DC Extended Universe Thread | Wonder Woman | June 2nd, 2017

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

Ahh Hyp3hat, you just triggered one of my biggest pet peeves! He's Christopher Reeve, not Christopher Reeves. x)

I agree that "edgelording" Superman up was probably a really bad idea - though honestly, I actually think it could've actually worked pretty well if they'd kept the dark and serious component but mixed it with more of the hope and goodness that's always characterized Superman. (And yes, I do really mean "always"; even if the original Golden Age comics version of the character was a lot more violent and willing to do things more recent incarnations wouldn't dream of, he still fundamentally symbolized hope and good triumphing over evil, and his character was just as centered around unselfishly helping people as future versions were. And I'm also pretty sure he wouldn't destroy enormous numbers of innocent people as collateral damage either, lol.) Like, the surroundings can still be relatively dark and edgy, but in the midst of it, Superman is there, symbolizing hope and believing that doing the right thing matters no matter what's going on around you. But I think the problem is that important things about Superman's character weren't quite kept in tact. I can't help but think of the fact that Jonathan Kent taught his son that human life sometimes isn't what matters most, and how later in the movie Clark seems to adhere to his teaching all too much... :\

And what's weird is that, I honestly think both of those components (Clark's dad telling him not to save people and even Superman causing so much destruction), which I both hated so much, could've worked if they'd brought in more of the fundamental goodness of those two characters. Show Jonathan being very reluctant about what he says, and really wishing he didn't have to, but only doing what he does because he believes it's the best for his son, and maybe show him later growing as a character and accepting that helping people with his powers is something Clark has to do. Show Superman starting out trying his very hardest to prevent civilian casualties, until finally he reaches a breaking point where he feels he has to take down Zod as quickly as possible and he can't even think about that part anymore, even though destroying innocent lives breaks his heart and is something he has to struggle at the end of the movie to even begin to come to terms with. I don't know, I honestly think that, if well done, this could've made for a really interesting, maybe even deep, movie that respected the character's legacy while still doing something different from what audiences might expect. It wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea, and I'm not saying it's the absolute best idea for a Superman movie ever, but, well, I think it could've worked.

To be honest, when I watched Man of Steel I actually got a large amount of enjoyment out of it, but I still have a hard time saying that I feel positively about it because I think many of the decisions made going into it were very ill-conceived. But I guess I'm just saying that I think a relatively dark, serious Superman movie could work, even though it's of course extremely arguable whether or not it was the best idea or direction to go into, and there are many pitfalls that come with the idea that I think Man of Steel unfortunately didn't do a very good job of avoiding. The character is actually very versatile. I mean, if you look at the character's TV history, he's starred in a crime show that eventually morphed into a silly kids' show, a rom-com, and a teen supernatural drama. I think he can work in a lot of different environments, including perhaps relatively dark ones. Whether it's a good idea to even try, you be the judge.

Also, I personally feel that, as well as the Christopher Reeve movies did when they were released, I really don't know if they'd work today. I've only watched the first movie, but to be perfectly honest, I don't think it's aged well. It's extremely cheesy, the storyline is stupid at points, and I find connecting to the character on a human level to be almost impossible. If you ask me, Superman doesn't have to be "Space Jesus", he just has to be someone who cares about people and wants to help them. But I guess that's a discussion for another day.

Anyway, despite its poor reception, I'm excited to see the movie because I'm really, really curious about it xD (I went on a massive tangent in this post, didn't I?)

[Ryannumber1gamer]

52 minutes ago, Monkey Destruction Switch said:

And what's weird is that, I honestly think both of those components (Clark's dad telling him not to save people and even Superman causing so much destruction), which I both hated so much, could've worked if they'd brought in more of the fundamental goodness of those two characters. Show Jonathan being very reluctant about what he says, and really wishing he didn't have to, but only doing what he does because he believes it's the best for his son, and maybe show him later growing as a character and accepting that helping people with his powers is something Clark has to do. Show Superman starting out trying his very hardest to prevent civilian casualties, until finally he reaches a breaking point where he feels he has to take down Zod as quickly as possible and he can't even think about that part anymore, even though destroying innocent lives breaks his heart and is something he has to struggle at the end of the movie to even begin to come to terms with. I don't know, I honestly think that, if well done, this could've made for a really interesting, maybe even deep, movie that respected the character's legacy while still doing something different from what audiences might expect. It wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea, and I'm not saying it's the absolute best idea for a Superman movie ever, but, well, I think it could've worked.

