Batman v Superman *spoilers from post 2434*

[font=Calibri, sans-serif]Watched again over the weekend for better perspective. Still total rubbish. My main gripes are that the plot is literally all over the place and doesn t properly tie together, the soundtrack is out of place and the dialog is pure muck. [/font]

[font=Calibri, sans-serif]I liked Affleck in his role but batman was portrayed as borderline psychotic. Pre-release the whole debate was as to how he would defeat Superman without (presumably) killing him. Nothing cunning in it, no need to outwit him, just spear him (spear? Was he anticipating the fight taking place underwater or does knifing superman to death not have the same mystique?) Think its going to go down as one of those what could have been films ... [/font]

I've just watched it. I wasn't expecting much, I never really do these days with any film. It's the epitome of "leave your brain at the door". Here's the thing though, I liked it more than Civil War. Unlike that one, I wasn't struggling to stay awake halfway through but it must be said that the story is completely dumb.

Boo Radley wrote: »

Affleck 'humiliated' by BvS and may be positioning himself to have greater influence on the follow-up films.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/may/09/ben-affleck-humiliated-by-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-reviews?CMP=twt_gu

In fairness, the film was still better than Daredevil, and Affleck got almost universal praise as being the best part of the film. Will be glad to see him given a bit of control over the DCCU though, at the very least to be a bit of a sounding board for Snyder rather than Snyder essentially doing whatever he wants.

WTF?

Farreller was in that?

:pac:

Kind of makes sense though no? With the people that these characters have to deal with, there are inevitably going to be some deaths involved.

The "no kill" malarkey was only in there because the comics were aimed at little boys. But for a more...erm..."mature" audience, it wouldn't really fly too well in many cases.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Well A Killing Joke deals with just that issue for batman. Does it brilliantly. I'd love to see the Ben Affleck standalone movie to deal with that - would provide good context to why he is psycho in BvsS

A Killing Joke film will be out during the summer rated R so i can't see them doing it again in a few years

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Well A Killing Joke deals with just that issue for batman. Does it brilliantly. I'd love to see the Ben Affleck standalone movie to deal with that - would provide good context to why he is psycho in BvsS

They also deal with the issue in The Dark Knight Returns which BvS is supposed to draw heavily from. Batman laments the fact that so many people have died because he could never bring himself to kill the Joker, and even then, still doesn't kill the Joker.

They also deal with it in Under The Red Hood, where Jason Todd is p*ssed at Batman, not for failing to save him before the Joker killed him, but for not caring about him enough to kill Joker in revenge.

And therein lies the problem with this cinematic version of Batman. If he's comfortable with killing even low-level henchmen without hesitation, he needs to kill the Joker. He needs to kill Harley Quinn. He must be willing to kill everyone who poses a threat.

He killed henchmen transporting Kryptonite so he could kill Superman, not because Superman was evil, but because of the chance of there being a 1% chance he might turn evil. If he's willing to do that, and given what was written on Robin's suit in the Batcave, Batman should have no hesitation in killing Joker next time he sees him, and it's flat-out bizarre that he didn't at the very least bat-brand Luthor given what Luthor did.

I know some people say the films shouldn't adhere to the comics in terms of whether Batman kills or not, but if you open it up that he does kill, that has serious consequences which need to be addressed and considered.

Penn wrote: »

Batman should have no hesitation in killing Joker next time he sees him, and it's flat-out bizarre that he didn't at the very least bat-brand Luthor given what Luthor did.

I know some people say the films shouldn't adhere to the comics in terms of whether Batman kills or not, but if you open it up that he does kill, that has serious consequences which need to be addressed and considered.

The way I seen it in this film was when we meet batman he is older, broken down by all the years of fighting crime in Gotham. He says "criminals are like weeds, pull one out and another replaces it".
He knows he's getting older and is no closer to his goal of ridding Gotham of crime. So that's why he's gone over the edge, he's lost control of himself and lost sight of what he used to be. The death of Robin may well have been the final straw in this universe.

That's why him and Alfred seem so at odds and why he's hiding things from Alfred because deep down he knows he's changed.

