Batman v Superman *spoilers from post 2434*

RedemptionZ

Sphynxinatron wrote: »

Will Justice League surpass this movie box office wise? Honestly after seeing Batman and Superman battling and Wonder Woman and an updated Aquaman cameoing in the same film, I personally will have fulfilled my DC cinematic dreams lmao. Hope either Darkseid or Doomsday are the JL villains, Brainiac doesn't seem too interesting in my opinion.

I'd love Darkseid and he's powerful enough to be the main villain, but he's got a lot of similarities both aesthetically and in terms of powers to Apocalypse and to a lesser degree Thanos. Not sure if they'd want such blatant comparisons with the Marvel movies.

Jon Stark

I really hope that's just a dream sequence. Otherwise I can't get behind the idea of Superman actually having an army doing his bidding for him.

Also, from looking at this teaser and official pictures, Cavill seems to be overdoing his expressions. It's like he's trying really hard to look angry. I know it's nitpicking, but I don't think Superman should be wearing his heart on his sleeve like that. He should be able to exude superiority, dominance and power with just a glance and his presence. That's what makes him so unsettling for want of a better phrase; he could, with the click of his fingers, crush you.

I'm probably just being hard on the guy. Looks wise he's perfect clearly, I'm just not sure about his acting. He's one of the big things this film is hinged on so he really needs to do better than what he gave in MOS. I'm sure he's capable with a better script from Chris Terrio than what Goyer gave up last time and he's demonstrated an ability with UNCLE.

Blazer

I really liked Cavill in UNCLE...reminded me of Roger Moore in the Bond films who was my favourite Bond.
Superman is a bit of a bland role in fairness...

Bacchus

Very cool tease. Every step Superman takes just exudes power. No idea how this situation will come about but I doubt it's a dream sequence. We've seen clips of Batman in the the desert fighting off Superman's henchmen so I'd say this ties in to that.

techdiver

I get the feeling that he might be under some control from some third party, perhaps Lex. There is a clip in the second trailer where he is actually kneeling in front of Lex with the same expression. Perhaps red kryptonite or something? Maybe I'm reaching.

Despite being the biggest Superman fan and someone who liked MOS, I would be uneasy with Superman behaving this way and having an "army". Of course, if they are going down the Frank Miller route, Superman was a lackey for the President. I actually dislike when any of the JL members work for the government directly in the same way as the avengers. I prefer the Justice League to have autonomy and not be a superpowered extension of the US government.

faceman

Despite having I have low expectations for this movie, this is one of the best teaser trailers I've seen for any blockbuster. It truly does tease the film. We're all left with a sense of WTF afterward given what we know of Superman in the movies up to now.

Knocks the socks off the Star Wars trailers for sure!

pixelburp

Batman v. Superman: The Scowling!

Duggy747

One classic thing that never changes in a Batman film is the sudden removal of eye make-up when the mask comes off :pac:

Bacchus

techdiver wrote: »

I get the feeling that he might be under some control from some third party, perhaps Lex. There is a clip in the second trailer where he is actually kneeling in front of Lex with the same expression. Perhaps red kryptonite or something? Maybe I'm reaching.

Could be right there. It'd make sense.

Sad Professor

I wonder if Supes got Bruce to sign a contract before tying him up.

Mickeroo

Reminds me of Red Son more than anything!

I think Supes beig under control iht be a good shout, or poibley they're fanatics like the ones Batman has in Dark Knight Returns and he's kind of playing along to use them to his own ends.

I've never looked forward so much to a film I have such low exectations for.

FunLover18

So why does Batman need a coat and is he wearing his cape underneath it?

splashthecash

Duggy747 wrote: »

One classic thing that never changes in a Batman film is the sudden removal of eye make-up when the mask comes off :pac:

I was just about to post that!! Its Batman magic or some such wizardry I imagine

splashthecash

FunLover18 wrote: »

So why does Batman need a coat and is he wearing his cape underneath it?

Thank god he is wearing the coat - otherwise the bat nipples would most likely make another appearance

brevity

From Reddit:
It was Old Man Affleck the whole time!