But MDS, you forget. Jonathan isn't Clark's dad. He's a mentor! So therefore he only exists to just go on about how Superman is important, and will change the world as we know it. I think that's honestly a massive problem with his, and a lot of others' characterization in this film, in that their normal personalities are overwritten in order to make Superman seem like a big symbol and the end result is screwing up things with a Jonathan Clark who has no problem telling his son "don't save people who desperately need your help"

[Wraith]

45 minutes ago, Monkey Destruction Switch said:

Ahh Hyp3hat, you just triggered one of my biggest pet peeves! He's Christopher Reeve, not Christopher Reeves. x)

I agree that "edgelording" Superman up was probably a really bad idea - though honestly, I actually think it could've actually worked pretty well if they'd kept the dark and serious component but mixed it with more of the hope and goodness that's always characterized Superman. (And yes, I do really mean "always"; even if the original Golden Age comics version of the character was a lot more violent and willing to do things more recent incarnations wouldn't dream of, he still fundamentally symbolized hope and good triumphing over evil, and his character was just as centered around unselfishly helping people as future versions were. And I'm also pretty sure he wouldn't destroy enormous numbers of innocent people as collateral damage either, lol.) Like, the surroundings can still be relatively dark and edgy, but in the midst of it, Superman is there, symbolizing hope and believing that doing the right thing matters no matter what's going on around you. But I think the problem is that important things about Superman's character weren't quite kept in tact. I can't help but think of the fact that Jonathan Kent taught his son that human life sometimes isn't what matters most, and how later in the movie Clark seems to adhere to his teaching all too much... :\

And what's weird is that, I honestly think both of those components (Clark's dad telling him not to save people and even Superman causing so much destruction), which I both hated so much, could've worked if they'd brought in more of the fundamental goodness of those two characters. Show Jonathan being very reluctant about what he says, and really wishing he didn't have to, but only doing what he does because he believes it's the best for his son, and maybe show him later growing as a character and accepting that helping people with his powers is something Clark has to do. Show Superman starting out trying his very hardest to prevent civilian casualties, until finally he reaches a breaking point where he feels he has to take down Zod as quickly as possible and he can't even think about that part anymore, even though destroying innocent lives breaks his heart and is something he has to struggle at the end of the movie to even begin to come to terms with. I don't know, I honestly think that, if well done, this could've made for a really interesting, maybe even deep, movie that respected the character's legacy while still doing something different from what audiences might expect. It wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea, and I'm not saying it's the absolute best idea for a Superman movie ever, but, well, I think it could've worked.

To be honest, when I watched Man of Steel I actually got a large amount of enjoyment out of it, but I still have a hard time saying that I feel positively about it because I think many of the decisions made going into it were very ill-conceived. But I guess I'm just saying that I think a relatively dark, serious Superman movie could work, even though it's of course extremely arguable whether or not it was the best idea or direction to go into, and there are many pitfalls that come with the idea that I think Man of Steel unfortunately didn't do a very good job of avoiding. The character is actually very versatile. I mean, if you look at the character's TV history, he's starred in a crime show that eventually morphed into a silly kids' show, a rom-com, and a teen supernatural drama. I think he can work in a lot of different environments, including perhaps relatively dark ones. Whether it's a good idea to even try, you be the judge.

Also, I personally feel that, as well as the Christopher Reeve movies did when they were released, I really don't know if they'd work today. I've only watched the first movie, but to be perfectly honest, I don't think it's aged well. It's extremely cheesy, the storyline is stupid at points, and I find connecting to the character on a human level to be almost impossible. If you ask me, Superman doesn't have to be "Space Jesus", he just has to be someone who cares about people and wants to help them. But I guess that's a discussion for another day.

Anyway, despite its poor reception, I'm excited to see the movie because I'm really, really curious about it xD (I went on a massive tangent in this post, didn't I?)

They try to rectify some of the mistakes MOS made with the character in the new film. I don't think it all really works and Batman stealing the spotlight only makes it harder for Supes to shine, but I think you might like how Clark turns out in this going by this post.

[Hyp3hat]

@Monkey Destruction Switch I actually put Man Of Steel on in the background after writing that post, and I'm astounded by how... Un-Superman he is in this flick. It's been ages since I saw it, and I think he just looks really irritated at having to look after people in this movie. 

They should have totally played up how fucked up Costner's advice was, especially as it lead to his own death. In the Reeve (I knew it felt wrong as I typed it earlier!) movie, his fathers death works in a really fantastic way - even Superman can't prevent a heart attack, after all. Costner lets himself die to teach his son... don't be yourself? Be ashamed of who you are? If Superman vowed to save people and use his powers for good explicitly after that, that would have really worked. Instead, Kent just wanders off, embarassed by his Superpowers and doing the occasional act of goodness and running away, until he meets his ghost dad and Zod shows up. Suddenly he puts on his suit and is Superman, and it's like... do you really want to be Superman? It doesn't even seem like a burden, it's just an inconvenience. 

And Cavill is so charmless and seems so annoyed at having to do Superman esque things, that the whole killing Zod thing has zero gravitas. He does his big no, but that's it. he's right back to being perpetually annoyed about being Superman. Like, I've seen all the buildup to it and Superman has such a disregard for that small town where the mystery crew decide to throw trains at him and blow up that IHOP... like, Reeve and Donner's Superman would have tried to take the fight away from that? By tackling someone through a crowded restaurant, you've killed like 15 people. 

