Author Topic: Batman v Superman  (Read 22956 times)

Offline Francisco

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2015, 01:15:14 pm »
That's not the reason the movie sucked. It was due to Singer infatuation with the Donner's movies. Returns is take by take a remake of Superman the movie. Scenes and dialogues are virtually copy/pasted from film to film. Sheere unoriginality that's what killed SR



This is simply not true.

The television series, 'Smallville' has a lot more in common with the original 'Superman' movie directed by Richard Donner  than 'superman returns'.

'superman returns' was truly awful... as in, god-awful.  :-[
Smallville was crap too. Too trapped in the past. too trapped in the gooffball Clark Kent who couldn't learn to fly even though every other kryptonian appearing in the show flew right away. A pile of nostalgic crap just like Superman returns.
Don't get fooled by the bombs that I get I'm still I'm still Saddam from Iraq.

Offline KIP LEWIS

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 5875
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #16 on: April 27, 2015, 03:01:31 pm »
Superman Returns, the story was boring but had great visuals Like catching the plane

Man of Steel,  parts of it were just wrong,  parts didn't make sense and parts of it were the fight I have longed to see since Superman 2.  Also had some great visuals, like what he did on the oil rig.

Offline Redjack

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
  • i've never had a hero. i don't worship people.
    • View Profile
    • a dreamnasium
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2015, 03:05:52 pm »
I think both films were created by people who absolutely failed to understand Superman. While Superman Returns was a bad Superman film, it tried hard to actually be a Superman film. It failed, yes, but it was absolutely trying to be a Superman movie.


Man of Steel is not a Superman film. The people behind it do not understand Superman and the same people are behind Batman v Superman. It will be crappy in precisely the same way as MoS.  The entire point of pairing the two characters is that they are opposites.


Both Batman and Superman in the Snyder-verse are basically the same person, i.e. men with tragic pasts with broken psyches (Batman by rage, Kal by fear) who can't solve any of their problems without murdering their opponents.


While a soft case can be made for Batman being little more than a crazy vigilante (although why anyone wants to see that is beyond me) a fearful Superman, one who can't outthink his villains is not Superman.

We haven't seen this version of Batman in action yet so how could you possibly know Batman has killed anyone in this iteration of the character? Tim Burton's Batman bombed factories with people inside. Nolan's Batman allowed a man to die in a trainwreck. Superman back in the 30's killed criminals or allowed them to die. In comics John Byrne Superman summarly executed General Zod by exposing him and his cronies to lethal kryptonite radiation. Years later, that same Superman fought and killed the creature known as Doomsday. (Lots of people died during that fight because the monster just like Zod and the kryptonians in MOS refused to fight away from populated areas) Killing is part of the legend on this characters. In MOS Superman killed Zod as a last resort after every other possible way to stop him was exhausted. If you think that Superman is all about smiling to the camera and downing cats from tree branches it is you who doesn't know anything about Superman. Snyder had the balls to pit Superman against enemies that wouldn't simply stand there talking while he flew someone away from danger.


Not only has Batman killed in the movies his actions have led to the death of multiple civilians. You might be able to get away with that by presenting him as a ruthless , PUNISHER-esque vigilante but that's the only way. THAT version of Batman would, in no way, be classified as a hero, super or otherwise.


More to the point, Superman murdering Zod was an example of sh*tty writing and exposed a flaw in the writer's understanding of who and what Clark Kent is. Superman isn't the story of Kal El, the son of Jor and Lara. It's the story of Clark Kent, the son of Martha and Jonathan.If you don't understand what that means, you don't understand Superman. The creators of MoS clearly did not understand what that means, NOR did the creators of Superman Returns. In any case, no one was presenting the 1930s version of either of these characters.


You know who DID understand Clark as well as Batman? The guy who wrote this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQabrSpKcJw


The people who made both the recent "Superman" films did not and do not understand this fundamental thing and, as a result, wrote sh*tty versions of the character albeit dressed up really nice with some awesome fight sequences and FX. Superman isn't about the super powers. If you think he is, you've missed the point too.


