DC Comics Cinematic Universe (2013 - present)

1195196197198200

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,404
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I felt WW84 was more like Superman IV.

    All of the very obvious England locations doubling for the US made it feel that way at times! :D

    I did prefer the lighter tone of this one.

    I felt the film to be too light in tone, especially compared to its predecessor. In fact, I was astonished by how little Diana gets to use her lasso, shield and sword.

    She never stops using the lasso- I thought that was great actually, very inventive and she looked cool swinging about on it. The mall opening is excellent.
    You’re right that I don’t think I saw the sword and shield at all, but that’s okay- she’s super strong and the lasso is cooler anyway.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I'm fine with a film that tones down the violence and tries to manage its conflicts with a touch of pacifism, but this is a film in which the hero talks the villain into defeat. That is original for sure, but it's also extremely lame.

    Personally I think that’s great, the problem was her speech just wasn’t written very well. Another bit that needed a prune to make it snappier.
    Punching people to beat them isn’t always all that great, and she got to have a fight with Wiig’s character, who was the physical challenge.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    And the whole subplot revolving around Chris Pine's character of Steve Trevor is just weird. I get that they wanted Pine back: we all loved him in that first film. But they did nothing with him, nothing that's useful, likeable or engaging.

    I don’t really agree with that: their love story is pretty engaging, Pine plays it well, it ties in to the themes of the movie and draws an effective line under their relationship.

    The film has problems but wasn’t the disaster I’d heard it was. But I think rather than a ‘Snyder cut’ I’d like to see a studio cut where it’s a bit shorter! :D

  • Posts: 787
    The problem is directors being in awe of the Donner era so much and feel they have to reference it so much in their movies.This is what completely derailed Superman Returns for example.

    Snyder had the right idea,to completely forget the past and create a brand new mythology while staying true to the characters.It’s why his trilogy of DC movies will stand the test of time.

    Respect the past but embrace the future.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,834
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    The problem is directors being in awe of the Donner era so much and feel they have to reference it so much in their movies.This is what completely derailed Superman Returns for example.

    Snyder had the right idea,to completely forget the past and create a brand new mythology while staying true to the characters.It’s why his trilogy of DC movies will stand the test of time.

    Respect the past but embrace the future.

    "Staying true" somehow includes turning Superman into a mopey crybaby and turning Batman into a straight up murderer? He needs to read more than just The Dark Knight Returns once in awhile, a book he completely misinterpreted.

    Man of Steel will stand the test of time, the other two won't.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,404
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    The problem is directors being in awe of the Donner era so much and feel they have to reference it so much in their movies.This is what completely derailed Superman Returns for example.

    Snyder had the right idea,to completely forget the past and create a brand new mythology while staying true to the characters.It’s why his trilogy of DC movies will stand the test of time.

    Respect the past but embrace the future.

    If you like. I much preferred the feel of WW84 to Justice League though: I like a bit of fun from these things; much like a Bond movie in fact.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 19,756
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    The problem is directors being in awe of the Donner era so much and feel they have to reference it so much in their movies.This is what completely derailed Superman Returns for example.

    Snyder had the right idea,to completely forget the past and create a brand new mythology while staying true to the characters.It’s why his trilogy of DC movies will stand the test of time.

    Respect the past but embrace the future.

    I agree with that, even if I like Returns.
  • edited September 5 Posts: 787
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    The problem is directors being in awe of the Donner era so much and feel they have to reference it so much in their movies.This is what completely derailed Superman Returns for example.

    Snyder had the right idea,to completely forget the past and create a brand new mythology while staying true to the characters.It’s why his trilogy of DC movies will stand the test of time.

    Respect the past but embrace the future.

    "Staying true" somehow includes turning Superman into a mopey crybaby and turning Batman into a straight up murderer? He needs to read more than just The Dark Knight Returns once in awhile, a book he completely misinterpreted.

    Man of Steel will stand the test of time, the other two won't.

    Funny.I seem to remember Christopher Reeves Superman crying like a baby in the first two Donner movies.I also remember him crushing a depowered Zods hand throwing him to his death in Superman 2.And at least Cavills Superman doesn’t date rape Lois Lane,make her forget she had sex with him and then leave earth to “ search krypton for survivors “ to avoid child welfare payments.

    And once again,Ben Afflecks Batman is not the first on screen version to kill.Michael Keatons Batman kills like crazy in the two Tim Burton movies.My favourite example is him sticking a bomb down a goons pants and sneering as he punches him over a railing and the goon explodes!

