Nope.
Unless Gordon doesn't care if thugs in cars get slayed but if a homicidal maniac does.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
Nope.
Unless Gordon doesn't care if thugs in cars get slayed but if a homicidal maniac does.
harrisonp
Sr Member
I'm almost positive that if Jason shows up to call Bruce out, it will be CONVENIENTLY just after he has turned over a new leaf, inspired by the "HOPE" that Superman stands for and no longer killing. It's totally stupid, and it just makes Jason's argument even stronger, showing that Bruce is a selfish, self righteous maniac.
Mektar
Sr Member
And that is the problem and that that is coming from someone who enjoyed the movie but snyder just doesnt get the characters and especially superman. From burton to nolan and now to snyder we have had 3 directors who dint get the characters. Nolan prob being the one who delivered the best ones yet not the ones i wanted.
We did not need doomsday, we did not need lex honestly we dint need alot that was in this movie. They should have focused on superman and his rise to being the greatest superhero of all time. Because that is what he is and then the doomsday story would have had more impact. Now it all felt rushed and out of place. Can they still redeem themselves? Ofc but they will have alot of work and if it were upto me it would involve other people and not snyder or atleast have someone work close with him as maybe a 2nd director that is in charge of storytelling and he can stick to action directing cus that is what he is good at.
Reading now it seems like suicide squad is having reshoots to brighten it up a bit. No idea if thats confirmed from WB but if it is it does seem like they might actually listen for once. It just blows my mind really to see how hard it is for studios and im not just talking about the dc verse but even marvel how they basicly have tons of material in comics and yet they find ways to mess up. For me its directors having too much of an ego that they want to put their own vision in it while there is no need for that. the death of superman is prob one of my fav comics and to have that seen butchered like that did hurt a bit and was prob the biggest shame for me...
Look, the typical response of any studio in the past has been to "up" the sequel by stuffing it to over capacity. Nolan did it with his 3rd Batman, then we have both sets of the Spiderman films, Joss was pretty much forced to do it with "Age of Ultron", the Matrix films etc, etc. In an effort to be crowd pleasing they often do exactly the reverse, by either polluting the original content by over thinking the next story, or by trying to grow it exponentially by adding so many subplots that the sequel just loose the core story.
However, thanks to the internet the way films are produced is changing because the feedback from all the "leaked" snippets and trailers is immediate, and thousands of people opinions can be sampled. Places like the RPF but particularly social media sites are regularly monitored for that feedback and certain things can be dropped or altered during production.
"Deadpool" was a game changer. It got made because footage was " leaked " and the internet fan response was overwhelming. Fox executives still didn't believe it would be very successful so it got a very limited budget. A brilliant marketing campaign that used a lot of low cost social media messaging and advertising ,plus a very clever release strategy saw a Box office return NOBODY could have predicted. The general public really don't know it yet but DP has fundamentally changed the way a lot of future film production will happen. Its already altered the way Suicide Squad is going to look, these reshoots are costing millions of dollars, but then they had already capped the original budget anyway.
So the studios are very open to constructive feedback. SW " The Force Awakens" had key elements of its story leaked early to judge fan reactions and it was the early response to some weaker concepts that altered some of the element shot for that film and definitely in its sequel. I've no doubt WB have been very sensitive to whats being said about BvS because the sheer cost of making it was so huge and they are desperate to secure a successful tone for the future of the DC universe. It will never be like exactly like Marvels but they need to see a return on the investment.
So they will pay attention to all this, believe me.
However, thanks to the internet the way films are produced is changing because the feedback from all the "leaked" snippets and trailers is immediate, and thousands of people opinions can be sampled. Places like the RPF but particularly social media sites are regularly monitored for that feedback and certain things can be dropped or altered during production.
"Deadpool" was a game changer. It got made because footage was " leaked " and the internet fan response was overwhelming. Fox executives still didn't believe it would be very successful so it got a very limited budget. A brilliant marketing campaign that used a lot of low cost social media messaging and advertising ,plus a very clever release strategy saw a Box office return NOBODY could have predicted. The general public really don't know it yet but DP has fundamentally changed the way a lot of future film production will happen. Its already altered the way Suicide Squad is going to look, these reshoots are costing millions of dollars, but then they had already capped the original budget anyway.
So the studios are very open to constructive feedback. SW " The Force Awakens" had key elements of its story leaked early to judge fan reactions and it was the early response to some weaker concepts that altered some of the element shot for that film and definitely in its sequel. I've no doubt WB have been very sensitive to whats being said about BvS because the sheer cost of making it was so huge and they are desperate to secure a successful tone for the future of the DC universe. It will never be like exactly like Marvels but they need to see a return on the investment.
So they will pay attention to all this, believe me.