If you think you're talking to someone who doesn't know a sh*tLOAD about how to construct a compelling character you need to step back a pace and regroup. No one has said Superman is about saving cats in trees. If someone said that, and you disagree, go find them and argue with them.


That guy isn't here.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 03:09:34 pm by Redjack »
Soon you will come to know. When the bullet hits the bone.

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9269
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2015, 03:10:57 pm »
That's not the reason the movie sucked. It was due to Singer infatuation with the Donner's movies. Returns is take by take a remake of Superman the movie. Scenes and dialogues are virtually copy/pasted from film to film. Sheere unoriginality that's what killed SR



This is simply not true.

The television series, 'Smallville' has a lot more in common with the original 'Superman' movie directed by Richard Donner  than 'superman returns'.

'superman returns' was truly awful... as in, god-awful.  :-[
Smallville was crap too. Too trapped in the past. too trapped in the gooffball Clark Kent who couldn't learn to fly even though every other kryptonian appearing in the show flew right away. A pile of nostalgic crap just like Superman returns.




Amazing how you were able to completely miss the entire point of the discussion :

'superman returns' stunk.
'man of steel'  (never saw this, by the way) is rumored to be inconsistent with the source material.
'superman vs batman' is also rumored to be inconsistent with the source material.
The original 'Superman' is far more entertaining than ALL of the Superman movies combined that followed thereafter.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 03:21:12 pm by Battle »

Offline Francisco

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2015, 03:23:59 pm »
I think both films were created by people who absolutely failed to understand Superman. While Superman Returns was a bad Superman film, it tried hard to actually be a Superman film. It failed, yes, but it was absolutely trying to be a Superman movie.


Man of Steel is not a Superman film. The people behind it do not understand Superman and the same people are behind Batman v Superman. It will be crappy in precisely the same way as MoS.  The entire point of pairing the two characters is that they are opposites.


Both Batman and Superman in the Snyder-verse are basically the same person, i.e. men with tragic pasts with broken psyches (Batman by rage, Kal by fear) who can't solve any of their problems without murdering their opponents.


While a soft case can be made for Batman being little more than a crazy vigilante (although why anyone wants to see that is beyond me) a fearful Superman, one who can't outthink his villains is not Superman.

We haven't seen this version of Batman in action yet so how could you possibly know Batman has killed anyone in this iteration of the character? Tim Burton's Batman bombed factories with people inside. Nolan's Batman allowed a man to die in a trainwreck. Superman back in the 30's killed criminals or allowed them to die. In comics John Byrne Superman summarly executed General Zod by exposing him and his cronies to lethal kryptonite radiation. Years later, that same Superman fought and killed the creature known as Doomsday. (Lots of people died during that fight because the monster just like Zod and the kryptonians in MOS refused to fight away from populated areas) Killing is part of the legend on this characters. In MOS Superman killed Zod as a last resort after every other possible way to stop him was exhausted. If you think that Superman is all about smiling to the camera and downing cats from tree branches it is you who doesn't know anything about Superman. Snyder had the balls to pit Superman against enemies that wouldn't simply stand there talking while he flew someone away from danger.


Not only has Batman killed in the movies his actions have led to the death of multiple civilians. You might be able to get away with that by presenting him as a ruthless , PUNISHER-esque vigilante but that's the only way. THAT version of Batman would, in no way, be classified as a hero, super or otherwise.


More to the point, Superman murdering Zod was an example of sh*tty writing and exposed a flaw in the writer's understanding of who and what Clark Kent is. Superman isn't the story of Kal El, the son of Jor and Lara. It's the story of Clark Kent, the son of Martha and Jonathan.If you don't understand what that means, you don't understand Superman. The creators of MoS clearly did not understand what that means, NOR did the creators of Superman Returns. In any case, no one was presenting the 1930s version of either of these characters.