By the end of the film I think we've seen him realise this and he wants to possibly try to redeem himself as he goes forward to set the justice league up. When he speaks to wonder woman at the funeral he talks about men being able to be better, that they still deserve a chance.

So when he goes to see lex he's a changed man hence the no branding, it's used just for fear like before.

That's his character arc in the film I believe anyway.

IncognitoMan wrote: »

The way I seen it in this film was when we meet batman he is older, broken down by all the years of fighting crime in Gotham. He says "criminals are like weeds, pull one out and another replaces it".
He knows he's getting older and is no closer to his goal of ridding Gotham of crime. So that's why he's gone over the edge, he's lost control of himself and lost sight of what he used to be. The death of Robin may well have been the final straw in this universe.

That's why him and Alfred seem so at odds and why he's hiding things from Alfred because deep down he knows he's changed.

By the end of the film I think we've seen him realise this and he wants to possibly try to redeem himself as he goes forward to set the justice league up. When he speaks to wonder woman at the funeral he talks about men being able to be better, that they still deserve a chance.

So when he goes to see lex he's a changed man hence the no branding, it's used just for fear like before.

That's his character arc in the film I believe anyway.

I see your point and I get that, but it's a huge leap from "20 years of crime fighting and there's still crime" to "kill all the things", but even so, even if Robin's death was the final nail in the first of many coffins and his encounter with Superman turned him back from that, Batman still has to kill the Joker. If the almost 1% chance of Superman using his powers for evil was enough to flip Batman to the point where he kills without hesitation, Joker killing Robin has to have done the same, otherwise (as per Jason Todd's justification in Under The Red Hood) Batman didn't care enough about him. And that creates a huge hole in this version of Batman.

Tony EH wrote: »

Thing is though, in the movie versions of Batman, the villians often do die at the end, maybe not directly at the hands of B man, but it happens. Didn't the Joker fall to his death in the Burton version? And didn't the Penguin end up at the bottom of some body of water? And in Nolan's effort he was destined to die, but there was a change of heart IIRC. Plus Bane gets killed too.

I agree that having major villians die in movie versions is a "serious" step for the filmmakers to take, but really the only reason they don't die regularly in the comics is A.) they're for kids and B.) it's a huge pain in the arse to constantly come up with new ones.

I think if Batman has to kill, then it should be that he HAS to kill.

Still haven't seen BvS fully, so I'll reserve judgement on that one.

Oh yeah Burton's Batman flat out kills people. No question. But then, he kills the Joker. Nolan's Batman, while it wasn't wholly intentional, he kills Two-Face while saving Gordon's son.

My issue with this version of Batman doing it is that if you're building a cinematic universe and you're not doing a self-contained trilogy like Nolan's films, once you open the door to Batman killing, he has to kill the Joker. Either that or they're going to have to be really creative about how Joker keeps escaping at the last minute. And if they're skipping to a Batman who has been around for 20-odd years, it has to be assumed that he has already killed a few of his bad guys.

Alfred gives a few speeches about how cruel Batman has become but he still doesn't seem to flinch when Batman kills someone, so I simply don't believe that it's a new thing which only started happening after Superman's arrival.

And if that's the case and given Robin's suit in the Batcave, the Joker shouldn't be alive. A Batman who is willing to go to the lengths he does and break a no-killing rule (or not had one to begin with) in BvS would have already hunted down and killed the Joker in revenge.

Penn wrote: »

And if that's the case and given Robin's suit in the Batcave, the Joker shouldn't be alive. A Batman who is willing to go to the lengths he does and break a no-killing rule (or not had one to begin with) in BvS would have already hunted down and killed the Joker in revenge.

Maybe.

But locking up the Joker, an ordinary man, would be far easier than trying to do the same with Space Jesus, who can beam lazers from his eyes, fly and pretty much break through anything he pleases.

In short the stakes are much higher, if indeed Superman decides "ya know what, fu*k these people. Bunch a ****."

The Joker is already there, but he can actually be put away. Not much is going to hold Superman.

