Its hard being a DC fan. (Rant)
- Thread starter Samtemdo8_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If I remember correctly, they don't explicitly show if the guy dies or not, but a guy (normal unarmored human) holding Lois at gunpoint is driven by the shoulders through two separate thick brick walls with little to no resistance. if he survived he will never move anything below his neck again. And if so many Snyder apologists will claim that Supes killed Zod in Superman II because it showed him falling without landing (both the script and extended cut explicitly have all of the Kryptonians survive) then I'll count it, because this is a much more violent possible death.Kyman102 said:
The thing about znyder is, he just cant write. He has made 2 good movies to my knowledge. 300 and Watchmen. Both good movies in their own way (if you like that sort of thing), but he already had the source material, and 300 is not exactly Shakespeare.Samtemdo8 said:The thing I hate about most regarding Batman v Superman is that how much of a self fufilling prophecy this ended up becoming.
What could have been simply a Man of Steel 2 became this. It started with just bringing in Batman for damage control after the "failure" of Man of Steel. Because sadly and no one wants to admit it, no one likes Superman. If you end up having Superman doing exactly what you expect Superman to do, everyone will complain that he is too OP and too one dimensional to be an interesting character.
Then they showed Wonder Woman and called the movie Dawn of Justice and that title got mocked aswell.
Then Jesse Eisenberg was casted as Lex Luthor and everyone wanted Bryan fuckin Cranston as Lex jsut because he's bald in Breaking Bad
Then one trailer revealed Doomsday which honestly his design does not look as terrible as the earlier concept designs they were going with:
https://40.media.tumblr.com/dea14715627a4c2afc37766c32996806/tumblr_o52bswMSj91rov369o6_1280.jpg
Then the movie comes out and people are treating it as a disaster of Mengele proportions. Even people on youtube who never reviews movies before suddenly reviews it. Appearently the prospect of a Batman and Superman movie was that big.
Honestly I feel none of this would have happened if no one said anything bad about Man of Steel. If no one criticized Man of Steel we would have had a Man of Steel 2 and a stand alone Batman movie.
And now Civil War came out and of course people are saying this is how BvS should have been.
And now I dread the possibility of DC changing the tone and direction of the movies because of that rumor of Snyder and WB having disputes and the directors for DC movies like Flash and Aquaman has left.
No just no keep the tone the way it is other wise if it ends up being exactly like the MCU it will be increadibly redundant I mean there is already a Superhero bubble so why should DC end up looking more like the MCU in the exact tone and look?
I just want my Zack Snyder DC movies because he has talent he knows how to make Comic Boook movies he proclaims he grew up reading comic books and I believe him and he makes action that is 10x better then any movie I have seen in theaters. And he is NOT MICHAEL BAY!!
Its so fuckin unfair that things I really want to see happen is being taken away from me. I want that Justice League movie with Zack Snyder's style and sadly the movie community is against it
He can direct relatively well, but no matter how you look at it BvS was a fucking MESS.
Man of Steel was a mixed bag for me. When I came out of the theatre I wanted to murder Znyder for doing what he did to superman, but when I had time to cool off...I could see that many of the things that was done was ok.
Pa Kent: This never bothered me too much, and in time I appreciate that he didnt want Clark to expose himself. He just didnt trust people that much. Which is FINE, it actually adds something to Clarks character, and gives him something emotional to overcome. Its a good thing.
Emo Supes: It was ok in Man of steel. It was a butterfly story, he was becoming Superman, he didnt start out that way.
The destruction/failure to save EVERYONE: It was fine. It was the "realistic" side of superhero movies. If superman had to fight someone as powerful as himself, what are the odds, really, that he would be able to dictate the fight? Slim to none.
However, as soon as BvS was announced I was sceptical, and I was wrong. It was a lot worse than I expected.
1; Emos everywhere: If both Supes and Bats are emos, they cant bounce off each other. They need to be different, or they wont work together. This was my thought before the movie, and it was confirmed in the worst kind of way.
2; Crazy lex: I dont care if it was lex's son or whatever. IT WAS A BAD LEX. His acting was all over the place, inconsistent, and for a person that unstable to outsmart the greatest detective ever....lame. SO lame.
3; Screentime: For some reason, that governor-lady got a hell of a lot of screentime. No one cared about her, and no one wanted to know anything about her. Why couldnt we had some more character development of lois, or clark, or bats?
4; visions/dreams: Absolutely unecessary and wholly time-consuming without furthering the plot.
5; walking in straw in slow motion: Holy fucking slow-mo Znyder! I realise he likes it, but when every second scene is in slow motion it kinda loses its impact. In addition it is eating up valuable time for characterization.