    Val Kilmers Batman intentionally kills Two Face in Batman Forever by throwing up coins as Two Face is flipping his own coin,this causes him to fall to his death.

    Christian Bales Batman kills on at least two occasions.He blows up fake Ras al ghuls lair which kills a whole bunch of ninjas.In Rises,he fires missiles at Talia al ghuls truck ,killing the driver instantly,and Talia dies soon after the truck crashes.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited September 5 Posts: 19,756
    The "oh no, Batman kills!" argument was such a sticking point for some when BvS got beaten and lapidated in 2015. The accompanying motto was that anyone who liked BvS "didn't know anything about Batman", which made me laugh while I was staring at boxes full of Batman comics. ;-) Fortunately, the extended version of BvS, much like the Snyder Cut of JL, seems to have found more approval. Either way, you are absolutely right, @AstonLotus. Film Batman has killed, so has the comic book Batman. And even if he doesn't straight up murder people, he kills indirectly by giving baddies a chance to lawyer themselves out of jail and return to the criminal underworld again. We can consider all of this ethically, morally, philosophically, psychologically, ... We can discuss the difference between collateral damage and people who are actually targeted for murder. Either way, it's a tad more complicated than to just say that a murderous Batman renders a film unwatchable, "bad", soon-to-be-forgotten, ...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 5 Posts: 8,404
    Yeah I’ve never really understood the whole ‘Batman doesn’t kill’ issue: he goes around beating people up, if you want a non-violent hero he’s not the guy to be looking to. Killing is bad of course, but it’s not like hospitalising several hundred criminals is good.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 19,756
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah I’ve never really understood the whole ‘Batman doesn’t kill’ issue: he goes around beating people up, if you want a non-violent hero he’s not the guy to be looking to. Killing is bad of course, but it’s not like hospitalising several hundred criminals is good.

    Imagine a scene in a Batman film as follows:

    Alfred: "Was it a good night, master Bruce?"
    Batman: "Streets are clean. No one's dead. It was a good night, Alfred."

    Cut to a large hospital room with dozens of thugs bleeding out, missing an eye, scarred for life. ;-)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 5 Posts: 8,404
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah I’ve never really understood the whole ‘Batman doesn’t kill’ issue: he goes around beating people up, if you want a non-violent hero he’s not the guy to be looking to. Killing is bad of course, but it’s not like hospitalising several hundred criminals is good.

    Imagine a scene in a Batman film as follows:

    Alfred: "Was it a good night, master Bruce?"
    Batman: "Streets are clean. No one's dead. It was a good night, Alfred."

    Cut to a large hospital room with dozens of thugs bleeding out, missing an eye, scarred for life. ;-)

    Haha! Exactly! :))

  • Posts: 787
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The "oh no, Batman kills!" argument was such a sticking point for some when BvS got beaten and lapidated in 2015. The accompanying motto was that anyone who liked BvS "didn't know anything about Batman", which made me laugh while I was staring at boxes full of Batman comics. ;-) Fortunately, the extended version of BvS, much like the Snyder Cut of JL, seems to have found more approval. Either way, you are absolutely right, @AstonLotus. Film Batman has killed, so has the comic book Batman. And even if he doesn't straight up murder people, he kills indirectly by giving baddies a chance to lawyer themselves out of jail and return to the criminal underworld again. We can consider all of this ethically, morally, philosophically, psychologically, ... We can discuss the difference between collateral damage and people who are actually targeted for murder. Either way, it's a tad more complicated than to just say that a murderous Batman renders a film unwatchable, "bad", soon-to-be-forgotten, ...

    Yeah people seem to have selective memories when it comes to different interpretations of the likes of Batman and Superman.A common complaint of MOS is that Supes is responsible for all the collateral damage in metropolis which is ridiculous since he spent the last hour of the movie fighting off an alien invasion of earth.People seem to forget that Christopher Reeves Superman flew directly into Metropolis and challenged three super powered beings to a fight right in the middle of the city,putting everyone in danger.Double standards,but Reeve gets a pass due to childhood nostalgia.

    Even if Batman has a no kill rule,it’s going to be inevitable that he does kill in the midst of armed combat.A great example of this is the warehouse fight in BVS where he’s fighting heavily armed mercenaries with the life of a hostage at stake.He couldn’t afford to pull his punches here.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,404
    I guess there is a moment where Reeve's Superman realises that the people of the city are in danger and flies off, trying to lead the baddies away.
    But I did watch MoS again recently with that argument in my head and I thought that it felt like there wasn't a moment where he got much choice about where to fight- he did smash a few people through bits of Smallville which felt a bit like a choice, but otherwise I didn't find it to be too bad a strike against the film.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,739
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    The problem is directors being in awe of the Donner era so much and feel they have to reference it so much in their movies.This is what completely derailed Superman Returns for example.