Still though, there's just something fundamentally wrong with the idea of Superheroes fighting amongst themselves. It's just a really weak hook to hang a story on, no matter how it's done.

Penn wrote: »

I see your point and I get that, but it's a huge leap from "20 years of crime fighting and there's still crime" to "kill all the things", but even so, even if Robin's death was the final nail in the first of many coffins and his encounter with Superman turned him back from that, Batman still has to kill the Joker. If the almost 1% chance of Superman using his powers for evil was enough to flip Batman to the point where he kills without hesitation, Joker killing Robin has to have done the same, otherwise (as per Jason Todd's justification in Under The Red Hood) Batman didn't care enough about him. And that creates a huge hole in this version of Batman.

I don't think it does. I think if you have batman go and kill the joker from here then it negates the entire arc he has in BvS. When he says the "1% chance" thing he's in a different place mentally, beaten down, knowing he's failed people before. He's at the very beginning of his character ach in this film.

Until we see where the character goes in justice league and his solo batman film then this is only speculation but I think they had him turn a corner, come to a moment of realisation that he had turned into what he was trying to rid Gotham of at the end of BvS otherwise he would have branded lex.

He killed henchmen for far less like you pointed out but he chose not to brand lex because he's not the same man he was at the start of the movie. He's at the end of his arc, learned lessons and hopefully looking to redeem himself.

You can have Jason call him out on this in his solo batman film as well. 'Why didn't batman make joker pay' batman can say that he knows now that doing so changes nothing and only make him the same as the joker.

IncognitoMan wrote: »

I don't think it does. I think if you have batman go and kill the joker from here then it negates the entire arc he has in BvS. When he says the "1% chance" thing he's in a different place mentally, beaten down, knowing he's failed people before. He's at the very beginning of his character ach in this film.

Until we see where the character goes in justice league and his solo batman film then this is only speculation but I think they had him turn a corner, come to a moment of realisation that he had turned into what he was trying to rid Gotham of at the end of BvS otherwise he would have branded lex.

He killed henchmen for far less like you pointed out but he chose not to brand lex because he's not the same man he was at the start of the movie. He's at the end of his arc, learned lessons and hopefully looking to redeem himself.

You can have Jason call him out on this in his solo batman film as well. 'Why didn't batman make joker pay' batman can say that he knows now that doing so changes nothing and only make him the same as the joker.

Again, I get your point, but I think that would make Batman a wildly inconsistent character. The only way they could remedy that in my opinion would be to have him go through a fairly substantial redemptive arc in the future.

Otherwise you have a vigilante who pretty much became the villain and just switches back to being a hero again at the flick of a switch.

josh_96 wrote: »

apparently they have reshot some scenes for suicide squad because the final cut was too dark and serious, trying to humour it up a bit.

David Ayer shot down those rumours. According to him, there were reshoots as Warners released extra budget for some expensive set piece which had been removed originally due to cost.

FWIW - my favorite Marvel productions are Daredevil and Jessica Jones, which are far darker than the on screen productions. As I said when I saw BvS originally, I liked it - but it does have issues, but I don't think being 'dark' is an issue at all for it - its pretty much standard for DC stuff. The Killing Joke is being released soon as an R rated movie - it will be dark, and will be loved (partially) because of it. (edit - it will also be loved because its a great story!)

I think they should pay me to sit through that muck again I'm not wasting anymore money on the off chance it will be any better.

As long Zack Snyder is involved with these even as a producer I won't be spending my money on these movies.

dublinman1990 wrote: »

UPDATE Re: BVS Blu-ray

The physical release won't be out here until the 1st of August. July 19th is the U.S. release date so apologies for the earlier mistake.

Amazon have updated their cover art for the Blu-ray releases. All 2D Blu-rays have the Extended cut & Dolby Atmos Soundtrack included.

When will movie studios ever learn??

They complain about piracy whilst single handedly incentivising it in markets outside the US!

Slydice wrote: »

12s is R rated in the US?

All depends on the censors office. R can range from anything from PG to 18 in UK or Ireland.