Fawbish
Sr Member
That last sentence alone shows you that he's being coy, as does the tone in which he says it in the interview. I don't think he interviews particularly well (you can tell he has some strong thoughts on things, but articulates them disjointedly) why on earth would someone who "doesn't" know who Darkseid is mention the anti life equation? They have a huge story board that RISES UP OUT OF THE GROUND (which is amazing) for this entire universe, where people like Geoff Johns and Christopher Nolan will be aware of the overall arching plans etc. He absolutely wouldnt want to say anything about Darkseid at this moment in time, especially when he's about to start shooting Justice League.
Fawbish
Sr Member
The only "firearm" he owns and uses is a grenade launcher. Which is specifically and only used to fire Kryptonite grenades. Against Godlike figures. He doesn't own any other guns.
Traditionally the Batmobile or Batwing or Bat-vehicles have always had some form of weaponry for a long time now. You can look back to various iterations that also haven't had weaponry, or have only had gadgetry. Not necessarily used in the way that this Batman uses it, which is in retaliation during this film, and with lethal intent in terms of explosions etc.
He uses other's weapons against them during this film - the knightmare sequence can be discounted though, it is not the current timeline or this current batman.
So during the Martha rescue - he doesn't actually shoot anyone. He fires another persons weapon which is never shown to hit people - they duck and jump out of the way. And the final part, is ripped straight out of the Dark Knight Returns - he holds a guy whilst firing the guys gun at the tank on the other guys back. I know it technically doesnt make a difference as that guy clearly died but he didn't shoot him in the head, or the body. Everyone that is bothered about his "gun kills" (of which there are only actual gun kills in the knightmare sequence) should really also have problems with how violently he hits these guys. One guys head goes through the 2 inch wooden floor. etc
Last edited:
Fawbish
Sr Member
I thought it was fairly straight forward, especially in the scene just before he goes off to take on Superman. This place is far too painful, emotionally, for him to be in or near. He goes there to leave flowers, and that's it. "I'm older now than my father ever was." I thought that was a beautiful line. Shows us so much about the character, and I hadn't even considered the fact that in most iterations, Batman probably is older or the same age as his parents were.
He lives elsewhere, and doesn't want the mansion kept in shape. He doesn't maintain it. He's what, late 40's early 50's in this? So that house has probably been abandoned for close to 40 years, once Martha and Thomas were buried. I thought that was really clear to be fair.
Fawbish
Sr Member
This story is one where Batman is so dark, so full of loss, so determined to see justice that he cares not for collateral damage. He does not outright, cold blooded murder anyone directly in my opinion (possibly near the end, but still - explosion, not outright kill), though his actions lead to mercenaries deaths. Just as Nolans Batman's does several times, but this is more hardcore than that (however, surely a death is a death?). And most other film incarnations. Excusable? Probably not. Will they explore it after this? Possibly not, though I hope so, because they are insinuating in the film that Superman has instilled Batman with hope towards the end and redemption. And a bigger threat is on the way.
I hope we do see this almost broken man reform and come back from the place he is in. I want to see the struggle of a Batman that is trying to come back to the light, and to start doing things the right way again.
mattycsi
Master Member
It was the long shots of the exterior that bothered me, the place looked burned out derelict. I get that he might not want to fix it up with being all emo and stuff but a quick reference as to why it looks bombed out would have been interesting. It may all be explained in suicide squad or one of the future universe films.
Solo4114
Master Member
Ok, so, here's the key question:
Which comic?
If the answer is "The Dark Knight Returns" or any of the Frank Miller "The Dark Knight Somethings" then you can't really say "It's in the comics, so it's ok."
Miller's "Dark Knight" comics are basically like an alternate future/reality. Moreover, the convention of him using guns works precisely because it upends the established "rules" of the Batman universe. People who look at these comics and figure "There. That's Batman. That's who he is," quite simply, don't understand the character. Those stories are subversive stories. They deconstruct the Batman myth, and reframe it in different terms. They are, in essence, riffing off of what the "core" of Batman is, and in so doing, actually highlight that core. The alternative is that you do understand who Batman is and...you just don't like the core of Batman's character very much.
All of that is perfectly fine for a comics fan. People can be fans of whatever the hell they want. HOWEVER if you're going to tap someone to helm your movies about Batman, if you're going to put them in charge of telling grand, large scale stories about that character, then you probably want someone who actually understands and likes the character to be doing it. That's not to say they can't deviate from the core material or play around with expectations, but if they do, they should do so in a way that clearly demonstrates their understanding of and appreciation for the character. Doing otherwise seems like a perfectly fine way to make less money. You know why Marvel has done as well as it has? Because, in addition to offering generally entertaining material, their films are made by people who have a decent understanding of and appreciation for the source material. They don't always hew to them perfectly, and indeed they play off of them and play with expectations plenty. But the core of the characters are always there, informing the films.
Fine. It's a lethal projectile weapon that Batman shouldn't be using. There. Happy now?
Unless he's shooting a grenade launcher that fires grenades that pop open in a puff of confetti and candy, BATMAN SHOULD NOT BE USING A GRENADE LAUNCHER.