I mean, there's a good movie in there, in the ways you suggest,  but Man Of Steel was just not interested in telling that story. 

I haven't seen Wrestlemania: Batman V Superman yet, and I'm not spending a tenner to get a migraine from the thumping soundtrack and eye-searing 3D, so I should probably duck out of this.

 

[Celestia]

3 hours ago, Monkey Destruction Switch said:

I agree that "edgelording" Superman up was probably a really bad idea - though honestly, I actually think it could've actually worked pretty well if they'd kept the dark and serious component but mixed it with more of the hope and goodness that's always characterized Superman. [(]And yes, I do really mean "always"; even if the original Golden Age comics version of the character was a lot more violent and willing to do things more recent incarnations wouldn't dream of, he still fundamentally symbolized hope and good triumphing over evil, and his character was just as centered around unselfishly helping people as future versions were.

Y'know, I'd love to see early Superman adapted one of these days. Like, draw some lines that weren't there (IIRC he pretty much just straight up kills people, or at least uses his strength in ways that realistically would kill someone, even if we don't see it happen on-panel), but otherwise, I don't mind the idea of a more violent Superman, especially early on in his career. Him developing into the more contemporary version of the character who goes a lot easier on weaker foes and only saves that stuff for the really powerful bad guys would be a pretty good arc for a film version of the character, I think.

That and it'd be cathartic for audiences everywhere to see Clark throw some average assholes (i.e. abusers) around and not just the superpowered bad people.

Quote

Show Jonathan being very reluctant about what he says, and really wishing he didn't have to, but only doing what he does because he believes it's the best for his son, and maybe show him later growing as a character and accepting that helping people with his powers is something Clark has to do.

This would have been fantastic and much more in-character for Jonathan. Citing Smallville for a second, it also had a Jonathan who was very paranoid about Clark's secret (and rightfully so, to be fair). The main difference is he never discouraged Clark from helping people, not only on a moral basis but also just because that's who Clark is. Even years before he started crimefighting on a nightly basis, it was pure instinct for him to leap in and save someone whenever he saw some shit goin' down. Doesn't matter if he knows the person or not, or if someone's watching, he'll be there.

And I know people have gone on about this a lot over the years, but the way Jonathan dies to that tornado just...doesn't make any sense. Like, even as a kid Clark was probably fast enough to get in there and get him out, and what are the chances someone's gonna notice something like that in middle of a disaster? It's just a really nonsensical way to kill off Jonathan, and that's just on top of how out of character the whole thing was.

Quote

Show Superman starting out trying his very hardest to prevent civilian casualties, until finally he reaches a breaking point where he feels he has to take down Zod as quickly as possible and he can't even think about that part anymore, even though destroying innocent lives breaks his heart and is something he has to struggle at the end of the movie to even begin to come to terms with. I don't know, I honestly think that, if well done, this could've made for a really interesting, maybe even deep, movie that respected the character's legacy while still doing something different from what audiences might expect. It wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea, and I'm not saying it's the absolute best idea for a Superman movie ever, but, well, I think it could've worked.

I'm gonna go all out and say that absolutely could have worked and been a great idea for a Superman movie. One theme that you see in some Superman stories--most famously, Jonathan's death in the '79 film--is that even with all of his powers, Clark won't be able to save everyone ever. But it's not impossible to spin that into a hopeful message: just because he can't save everyone, doesn't mean he can't try to save as many people as he can. In MoS he...doesn't even really try before immediately going into "world of cardboard" mode.

Anyway, I'm still kind of interested in seeing BvS based on stuff people I know have said about it (you know who you are!!!). It sounds like there are some good points in there, but I'm probably never gonna be happy with how they're handling Superman and his mythos / supporting cast / etc. in these films, as long as it continues on like this anyway. It sounds like they did some weird stuff with Batman too, but from what I've seen, I really like Affleck in the role, so get him (and Clark :V) away from Zach Snyder and we could see some improvement.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Celestia

[Wraith]

Who wants a huge wall of text on what I thought of this clusterfuck? 

Spoilers.

Spoiler

Batman vs Superman is a really rough movie.

For every good idea it has, there’s two or three bad ones. For every instance of the writers nailing the characters, there’s another where there’s a misunderstanding of them down to the conceptual level.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of good here. Ben Affleck kills it as Bruce Wayne. Henry Cavill seems to be trying his hardest to work with the material he’s given as Clark. Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman’s great in her 3 scenes and I only wanted to see more of her. The cinematography is AMAZING and the movie often looks like a comic book panel come to life. The music is great. There’s a lot of genuine effort and earnestness put into it.

The action in particular is great, specifically from Batman. Scenes like the Batmobile chase, Knightmare and when he has to rescue Martha are awesome because for once, it seems like we’re seeing Batman fight like the batman from the comics, cartoons and games. Superman and Wonder Woman don’t get nearly as much time to fight in this regard, but this is made up for in the end when Batman spends most of the last action sequence cowering and running away while Superman and Wonder Woman tag-team Doomsday.

