- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Speculation Thread (Possible Spoilers)
Posted on 8/21/14 at 7:38 pm to OMLandshark
Posted on 8/21/14 at 7:38 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
If you mean anything like the new Captain America or X-Men film, than I will gladly.
One is not like the other
1
Posted on 8/21/14 at 9:33 pm to BlacknGold
quote:
If you mean anything like the new Captain America or X-Men film, than I will gladly.
quote:
One is not like the other
Both awesome, but for different reasons. (Falcon and Quicksilver)
Posted on 8/22/14 at 12:17 am to Fewer Kilometers
Or one is Marvel and one is not.
Posted on 8/22/14 at 3:44 pm to BlacknGold
But they're both great movies.
I wish people would get off of the entire Marvel Studios/Non-Marvel Studios shtick.
Or at least call them what they are, Disney movies, Fox movies, and Sony movies.
Ridiculous to say that an X-Men movie with Stan Lee waving at the camera isn't a "Marvel" movie.
Marvel sold a piece of themselves to Fox and Sony and then sold the remainder to Disney. Just different folks pulling from the same well.
I wish people would get off of the entire Marvel Studios/Non-Marvel Studios shtick.
Or at least call them what they are, Disney movies, Fox movies, and Sony movies.
Ridiculous to say that an X-Men movie with Stan Lee waving at the camera isn't a "Marvel" movie.
Marvel sold a piece of themselves to Fox and Sony and then sold the remainder to Disney. Just different folks pulling from the same well.
Posted on 8/22/14 at 3:51 pm to Fewer Kilometers
i mean the big reason to keep saying it is because of the big picture and universe in Marvel movies.
to claim x-men, FF, spider-man, etc. as the same "well" as Avengers, Cap, Thor, etc. is wrong because they are now completely separate entities.
to claim x-men, FF, spider-man, etc. as the same "well" as Avengers, Cap, Thor, etc. is wrong because they are now completely separate entities.
Posted on 8/23/14 at 12:10 am to BlacknGold
SUPERMAN WILL REPORTEDLY ANSWER FOR MAN OF STEEL'S DESTRUCTION
quote:
The controversial third act of Man of Steel -- which saw Superman and General Zod lay waste to Metropolis in a battle royale -- will reportedly be addressed head on in the forthcoming Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Potential spoilers follow ...
Batman-News claims there will be a sequence in the film set in Washington D.C. The site reports that an action set was shot in Detroit in July that "involves Superman and the United States Capitol building in Washington D.C." The site posted spy pics of Capitol Hill taxis and Metro D.C. police cars on the set.
"Superman will have to answer for what happened at the end of Man of Steel. Half the public blames him for all the death and destruction. If it wasn’t for Superman being there, General Zod would have never come to Earth," according to Batman-News.
Holly Hunter reportedly plays a U.S.senator in the film, which is due out March 25, 2016. There was quite a bit of hubbub the other day about Scoot McNairy's role in BvS and why he was wearing green leggings on set, which would seem to indicate that his character is an amputee.
Here's my theory: maybe McNairy's character lost his legs in the battle of Metropolis and is testifying about why Superman's a threat. This would put a human face on the destruction waged at the end of Man of Steel. Again, that's just this editor's own fan theory.
Posted on 8/23/14 at 1:06 am to abellsujr
Now if they just address Pa Kent being a pussy and Superman killing the first foe that he encountered.
Posted on 8/25/14 at 2:14 pm to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
Actually, Marvel will have four series on Netflix next year and one miniseries tying all four together.
quote:
Are you replying to me from two weeks ago?
Marvel has one series scheduled for 2015 on Netflix. The other three are being planned to follow but have not announced writers, directors, no casting... If you see any news about dates for the other three series, please post them. Right now, Daredevil is the only one in production. They announced the director for Daredevil ten months ago, and they're just getting to the filming. At this pace, I doubt that the other three will launch in 2015. We might get the Defenders movie in 2017 or 2018.
Update: Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos says that they are in the writers room for Jessica Jones and they're looking at casting Jessica.
So look for the 2nd Netflix series of the four to possibly show up late in 2015.
Posted on 8/25/14 at 2:18 pm to abellsujr
quote:
SUPERMAN WILL REPORTEDLY ANSWER FOR MAN OF STEEL'S DESTRUCTION
i would love to hear how those who made this their main criticism of MoS feel about this news.
Posted on 8/25/14 at 2:44 pm to BlacknGold
quote:
i would love to hear how those who made this their main criticism of MoS feel about this news.