Man of steel was a mixed bag. For my own part I ended up liking it more than I disliked it.
BvS was a trainwreck of epic proportions. It failed on more or less every conceivable level, and was simply a BAD movie.
If Znyder is kicked off the team I will be exctatic. If he stays he needs some GOOD writers, and some strict direction himself.
Yes...yes he could have. If he wanted to teach the guy a lesson for messing with his girl then he could have broken his arm before the bad guy even knew he was in the room.Kyman102 said:
I've got to disagree with this one personally. It's not about a failure to save everyone, it's about not showing any attempt to save people, and the fact that for every building Zod destroyed Superman destroyed one too. Compare that to the first Avengers, where they are facing a superior force, and nearly every aspect of Cap's battle plan is keeping the invading alien army penned into a radius of a few blocks to limit the destruction and to funnel the civilians out to safety. Cap even takes a break in the action to direct some nearby cops on how to most efficiently and safely evacuate the citizen given their battle strategy.tzimize said:
Yes of course. Which is fine when you're not up against anything but mooks with zero powers. In Avenger the invaders were a buffed up alien military.mduncan50 said:
When the invader is essentially a Superman with no mercy and a strategic military mind...I willing to bet things would have looked different.
As I said, its a more realistic view of superhero fighting. And the result was much a part of the storytelling. Avengers were about the Avengers manning up together and becoming a team. The fight reflected that. Plus...with aliens flying around and shooting lasers...Caps Options are relatively limited seeing as he is not exactly a "high level" superhero. Man of steel was about Superman choosing a side and revealing himself to the world. Not so much about his savior thing.
Could superman have flown off to lure Zod? Sure. But honestly, why the hell would Zod follow? Zod was right where he wanted to be, if he killed Clark right then, or later....why should he care? Clark was on the offensive and on the clock. Kinda hard to dictate the fight then.
"Your heroes?" I thought I made it quite clear by now that I don't even like BvS. But that said, if you're going to criticize it, at least keep the criticism honest.mduncan50 said:
So, dystopia. Metropolis has been leveled once, and being continuously destroyed isn't dystopia (hello, Power Rangers, Evangelion, Godzilla, etc.). Dystopia refers more to the society of a setting and/or standard of living, usually exploring a concept or hypothetical "what if?" Brave New World, 1984, and Farenheit 451 are all examples of dystopias. There's plenty of examples among fiction of that. A city being destroyed once isn't dystopia. It says nothing on the political/social/cultural environment of a setting. Gotham comes closer to dystopia, but Gotham is just a city wrecked by crime and corruption. That's not unheard of in the real world, and it's used more as an environment for Batman, whereas in something like Blade Runner, the setting of Los Angeles is part of the worldbuilding, illustrating environmental devastation, the gap between rich and poor, etc.
Second of all, amoral. First, I agree that both Batman and Superman are generally unlikable in the film, but the film is still wanting you to root for them. Compare this to something like Warhammer 40,000 or A Song of Ice and Fire - there's no "good side" or "good guys," just varying shades of gray in a grim setting. BvS coming off as amoral is more a flaw in its writing, rather than a statement of intent. So no, I don't think it counts as amoral in the same sense as other genuinely grimdark settings.
And ending with violence and realism, what does that have to do with anything? Lots of things are violent and realistic. I can't even call BvS the latter.
So no, whatever flaws BvS has, it doesn't meet the criteria of being "grimdark" in my eyes. And I don't think "grimdark" should ever be used as an inherent negative, unless we start using terms like "happylite" to balance it out.
So a one on one fight against a guy that is equally powerful as the hero is the more difficult fight compared to the one where six people are fighting an army of thousands?tzimize said:
Also one of the things that bugged me the most about Superman snapping Zod's neck at the end, beyond the whole "Superman doesn't do that" thing, is that if he WAS willing to kill this mass murderer, couldn't he have done it a few tens of thousands of casualties ago?
I don't consider grimdark to be an inherent negative, as I said, it worked quite well in the Nolan Batman movies. It is when it is being used with settings and characters that it doesn't make sense with that it becomes an issue. Like, happylite is perfectly fine for the Care Bear's movie, but would be a terrible tone for the upcoming Killing Joke movie. We can agree to disagree on this one.Hawki said:
Oh, and when I said 'Your "heroes"' I was simply meaning that they were the characters that the movie was presenting to the audience as the heroes, not that you personally were a devotee. (It's okay if you are though, I wont tell anyone)
tzimize said:
The Avengers were a team of six against enemies that were as threatening as the Putties from Power Rangers. Steve takes a shot to the stomach from one of them and is never seen needing any medical attention. Almost everytime Superman engaged the Kryptonians he was outnumbered while fighting enemies more ruthless and experienced in battle.mduncan50 said:
And no Superman does not destroy any building unless you count being thrown into them by Zod as destroying them and even then we saw some of them as empty.