Boo Radley

Jon Stark wrote: »

I really hope that's just a dream sequence. Otherwise I can't get behind the idea of Superman actually having an army doing his bidding for him.

Also, from looking at this teaser and official pictures, Cavill seems to be overdoing his expressions. It's like he's trying really hard to look angry. I know it's nitpicking, but I don't think Superman should be wearing his heart on his sleeve like that. He should be able to exude superiority, dominance and power with just a glance and his presence. That's what makes him so unsettling for want of a better phrase; he could, with the click of his fingers, crush you.

I'm probably just being hard on the guy. Looks wise he's perfect clearly, I'm just not sure about his acting. He's one of the big things this film is hinged on so he really needs to do better than what he gave in MOS. I'm sure he's capable with a better script from Chris Terrio than what Goyer gave up last time and he's demonstrated an ability with UNCLE.

I immediately interpreted this as a dream sequence. It seems completely off. Batman first looks around as though thinking 'Where am I? How'd I get here?' and the troops kneeling coupled with the caricature of an angry Superman just screams dream sequence.

Mr Freeze

Boo Radley wrote: »

I immediately interpreted this as a dream sequence. It seems completely off. Batman first looks around as though thinking 'Where am I? How'd I get here?' and the troops kneeling coupled with the caricature of an angry Superman just screams dream sequence.

This plus the scene from the other trailer showing Batman seemingly snapping one of those soldiers necks.



I thought dream sequence too, but its probably not.

Bacchus

Boo Radley wrote: »

I immediately interpreted this as a dream sequence. It seems completely off. Batman first looks around as though thinking 'Where am I? How'd I get here?' and the troops kneeling coupled with the caricature of an angry Superman just screams dream sequence.

But we've already seen in the first trailer that Batman is in a desert region fighting off army/security guys. Whatever the circumstance leading to that, it does appear that he's captured (and knocked out) and held along with others. This is where Superman appears in that clip. Someone already suggested that we could be looking at Superman under the control of Lex Junior (is the character actually called Lex does anyone know?). We have also seen that Lex has Kryptonite, maybe he has access to one of the variants that allows him control Superman.

A dream sequence just seems very 'off' for this type of movie and would be a cheap Dallas style cop-out for the trailers to tease this mystery and then just go "nah, that cool sh*t we teased with the badass angry Superman was just a dream".

Sad Professor

What some of you think looks like a dream sequence just looks like Snyder to me.

Mickeroo

Probably Batman's vision of the future all lifted from Red Son.

brevity

Affleck looks huge.

Mitch Connor

Sad Professor wrote: »

What some of you think looks like a dream sequence just looks like Snyder to me.

Its not the aesthetic, for me, it is simply a hope that at the least that scene isn't reality or a full representation of the tone of the superman character.

I'm simply hopeful there is far more to it that there appears because Superman acknowledging and actually using an army or henchmen - and being as aggressive as he appears - just sits so very wrong with me.

Boo Radley

Bacchus wrote: »

But we've already seen in the first trailer that Batman is in a desert region fighting off army/security guys. Whatever the circumstance leading to that, it does appear that he's captured (and knocked out) and held along with others. This is where Superman appears in that clip. Someone already suggested that we could be looking at Superman under the control of Lex Junior (is the character actually called Lex does anyone know?). We have also seen that Lex has Kryptonite, maybe he has access to one of the variants that allows him control Superman.

A dream sequence just seems very 'off' for this type of movie and would be a cheap Dallas style cop-out for the trailers to tease this mystery and then just go "nah, that cool sh*t we teased with the badass angry Superman was just a dream".

Yeah. You're probably right. That grimace on Superman is cringey. I hope this film doesn't suck.

Chip Whitley

Maybe Superman is looking like that at Batman because he views sees him as vigilante scum.

Jon Stark

Mr Freeze wrote: »

This plus the scene from the other trailer showing Batman seemingly snapping one of those soldiers necks.



I thought dream sequence too, but its probably not.

Sh1t, never noticed the neck snap. Definitely something amiss with the sequence.

Otherwise Snyder has taken the piss. Even in Miller's world, regardless of how violent he was, Batman never killed (bar the loss of control when neck snapping his arch enemy).

