink us with the trailer into thinking the movie was something it wasn't, and then now is trying to make the movie that after principal photography is complete.Agent_Z said:
I disagree with your original claim. Maybe most people are familiar with the Batman that's been thrown up on the big screen so far, but to me, and I suspect many others who read the comics and consume the animated movies, that is not an accurate representation of the character. Batman is actually an incredibly nuanced character who is constantly dealing with his own battle between stoicism and emotional instability, while also being forced to make decisions that negatively affect the people he cares about (the bat family) in order to continue his crusade. Batman outside of the movies has a lot to say about mental health, family, the ambiguous moral line between right and wrong, and his almost symbiotic relationship to the villains he is forced to manage. None of this is discussed in the movies. All we see is a dude in a big rubber suit who punches things angrily. At least he didn't kill people, but now BvS took that away too.undeadsuitor said:
Anyway, for most people you're probably right, they are getting what they want from Batman. It's silly from a business perspective to demand WB cater to the minority such as myself who would like to see some of these other aspects explored. Marvel has been successful accurately representing their characters though so it might be worth a shot for DC to actually treat their comics like relevant work.
I think this is one of the big differences between Marvel Studios and most others creating superhero movies. They are a comic book company making movies, rather than a movie studio making comic book movies, and so it would make sense that they are both more comfortable with and faithful to the source material. Most every other studio seems to want to distance themselves from the comic-bookiness (yes, it's a real word that I just made up) of the characters that they are adapting. I'm wondering if it would help if WB created a separate studio specifically for DC and stock it with comic industry people, so that there is less decision-making being done by people that just don't get it.JUMBO PALACE said:
Fair enough! I'd say some of these would be debatable as potential knock-outs/other debilitating measures but I understand where you're coming from. Still, my point was that the movies are not faithful to the character so this really just serves to reinforce that.Agent_Z said:
Speaking of TDKR, I've seen quite a few chunks of the animated adaptation, and...am I the only one who has a problem with the Sons of Batman? Batman taking over a gang and using them for his own purposes just feels...wrong. I mean I think batman's no kill rule goes too far sometime, but only in regards to the Joker, not the rank and file. If you use a gang to quell riots, people are going to fucking die! Even if you told them to not use guns!Something Amyss said:
IMO the only people who should be "funny" in suicide squad are characters who were that way to start with. So Harley should be rather punny. Not sure about most of the others but I think Croc should be situationally funny kind of like (sorry to compare with a Marvel character) Drax in GotG or the Killer Croc that was actually Batman in disguise in the animated series.Zeconte said:
Boomerang being from Flashes universe probably should at least be sarcastic.
The Asian assassin lady (some suicide squad characters I am not familiar with) strikes me as not particularly given to humor.
Deadshot never struck me as full of humor but as they are all on a mission that will most likely cost them their lives I would expect most to have a level of gallows humor.
Batman killed in the first year of his existence, before the character really took shape. You may as well say that it is canon that Superman can't fly, because he originally couldn't. Plus with the amounts of retcons and world reboots that DC does, I find it hard to believe that golden age Batman is canon.Agent_Z said:
Makes me think about how I feel about Wolverine. He always ends up the main character of every x-man movie even ones where in the comics he was not the focal point (I'm looking at you days of future passed). The movies are not necessarily bad because of this but it's the same kind studio dumb I think.Samtemdo8 said:
I realize that. But the point is it's never with the reckless abandon like we saw in BvS. He literally gunned people down and used a destroyed car with people in it as a wrecking ball to kill more people. One of the major tenets of the character is that he does not kill. On the very rare occasion that his does happen it is typically an absolute last resort if it even comes to that. He is criticized by many, even his family, for not finally putting the Joker down. That's not the same character as the guy who treats goons like target dummies.Agent_Z said:
I didn't read far enough in the thread to see if someone has pointed this out to you, but Devin Faraci has very much said this.mduncan50 said:
I'm not too familiar with Superman to really have a much of say on if Snyder hates him, but there's that sort of hopeful and just vibe that I keep reading about with the original character that gets completely lost with Snyder's interpretation. Maybe these changes didn't happen out of hate but more out of some executive meddling on trying to get the franchise to be darker than it needs to be.
And if they want to make a darker, grimmer Superman, fine, but you have to contextualize that better. Reading the Forbes article, I'm baffled by his reading of the movie. Nowhere in any of the two movies shows Superman as a symbol of hope. You've pretty much said it yourself.
There are more complaints I have with this movie, but I'm baffled by how some people like it. What are they getting out of the movie? This Forbes article is, honestly, downright weird. Hope? Justice? This movie is depressing as fuck! And not just because it turned out as bad as it did. I have no idea why they're trying to do this with the franchise. Yeah, maybe it can act as an antithesis to the more fun tone the Marvel movies have been providing, but, like I said, you have to contextualize it better. What's the grander theme of everything? Why does the movie need to be so dark? What is the message this movie is trying to convey? It wants to be dark and cynical for the sake of it, but that just doesn't work. The new interpretation of Batman and Superman are just whiny assholes who hate it when they realize that someone else gets to have fun in destroying the city they're supposedly trying to protect. We're supposed to be cheering for these guys by the end of it...
What the hell?
Rumours around the mill are currently circulating, is that Warner Bros. may be looking to replace Snyder.