Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

[Rylo]

So, you'll be troubled with everyone who was basically right, is what you're saying. One doesn't need a critic to validate anything. Sometimes crap is just crap.

I've been saying it for years. This is what DC does. They simply disappoint more often than not. They overload the cast and have no real cinematic grip on their own universe.

Besides, why would you care what anyone else thinks? It's the net! Hell, I'll forget completely about this thread in the next 5 minutes. LOL

-Rylo

I think what I'll find most annoying, is how the annoying people that were doubting this film/this universe/hate this director etc will gleefully revel in its apparent "failure" and spout their "justified" vitriol - because of course you can't enjoy a film unless a few hundred critics praise it first, can you. Yawn.

 

[dascoyne]

Er...including characters of different races and sexuality is more inclusive for readers and is more representative of real life people. When people complain about those things it says more about them then the comics.

Where did he complain about having LBGT characters?

I believe he was responding to the implication that NOT having explicitly LBGT characters in Marvel movies is an affront to that community. That's a completely different argument.

Does the absence of principal Asian characters in BvS mean the film is racist against Asians?

 

[karmajay]

Where did he complain about having LBGT characters?

I believe he was responding to the implication that NOT having explicitly LBGT characters in Marvel movies is an affront to that community. That's a completely different argument.

Does the absence of principal Asian characters in BvS mean the film is racist against Asians?

I was addressing this line -

And once again I'll say that focusing on stuff like that is completely ridiculous and superhero movies don't need to be bogged down in the PC crap that some people choose to focus on these days.

 

[JD]

Do we have to interject political correctness into everything now, even comic book movies? Sorry, but it's not a crime against humanity that there aren't any LBGT characters in the Marvel movies and people who focus on stuff like that need to get a grip. Seriously, is that really the world's biggest problem right now?

"Interject political correctness into everything" - that's just a bigot's way of trying to justify their bigotry. Trying to find a way to squeeze in their narrow minded view that's not reflective of the real world. Bigoted people have come up with a nonsense rhetoric against being "politically correct."

The way I see it - some folks are opting to make comics reflective of the real world. Where there are LGBT people (Deadpool, Batwoman, Northstar), black people (like Miles Morales, Captain America, John Stewart, War Machine) and folks of all sorts of diverse origins. Yes, I know that scares 'Mericans.

If it doesn't affect you, what's the problem? The problem generally is a bigotry - it's fear and it's hate. ...and it's disgusting. We're making these evil excuses to hate and vilifying so-called "political correctness."

Using your argument, Sam Jackson shouldn't be in a Marvel movie, neither should the characters Falcon (who might one day be Captain America if it follows the comics, or James "War Machine" Rhodes, or Luke Cage or Black Panther - because they're black. The Nick Fury character isn't black in the 'regular' Marvel Universe. The rest are (generally) products of the Civil Rights movement (although, Luke Cage rode the wave of "blaxploitation" in the 70s) and Marvel being "politically correct" before there it was the term.

I don't like the term "political correctness" - I prefer to live by the motto "don't be an *******." I'm sure some folks will tell you that's not working for me - sure I'll argue opinions about a story or something like forever and a day. As far as color, creed or sexual orientation - I could care less, I'm not afraid of a gay, black, muslim or female based on those qualifications alone - I'm not afraid of the comic companies making steps to be more representative of the people that read their comics.

I tend to stand with George Carlin when comes to being PC. The problem is people are using hatred and bigotry and justifying it by saying they're just not being PC.

 

[dascoyne]

I was addressing this line -

But that was in the context of his original statement:

Do we have to interject political correctness into everything now, even comic book movies? Sorry, but it's not a crime against humanity that there aren't any LBGT characters in the Marvel movies and people who focus on stuff like that need to get a grip. Seriously, is that really the world's biggest problem right now?

I don't disagree with this statement.

 

[Brent M]

When people complain about those things it says more about them then the comics.

Yes, of course it does. Go ahead and read from your left-wing playbook and label me a homophobe now. :rolleyes

- - - Updated - - -

I don't disagree with this statement.

Glad someone around here gets it. :thumbsup

 

[JD]

But that was in the context of his original statement:
I don't disagree with this statement.

I don't disagree with you for the most part. However, if you read the post as individual statements, there might not be anything wrong with the overall logic. It's reading the post in it's entirety and in context with the discussion.

He starts off on an attack against "political correctness" - which seems to set up, I'm going to say something with bigoted connotations. Again, I'm not a fan of essense of PC - but, when you start a post with that kinda statement then go into a rant about LGBT (isn't that PC term in and of itself?).

He then ends his post with some irrational justification asking if this is "really the world's biggest problem right now?" If we were truly worried about the world's problem - we probably wouldn't be discussing movies or spending money to see them. Maybe I'm using the term wrong here - but, that seems like a straw man argument and just a lousy wait to try to justify a ****-poor argument.

...and for the record, Marvel does have a gay character in its cinematic universe. While they're just TV shows, both Jessica Jones and Agents of SHIELD have openly gay characters.

