Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

[USO92]

Honestly, the initial overly-enthusiastic reviews sort of fell for ruse that was stuffing so much into a film that they latched on to individual moments (and some of them are truly impressive). However, excitement to see one of your favorite storylines on the screen can lead one to blindly ignore the fact that they stuffed 3-4 highly prominent and loved storylines into the same movie in an attempt to pander to the base.

I was hoping that their attempt to catch up to Marvel would fall tempered because of logic but it looks as if they shot themselves in the other foot. So stupid.

 

[Jymmymack]

I was hoping that their attempt to catch up to Marvel would fall tempered because of logic but it looks as if they shot themselves in the other foot. So stupid.

To be honest, the references to the OTHER members of the JLA were short and actually pretty sweet. Not unlike a Marvel stinger. The implementation of WW felt rather forced.

 

[USO92]

To be honest, the references to the OTHER members of the JLA were short and actually pretty sweet. Not unlike a Marvel stinger. The implementation of WW felt rather forced.

Interesting.

Spoiler

Didnt they say Aquaman was popping up in this?

 

[Jymmymack]

Spoiler: Spoiler

Aquaman, The Flash, Cyborg all make an appearance (albeit indirectly) in one sequence that makes sense in the context of what's happening with WW. The Flash gets a double dose as he shows up in another sequence with actual ramifications on the BvS storyline.

 

[USO92]

Spoiler

I see, I see. Is it the Flash from the TV series now or a new one? I wish they would have taken their time with these superheroes. I guess I'll have to just see it for myself.

 

[Jymmymack]

Spoiler: Spoiler

Technically speaking, there are two versions of the Flash in this film. Which if you know how Flash narratives usually go, isn't a big surprise. However, both are played by Ezra Miller with no connection to the show.

 

[misterID]

I actually liked MOS so hopefully I'll like this.

 

[Jymmymack]

37% on RT with 110 reviews in. 5.3/10. Ouch.

 

[snayberry]

If this sucks. I don't know what to think. I loved MOS.

 

[cameronw99]

I guess I'm in the minority with actually being a fan of man of steel. The action was like nothing in any other superhero movies. A sonic boom from a neck snap, earth shattering punches. the speed. I found it fun. Didn't think it was too dark either. And I've heard this Batman breaks his "big rule" this time around so I'm excited for it. Critics don't sway me much

 

[JungleSkip]

And I've heard this Batman breaks his "big rule" this time around so I'm excited for it.

That should literally be the least exciting thing ever

 

[cameronw99]

That should literally be the least exciting thing ever

Really? I love it

 

[JungleSkip]

Really? I love it

You love a character eschewing everything that defines it? What's the point of calling him Batman? At that point just make up a new character.

 

[misterID]

You love a character eschewing everything that defines it? What's the point of calling him Batman? At that point just make up a new character.

There have been a lot of Batman films where each incarnation refuses to cross that line. Seeing one finally do it is very interesting, IMO. If you don't push the boundaries why make another adaption if it is going to follow the same line every single adaptation has followed for over thirty years? I say push it. Push it real good.

 

[JungleSkip]

There have been a lot of Batman films where each incarnation refuses to cross that line. Seeing one finally do it is very interesting, IMO. If you don't push the boundaries why make another adaption if it is going to follow the same line every single adaptation has followed for over thirty years? I say push it. Push it real good.

Again, then it's NOT an adaptation. It's a betrayal of the character. It's like creating a Harry Potter movie where Harry hates Muggles and Mudbloods, or a Daredevil movie where he's not blind.

Making a Batman movie where he kills and uses guns might as well be a Punisher film, because it's certainly not a Batman one

 

[USO92]

Again, then it's NOT an adaptation. It's a betrayal of the character. It's like creating a Harry Potter movie where Harry hates Muggles and Mudbloods, or a Daredevil movie where he's not blind.

Making a Batman movie where he kills and uses guns might as well be a Punisher film, because it's certainly not a Batman one

At this point I'm wondering what the frick is running through Snyder's mind? Superman killed a guy (justified or not) and I haven't seen BvS yet but now I'm hearing that Batman crosses that line? I have a horrid feeling that Im about to waste 10 bucks on this movie tonight.

 

[misterID]

Again, then it's NOT an adaptation. It's a betrayal of the character. It's like creating a Harry Potter movie where Harry hates Muggles and Mudbloods, or a Daredevil movie where he's not blind.