 It’s not the cynical cash grab that a lot of people try to paint it as, but a lot of it is rough. The movie’s structure and pacing just don’t work. Entire scenes are devoted to redundant bits like retelling Batman’s origin story, or confirming that, yes, he’s still mad about the fact that his parents died. Dream sequences that try to expand on Batman and Superman’s respective insecurities and weaknesses, but end up being redundant since these things are things we already knew and understood from scenes prior. The KNIGHTMARE sequence which is visually amazing and causes a lot of intrigue, but doesn’t really help the film it’s actually in very much at all. I’m sure it’ll be awesome in hindsight, but for now, it’s one long instance of foreshadowing. I know these studios are eager to set up their expanded universes, but you can’t rely too much on the foreshadowing or the standalone product suffers, as we’ve learned before. These are scenes that could have been cut to give the characters or the actual plot of the thing room to breathe. Instead, when the actual plot is happening, the movie is rushing along, trying it’s hardest to get to some iconic moments in DC history as fast as possible. The movie feels like it’s dragging yet struggling to fit everything it wants to say in at the same time.  The writing is….weird. There are some good scenes, like when Superman is talking to his mother, but at the same time there are some bits where the characters go on and on with philosophical rants about gods vs men or demons or whatever the fuck. It’s like it’s trying to force it’s own messages in your face to make SURE you get them. It honestly feels like you could cut half an hour of film and not lose a thing.

Reception has been all over the place on the villain, Lex. I personally thought he was terrible, from the writing all the way down to an incredible example of miscasting with Jesse Eisenberg. His plan, which is an extremely complicated way of  aiming the loosest of loose cannons, Batman, at Superman and hoping that situation works out in his favor, just makes no sense, since parts of it involved knowing the secret identities of both Batman AND Superman, neither of which was information he had access too. Parts of it involve wanton disregard for human life, which isn’t really uncharacteristic of Lex, I guess, but it does call into question why he’s doing all this and why he hates Superman so much, which the film doesn’t really have an answer for that isn’t contradicted by something else. His constant twitching, screeching, screaming and spontaneous rants about god just make him seem insane and emotionally driven more than anything, which makes for a good antagonists in other circumstances, but it makes you doubt his technical efficiency and ability to run a billion dollar company. The film climaxes with him creating Doomsday, which is just another Superman powered being with even less self control, and it only results in him attracting more beings like Superman to earth, which he apparently knew about going in. So why is he doing all of this? Because he’s insane I guess???

 

Superman is better, but he still has problems with his characterization too. Mainly that he spends a good chunk of the movie brooding and generally failing at everything he actually tries to do. It might just be me, but I felt like this movie is pretty devoted to tearing Superman down as much as it can and hammering home how there isn’t a place for him anymore, which is kind of disturbing. DC seems to think the same way about superman as the general audience does. He’s “boring” and “overpowered” and shit. They should try telling us more about the why superman works and why we like him, instead of going in all the time about why he doesn’t.

Ben Affleck, like I said, is awesome as Bruce. You feel a lot of empathy for him and his insecurities due to a lot of the movie’s better scenes going to him. He didn’t get off scot free, either, though. Again, there’s some redundancy in some of his scenes about his guilt and his fear that they want to hammer home. It’s almost like they wanted to put as much Batman into this Superman movie as they possibly could since they didn’t actually feel all that confident in Superman himself.

There’s also the decision to have Batman kill in this, which some people are applauding and others are pretty mad. I thought Batman’s one rule worked well as a character flaw, and I think a lot of people didn’t get that you were supposed to get mad after he let the Joker off after another killing spree. It’s a weakness. It’s the only thing stopping him, since he outclasses everyone in the room in brains and any physical weakness can be made up with whatever gadgets he has on him. Now that Batman doesn’t have that moral conflict, all you’ve really done is made him less interesting. It’d probably work if he showed some kind of restraint, but he pretty much wastes anyone in his way in this one, even if it’s just some guys guarding Lex Luthor’s property and not an actual criminal. It’s fun to watch, but it’s not as interesting. They’ll probably have to try and retroactively patch this one up, like they tried to do with Superman’s apathy toward other people in MOS here.

But…yeah. I guess what I’m mainly trying to say is that all the surface level stuff works, like the visuals, the soundtrack, and the action, but the plot, pacing and writing is kind of a mess. It’s a style over substance kind of movie that swears up and down that it’s deeper and meaningful and has some profound shit to say and wants you to look deeper, but when you actually cave in and do it, odds are you wont like what you’ll find. It’s a lot of fun when it drops the act and focuses on the action, though.

[MightyRay]

For those of you who maybe interested in the symbolism of BvS and superheros in general, the good ol' ABC did a interesting opinion piece about superhero movies and mainly talked about BvS. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-01/hodge-why-superheroes-tap-into-the-messiah-story/7291136

Even though I didn't like the film I thought the piece was well written and quite interesting to read.