1) Yes fighting a guy who is growing more powerful by the minute and has tons more experience in combat is more difficult than enemies who are as durable as the Putties from Power Rangers and the aim of Stormtroopers.mduncan50 said:
2) Also one of the things that bugged me the most about Superman snapping Zod's neck at the end, beyond the whole "Superman doesn't do that" thing, is that if he WAS willing to kill this mass murderer, couldn't he have done it a few tens of thousands of casualties ago?
I am always baffled by this question. Ignoring the fact that Zod is not easy to kill to begin with, it's obvious that this Superman had never killed before and had no desire to do so. You can clearly see this when he BREAKS DOWN IN TEARS AFTER KILLING ZOD. He's not a soldier or an assassin he's just a guy who found himself in a crappy situation and performed as best as he could given the circumstances. He didn't come into this situation with the intent to kill anyone (that;s why they come up with the plan to use the Phantom Zone projector) but wound up doing so when faced with no other option.
That'e even leaving out that not only has Superman killed in the comics before but he has also committed actions far more questionable than killing enemy combatants.
More ruthless and experienced in battle? Maybe. They've also had their powers for only a couple of days... some of them for only minutes. They just got to Earth, where the gravity differential gives them some of their powers, while most of them aren't unlocked for them until they're out of their bio-suits.Agent_Z said:
And yes, poor cg Superman was throwing poor cg Zod into buildings as well, and I saw no empty buildings. I saw the one rooftop they were stayed for a few seconds as being under construction, so it's possible that the rest of the building was as well, but every other building had plenty of lights on and there were constant shots of people in the streets watching and traffic everywhere. I mean hell, Superman was the one that threw Zod into Grand Central or whatever the Metropolis equivalent is, which was chock full of people. And they started from space at that point! Sure, Zod started them on the way down, but once Supes got the upper hand he could have tried to stay up there or veer away from the people, but nope, right into the goshdarn heart of the city.
ANd Clark has never used his powers in combat before and only learned he could fly a day before Zod's invasion. Plus, these Kryptonians are bred for war making their adaptation to their abilities happen much faster. This has also happened in the comics and related Superman media.mduncan50 said:
Here's the fight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnAw3E_mLh8
At 0:42 They crash into a building that is already collapsing.
0:45 the building they're fighting in is empty.
Up until they head to space, Zod is the one smashing Superman into things or smashing through things to get to Clark. There is Clark dragging Zod's face through the side of a building but that's it. When they head into space, ZOd throws half a satellite at Clark then takes advantage of his distraction to tackle him. Clark barely manages to get the upper hand as they touch down and the reason he can't steer him away is because he has to 100% focused on Zod who is not an inanimate object but a thinking, moving person.
So, here's a question for you guys? How profitable has this movie been for WB?
Now, according to most sources I've seen, BvS had a total budget of around $400 million ($250 for making the Movie, $150 for marketing). And according to Box Office Mojo, it's made $868m, rounding up. Since the studio only sees half the box office gross (meaning a movie has to make twice its budget to break even), it'd put the total profit WB has seen from this at $34m.
Is $34 million really worth it to WB to keep making these movies? The Avengers had a similar budget, far as I've heard, but it also pulled in $1.5 billion dollars at the box office, which would put it's profits in the range of $350 million.
Is the DCEU really worth it to WB at this point, given the risks of them suffering a legit bomb?
Now, according to most sources I've seen, BvS had a total budget of around $400 million ($250 for making the Movie, $150 for marketing). And according to Box Office Mojo, it's made $868m, rounding up. Since the studio only sees half the box office gross (meaning a movie has to make twice its budget to break even), it'd put the total profit WB has seen from this at $34m.
Is $34 million really worth it to WB to keep making these movies? The Avengers had a similar budget, far as I've heard, but it also pulled in $1.5 billion dollars at the box office, which would put it's profits in the range of $350 million.
Is the DCEU really worth it to WB at this point, given the risks of them suffering a legit bomb?