Making a Batman movie where he kills and uses guns might as well be a Punisher film, because it's certainly not a Batman one

After quick bit of research: "Yes in fact in the original Batman comics in 1939 he did kill and he killed pretty ruthlessly and he even used a gun. Later on in several comics he is seen killing"because he has no choice" or occasionally because he thought the person was too dangerous to let live."

Batman 1989, throws one of Joker's henchmen off the bell tower, killing him. He dropped Joker off the tower, killing him.

Batman Returns 1992, kills a thug with his own dynamite.

Batman Begins, he kills the hut full of ninjas by blowing it up and is responsible for Ghul's death.

The Dark Knight, responsible for Harvey Dent's death.

 

[JungleSkip]

After quick bit of research: "Yes in fact in the original Batman comics in 1939 he did kill and he killed pretty ruthlessly and he even used a gun. Later on in several comics he is seen killing"because he has no choice" or occasionally because he thought the person was too dangerous to let live."

Batman 1989, throws one of Joker's henchmen off the bell tower, killing him. He dropped Joker off the tower, killing him.

Batman Returns 1992, kills a thug with his own dynamite.

Batman Begins, he kills the hut full of ninjas by blowing it up and is responsible for Ghul's death.

The Dark Knight, responsible for Harvey Dent's death.

1) The gun and killing was dropped quickly after Batman's introduction in Detective Comics. It's a footnote/trivia piece to his history, not a part of his character as defined by decades of comics. Any other time Batman has "killed" (which honestly is never explicit and only ever implied, like with KGB Beast), it's been retconned out because it is a TERRIBLE IDEA.

2) The Burton Batman movies are godawful adaptations of the comics as well.

3) Good lord, don't use Final Crisis as an example. That story was garbage.

Again, just because Batman HAS killed or HAS used guns in the past does not mean he SHOULD, especially in the manner that he apparently does so in this movie, which is apparently willy nilly. If the story necessitates it (which it never should), it should at least be in a last ditch effort and have emotional weight behind it. As awful and unnecessary as Superman's murder of Zod was in Man of Steel, at least they attempted to have some meaning behind it. Batman running missions locked and loaded and blowing people away left and right just cheapens the character.

You can scour any comic book character's decades of history to find examples of when they acted completely outside of their character. But those are aberrations that are normally retconned out or quickly swept under the rug because people realize that it's a terrible, terrible idea.

Batman killing indiscriminately and using guns makes him not Batman. It makes him the Punisher or Moon Knight.

 

[misterID]

1) The gun and killing was dropped quickly after Batman's introduction in Detective Comics. It's a footnote/trivia piece to his history, not a part of his character as defined by decades of comics. Any other time Batman has "killed" (which honestly is never explicit and only ever implied, like with KGB Beast), it's been retconned out because it is a TERRIBLE IDEA.

2) The Burton Batman movies are godawful adaptations of the comics as well.

3) Good lord, don't use Final Crisis as an example. That story was garbage.

Again, just because Batman HAS killed or HAS used guns in the past does not mean he SHOULD, especially in the manner that he apparently does so in this movie, which is apparently willy nilly. If the story necessitates it (which it never should), it should at least be in a last ditch effort and have emotional weight behind it. As awful and unnecessary as Superman's murder of Zod was in Man of Steel, at least they attempted to have some meaning behind it. Batman running missions locked and loaded and blowing people away left and right just cheapens the character.

You can scour any comic book character's decades of history to find examples of when they acted completely outside of their character. But those are aberrations that are normally retconned out or quickly swept under the rug because people realize that it's a terrible, terrible idea.

Batman killing indiscriminately and using guns makes him not Batman. It makes him the Punisher or Moon Knight.

I think you're taking it too serious. He has killed, and, well, you're dismissing it because you didn't like the comic, or you don't like the Burton films. It has happened. And since DC Studios is making it, they have to okay it, I don't see it as a big deal. They have alt universes with different rules, etc.

I have no idea what happens in BvsS. I have not seen it. I guess it's just not for everyone.

 

[JungleSkip]

I think you're taking it too serious. He has killed, and, well, you're dismissing it because you didn't like the comic, or you don't like the Burton films. It has happened. And since DC Studios is making it, they have to okay it, I don't see it as a big deal. They have alt universes with different rules, etc.

I have no idea what happens in BvsS. I have not seen it. I guess it's just not for everyone.

Again, "It's happened before" is terrible justification, and doesn't make it fine. It makes it a bad representation of the character.