DC Comics on Film

[swo17]

Making Batman...Obama?

[captveg]

Making Batman...Obama?

Saul/Paul (or any disbeliever turning into convert)

[Numero Trois]

Passion of the Anonymous Internet Nerds

Stay classy, fanboys

[matrixschmatrix]

I like the guy defending the movie based on its IMDB score, which was at the time presumably based almost entirely on scores from people who hadn't actually seen the movie.

[Luke M]

Passion of the Anonymous Internet Nerds

Stay classy, fanboys

Willing to bet these are some of the same guys who call themselves meninists and whine about women wanting better representation in video games.

[willoneill]

It could be that all the critical reviews sufficiently lowered everyone's expectations.

This is what happened to me. I went in this morning expecting a garbage fire, came out enjoying almost everything except for the

SpoilerShow

Doomsday stuff (which is a symbolic, and quite literal, garbage fire).

[tenia]

it got a 9.2/10 on IMDb I guess people just put 10 stars for fun

Yes, they do... yes, they do...

On the other end, Warner's PR reaction actually has the same kind of orientation "meh, what are critics for anyway, the money will come from the moviegoers"

[Trees]

It could be that all the critical reviews sufficiently lowered everyone's expectations.

This is definitely part of the equation.

By the way, this is pretty funny: "Sad Affleck"

[RossyG]

Passion of the Anonymous Internet Nerds

Stay classy, fanboys

Once again, the media show that they don't know what a troll actually is.

[The Narrator Returns]

[dx23]

It could be that all the critical reviews sufficiently lowered everyone's expectations.

I think this is part of it. Warner has been smart about making it about "critics vs moviegoers" thing. There's a true curiosity about seeing this film either way. Still, I expect a big drop in the second week of box office. And I just hope that Snyder doesn't continue doing these films. This could be his swan song from the whole project and leave on a high note.

[hearthesilence]

This has gone viral.

[Feiereisel]

Weirdly, my reaction to the film mirrored my reaction to Man of Steel--halfway into it despite its flaws until the end, which I found to be poorly-conceived and exhausting. A trauma.

[dx23]

Snyder did some cuts for the theatrical release that are certainly going to piss off fans when the Ultimate Edition comes out in July. One of the things he did was:

SpoilerShow

Officially name the photographer outed as a CIA during the trip to Africa as Jimmy Olsen. Of course, those who saw the film know that the character was shot in the head by the KGBeast. This will of course piss people off because Jimmy Olsen is an integral part of the Superman lore as Lois Lane. I feel that this is a complete dick move by Snyder, as he feels entitled to piss on the legacy of Superman.

[barryconvex]

just for the record:

SpoilerShow

batman does shoot people....but in a dream sequence.

as for the movie itself, i thought it was going along pretty well for awhile until it turned into a godzilla movie for the last 2+ hours. at least it felt like 2+ hours. jesse eisenberg is the most irritating screen presence in modern cinema (i take it all back tobey maguire) the man's voice is a fingernail on a chalkboard and is never nuanced or inflected from role to role. it's the same rapid fire mouse squeakings every time. affleck is ok, my beloved amy adams is little more than a damsel in distress this time around, it was nice to see holly hunter again, and i think henry cavill makes a great superman. but the fundamental problem of the superman character is that he's essentially invulnerable. except for battling people who have the same exact powers he does or having to sit through the tired machinations of introducing kryptonite into the script, what else is there that can pose a serious threat to a god-like character? and therefore where is the conflict/drama? and why would he ever need any co-horts for any reason? the movie tries to delve into the serious issues of superman's power and how he wields it but then shoots itself in the foot by:

SpoilerShow

having superman's congressional hearings blown up by a disgruntled survivor of synder's first superman movie. so much for intelligent debate on that point. and now back to the action.

i guess I'm supposed to believe Lex Luthor is every bit the match mentally to superman's physicality and could easily come up with a plot so fiendish that not even superman himself will able to extricate himself from it's sticky web?

SpoilerShow

...but instead he kidnaps superman's mom and makes a monster out of general zod's corpse?

that would definitely be possible. but not with this Luthor.

i don't need my superhero movies to have any levity at all, the darker the better and the few wisecracks that do appear here are extremely ill advised. i'm a big fan of watchmen and i think snyder's a talented director its just that superman as a dramatic entity is next to impossible to pull off. i have one other question for those who have seen the movie:

SpoilerShow

after superman has inhaled the kryptonite gas and is getting his ass beat by batman -wouldn't that damage be permanent? isn't superman basically the same as any other human once kryptonite is applied? i'm thinking of donner's superman II when christopher reeve's superman get's beaten to a pulp by the trucker in the diner.

[Trees]

To say that Superman cannot be pulled off doesn't make sense to me, since Donner did it. Superman has been popular on screen for a very long time, including the old George Reeves TV show and dozens of cartoons and movies. Superman is a good subject for a film, if done correctly.

Also Batman does

SpoilerShow

shoot people with guns in the real world, not just in dreams.