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

You know, an eternity ago (well OK, April 16), I watched this movie, and when I got home I sat down at my computer and wrote a post about it, but I never posted it. I just felt tired and like I was "too close" to adequately summarize my feelings, I guess. Now it's way past the point that anyone cares (assuming they did in the first place), but I've decided that, just "for the record", and now that my feelings about the movie have simmered down and there's enough distance from me watching it that there aren't a million thoughts in my head about it, I might as well finally say what I thought about it.

It's not a movie that has no redeeming value, or a movie where I can't understand why anyone would like it, but my feelings about it are definitely negative, and I'll focus on just a few reasons why. One is the fact that the movie was, well, kind of a mess. The pacing in the first chunk of the movie felt very awkward to me (even though this seemed to be fixed later on), several of the scenes and aspects they threw in seemed head-scratchingly random and pointless, and many major plot points were more than a little questionable.

Perhaps an even bigger problem was the feel of the movie - not so much the fact that it was dark, but the fact that it felt pretentious and like it found itself to be "philosophical" when in reality I could see absolutely nothing of substance behind it. I couldn't help but feel that this movie was patting itself on the back for being profound and meaningful when in reality it didn't even come close to doing anything of the sort. It may have touched on some interesting things now and again, but failed to develop them in a truly meaningful way. Whatever meaning could've possibly existed in this film was smothered by the ineptitude of its creators. To create a truly meaningful film requires an understanding of your subject matter and an ability to handle it in a skillful way, which I am not the slightest bit convinced that the creators of this movie had. The movie was just far too clumsy overall to be able to develop themes or explore issues in a mildly competent manner.

The previous point is also connected to one of my biggest complaints about the movie, which would be some of the decisions made concerning the characters.

To give an example of this movie's psuedo-deep nature and the unsatisfying portrayal of characters within it: Batman's initial motive for wanting to defeat Superman, as far as memory serves, is that he's too powerful and could turn against humanity, so let's destroy him before he does that. I'm sorry but...what? This isn't a serious moral quandary, this is crazy and even homicidal. I can't help but think that the creators thought this was an interesting dilemma, like, "Should we allow people to have power if they might turn against us?" but...the thing is, if this was something like a question of whether the citizens of a democratic society should give their government the power to do certain things, this would make sense as a serious dilemma with sensible reasoning coming from both sides, but in this circumstance, no one (except God and/or evolution) gave Superman his powers, they're just inherent aspects of his physical being. To want to stop someone because they might use their natural gifts against humanity, when they have so far done nothing but help humanity, is just not sympathetic. Not only is it not "deep" or interesting, it makes Batman look like the opposite of a hero.

Now, don't get me wrong. It actually would be really interesting to have a movie about people asking whether Superman was a good thing. I mean, just think of it realistically: if Superman existed in real life, as many people would be scared of his powers and alien nature as would be grateful for his help. People are scared of things that are different from what they know, and heck, in some cases this fear is justified. If we actually explored these issues in a meaningful way, I think the results would be awesome. But this movie simply doesn't handle these issues in a meaningful way. It brings up the idea that Superman might be considered bad by some people, and...pretty much leaves it at that. They could be right, they could be wrong...I mean, I guess they're probably wrong since Superman is eventually shown to be a hero, but the arguments people level against him are never really addressed.

(The following section is kind of a tangent about how a movie based on this concept could've been good, but since it's not too directly related to my thoughts about BvS and is kind of long, I put it in a spoiler box.)

Spoiler

I mean, the more I think about it, the more fascinating a movie where people are questioning Superman's goodness would be. The thing is, unless Superman is taking particular actions that are controversial (which he does in some stories and continuities), you can't really take issue with Superman as a person. All he's doing is going around helping people, doing what any decent person would do if they had the ability. The only thing you can take issue with is what Superman is, and that's understandable on some level, but xenophobic on another. I can definitely see why a seemingly omnipotent alien going around doing whatever without any clear direction from any visible authority would set people on edge, and people could even argue that he's doing some sort of harm just by being there and doing his seemingly innocent actions, such as inadvertently causing people to become dependent on him or to fixate on him instead of their own abilities or something. Heck, even Superman could be concerned about such things. Ultimately, though, the argument that Superman shouldn't help people and do what he does just because of what he is contains a strong element of xenophobia. It wouldn't necessarily be wrong to question Superman's techniques or the results of his actions, but to act as though it's perfectly justified to prevent an innocent being from doing perfectly innocent actions just because of his physical traits...well, I hope everyone can see there's clearly something morally wrong there. And I think it would be fascinating to address this in film form, because sadly, in every day and age, xenophobia is extremely attractive to people and oftentimes seems to make sense. To actually give the arguments of the anti-Superman side a hearing, and to show us how they might make sense as opposed to immediately stereotyping them as villainous, but yet to also show the ways in which these arguments fail to measure up...I think they could have a chance of a genuinely meaningful movie there. It would be especially powerful if they showed even Superman himself struggling with these things; in his mind, he's just a guy who's trying to do what he can to make the world a better place, just like any good person would do. But yet, aside from this mental and spiritual fact, there's also the physical fact of Superman's powers and alien nature that makes his interactions with the world different. It wouldn't just be a movie about the xenophobia of others, about the world coming to terms with what Superman is, but about Superman having to come to terms with himself and how his relationship with the world is different because of what he is, and how the physical facts of his nature is can coexist with who he is in his mind's eye.