An EMP "gun" or a stun-gun is fine because it's non-lethal. Hell, even in The Dark Knight Returns, it's made explicitly clear that the Battank is firing rubber bullets (which can still kill, but at least provides a fig leaf to the notion that Batman uses non-lethal weapons and doesn't kill his opponents on purpose).
CharlesHouse
Active Member
What you're saying is, they aren't canon. At this point, many of the best known Batman stories weren't or aren't canon. Killing Joke wasn't either. I think the same rule of subverting the tropes of the universe and what the specific character doesn't normally do applies here. He's been doing it for 20 years. We've never seen that on film. What we have seen are countless instances of younger iterations killing and using guns. None of this is new to the DC cinematic universe that has been rebooted four times.
Why? It's not intended to kill. It's to subdue Superman so that Batman can fight him while he has weaker. I don't see any issue with him using that. His parents weren't shot with a less than lethal round to be subdued and beaten to death in an alley.
Oh, you mean like a gas grenade? Because he's pretty fond of those.
harrisonp
Sr Member
This is outside the current slant of the discussion, but I'm really curious about something that keeps popping up. A ton of people all over the internet are giving Eisenberg a pass because the movie called him "Alexander Luthor Jr.", which is leading them to believe that comic Lex was his father, Lex Luthor Sr. Nothing in the movie led me to believe that, and I took the Sr/Jr plot to be an explanation for his ownership of the company so young (to avoid making him a Zuckerberg type) as well as to give him daddy issues. From my understanding of evidence given in the movie Eisenberg IS Lex Luthor, a millennialized, twitchy one, but the "real" one none the less, while his father just happens to be a man that was named Alexander Luthor. Am I way off base here or did other people feel the same way?
Hum, Batman uses all kinds of grenades, smoke, lacrymo, EMP, knock-out gaz, kryptonite gaz now... The launcher doesn't clash with his methodology. Can you fire explosive 40mm grenade from it ? Sure, but then again batman uses often explosive batarangs and gels to blow up walls and doors anyway. Doesn't mean he uses it to kill, which he never does in the movie. With that thinking he could kill with his grapnel gun, it is shown going through the shoulder of a guy, could as well go through his throat...
This Batman likes to repurpose existing things, like the launcher, and he uses a standard CTS smoke grenade also at some point. Having an issue with him killing, it's legitimate, I understand completely. But with that ? Why does it even bother you ? Most of Batman's gadget are lethal anyway, custom or not !
This Batman likes to repurpose existing things, like the launcher, and he uses a standard CTS smoke grenade also at some point. Having an issue with him killing, it's legitimate, I understand completely. But with that ? Why does it even bother you ? Most of Batman's gadget are lethal anyway, custom or not !
JD
Master Member
"Junior" was nothing more than a device to attempt to explain the casting Mark Zuckerb... um, Eisenberg.
I'm still not sure why they shaved his head towards the end of the movie. Initially, I thought he got a death sentence - but, that didn't seem to be the case.
harrisonp
Sr Member
okay I'm glad other people agreed with me, it felt like a 100% throwaway line just to explain the framework around Eisenberg's Lex. I've probably said it in this thread (I'm losing track, discussing this movie on multiple outlets) but the "he's Lex Jr" argument feels like more denial talk like the "Jason is Joker" theory. I completely disagree with both theories, so it is driving me nuts how a lot of internet movie news sites are trying to posit them as plausible.
KrangPrime
Master Member
that's the least of this movies problems ;o).
Everytime millenial lex was on screen, I was thinking 'should have been the riddler' or 'joker'.
deep down in his psyche, REAL Lex might think like eisenburg acted, but he keeps it all hidden away. in his outside persona, he's more calm, cool, suave and lando calrisian like.
I kind of wish someone would hire clancy brown as a real live action lex. come on supergirl.
Everytime millenial lex was on screen, I was thinking 'should have been the riddler' or 'joker'.
deep down in his psyche, REAL Lex might think like eisenburg acted, but he keeps it all hidden away. in his outside persona, he's more calm, cool, suave and lando calrisian like.
I kind of wish someone would hire clancy brown as a real live action lex. come on supergirl.
harrisonp
Sr Member
I was holding out hope that once he communed with the Kryptonian ship he would end up "enlightened" and serious. He's seen the edge of the universe, thousands of civilizations, their history, knowledge that would drive a lesser mind crazy, but he doesn't crack, because he realizes that the unsure, abused shell of a person he has been is utterly insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe, and now he is MORE than a man. He is the god that he always longed for, he has saved himself, and his ego followed.
But of course instead we get the "ding ding ding" crazy take instead. Lucid insanity and awe would have been a much better way for them to go, and to give him an actual arc towards traditional Lex characterization, instead of the straight line from twitchy to twitchier that we got.
Similar threads
