re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice set and cast photos

quote:

---

We understand that. At least I do. I understand what they were trying to do with the character. I'd just prefer that, if you're given the assignment of making a Superman movie, you make a Superman movie. If you're embarrassed by Superman not killing his adversaries, if you're embarrassed by the Lois/Clark/Superman triangle, if you're embarrassed by Ma and Pa Kent being the reason that he grows up to be Superman... then make some other movie about some other superhero.

Don't take the one perfect superhero who launched the entire genre and turn him into just another flawed, dark and gritty "badass" character.

---

Exactly. The movie had no idea what it wanted to be, see this:

quote:

---

Traditionally in previous Superman comics and movies, the character has been reluctant to take a life. Goyer, however, stated that the Man of Steel's moral code "exists outside of the narrative and I just don't believe in rules like that".

---

Goyer doesn't believe in rules like the established moral code of the character. Oh ok.

quote:

---

'Superman doesn't kill'. It's a rule that exists outside of the narrative and I just don't believe in rules like that. I believe when you're writing film or television, you can't rely on a crutch or rule that exists outside of the narrative of the film.

---

LINK

And I don't even think the problem is that he killed specifically, it's that the film didn't contextualize it correctly outside of the cowering family, which to me, wasn't nearly enough.

It still could have been a "Superman" film with Superman killing had it been handled by a clever and cautious writer and set up correctly. But it wasn't.

quote:

---

Don't take the one perfect superhero who launched the entire genre and turn him into just another flawed, dark and gritty "badass" character.

---

Bingo.

quote:

---

. I understand what they were trying to do with the character. I'd just prefer that, if you're given the assignment of making a Superman movie, you make a Superman movie. If you're embarrassed by Superman not killing his adversaries, if you're embarrassed by the Lois/Clark/Superman triangle, if you're embarrassed by Ma and Pa Kent being the reason that he grows up to be Superman

---

i dont understand the "embarrassment" angle. what do you mean too embarrassed by it?

quote:

---

Don't take the one perfect superhero who launched the entire genre and turn him into just another flawed, dark and gritty "badass" character

---

perfect is boring and stale. its easily the #1 complaint when you talk about comic characters to people. everyone is tired of Superman being a boyscout and being over powered. there have been numerous threads on this board alone on it.

also, characters change through the decades. if they dont, whats the point? look at cyclops, spider-man, batman. those characters changed immensely, even significantly over the past 10 years.

you adept to the the culture youre in, so your character can relate to a new audience. unfortunately, "the dark and gritty" is what most people want. also, if your character isnt flawed, whats the point? how do you tell a story if he has no potential for growth?

this is a Superman reboot. dont base your expectations on the past. he could grow into that Superman. but he doesnt start that way. no one would. isnt it a better story to see that growth into that "prefect" character you know?

quote:

---

Earth doesn't have a Asgardian prison like where they kept Loki.


Yeah that always works out well.

---

To be fair, Loki was only put in the prison once and he didn't escape, he was let out.

quote:

---

you were one of the biggest Superman haters in the tournament thread for the exact reasons as being perfect and god-tier. they change that, and now you say they shouldnt?

---

There's a difference between powers, what the tournament was about, and morals/narrative/character which is what this is about. A big, big difference.

Again, called a hater, when I actually like Superman, how many times do I have to repeat that Superman (1978), still is, to this day, probably the best comic book movie. The narrative you guys paint is hysterical. He has some moments in comics when he becomes boring yes, and he's often held as the best when he really isn't, but he's a fine character, one of the best.

quote:

---

right but you still used his strength as a complaint about how he shouldve been able to steer a fight he had absolutely no experience in.

---

The movie set up the rules, not me. It showed Superman punching Zod into space (or vice versa, doesn't matter). If they get into space, it doesn't take a genius to say, "Hey, maybe we shouldn't go back to Earth where thousands could be killed, I'll punch him towards Mars."