    Except in the case of SUPERMAN RETURNS it was poorly done. It's not proof that a Donner style film couldn't have worked for modern audiences, it's proof that Bryan Singer was a terrible choice of a director for Superman, who seemed to have nothing new to add to the table besides a bastard child. He really should have just stuck to X-MEN 3.

    IMO, the closest thing to capture the spirit of the first film by Richard Donner was Sam Raimi's SPIDER-MAN from 2002, and that was a HUGE hit for the 2000s. It showed audiences can still embrace a light and fun optimistic superhero. But instead, WB looked at the darker and grittier THE DARK KNIGHT and said to themselves "that's how we'll model our new Superman!" and it's been awful since.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,404
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    The problem is directors being in awe of the Donner era so much and feel they have to reference it so much in their movies.This is what completely derailed Superman Returns for example.

    Except in the case of SUPERMAN RETURNS it was poorly done. It's not proof that a Donner style film couldn't have worked for modern audiences, it's proof that Bryan Singer was a terrible choice of a director for Superman, who seemed to have nothing new to add to the table besides a bastard child. He really should have just stuck to X-MEN 3.

    IMO, the closest thing to capture the spirit of the first film by Richard Donner was Sam Raimi's SPIDER-MAN from 2002, and that was a HUGE hit for the 2000s. It showed audiences can still embrace a light and fun optimistic superhero.

    Yes, I guess: I think it's a bit more original than that too though. I think those Spider Man films are possibly still the best superhero films so far for my money to be honest.
    I do think WW84 is in the spirit of the Reeve Superman films- possibly closer than than the Raimis. But it's not as well-done: it bags and sags where it needs tightening up; and it's actually quite unpleasant to look at, full of dark, dull gloomy interiors. The set where WW has her climactic fight with Wiig is just horrible.
  • Posts: 787
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    The problem is directors being in awe of the Donner era so much and feel they have to reference it so much in their movies.This is what completely derailed Superman Returns for example.

    Except in the case of SUPERMAN RETURNS it was poorly done. It's not proof that a Donner style film couldn't have worked for modern audiences, it's proof that Bryan Singer was a terrible choice of a director for Superman, who seemed to have nothing new to add to the table besides a bastard child. He really should have just stuck to X-MEN 3.

    IMO, the closest thing to capture the spirit of the first film by Richard Donner was Sam Raimi's SPIDER-MAN from 2002, and that was a HUGE hit for the 2000s. It showed audiences can still embrace a light and fun optimistic superhero. But instead, WB looked at the darker and grittier THE DARK KNIGHT and said to themselves "that's how we'll model our new Superman!" and it's been awful since.

    I agree with most of what you said except the part where you say they modelled their new Superman on the TDK.MOS isn’t dark,Superman is still a ultimately a good person who wants to help people but they took a more believable look at what it would be like for a person who grew up having super powers but had to hide them until the time was right.

    The final scene where he joins the daily planet and “ meets Lois “ for the first time and Hans zimmers score blasts into the credits I always found very inspiring.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,739
    I disagree. The ending rang false for me because just a few minutes prior we saw a city get pulverized and a remorseful Superman killing Zod. So the movie trying to lighten up the mood at the end felt like it should have belonged in a different film. Even though I’m not a fan of BvS, at least that film ended on a more somber note that was appropriate with what came before.

    And I meant to say they modeled after Nolan via BATMAN BEGINS. It was in 2008 after TDK became a billion dollar smash hit that the president of WB announced the intention to reboot Superman in the same dark and gritty tone as Nolan’s Batman, and they did that by hiring Nolan himself to “godfather” the film as a writer and producer.

    That’s less so for BvS and JL, because with those Snyder went more towards the operatic approach he used in WATCHMEN. Lots of slow mo, needle drops, etc.
  • Posts: 787
    I disagree. The ending rang false for me because just a few minutes prior we saw a city get pulverized and a remorseful Superman killing Zod. So the movie trying to lighten up the mood at the end felt like it should have belonged in a different film. Even though I’m not a fan of BvS, at least that film ended on a more somber note that was appropriate with what came before.