Also, Batman murdering some brainwashed chump doesn't even make sense within the world Snyder has already established. A world where the Joker murders someone close to him yet still allows him to live and be incarcerated.

Mr Freeze

Mickeroo wrote: »

Probably Batman's vision of the future all lifted from Red Son.

I am leaning towards this!

Its more probable than this actually happening in the film and then Superman fixing it by flying around the globe backwards. :pac:

Sad Professor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Its not the aesthetic, for me, it is simply a hope that at the least that scene isn't reality or a full representation of the tone of the superman character.

I'm simply hopeful there is far more to it that there appears because Superman acknowledging and actually using an army or henchmen - and being as aggressive as he appears - just sits so very wrong with me.

Wasn't it already clear from the previous trailer, though, that that's the direction they are headed? They are trying to make what was cocked up about Supes in the previous film seem like a conscious decision and not clubfootedness. And who knows, maybe there's an explanation, like Luther is controlling him or something.

dublinman1990

There is a toy, being depicted from desert Batman in the teaser trailer, called Knightmare Batman being released from next Spring.

splashthecash

dublinman1990 wrote: »

There is a toy, being depicted from desert Batman in the teaser trailer, called Knightmare Batman being released from next Spring.

Mystery solved so

techdiver

dublinman1990 wrote: »

There is a toy, being depicted from desert Batman in the teaser trailer, called Knightmare Batman being released from next Spring.

If that's not fake, it is an absolutely astounding ****up!

Wedwood

Looks like Sky Captain. Oh oh !!!!

Mr Freeze

techdiver wrote: »

If that's not fake, it is an absolutely astounding ****up!

This always seems to happen, a toys naming or appearance giving away something well before a film is released.

techdiver

Mr Freeze wrote: »

This always seems to happen, a toys naming or appearance giving away something well before a film is released.

I know, it's crazy the lengths studios go to, to protect secrecy about a movie and then don't stipulate simple things to protect spoilers from the licenced toy manufacturers.

coolisin

If Batman is killing that is it I'm officially out!

I know it's only a small clip of a bigger story but I'm genuinely worried about this now.

techdiver

coolisin wrote: »

If Batman is killing that is it I'm officially out!

I know it's only a small clip of a bigger story but I'm genuinely worried about this now.

That "neck roll" wouldn't kill. If the soldiers body was stationary yes, but the momentum pulls him around, thus avoiding a break.

Also, people need to get over this no kill policy. It's impractical anyway. Do you allow innocents to be killed or get killed yourself rather than kill the bad guy?

Thargor

techdiver wrote: »

That "neck roll" wouldn't kill. If the soldiers body was stationary yes, but the momentum pulls him around, thus avoiding a break.

Also, people need to get over this no kill policy. It's impractical anyway. Do you allow innocents to be killed or get killed yourself rather than kill the bad guy?

Someone should make a series called Jeremy Corbyn-Man

Penn

techdiver wrote: »

Also, people need to get over this no kill policy. It's impractical anyway. Do you allow innocents to be killed or get killed yourself rather than kill the bad guy?

It's Batman's one rule, and is absolutely integral to the character. It's the rule that stops him from becoming a bad guy, because if he does allow himself to kill, he's no better than any of them, and if he kills one, why not another? Where does he draw the line? He also knows that if he goes down that road, he'll never come back.

I liked Keaton's Batman, but that f*cker killed a lot of people.

techdiver

Penn wrote: »

It's Batman's one rule, and is absolutely integral to the character. It's the rule that stops him from becoming a bad guy, because if he does allow himself to kill, he's no better than any of them, and if he kills one, why not another? Where does he draw the line?

I liked Keaton's Batman, but that f*cker killed a lot of people.

It's the interpretation of some of the people that wrote the character, not all of them.

Batman kills the Joker in the Dark Knight returns, which is considered one of the best incarnations of the character.

So should Batman allow himself to be killed by a villain or henchman and let others die as a result, just to keep this idealistic "rule" intact?

http://www.newsarama.com/19848-world-s-deadliest-10-times-batman-and-superman-have-killed-their-enemies.html

allibastor

didn't lego do something similar with the Man of Steel superman bits?