So anyway, departing from this theoretical movie that I wish I had washed and going back to the unfortunately real movie that I did watch - well, we see how Batman's character suffered by making him take such a crazy, untenable position, but at least Bruce had a strong actor to back him up, which made many of his scenes surprisingly enjoyable. But as for Clark...well...Cavill's performance was just dull, I'm sad to say. It was boring and uninspired. It did nothing to help a movie that desperately needed help. In light of the many Superman actors in the past who in some way brought some life or spark to the character, Cavill just pales.

The actor was far from the worst part of Superman in this movie, though. I think the part where I truly started not liking this movie was early on when it seemed like Superman may have accidentally caused some deaths and he just didn't care. Now, maybe I'm misinterpreting it or something, and it turns out he didn't actually cause those deaths after all, but like...Clark goes home to Lois, whom he lives with, and when Lois brings up the issue of these accusations, Clark just doesn't want to talk about it. He doesn't seem to want to address the issue. And I don't know, something about it just made it feel like Superman didn't really...care. Now, I knew by he end of the movie that Clark knew he didn't really cause those deaths, but if I was accused of something terrible that I would never do, I would still care and want to address it. What makes it even worse is that I didn't know at the time that Superman didn't cause those deaths, especially considering that we know from the previous movie that causing civilian deaths is certainly something Superman is capable of. Something about it came across so wrong that from that moment forward, I just completely couldn't see the Clark I knew and loved in that character on the screen.

I mean, I feel like in general this movie just fails with Superman. We get a small montage of Superman helping people, but I never really get the feeling of Superman being a genuinely caring person. I just don't see that anywhere. So what are Superman's motives for helping people, if they don't really seem to come from within him? Well...the clearest answer I see is that it's because it's what his father, Jonathan Kent, wanted. Superman basically says as much in one line in the movie. And bizarrely enough, even though I love Clark's parents and them giving him his moral foundation, in the context of the DC Cinematic Universe that started with Man of Steel, this is downright awful, because this version of Jonathan Kent is absolutely horrendous.

The good, normal version of Jonathan Kent is just a loving, decent father who teaches his son right and wrong, pure and simple. Clark then uses this foundation laid by him and Martha to develop his values, which eventually leads to him becoming Superman. The MoS version of Jonathan, on the other hand, seems to see Clark primarily in terms of the effect he's going to have on the world, perhaps even more than he sees him as his son. Perhaps even worse, from what we can see, he doesn't seem to give Clark that good, moral foundation. He instead teaches Clark that making sure his "greatness" doesn't get revealed too soon is more important than human life. As if that wasn't amoral enough, this version of the character (who is as worthy as the name of Jonathan Kent as the All-Star Batman and Robin version of Batman is worthy of his name) deprives his son of his father for the same reason.

So basically, as far as I can tell, Clark got his inspiration for being Superman from a man who wasn't particularly moral himself. Heck, I have a hard time believing Jonathan even loved Clark that much, considering he seemed to care more about his powers and alien-ness more than he did about the fact that he was, well, his son. No wonder this version of Superman seems to fail so hard, if this was his inspiration. Yeah, I know I'm harping on this an awful lot, but as far as I'm concerned, Superman's actions are only as good as his motives, and this movie only confirmed that Superman's motives are primarily driven by a father who didn't even have a good sense of morality, nor of love for his son, himself.

There's a lot more I could say about this movie, honestly, but I have to say those are the major complaints: messy and occasionally nonsensical plotting and scenes, pretentiousness with no substance behind it, and very poor depiction of beloved characters.

...that was long.

[AlphaRuby]

I still can't believe Chris Terrio (one of the two writers along with David Goyer) is an Academy Award winner.

I wouldn't believe that after seeing BvS.

[pppp]

Saw Suicide Squad. It's a mixed bag. Harley and Deadshot were the only characters that had depth. Margot Robbie absolutely killed it as Harley Quinn. Leto's Joker was decent, but I'd have to wait for a movie where the Joker actually does something significant to give final judgement. Aside from that, the first act is a mess as the character backstories are rushed as hell, there were various out of character moments, the villain was just as uninteresting as your typical Marvel villain and the characters aside from the ones I mentioned are underdeveloped, except for El Diablo who almost reached the level of Harley and Deadshot, but only just. The dialogue and direction is solid, but nothing special. Overall it's the best DCEU movie yet, but still not that good.

So anyone else here saw it?

[Phos]

It's pretty bad. So many pointless scenes, 

Spoiler

And the villain was created by the ostensibly threatening woman who never seemed threatening, like Colonel Volgin levels. 