You know who DID understand Clark as well as Batman? The guy who wrote this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQabrSpKcJw


The people who made both the recent "superman" films did and do not understand this fundamental thing and, as a result, wrote sh*tty versions of the character albeit dressed up really nice with some awesome fight sequences and FX. Superman isn't about the super powers. If you think he is, you've missed the point too.


If you think you're talking to someone who doesn't know a sh*tLOAD about how to construct a compelling character you need to step back a pace and regroup. No one has said Superman is about saving cats in trees. If someone said that, and you disagree, go find them and argue with them.


That guy isn't here.

You're talking about John Byrne's Superman also known as post-crisis Superman. Or as I call him "Spidermanized Superman".
The thing is there's not a single version of Superman so you can't say someone's take is not correct. That Spidermanized Superman killed Zod and his kryptonian allies with kryptonite after they had already been turned powerless. They were no longer a threat but John Byrne's Superman aka post crisis Superman aka pre-flashpoint Superman executed them.

And in MOS Superman did not murder Zod. If you say Superman murdered Zod then every cop that has ever killed a criminal to defend himself and others is a murderer. Then you must allow yourself to be killed instead of fighting back otherwise you'd be a murderer. And yes I know Superman is not a cop but self defence applies to him as well as anyone else. MOS is Superman actually facing a not so easy situation without the benefit of the writer tailoring a perfect outcome from him. Yeah he could have chosen not killing Zod but then Zod would have massacred 7 billions humans just to get back at him.


PS: According to you Tim Burton's Batman is not a hero and neither is Nolan's? Is that what you mean?



Battle: You can talk about a movie you haven't watched. Let's leave it at that.
Don't get fooled by the bombs that I get I'm still I'm still Saddam from Iraq.

Offline Francisco

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #20 on: April 27, 2015, 03:34:25 pm »
By the way Redjack in that youtube video Superman flew through several buildings. I wonder how many were killed?
And how did Batman make to survive a backhand from Darkseid? He's just a normal human after all. Yup I forgot it was Bruce Timm's universe where Batman can do anything and Superman is a weak punk ass.
Don't get fooled by the bombs that I get I'm still I'm still Saddam from Iraq.

Offline Redjack

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
  • i've never had a hero. i don't worship people.
    • View Profile
    • a dreamnasium
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #21 on: April 27, 2015, 03:44:24 pm »

You're talking about John Byrne's Superman also known as post-crisis Superman. Or as I call him "Spidermanized Superman".




no. I'm talking about the sh*tty writing of BOTH John Byrne in that story and the creators of MoS.



Quote
The thing is there's not a single version of Superman so you can't say someone's take is not correct. That Spidermanized Superman killed Zod and his kryptonian allies with kryptonite after they had already been turned powerless. They were no longer a threat but John Byrne's Superman aka post crisis Superman aka pre-flashpoint Superman executed them.


right. because john Byrne is not a particularly good writer. He fell into a lazy writer trap with that story, manipulating events to create a "no win" for Superman that would allow him to kill. Even the structure of that story shows a writer who consciously tried to make the core of the character go away.

And in MOS Superman did not murder Zod. If you say Superman murdered Zod then every cop that has ever killed a criminal to defend himself and others is a murderer.


Superman murdered Zod. He was not a cop. He was not in the army. Poor writing, as with the Byrne story, required he murder his opponent but, if there is a basic rule about modern Superman (and I mean since the 1950s- excluding the sh*tty Byrne story) it is that he doesn't kill. The end. If you're a writer who can't tell a story without requiring him to kill his opponent, you are a writer who should not be writing superman.


 
Quote
Then you must allow yourself to be killed instead of fighting back otherwise you'd be a murderer. And yes I know Superman is not a cop but self defense applies to him as well as anyone else. MOS is Superman actually facing a not so easy situation without the benefit of the writer tailoring a perfect outcome from him. Yeah he could have chosen not killing Zod but then Zod would have massacred 7 billions humans just to get back at him.