    And I meant to say they modeled after Nolan via BATMAN BEGINS. It was in 2008 after TDK became a billion dollar smash hit that the president of WB announced the intention to reboot Superman in the same dark and gritty tone as Nolan’s Batman, and they did that by hiring Nolan himself to “godfather” the film as a writer and producer.

    That’s less so for BvS and JL, because with those Snyder went more towards the operatic approach he used in WATCHMEN. Lots of slow mo, needle drops, etc.

    By that logic the ending of Superman 2 ( The version released in cinemas at least ) rings false since Reeves Superman crushes Zods hand,throws him against a wall and lets him fall to his death ( He does this with a big smirk on his face by the way ).He also looks pleased with Lois after she punches Ursa and lets her fall to her death!

    I know of the deleted scenes where we see the baddies actually survived and are hauled off to jail but since it wasn’t part of the actual film it’s not canon.

    There is at least a significant jump in time from the final fight in MOS to the actual ending where Clark joins the daily planet ( At least a year ) and I find its earned as Clark has finally found his purpose in life.And at least BVS did deal with the repercussions of his fight with Zod.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,739
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    I disagree. The ending rang false for me because just a few minutes prior we saw a city get pulverized and a remorseful Superman killing Zod. So the movie trying to lighten up the mood at the end felt like it should have belonged in a different film. Even though I’m not a fan of BvS, at least that film ended on a more somber note that was appropriate with what came before.

    And I meant to say they modeled after Nolan via BATMAN BEGINS. It was in 2008 after TDK became a billion dollar smash hit that the president of WB announced the intention to reboot Superman in the same dark and gritty tone as Nolan’s Batman, and they did that by hiring Nolan himself to “godfather” the film as a writer and producer.

    That’s less so for BvS and JL, because with those Snyder went more towards the operatic approach he used in WATCHMEN. Lots of slow mo, needle drops, etc.

    By that logic the ending of Superman 2 ( The version released in cinemas at least ) rings false since Reeves Superman crushes Zods hand,throws him against a wall and lets him fall to his death ( He does this with a big smirk on his face by the way ).He also looks pleased with Lois after she punches Ursa and lets her fall to her death!

    Yes, I agree that SUPERMAN II rings false on that as well. Make no mistake, I have problems with ALL the Superman films, including the original film with Donner. There’s no DC film without bags of issues. Whether it’s Superman reversing time, Supes killing Zod, Batman murdering the Joker, Tim Burton asking us to sympathize a freak show like Penguin that kidnaps and intends to murder children, etc. I can go on and on.
    I know of the deleted scenes where we see the baddies actually survived and are hauled off to jail but since it wasn’t part of the actual film it’s not canon.

    Sure, but what’s also canon is the Donner cut where Superman imprisons the baddies back into the phantom zone. Seems Donner always intended for them to live but be imprisoned, and the theatrical cut having them murdered was a decision made either by the Salkinds or Richard Lester. At least Cavill’s Superman had a more urgent excuse to kill Zod, whereas Reeve’s basically murdered a helpless human.

    WHAT A DICK!!!
    There is at least a significant jump in time from the final fight in MOS to the actual ending where Clark joins the daily planet ( At least a year ) and I find its earned as Clark has finally found his purpose in life.And at least BVS did deal with the repercussions of his fight with Zod.

    Too little too late.
  • edited September 10 Posts: 15,577
    INJUSTICE Animated Movie.
  • edited October 7 Posts: 15,577
    DC FANDOME 2021 Trailer...

    Brief appearance by PB.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 3,494
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 14 Posts: 4,632
    matt_u wrote: »
    I’m so excited for the new trailer.

    This was also shared earlier:

  • edited October 16 Posts: 4,789


  • Posts: 8,704
    Ok I saw the Batman trailer and the flash teaser


    OMG
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 16 Posts: 8,404
    Gerard wrote: »

    That's very nicely judged in terms of just giving a bit of hint! Everyone's interested in this because of the Keaton factor, aren't they?

    Is that a hint of '89 music right at the beginning?
  • Posts: 8,704
    mtm wrote: »
    Gerard wrote: »

    That's very nicely judged in terms of just giving a bit of hint! Everyone's interested in this because of the Keaton factor, aren't they?

    Is that a hint of '89 music right at the beginning?

    Yes snd this looks amazing
  • edited October 17 Posts: 15,577
    DC are on FIRE!!!

    My eyes welled up listening to Keaton's Batman.
Sign In or Register to comment.