 

[third3ye]

It's now at 31% on RT :lol At this rate the final score could actually end up below 30, that's Green Lantern territory folks.

 

[AJTaliesen]

as many problems as I have with this movie....I can't help but wonder if that's the case as well.

There has to be SOMETHING redeeming about it. It's a big tent pole movie. Even Age of Ultron had some nice moments, even though it was nowhere near as fun and exciting, and stole an idea from tmnt The Manhattan Project ;o)

put in another mod request so this thread can stay on topic.

This will probably anger many, but...

For me, at this point, anything less than a 90% may as well be a zero. We've all been shown how Superhero movies can be good, it's not a weird experiment anymore. We know it can be done. And in spite of what the idiots at DC seem to think, Superman IS commercial. He's the most iconic and commercial Superhero of all time. Superman was a hit for decades. Superman was a hit on RADIO. In the dark days when no one believed Comic book movies could make money...they always said "Accept for Superman".


SO yes...at this point, I'm tired of the dead years of the character being done poorly. Then having idiots blame it on the character. It's like watching someone who owns a gold mine toss aside all that goofy yellow stuff to get to the shiny copper. It's painful.

If you can't make Superman a hit, then you suck at telling Superhero stories.

Zack Snyder and DC suck at telling superhero stories.


Is it all bad? I doubt it. It's probably visually amazing. Kind of hard to throw that much money at a movie and have it not be pretty. It probably also has good fights, and some good posing moment. Maybe even a one liner or two.

And as bad a cook as I am I could make Kobe beef taste at least acceptable.

But it would just be shameful...knowing what that same steak would be like in the hands of someone competent.


Thats how Watchmen and MoS were: They had good things in them. Give that same budget and characters to a team that actually knows what they are doing and you might have had something game changing, instead of something that "had a moment or two and looked nice"

 

[JD]

I didn't care a whole for Man of Steel. I still think it's a terrible representation of the Superman character and his mythos.

I started to have home for BvS. I loved the Affleck casting from day one and the idea that it was filmed here in the Detroit area helped me try to stay a bit positive.

I read the complaints about Gal Gadot - I didn't see the issue, she still looks like WW to me.

The trailer came out and we saw Doomsday - and I was less than thrilled with that part of it. Still, there was still a whole lot there that looked like it could work. Hesitantly, I started to have some hope... I mean, even if Cavill still doesn't look like Superman to me, Affleck seems to be nailing Batman and Bruce Wayne.

The more I see, the more I like - still I remember Man of Steel and Jesse Eisenberg pops up and just has me shaking my head. But, I still think I can overlook all this - if the rest is solid.

The rated-R extending cut has me shaking my head more. What is DC and Snyder thinking? I still don't see the need for this type of treatment of our heroes (more Superman than Batman).

I keep the hopes up. I want to like the movie.

I haven't seen it yet - I will see it this weekend. But, man - the reviews have crushed my hopes for this movie, my expectations are just nil now. Based on what I've heard (and I'm avoiding most of the spoilers and reading just tidbits here and there), everything I was afraid of in this movie has been realized... but, Affleck is still getting raves, lol.

I am hoping with my now lowered expectations that I will find some light at the end of the tunnel. But, I still do have some hope.

Will it bomb based on bad buzz? Is it too late for DC to learn from this? Do they have too much invested in Snyder's (way-too-dark) vision?

 

[dascoyne]

I don't disagree with you for the most part. However, if you read the post as individual statements, there might not be anything wrong with the overall logic. It's reading the post in it's entirety and in context with the discussion.

He starts off on an attack against "political correctness" - which seems to set up, I'm going to say something with bigoted connotations. Again, I'm not a fan of essense of PC - but, when you start a post with that kinda statement then go into a rant about LGBT (isn't that PC term in and of itself?).

He then ends his post with some irrational justification asking if this is "really the world's biggest problem right now?" If we were truly worried about the world's problem - we probably wouldn't be discussing movies or spending money to see them. Maybe I'm using the term wrong here - but, that seems like a straw man argument and just a lousy wait to try to justify a ****-poor argument.

...and for the record, Marvel does have a gay character in its cinematic universe. While they're just TV shows, both Jessica Jones and Agents of SHIELD have openly gay characters.

Well I can see how someone might interpret the existence of a "token" LGBT character in a fictional setting might be seen as pandering to political correctness in some cases.
On the other hand it could also simply be an incidental aspect of that fictional character.

When a film is pandering to political correctness vs when it isn't is probably a matter of interpretation in any given film.

The only thing described that seems overtly offensive is when a character's sexuality is exploited for salacious depiction e.g. The aforementioned lesbian in lingerie kitchen fight. (Which I haven't read. Is it really as exploitative as that?)

 

[Brent M]

Great, I see the troll I put on my Ignore List several months ago has tried to twist my words around and attack my point of view. If anyone else here wants some good advice, put JD on your Ignore List and don't look back!