[TMDaines]

To say that Superman cannot be pulled off doesn't make sense to me, since Donner did it.

Ooh... err missus!

[Numero Trois]

but the fundamental problem of the superman character is that he's essentially invulnerable. except for battling people who have the same exact powers he does or having to sit through the tired machinations of introducing kryptonite into the script, what else is there that can pose a serious threat to a god-like character? and therefore where is the conflict/drama? and why would he ever need any co-horts for any reason?

Exactly. It's the same with the various comics as well. About the only thing one can do is scale back his powers significantly like they did post-1986. But that only helps somewhat. Or stick with alternate versions of the character like Bruce Willis in Unbreakable. They should've called it a day after the second Christopher Reeve film.

and why would he ever need any co-horts for any reason?

He doesn't. It's all for commercial considerations both in the comics and the films going all the way back to the 1940s.

[Trees]

The solution to this "problem" is just to make his various opponents stronger.

[solaris72]

Exactly. It's the same with the various comics as well. About the only thing one can do is scale back his powers significantly like they did post-1986. But that only helps somewhat. Or stick with alternate versions of the character like Bruce Willis in Unbreakable. They should've called it a day after the second Christopher Reeve film.

I mean, this is not just an issue in Superman movies. If you watch the X-Men movies, Professor X pretty much has to have his powers taken away, be put in a coma, be imprisoned, or be killed in every movie.

[jazzo]

It would require something from the studio which it would just, intrinsically, never be brave enough to do once they factor in the cost of production and release, and that would be, create one or two films, at most, that exist completely outside their shared DC universe.

The best Superman stories I've ever read are Alan Moore's various shorts/annuals, which are way too continuity-dependent to do in any form, Grant Morrison and Frank Quietly's beautiful post-modern All-Star Superman, which has already been turned into a neutered animated film, and Tom de Haven's brilliant depression-era origin novel, It's Superman!

Otherwise, just give me the goofy silver age comics/daily strips where he has to babysit or learn how to cook or something.

[captveg]

Just saw it. I liked it and thought it was very good, with reservations. 8/10

I agree that the JL tie-ins were producer driven, and that Snyder/Terrio/Goyer probably did the best they could to make it work. Some does, some doesn't. But it's not an atrocity that such material is there or anything. It hurts this film a bit but it'll be less of an issue in future films. Kinda like taking their medicine to get better in the long run.

There are some "connective tissue" issues with the films parts, but it doesn't make this some grand calamity. I suspect the extended cut will resolve some of these issues.

All scenes in of themselves were fine. I thought the basic drama worked, and nothing failed to make sense.

All the performances worked for me as well.

The action scenes in the last half hour were fantastic. And say what you will, but the "snap out of it" moment for Batman worked for me VERY well. Contrived? Sure, but I felt they sold it.

I have no problem with them adapting that specific story for the ending. I think they've concluded that once he's in the Justice League that the Clark Kent Daily Planet Reporter persona just doesn't work in the 21st century (and really, how often did we see him in that role on the 00's cartoon? Like, never). I get that some Superman fans wanted to see that era, but it doesn't bother me. We've had several films of that content, and there are other Superman stories that can be done.

As for it being "too dark, bleak, depressing"... Nah. It has drama, and a bit of language and violence. TDK is WAAAAY darker, though. And I think people are overselling the "too dark for kids" idea. There were three 8-10 year-old boys behind me that were COMPLETELY into it.

So there are my thoughts. I didn't LOVE it like I did Man of Steel (i really connect with that film), but I'll see it again, I'm excited for the subsequent films, and I'm super curious about the extended cut.

[captveg]

i have one other question for those who have seen the movie:

SpoilerShow

after superman has inhaled the kryptonite gas and is getting his ass beat by batman -wouldn't that damage be permanent? isn't superman basically the same as any other human once kryptonite is applied? i'm thinking of donner's superman II when christopher reeve's superman get's beaten to a pulp by the trucker in the diner.

SpoilerShow

He can recover from kryptonite as soon as it's away from him. Same exact thing happens once the kryptonite necklace is taken away from him in Donner's first film. In Superman II, he's completely depowered by the Fortress of Solitude in the diner scene, without the use of kryptonite.

[flyonthewall2983]

i have one other question for those who have seen the movie:

SpoilerShow

after superman has inhaled the kryptonite gas and is getting his ass beat by batman -wouldn't that damage be permanent? isn't superman basically the same as any other human once kryptonite is applied? i'm thinking of donner's superman II when christopher reeve's superman get's beaten to a pulp by the trucker in the diner.

SpoilerShow

He can recover from kryptonite as soon as it's away from him. Same exact thing happens once the kryptonite necklace is taken away from him in Donner's first film. In Superman II, he's completely depowered by the Fortress of Solitude in the diner scene, without the use of kryptonite.

SpoilerShow

This seriously makes me wonder what Superman's farts are like.

[thirtyframesasecond]

I don't really like the Nolan Batman films but I can't imagine casting Ben Affleck is going to help matters. And Henry Cavill never strikes me as having much charisma. Two stiff leads doesn't bode well.