  Repetition ad nauseam. How many times in the concept of the team introduced. 

[Pawn]

Mera revealed:

The first image looks kind of dumb above the shoulders, with what appears to be Amber Heard's face hastily edited in over Mera concept art. The second, though, is pretty fucking awesome.

It's still difficult to get excited for the film when WB let Snyder take the reigns again... Not to mention Suicide Squad's reception..

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

Honestly, I hope the Justice League film does horribly and DC takes a long hard look at what they're doing and realizes they've been dumb for a long time and should maybe try a new direction for their films and projects.

I know this might sound kinda bad and like I'm just wishing ill but...apparently they need wake-up call after wake-up call until they finally realize what they're doing isn't working.

I guess if the movie was actually good that'd be good, but I kinda doubt that.

[MightyRay]

Yeah I don't blame you for thinking that way Monkey. When I think of DC I think of fun, excitement, colourful whimsy with a good dollop of action and a bit of drama and symbolism on the side. 

But the current crop of DC movies are just not fun or colourful and too bogged down with trying to be deep and edgy and it's just blah all over. I just don't want the rest of the super line up to get ruined by all that blandness.

Spoiler

Makes me kind of glad that Martian Manhunter and Plastic Man won't get movies since Goyer has gone on record saying Manhunter is too boring to write and Plas would be too 'silly' for DC to pull off.

 

[AlphaRuby]

http://deadline.com/2017/01/green-lantern-corps-warner-bros-david-goyer-justin-rhodes-dc-1201884133/

The screenwriters for the upcoming Green Lantern Corps film will be Justin Rhodes and a returning David Goyer.

Not sure about this Rhodes fellow, but Goyer's recent film output hasn't exactly been stellar (mind, he wasn't the only writer on BvS).

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

4 minutes ago, dwibs93 said:

http://deadline.com/2017/01/green-lantern-corps-warner-bros-david-goyer-justin-rhodes-dc-1201884133/

The screenwriters for the upcoming Green Lantern Corps film will be Justin Rhodes and a returning David Goyer.

Not sure about this Rhodes fellow, but Goyer's recent film output hasn't exactly been stellar (mind, he wasn't the only writer on BvS).

Quote

The focus will be on two characters: Hal Jordan and John Stewart.

Well, it took them long enough! Seriously though, as one of the many who grew up with the Bruce Timm DC Universe, Stewart getting the spotlight has been well overdue.

Conflicted feelings on them hopefully NOT screwing the pooch on this venture.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

Oh for fuck's sake DC.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/dcs-superhero-ensemble-justice-league-trouble-batman-has-pushed/

Quote

Critically speaking, recent Warner Bros./DC superhero (and supervillain) movies have not fared well.

Despite being widely heralded as a darker, edgier alternative to the levity of Marvel's offerings, both Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad failed to resonate with reviewers, with The Telegraph's Robbie Collin (and many others) berating the latter film for its "crushingly puerile" content and confusing, messy plot.

Now, a writer for the fan website Batman on Film has suggested that the studio's forthcoming Justice League, an ensemble superhero movie that will bring together Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, The Flash and Cyborg, could be suffering from similar problems.

While the publication has not named its sources, Batman on Film claims to have received information that the film is "a mess" – a word that hints that the movie's problems may relate to its plot and general coherence (or lack thereof).

The same website is also claiming that production on The Batman, a forthcoming standalone Batman movie directed by Affleck (who will also star in it) has been pushed back, despite the fact that the film isn't scheduled for release until 2018.

The writer states that a trusted source has said filming on The Batman, which was reportedly due to begin this spring, has been moved back to the summer. 

Affleck, too, has recently seemed hesitant about the film, telling the Guardian (via movieweb.com), in answer to a question about his plans to direct: "That's the idea. But it's not a set thing and there's no script. If it doesn't come together in a way I think is really great I'm not going to do it."

His hesitance has been linked to the rumoured Justice League issue.

Of course, there's no way of verifying this information, and there's been no indication from any other source, or footage released so far, that the heavily anticipated movie (a new image from which was released earlier this week) will be terrible.

While Justice League is directed by Zack Snyder, who made Batman v Superman and was involved in David Ayers's Suicide Squad, the unfavourable reception of the former will presumably have made Warner Bros especially cautious about future material. 

Immediately after the release of the slated blockbuster, petitions to have Snyder removed from Justice League and future DC Cinematic Universe titles were set up by outraged fans, but the studio clearly felt that, whatever his perceived flaws, Snyder is still a director worth investing in. (Many have pointed out, of course, that production had also already begun on Justice League: removing the film's director mid-project would have been extremely costly.)

Either way, while future trailers may offer some clues, if Suicide Squad taught us anything it's that strong promotional material and a talented cast doesn't always indicate a good film (remember how exciting the movie's teasers were?).

To find out what Justice League is really like, we're simply going to have to be patient and wait until its November 17 release.

