Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Zack Snyder, March 25th, 2016) Movie • Page 8

Why's that a but if the film would have been much better...?

 

Some early projections I saw had it possibly beating the March record and topping $150. I think it'll be very financially successful, but I dunno, I think they'll pull it at some point to get away from the bad PR that comes with it. I have to assume that's coming at some point.

 

It would be so... Interesting if they give Ben JL. Remember when that was a rumor years back?

Although hasn't Snyder already started JL?

 

Still my favorite MCU movie. Scott is the most relatable character for me on a personal level

Team

 

Tomorrowland was visually stunning from a CG perspective and one of the worst movies I've seen in years. I'm a big Brad Bird fan so I think he still has a lot in him, even if he really shat the bad last time out. I think Kathryn Bigelow would do well, and I am excited about The Lego Batman Movie.

As I was talking about with Dom in the general thread — I don't think optimistic Superman works in 2016 with this political climate. In a world with this much distrust for the government, with this kind of political unrest, how does a bright Superman connect with an audience? The buddy of the police and government boy scout seems like the byproduct of a distant era. I truly think The White Savior would feel so forced, so fake, so unbelievable.

 

Kinda thought he was a moron in that one. Hah, no offense. But he was pretty thick and unlikable in that movie to me. I thought the movie was fun all in all and enjoyed it, and I really like Paul Rudd, so it's hard for me to say I didn't like a Paul Rudd character ... but I really didn't like that guy.

 

I think of him as a screw up, not a moron. A guy who's made a mess of his life and is just trying to get it back together. That I can relate to.

No trouble at all liking him as a character

 

That's what I thought I saw as well. We will see, but this one may end up being one of those that makes a ton of money at the box office, but "critics" don't like it..

 

I think the issues I had with him were that I couldn't understand why someone would make the decisions he made in that movie when they seemed so obviously the wrong ones. Like he couldn't get out of his own way. That's a trend I have in movies and TV though, I really hate when characters do dumb things that seem unrealistic to me that any rational person would do or not be able to figure out. Like how they wrote Iris in season one of The Flash I kept wanting to beat my head against the wall at the things the writers made her oblivious about. With Paul, I just thought he played it a little too ... the middle aged high-school jock that things didn't work out for. Maybe. I dunno, there was something there.

 

Uh oh.

 

Grant Morrison did a really nice run on Action Comics a couple years ago where a modern Superman was of the people and an enemy of the government/military. Superman's optimism is even more impactful when it's tested by a climate like our current political one. The Winter Soldier was effective because it highlighted how Cap, a guy who comes from a tradition of being pro-American ideals, is tested by those American ideals having become vastly different than his own. Maybe I'm using the wrong word, maybe it's not so much an "optimistic" Superman as a moral one. Superman's morals are timeless because they're essentially "do the right thing at all times". If you want to divorce that from Superman's perceived place as an American icon, one aligned with the American ideals of a bygone era, I think you can do a few things.

1. Of the People Superman vs. Businessman Lex Luthor. Lex can stand as a symbol of corporations, as he has many times before. A Superman who is truly among the people can stand up against that. The fallout from Lex's corporate growth can adversely affect the poor, who Superman can live amongst (as he does in Morrison's Action Comics run). That way, the battles Superman fights are directly battling for people who have been stepped on by corporations.

2. Tie Lex's corporate side to the American government. Maybe Lex is funding or providing tech for the American military. Maybe the cities police have overpowered Lexcorp weapons. While it's probably too much to ask for a Superman movie to directly address police brutality/Black Lives Matter, you can have him working against the police and recognizing the corruption in the police and military, and how it ties to Lexcorp. You can even bring in a villain like Metallo, who logically makes sense to come out of this kind of origin, so you still get the big action setpieces that people look for in Superhero movies, but it's serving a people vs. the United States theme.

The biggest thing about a moral Superman isn't that he doesn't fit in in our current times, it's where he directs his efforts during these times. Even if he's worn down idealistically, even if he's angry, he still holds onto those morals. He can be modern. There have been many times where Superman hasn't been a buddy to the police and government. In fact, to going too far down the "friend of the government" route with the character leads to horrible Superman stories like the Dark Knight Returns (amazing Batman story, horrible characterization of Superman, though it works literarily). Whatever context he's in, Superman should remain that moral character. Tone down the Christopher Reeve style smirks and platitudes. Play up a younger, feistier Clark Kent. Great. As long as he does what Superman was always meant to do, which is represent hope for people. Both in plot function and in our readings of him.

One of my favorite, favorite, favorite superhero movie scenes of all time comes from the Amazing Spider-Man 2, my very least favorite superhero film of all-time. A kid is getting bullied, and Spider-Man shows up to help him, and offers to walk home with the kid. That is perfect Spider-Man. It would also completely work as a Superman beat, as long as people aren't scared of your Superman. If people are scared of your Superman, you run into Frank Miller/Zack Snyder/J. Michael Straczynski style misunderstanding of the character and get closer to a deconstruction, which I just don't think should be the goal of a Superman movie.

edit: I know, I'm sorry this is long haha. I really am working on keeping stuff more concise. I promise.

 

Haha the Transformer movies were the first to come to mind. Re-visited the Rotten Tomato ratings for those movies, and yeah, a lot of "rotten" ratings with those. Haha also random, but went down the Rotten Tomato rabbit hole and saw that Crystal Skull was certified "fresh" at 78%... So yeah...

 

Some people's biggest complaint, including mine, was the sidelining of Wasp, especially in the context of the dude-dominated MCU (and rest of the superhero film climate).

In a vacuum, I would have preferred an Edgar Wright Ant-Man the most. In reality, I would have preferred for Hope to become the Wasp and be active in this film, regardless of who would bring that about.