 

[dascoyne]

Actually the biggest problem I have with MoS is the moment where he says, "Krypton had its chance."
Superman's dual citizenship (Earth and Krypton) have always been a nice duality in his nature and outlook. Essentially renouncing his Kryptonian heritage really says that the MoS chooses to align himself with Terran values.

Somehow that makes for a more ... "partisan" Superman which really sits poorly with me.
All the innocence in his world view, struggles to do right by all ethical standards, and regard for mortality with an objective eye and pure heart ... all seem flushed away with that single callus statement.

This is not Superman.

I don't know who the hell this is.

 

[JD]

Well I can see how someone might interpret the existence of a "token" LGBT character in a fictional setting might be seen as pandering to political correctness in some cases.

It's probably an unfortunate truth, Sometimes "token" characters are needed - these types of characters pave the way for "real" non-token characters. Are we passed that in today's society? I don't know.

On the other hand it could also be an incidental aspect of that fictional character.

Agreed. Give me a good story and a good character and it doesn't matter.

In Captain America: The Winter Soldier when Sam said "Any time you wanna stop by the VA, make me look awesome in front of the guy at the front desk, just let me know" instead of "Any time you wanna stop by the VA, make me look awesome in front of the girl at the front desk, just let me know" - people would've been up-in-arms that they were being brow beaten with the "gay agenda" even though it was just an "incidental aspect"

When a film is pandering to political correctness vs when it isn't is probably a matter of interpretation in any given film.

Every film panders in one way or another.

The only thing described that seems overtly offensive is when a character's sexuality is exploited for salacious depiction e.g. The aforementioned lesbian in lingerie kitchen fight. (Which I haven't read. Is it really as exploitative as that?)

Sexuality is exploited everywhere. That's not going to change - I'm sure lesbians enjoy lingerie just like DC's core male audience.

- - - Updated - - -

Great, I see the troll I put on my Ignore List several months ago has tried to twist my words around and attack my point of view. If anyone else here wants some good advice, put JD on your Ignore List and don't look back!

Better a troll than a bigot.

Some people just can't handle different viewpoints and have to hide their heads in the sand.

 

[third3ye]

:lol

 

[Brent M]

It's now at 31% on RT :lol At this rate the final score could actually end up below 30, that's Green Lantern territory folks.

Well, the good news is that it probably won't go into Fantastic Four territory at 9%. :lol

 

[dascoyne]

In Captain America: The Winter Soldier when Sam said "Any time you wanna stop by the VA, make me look awesome in front of the guy at the front desk, just let me know" instead of "Any time you wanna stop by the VA, make me look awesome in front of the girl at the front desk, just let me know" - people would've been up-in-arms that they were being brow beaten with the "gay agenda" even though it was just an "incidental aspect"

I'm not so sure of that. I think there will be a lot of people who might applaud the film for how it was handled so deftly without showcasing it.

Sexuality is exploited everywhere. That's not going to change - I'm sure lesbians enjoy lingerie just like DC's core male audience.

Not being a female nor lesbian I wouldn't presume to know this.
I'm far from a PC guy but, it does offend me when a character I like degenerates into the object of an artist/writer's fantasy.
I really love the character Peggy Carter and love Haley Atwell's presence. I'd honestly be upset if Marvel made her go around in low cut outfits and fighting in lingerie and heels. I have nothing against sexuality but there is a point where it becomes gratuitous, no?

 

[KrangPrime]

It's now at 31% on RT :lol At this rate the final score could actually end up below 30, that's Green Lantern territory folks.

It's been so long since I've seen Green Lantern, I have to pop it in a gain to see why people think it's bad.

I remember it being quite fun in places.

 

[JD]

I'm not so sure of that. I think there will be a lot of people who might applaud the film for how it was handled so deftly without showcasing it.

I look at the quote that I initially replied to and that makes me pretty darn sure there would be folks just like that crying about it. But, I will agree some would applaud and some would just be like, "what's the big deal?"

Not being a female nor lesbian I wouldn't presume to know this.

You don't have to be female (lesbian or not) to enjoy lingerie.

I'm far from a PC guy but, it does offend me when a character I like degenerates into the object of an artist/writer's fantasy.
I really love the character Peggy Carter and love Haley Atwell's presence. I'd honestly be upset if Marvel made her go around in low cut outfits and fighting in lingerie and heels. I have nothing against sexuality but there is a point where it becomes gratuitous, no?

I don't disagree at all. But, the world's full of gratuitous sexploitation... even Marvel's posters advertising some of these flicks are guilty of this. There's plenty of PC "propaganda" about this or that being sexist - but, I think they're pretty on point with the poster issue.

 

[dascoyne]

I wonder if there's a tipping point where DC/Warner approaches Marvel/Disney about a possible crossover.

Long ago I posted a prediction that Sony might broker a deal where Spidey might appear in the MCU in a joint Marvel/Sony film. A lot of folks said that would never happen. Yet here we are today with Spidey in Civil War.