I know it hasn't been confirmed as of yet. But considering past offerings, this news has me a little cautious. 

[Teoskaven]

Here's the final trailer for Wonder Woman:

 

Seems fine, but i can already tell we're gonna have an obligatory misunderstanding moment where she leaves the guy (or he leaves her) only to come back in the climax. I'm just feeling it.

[AlphaRuby]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/zack-snyder-steps-down-justice-league-deal-family-tragedy-1006455

Zack Snyder has stepped down as director of Justice League to be with his family after the death of his daughter, with Joss Whedon filling in.

[Apollo Chungus]

So I ended up seeing Wonder Woman with some friends today, simply because I hadn't met up with them since seeing the surprisingly good Kong: Skull Island back in March/April. I make no pretense about my utter loathing of modern superhero movies, and indeed most big budget franchise films made by people who seemingly are given no time to make anything above mediocre, when they can easily afford to do so much better than that (and I speak of this as someone who's done a couple of years of practical film-making as a college course). So it may not come as a shock to say that I hated Wonder Woman. Why? Let me count the ways:

(Some swearing up ahead, since this film made me legitimately furious for its incompetence in various areas and overall mediocrity.) 

1. If you're going to make a film with at least five action scenes, please hire someone who knows how to make a fucking action scene. The constant cutting between different angles with no rhyme or reason, the pointless flailing about of limbs, the characters blending in too well with their surroundings (more on that in a bit): it all results to grossly incompetent film-making that would have been laughed out of a student film festival; let alone something with countless resources worth of studio backing.

2. It is a visually ugly film. Ignoring the way-too blatant CGI that look like outtakes from the Dead or Alive movie, the character's outfits are tinged with the same types of blues and oranges used for the backgrounds, making them indistinguishable from each other and difficult to focus on what's going on. The cinematography is ranges from average to abysmal; some times you get a decent landscape shot, but more often than not, you get incoherent trash that makes for a disorienting watch.

3. It suffers the same problems as basically every other superhero/franchise/tentpole film: they put enough focus on the script and acting, and little else. The music is once again a meaningless wall of noise where nothing would be lost if you removed it from the film, I've already gone into the visual and action problems, it's poorly edited to the point of being legitimately painful to watch at times; the usual jazz. The end result is yet another film where, if you don't like the script, you better turn it off because there is NOTHING worth staying around for.

4. It's 2 and a half hours long. STOP DOING THIS, PEOPLE. You can be economical with your film-making, you can tell stories like this in 90 minutes, so why do you keep doing this? There is no goddamn reason in the world to do this - it also means that your boring film is simply going to be boring for much longer than need be.

5. It's boring. I was hoping, going from the general reception, that it might be a decent film. I would have even taken something hilariously awful. But this film is simply mediocre sludge you watch for two and a half hours before moving on to the next sludge, and fuck that contemptible disregard for what film can be to the depths of hell. I will never understand why anyone would want to watch something 'adequate' over something good or bad, let alone actually want to create something so trite.

I don't care if anything more would cause the film to lose 'some' money at the box office; it will do well in theatres because it's fucking Wonder Woman! Besides, what about ten or twenty years from now, when all the money, production constraints and what not have faded into memory? When all we have left is the film to enjoy on its own merits? Why watch this load of nothing, when there are so many other (and better) films to check out; films that strived to be more than the bare minimum? Tripe like this will be forgotten when this fad finally fucks off, I guarantee that.

Supposedly, this is the best DC Cinematic Film released so far. As I said to one of my friends afterwards, "That's not a compliment!"

[AlphaRuby]

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/justice-league-danny-elfman-compose-score-223728736.html

Junkie XL, who was slated to do the score for Justice League, has left the project (presumably to work on the new Tomb Raider film) and has been replaced by Danny Elfman.

[AlphaRuby]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/batman-director-matt-reeves-has-dropped-ben-afflecks-script-1020694

So the script for The Batman that Affleck, Geoff Johns and Chris Terrio worked on has been scrapped by Matt Reeves (the new director) and the writing is starting over again.

Seriously, after losing the director's chair and now his script, I can only assume that Live By Night was such a flop that Warner Bros instantly decided not to trust Affleck with anything other than acting ever again.

[Graystripe2000]

Now it seems Affleck may leave Batman entirely. 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/heat-vision/ben-afflecks-batman-future-doubt-as-warner-bros-plots-franchise-future-1023296

[Marcello]

New Alex Ross inspired Justice League poster:

Quote

 

High-Res: http://i.imgur.com/j3tqnuc.jpg

I love it. Much better than the ones they've been showing off before.

And the trailer: 

There's some wonky CG in places and I'm not a huge fan of that red filter in certain scenes, but otherwise, it's looking pretty good.

 

[Graystripe2000]

Front runner for Suicide Squad 2 Director is no longer considering directing. 

http://deadline.com/2017/07/dwayne-johnson-jungle-cruise-jaume-collet-serra-director-disney-suicide-squad-2-1202139090/