 

While I'm glad Hope got a bigger role in Ant Man I don't really like what that bigger role was.

 

They didn't do it right or enough, but it was a step in the right direction. The decision to name the sequel "Ant-Man and the Wasp" has me optimistic that they've learned from their mistakes. Though Marvel does love letting me down in the representation department, lol.

 

I'm terrified it will just be ant man with wasp there as a pretty face. Possibly even used a damsel in distress going by Marvel's previous.

 

They haven't called any other movies, for example, "Captain America and the Falcon," so I'm forcing myself to be unreasonably optimistic, lol. I could honestly see this being predominately Hope's story. Maybe it'll be about her actually donning the Wasp identity and trying to find her mother in the Quantum Realm/Microverse. They did say this would be a different genre without saying what genre it'd be. I dunno.

 

Maybe I'm just overly cynical about the MCU but I'm not as optimistic haha. I hope it is something like that though, would be great.

 

In this hypothetical you'd rather a bad movie that includes a very prominent Wasp than a great movie that does not? I disagree with that. I'd rather have a great movie and also hope that it uses all its characters in service to the story and is inclusive and diverse in how it does it. I think it's pretty unfair the way they threw Edgar Wright under the bus when he never gets to defend himself and we never got to see his finished product. I think his track record of writing strong and awesome women is far superior to Marvel's at this point.

 

Spider-Man 3 is fresh.

I just have grown to really dislike RT and "aggregate" score systems. I don't think that means this movie is good, but I do think it's judged more harshly for a variety of reasons not related to the film. That is to say, I think it might not be a very good movie and would be scored low to begin with, but it's pushed even further down for other reasons.

 

Not saying a bad movie. Just less of a guaranteed great one. I'm someone who still enjoyed Ant-Man a lot, so I don't view this as choosing between gold and feces.

I don't think that was throwing him under the bus at all. He had drafts for Ant-Man for years, so it's silly to think he would have done well by Hope when we already know it wasn't in his plans. That's certain. And not everyone thinks that's a bad thing. But another replacement director and/or writer probably could have gotten away with letting Wasp come into the third act.

 

I have such a love/hate relationship with Grant Morrison. I know so many people love him, but, I dunno, I truly dislike so much of what he's done.

I think my issue with this is that Superman, as many traditionalists want to see him, exists in this binary state of right and wrong that simply doesn't mesh with reality anymore. It was easier in the 60's to make that case of morality but in 2016, what does doing the right thing at all times even mean? The discussion about life and liberty has broken so far away from the black and white thinking of that moral framework. In fact, I'd argue that Superman's "do the right thing at all times" could actually lead to immoral, by today's standards, actions. Does he abide by the law and make sure it's all upheld? What about unjust laws? How would Superman handle Black Lives Matter and the problems between populace and police? I just have a hard time believing his "moral above all else" character trait works in a world that questions what moral means on an almost hourly basis, argues what, if any, are the absolutes, and does Superman's morals make him more of a villain than a hero?

While I would like this idea, do you think this is a movie that gets made by a large corporation? Do you not think this gets absolutely destroyed by the papers owned by large corporate entities? I also think this pitch, as a comic book movie, sounds ... boring. Everyone seemed to hate on the "amongst the people" Superman in MoS (even though some of that was my favorite part).

This is again a story I don't think gets made. The idea of Superman fighting police seems like something every suit in the world would run from. From reading a lot of the pieces on Superman over the past few weeks I truly think the die-hard fans associate Superman as part of the establishment. He should be there shaking hands with the President. I think that positioning him against the United States and the military and establishment would be awesome — I also think it would be destroyed by fans in the same manner this depiction of him has been. That's part of what I think is the fundamental flaw they have with Superman ... the biggest fans don't want him to change at all, but if there's no change he's really not that interesting of a character ... so you have to make the change somewhere and that means some large group is going to be upset. I don't see these as solutions around that, but instead other ways to try and make the runaround, which, to its credit, so has MoS and BvS. Just in different ways.

But this gets to my other issue with the character — in 2016 does a straight white god really represent HOPE to the vast majority of people? I am leaning toward the answer being a resounding no. That this archetype instead represents death and destruction and privilege. Of power unearned and justice delivered at morals of one.

I don't see how Superman exists in 2016 where people aren't afraid of him (and I like Michael Straczynski's take for this reason), with the internet, and the terrorism, and the widening gap between the haves and have nots, he would be terrifying. In the world where everyone keeps their doors unlocked each night I buy that Superman (maybe they can shoot it in Canada), but I don't buy that version in the world we currently live in. The levels of distrust for virtually all power are at an all time high and if a God shows up as a physical representation of power ... I have a hard time seeing how that doesn't make him the villain. I think Spiderman works there because he's a masked, wise cracking, broke, skinny, kid. He had to scrap to get by. He's had to do things. He is like that beat up kid after school. Superman never was, never is, he's instead your dad with the stern jaw that scowls if you use a curse word and wants you to not sneak candy before dinner.

 

How is that certain? Re-writes, re-shoots, changes happen all the time after drafts. They're drafts, and without seeing a final put together vision it's all speculation on what it would have maybe been. We don't know at all for certain what that movie would have been in its completed stage or what the character of Hope or others may have looked like. I mean, we had Joss Whedon saying the script was "the best Marvel's ever had." It's not "silly" to think that the script could have done well by Hope without even needing her to be Wasp or have any extra action scenes, I firmly believe neither are needed to make a strong and well rounded and awesome character. (We should probably find that Ant-Man thread.)

 

I'm getting a sexual tension vibe in this picture. Just wanted to drop it here lol

 

Fingers crossed