Writers tailor ALL outcomes. These are not documentaries.


The writers of this film knew they wanted Superman to murder his opponent so they tried to craft a series of events where that was all he could do. That's why they failed why MoS is not about Superman. it's an alien invasion movies where one of the aliens is on our side. that isn't Superman. Superman is the story of a boy from Kansas who discovered he has super powers and, luckily for humanity, was raised by the best adoptive parents on Earth.  he doesn't need a "fee kill" to learn it's not a good idea to muser people any more than the rest of us do.

Superman is  PROTECTOR, not a gladiator. Again, the super powers have nothing to do with who he is. Zero.

Quote
PS: According to you Tim Burton's Batman is not a hero and neither is Nolan's? Is that what you mean?

Nope. They are both crazy vigilantes. That spin works for a grim, broken hero like Batman but it doesn't fit for Superman. Not knowing the difference between them is the sign of a poor writer.
Soon you will come to know. When the bullet hits the bone.

Offline Redjack

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
  • i've never had a hero. i don't worship people.
    • View Profile
    • a dreamnasium
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2015, 03:46:07 pm »
By the way Redjack in that youtube video Superman flew through several buildings. I wonder how many were killed?
And how did Batman make to survive a backhand from Darkseid? He's just a normal human after all. Yup I forgot it was Bruce Timm's universe where Batman can do anything and Superman is a weak punk ass.


None were killed. We saw civilians being evacuated and rescued throughout the episode.
Soon you will come to know. When the bullet hits the bone.

Offline KIP LEWIS

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 5875
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #23 on: April 27, 2015, 03:53:58 pm »
When Superman was created, he was a bully who would kill.

Then they changed him to be more kid friendly and the Comic Code Authority locked that in.

It was changed once.

DC is changing it again.   In the ComIcs he is becoming harder.   He is acting at times closer to his original 1940's Version.   What you are seeing is DC had decided they don't want Superman to be the noble, paragon of goodness.   They want him to be darker.   This isn't the movies alone,  it is DC as a whole.   The Superman you are talking about is going away.

Offline Francisco

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #24 on: April 27, 2015, 03:54:17 pm »
Actually no Redjack. A lot of people died when the huge Daily Planet globe came crashed down thru the building itself. It's a cartoon but in all logic plenty of people died there.



Regarding murder... No, just no. Self defence is not murder. What Superman did in MOS doesn't constitute murder under any legal system in the world. Not even wrongful death. Superman doesn't exist from the 1950's. He is amongst us since the 1938 and back then he killed and he was a gritty vigilante bringing hardboiled justice on crooked politicians and wife beaters alike.
If he murdered Zod then he also murdered Doomsday. What was he supposed to do? Let Doomsday wipe every lifeform in the planet? You call it lazy writing but doing the opposite is lazy too. Oh let's create this perfect scenario in which Superman never has to make a hard choice. He just wins in the end because bad guy gets all teary due to his heroism or a great speech.
Don't get fooled by the bombs that I get I'm still I'm still Saddam from Iraq.

Offline Francisco

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #25 on: April 27, 2015, 03:58:46 pm »
When Superman was created, he was a bully who would kill.

Then they changed him to be more kid friendly and the Comic Code Authority locked that in.

It was changed once.

DC is changing it again.   In the ComIcs he is becoming harder.   He is acting at times closer to his original 1940's Version.   What you are seeing is DC had decided they don't want Superman to be the noble, paragon of goodness.   They want him to be darker.   This isn't the movies alone,  it is DC as a whole.   The Superman you are talking about is going away.

In the comics the original ones Superman bullied bullys. If you liked to beat your wife.  If you had a good time making other people's lives miserable he would f*ck you up. Current Superman is no where near that hard. He's tough of course. He has regained some of that grit he lost when Byrne and his ilk turned into a pansy farmboy. But he's just grown a backbone and as he has said a couple of times since Flash Point: He doesn't like to punch down. Pa Kent taught him to punch up.
Don't get fooled by the bombs that I get I'm still I'm still Saddam from Iraq.