I think the earning POTENTIAL is definitely still there, but they just don't seem to be learning from their mistakes. I honestly don't know what the options of the execs are right now beyond going full steam ahead. They have invested so much already in movies that are in different stages of production that putting the breaks on things, or even just slowing down would be difficult and costly. To even think about up and cancelling the whole shebang... that would pretty much be career suicide for the people making those decisions, and could possibly take down the studio as a whole depending on investor reaction. I choose to just hope they'll get rid of Snyder and Goyer and turn this whole thing around. Hell, maybe hire Marvel Studios to do some consulting on the DL for a little while if that's what it takes.Mangod said:
mduncan50 said:No No No No No.Mangod said:
I do not want Kevin Faige to monopolize Superhero movies
When did emo = bad?tzimize said:The thing about znyder is, he just cant write. He has made 2 good movies to my knowledge. 300 and Watchmen. Both good movies in their own way (if you like that sort of thing), but he already had the source material, and 300 is not exactly Shakespeare.Samtemdo8 said:The thing I hate about most regarding Batman v Superman is that how much of a self fufilling prophecy this ended up becoming.
What could have been simply a Man of Steel 2 became this. It started with just bringing in Batman for damage control after the "failure" of Man of Steel. Because sadly and no one wants to admit it, no one likes Superman. If you end up having Superman doing exactly what you expect Superman to do, everyone will complain that he is too OP and too one dimensional to be an interesting character.
Then they showed Wonder Woman and called the movie Dawn of Justice and that title got mocked aswell.
Then Jesse Eisenberg was casted as Lex Luthor and everyone wanted Bryan fuckin Cranston as Lex jsut because he's bald in Breaking Bad
Then one trailer revealed Doomsday which honestly his design does not look as terrible as the earlier concept designs they were going with:
https://40.media.tumblr.com/dea14715627a4c2afc37766c32996806/tumblr_o52bswMSj91rov369o6_1280.jpg
Then the movie comes out and people are treating it as a disaster of Mengele proportions. Even people on youtube who never reviews movies before suddenly reviews it. Appearently the prospect of a Batman and Superman movie was that big.
Honestly I feel none of this would have happened if no one said anything bad about Man of Steel. If no one criticized Man of Steel we would have had a Man of Steel 2 and a stand alone Batman movie.
And now Civil War came out and of course people are saying this is how BvS should have been.
And now I dread the possibility of DC changing the tone and direction of the movies because of that rumor of Snyder and WB having disputes and the directors for DC movies like Flash and Aquaman has left.
No just no keep the tone the way it is other wise if it ends up being exactly like the MCU it will be increadibly redundant I mean there is already a Superhero bubble so why should DC end up looking more like the MCU in the exact tone and look?
I just want my Zack Snyder DC movies because he has talent he knows how to make Comic Boook movies he proclaims he grew up reading comic books and I believe him and he makes action that is 10x better then any movie I have seen in theaters. And he is NOT MICHAEL BAY!!
Its so fuckin unfair that things I really want to see happen is being taken away from me. I want that Justice League movie with Zack Snyder's style and sadly the movie community is against it
He can direct relatively well, but no matter how you look at it BvS was a fucking MESS.
Man of Steel was a mixed bag for me. When I came out of the theatre I wanted to murder Znyder for doing what he did to superman, but when I had time to cool off...I could see that many of the things that was done was ok.
Pa Kent: This never bothered me too much, and in time I appreciate that he didnt want Clark to expose himself. He just didnt trust people that much. Which is FINE, it actually adds something to Clarks character, and gives him something emotional to overcome. Its a good thing.
Emo Supes: It was ok in Man of steel. It was a butterfly story, he was becoming Superman, he didnt start out that way.
The destruction/failure to save EVERYONE: It was fine. It was the "realistic" side of superhero movies. If superman had to fight someone as powerful as himself, what are the odds, really, that he would be able to dictate the fight? Slim to none.
However, as soon as BvS was announced I was sceptical, and I was wrong. It was a lot worse than I expected.
1; Emos everywhere: If both Supes and Bats are emos, they cant bounce off each other. They need to be different, or they wont work together. This was my thought before the movie, and it was confirmed in the worst kind of way.
2; Crazy lex: I dont care if it was lex's son or whatever. IT WAS A BAD LEX. His acting was all over the place, inconsistent, and for a person that unstable to outsmart the greatest detective ever....lame. SO lame.
3; Screentime: For some reason, that governor-lady got a hell of a lot of screentime. No one cared about her, and no one wanted to know anything about her. Why couldnt we had some more character development of lois, or clark, or bats?
4; visions/dreams: Absolutely unecessary and wholly time-consuming without furthering the plot.
5; walking in straw in slow motion: Holy fucking slow-mo Znyder! I realise he likes it, but when every second scene is in slow motion it kinda loses its impact. In addition it is eating up valuable time for characterization.