Was the whole strength level a little problematic? Yes. But that doesn't kill the movie. While I watching, I'd say, "Ok, let's play by these rules...." but still there's a big problem with how the narrative swung itself toward wanton destruction for no purpose.

Again, that level of destruction would have been ok had the movie dealt with the fact that thousands of people died, or Superman accidentally killing someone, or pausing to realize the destruction he caused. But it doesn't It swings to the next Kryptonian being flung into a large explosive object, and makes a one line remark about damage about it later.

Again, this comes down to execution. It wasn't a nuanced film in terms of Superman's character or growth. And, yes, that affects the action sequences.

quote:

---

quote:

---

morals/narrative/character which is what this is about

---

which are all being rewritten, as is the basis of this movie.

---

Again, this is fine, the problem is the way that it's being rewritten.

quote:

---

He makes mistakes. He kills people, shite gets damaged. And that makes for a far more interesting character and a far better movie.

---

Yes, maturity in artistic properties can only be reached with darkness, death, destruction, nudity, violence.

Complexity comes from pain, madness, depression, anxiety, loss, etc.

Such a terrible outlook on life that good, true and positive things aren't complex or interesting.

(Broad generalization but that's the implication.)

The big problem is that Nolan CAN make this work (and it was still overly ominous a few times), now everyone thinks they can.

this movie will suck

quote:

---

Yeah how many times have you been in a fight? I've been in a few and my primary thoughts have always been A. Kick their arse and B. Don't get your arse kicked. He didn't have time to strategize. He didn't have time to plan how he was going to defeat Zod.

---

Then you think that Superman is not only a complete idiot and a terrible person, but also he has no instinct whatsoever. It literally wouldn't take a seconds worth of a thought to look around, realize that hundreds of thousands are dead (if not millions), and that you need to get this incredibly violent psychopath in as abandoned of an area as possible.

It would be one thing if Zod was out solely to destroy the city, but he was just out to kill Superman now. He would have followed him.

quote:

---

Would you have been as intrigued with the final Battle in The Avengers if it was in the middle of the Sahara? What about the climaxes of all 3 Iron Man movies? And so on and such. Location matters. It gives us a sense of the stakes and how powerful and impactful the two forces are that are colliding.

---

Yeah, but the antagonists are in those locations for a reason. Loki is point blank invading New York, and the Avengers are a mere nuisance to him. It would have been as simple as Zod saying he'll finish what he started and level Metropolis. Instead another 200,000 people are killed and Superman for some reason doesn't think about them, just a family of 4. It's tears in a bucket right now, what's another 4 people among a million?

quote:

---

Again, you must not have ever been in a fight. When you are in a fight, no one thinks about getting away from the current area. They think about protecting themselves and inflicting damage. He had no time to prepare at all. It was dumped on him. The only time he legitimately got to look around was right before he killed Zod. Even still, from a movie-making standpoint, having the fight in the city was a FAR better idea than a desert or anywhere else. When you have two god-like beings throw down, people want to see the scale and power of their fight.

---

I really don't think you understand the concept of a hero. A hero in its most basic form is someone who puts the needs of others above himself. But Superman has to look like a badass ramming through buildings and taking out skyscapers, at the cost of a few hundred thousand lives. Real heroic.

quote:

---

No he wasn't. I've seen the movie 3 times with the most recent time being in the last 2 weeks. He makes it abundantly clear that he not only wants to kill Kal, but every human on Earth as well. You're wrong.

---

Why then doesn't he just run off and try and kill them? Seems to me he was pretty focused on taking out Superman, at least first.

quote:

---

And Zod wasn't in Metropolis for a reason? Are you intentionally being this obtuse or are you unaware of how ignorant you sound? And where are you pulling the crap out about another 200k people being killed? Look if you are going to argue an asinine, ignorance filled point, at least try to keep the bullshite to a minimum.

---

His purpose for Metropolis was pretty much screwed after his ship went down.

And do you really not think that hundreds of thousands weren't killed in Metropolis?