They kind of have to acknowledge it though. They completely refused to in the last film, with them making out on the corpses of thousands, being cheerful going to a baseball game, and the only thing that really affected Superman was a nameless family of 4, which is really just tears in a bucket at that point. If they didn't acknowledge it, it would be the final nail in the proverbial coffin on how this movie would turn out.
Posted on 8/25/14 at 2:44 pm to BlacknGold
quote:
i would love to hear how those who made this their main criticism of MoS feel about this news
I feel apathetic about it; just like I felt watching MoS.
Posted on 8/25/14 at 3:12 pm to BlacknGold
quote:
i would love to hear how those who made this their main criticism of MoS feel about this news.
What does he have to apologize for? I thought everyone said the amount of destruction was acceptable and completely in line with the Superman character?
Anyways, solving a major plot problem of an initial film in the follow-up is not necessarily a good way to go about things.
But Woohoo I guess? Cookies for everyone involved for finally getting the point.
Posted on 8/25/14 at 3:20 pm to Freauxzen
I hate this thread on so many levels.
There will never be any legitimate discussion about this movie.
Everyone has their own personal interpretation of Batman and Superman, and so do the various directors, writers, actors, etc. Y'all must really like bitching back and forth over the most irrelevant interpretations. It's normal to have an opinion and your own view, but to derail legit discussion to rehash the same pointless arguments is just a waste of time IMO.
There will never be any legitimate discussion about this movie.
Everyone has their own personal interpretation of Batman and Superman, and so do the various directors, writers, actors, etc. Y'all must really like bitching back and forth over the most irrelevant interpretations. It's normal to have an opinion and your own view, but to derail legit discussion to rehash the same pointless arguments is just a waste of time IMO.
Posted on 8/25/14 at 3:29 pm to schexyoung
quote:
I hate this thread on so many levels.
I don't know why we keep it. Just start a new one because...
quote:
There will never be any legitimate discussion about this movie.
There's a chance. The discussion with the film is a battle of equilibrium.
For some people there's no such thing as bad news, to others, there's no such thing as good news. So the discussion volleys between those two extremes.
quote:
Everyone has their own personal interpretation of Batman and Superman, and so do the various directors, writers, actors, etc.
Yes and no. I think Batman is a much more fluid character than Superman, and that's only because how far to the cheesey extreme his character has been taken. That dulls any kind of pigeonholing you can do. Superman? Not so much.
quote:
Y'all must really like bitching back and forth over the most irrelevant interpretations. It's normal to have an opinion and your own view, but to derail legit discussion to rehash the same pointless arguments is just a waste of time IMO.
That's why everyone loves the internet.
This post was edited on 8/25/14 at 3:30 pm
Posted on 8/25/14 at 3:31 pm to BlacknGold
quote:
i would love to hear how those who made this their main criticism of MoS feel about this news.
It was #3 on my list of criticisms (not the destruction, but the lack of their showing concern at the time.)
If they do address the destruction I think that it will be a huge step in the right direction. The excuse of "bringing reality" to Superhero movies is used so often. I'd be happy for them to use that crutch in order to help a character seem more heroic than used to bring him down a peg.
Hopefully it would set a precedent in that DC movie universe that they can't just obliterate cities and then go about business as usual.
Posted on 8/25/14 at 4:10 pm to OMLandshark
probably where MOS failed, they didn't build him up as a hero at all. So of course people are going to be pissed thousands died in a battle that had nothing to do with them
Posted on 8/25/14 at 4:17 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
I don't know why we keep it. Just start a new one because...
hope this was sarcasm because there have been multiple threads that had nothing to do with MoS, yet got completely derailed by discussions about the destruction.
Posted on 8/25/14 at 4:18 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
solving a major plot problem of an initial film in the follow-up is not necessarily a good way to go about things
so solving a major plot problem is not a good thing? yet, if they ignore it, people still get pissy.
Posted on 8/25/14 at 4:24 pm to BlacknGold
quote:
hope this was sarcasm because there have been multiple threads that had nothing to do with MoS, yet got completely derailed by discussions about the destruction.
How so? If everyone kind of approached it equally. We have competent discussion all the time here, there's no reason we can't have a civil discussion about BvS.
In fact, wasn't the Affleck announcement pretty tame?
Posted on 8/25/14 at 4:26 pm to abellsujr
quote:
He's 41. They need to age him at least 9 years. He has a young face. It's hard to tell with that picture, but he could pass for 45-50.
Am I the only person that actually likes Affleck in this role?
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News