Man of steel was a mixed bag. For my own part I ended up liking it more than I disliked it.
BvS was a trainwreck of epic proportions. It failed on more or less every conceivable level, and was simply a BAD movie.
If Znyder is kicked off the team I will be exctatic. If he stays he needs some GOOD writers, and some strict direction himself.
And I am of the opinion that BvS is not a bad movie according to my standards because I have seen Bad movies. I have seen awful movies. To throw this movie with the likes of Birdemic, The Room, Foodfight, Gigli, and Uwe Boll's films etc. is just wrong.
Heck I did not think most 2000s Marvel movies like Ang Lee's Hulk and Fantastic Four and even fuckin Daredevil were not that bad of a movies.
Slow motion is better then shaky cam and 300 would have felt neutered without it.
It's simple, really...DC did what most game studios do when they're trying to keep up with a fad in the gaming industry: rush out a half-assed project that's completely heartless and bland, so long as it meets the check boxes for what's "in" right now then the studio doesn't care, and right now people are enjoying the superhero mash-up movies that Marvel has provided. As such, DC wanted to try and cash in on this.
However - and this has to have been mentioned before already - DC hasn't earned the mash-up movie yet. Marvel established Cap'n, Iron Man, and Thor (and to a lesser extent even Black Widow and Hawk Eye) before they gave us the first Avengers movie. That movie didn't need any additional character development because we already knew these characters, their personalities, and what they're about.
DC gave us a Superman movie...featuring only Superman...then wanted to stuff the entire frickin' Justice League into the next movie? Ease on out of the saddle there, cowboy...you've got some more prep work to do before you're ready to ride that pony. This is why BvS was shat all over as being a bloated, meandering head-scratcher that left people thinking "Wait...what?" (and that's best case scenario). You've got all these characters now that need to be introduced and developed in order to give a cohesive, fleshed-out, and enjoyable story and DC just rushed it out because they wanted to compete with Civil War.
However - and this has to have been mentioned before already - DC hasn't earned the mash-up movie yet. Marvel established Cap'n, Iron Man, and Thor (and to a lesser extent even Black Widow and Hawk Eye) before they gave us the first Avengers movie. That movie didn't need any additional character development because we already knew these characters, their personalities, and what they're about.
DC gave us a Superman movie...featuring only Superman...then wanted to stuff the entire frickin' Justice League into the next movie? Ease on out of the saddle there, cowboy...you've got some more prep work to do before you're ready to ride that pony. This is why BvS was shat all over as being a bloated, meandering head-scratcher that left people thinking "Wait...what?" (and that's best case scenario). You've got all these characters now that need to be introduced and developed in order to give a cohesive, fleshed-out, and enjoyable story and DC just rushed it out because they wanted to compete with Civil War.
No one wants to see their comic book heroes moping around. It's fine if you have one mopey hero that someone has to pull out of the dumps so they can start being heroic again, but when you've got two of the biggest names in the super hero book having an emo-off with one another, one can't help but roll their eyes.Samtemdo8 said:
There's a difference though: expectations. Everyone expects movies like Birdemic, The Room, Foodfight, Gigli, and Use Boll's catalogue to be an absolute shit-fest. People have higher expectations for a major studio like WB creating a massive budget super hero movie. Yet what we ended up with was a movie that might as well have been helmed by Uwe Boll.
I won't insult your taste here, but simply say that we disagree...and by "we" I mean the countless masses that saw those movies for the crap they were, which includes myself.
300 got away with it because of how heavily stylized it was. You can't just take 300's format and slap it into every movie you make otherwise the slow-mo bursts get really old, really fast.
Kinda like Abram's obsession with lens flares. :3
I am honestly at a loss as to why DC/WB keep squirting so much money trying to play catch up with the MCU.
The TV and Animated stuff DC makes (or farms out) pretty much schools anything Marvel* are doing (although Arrow is starting to slide badly) but not content with quite a lot of the moneys they have chosen the expensive all of the moneys movie route, and you can make an awful lot of telly for movie money
*I've excluded the very fine Daredevil and Jessica Jones shows in this assessment as I suspect they wouldn't have happened without Netflix
The TV and Animated stuff DC makes (or farms out) pretty much schools anything Marvel* are doing (although Arrow is starting to slide badly) but not content with quite a lot of the moneys they have chosen the expensive all of the moneys movie route, and you can make an awful lot of telly for movie money
*I've excluded the very fine Daredevil and Jessica Jones shows in this assessment as I suspect they wouldn't have happened without Netflix