Offline Redjack

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
  • i've never had a hero. i don't worship people.
    • View Profile
    • a dreamnasium
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #26 on: April 27, 2015, 03:58:55 pm »
When Superman was created, he was a bully who would kill.

Then they changed him to be more kid friendly and the Comic Code Authority locked that in.

It was changed once.

DC is changing it again.   In the ComIcs he is becoming harder.   He is acting at times closer to his original 1940's Version.   What you are seeing is DC had decided they don't want Superman to be the noble, paragon of goodness.   They want him to be darker.   This isn't the movies alone,  it is DC as a whole.   The Superman you are talking about is going away.


which is a sign of poor writing and a bankrupt editorial vision. they can't picture a superhero who isn't dark at their core. as a result, ALL superheroes must have that core.


It's not only simplistic, it's short-sighted and, thus, doomed to fail.

Superman wasn't a bully. he was a populist hero, going after criminals, corrupt politicians and businessmen. Whoever was hurting the little guy.


He even helped bring down the Klan in the real world.
Soon you will come to know. When the bullet hits the bone.

Offline Francisco

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #27 on: April 27, 2015, 04:03:16 pm »
When Superman was created, he was a bully who would kill.

Then they changed him to be more kid friendly and the Comic Code Authority locked that in.

It was changed once.

DC is changing it again.   In the ComIcs he is becoming harder.   He is acting at times closer to his original 1940's Version.   What you are seeing is DC had decided they don't want Superman to be the noble, paragon of goodness.   They want him to be darker.   This isn't the movies alone,  it is DC as a whole.   The Superman you are talking about is going away.


which is a sign of poor writing and a bankrupt editorial vision. they can't picture a superhero who isn't dark at their core. as a result, ALL superheroes must have that core.


It's not only simplistic, it's short-sighted and, thus, doomed to fail.

If you feel like it pick up Action Comics by Greg Pak. Superman is not dark at all. He's just a kid who lost his adoptive parents at 17 and since then has to be making things up as life comes. But he is still the big guy who defends the little ones. In my opinion Superman is more super than ever.
Don't get fooled by the bombs that I get I'm still I'm still Saddam from Iraq.

Offline Redjack

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
  • i've never had a hero. i don't worship people.
    • View Profile
    • a dreamnasium
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #28 on: April 27, 2015, 04:10:40 pm »
When Superman was created, he was a bully who would kill.

Then they changed him to be more kid friendly and the Comic Code Authority locked that in.

It was changed once.

DC is changing it again.   In the ComIcs he is becoming harder.   He is acting at times closer to his original 1940's Version.   What you are seeing is DC had decided they don't want Superman to be the noble, paragon of goodness.   They want him to be darker.   This isn't the movies alone,  it is DC as a whole.   The Superman you are talking about is going away.


which is a sign of poor writing and a bankrupt editorial vision. they can't picture a superhero who isn't dark at their core. as a result, ALL superheroes must have that core.


It's not only simplistic, it's short-sighted and, thus, doomed to fail.

If you feel like it pick up Action Comics by Greg Pak. Superman is not dark at all. He's just a kid who lost his adoptive parents at 17 and since then has to be making things up as life comes. But he is still the big guy who defends the little ones. In my opinion Superman is more super than ever.


I wouldn't know. Until i see what they let David Walker do with Cyborg, DC comics are dead to me. Didio's track record is just too sh*tty.
Soon you will come to know. When the bullet hits the bone.

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9269
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #29 on: April 27, 2015, 04:12:00 pm »
Battle: You can talk about a movie you haven't watched. Let's leave it at that.



You've got that right!  :D


This HEF thread has become far too 'dc comics-centric' for me as I despise dc comics and most of the characters to even care to discuss.
I shall bow out gracefully from this.