Had general Zod announced ages before he was the confirmed badguy

weiland79

Jesus the nerd level has been strong in this thread for the last few pages.
Can Superman not be just 'Super' p!ssed off at Batman and leave it at that?

allibastor

techdiver wrote: »

It's the interpretation of some of the people that wrote the character, not all of them.

Batman kills the Joker in the Dark Knight returns, which is considered one of the best incarnations of the character.

So should Batman allow himself to be killed by a villain or henchman and let others die as a result, just to keep this idealistic "rule" intact?

http://www.newsarama.com/19848-world-s-deadliest-10-times-batman-and-superman-have-killed-their-enemies.html

That was what finally made him snap though in DKR, he saw how futile his was with the joker was and that it cost over 2,000 people their lives, so decided to kill him, but stopped short in the end.

Professey Chin

techdiver wrote: »

It's the interpretation of some of the people that wrote the character, not all of them.

Batman kills the Joker in the Dark Knight returns, which is considered one of the best incarnations of the character.

So should Batman allow himself to be killed by a villain or henchman and let others die as a result, just to keep this idealistic "rule" intact?

http://www.newsarama.com/19848-world-s-deadliest-10-times-batman-and-superman-have-killed-their-enemies.html

Not sure if spoiler but

No he didnt. He half broke his neck but couldnt finish it. Joker finished himself off. And laughed while doing it

techdiver

allibastor wrote: »

That was what finally made him snap though in DKR, he saw how futile his was with the joker was and that it cost over 2,000 people their lives, so decided to kill him, but stopped short in the end.

What about the many other examples?

You can have a view of a character as much as you like, but character traits change and evolve. The no killing rule is the dumbest, unrealistic and idealistic of them all. IMHO.

allibastor

techdiver wrote: »

What about the many other examples?

You can have a view of a character as much as you like, but character traits change and evolve. The no killing rule is the dumbest, unrealistic and idealistic of them all. IMHO.

No, i agree fully with you, it is stupid. It was the same as the under the red hood story and the killing joke.

I think Batman is used to show a better ideal, but the idea of someone who beats people to a pulp and then leave them for the cops isnt exactly PC.

I think the biggest thing which could be good in this new film is the actual fallout of the Zod/Supes fight and to see just how many were killed in it.

Always boggles my mind why any superhero fight has to happen in a city, and use buildings as throwing boards.

techdiver

allibastor wrote: »

No, i agree fully with you, it is stupid. It was the same as the under the red hood story and the killing joke.

I think Batman is used to show a better ideal, but the idea of someone who beats people to a pulp and then leave them for the cops isnt exactly PC.

I think the biggest thing which could be good in this new film is the actual fallout of the Zod/Supes fight and to see just how many were killed in it.

Always boggles my mind why any superhero fight has to happen in a city, and use buildings as throwing boards.

It ups the ante. Would be a bit boring watching 2 superpowered beings knock seven shades of ****e out of each other in the desert.

If I was a bad guy I would target the city, that's for sure.

allibastor

techdiver wrote: »

It ups the ante. Would be a bit boring watching 2 superpowered beings knock seven shades of ****e out of each other in the desert.

If I was a bad guy I would target the city, that's for sure.

But why cant the good guy direct them away from it. Just made no sense, but again it will give a very good point for this film, just how many people actually died as a result of a major city being nearly leveled.

allibastor

techdiver wrote: »

It ups the ante. Would be a bit boring watching 2 superpowered beings knock seven shades of ****e out of each other in the desert.

If I was a bad guy I would target the city, that's for sure.

But why cant the good guy direct them away from it. Just made no sense, but again it will give a very good point for this film, just how many people actually died as a result of a major city being nearly leveled.

Mickeroo

techdiver wrote: »

That "neck roll" wouldn't kill. If the soldiers body was stationary yes, but the momentum pulls him around, thus avoiding a break.

Also, people need to get over this no kill policy. It's impractical anyway. Do you allow innocents to be killed or get killed yourself rather than kill the bad guy?

That pretty much sums up one of the most compelling aspects of the character though and a source of lots of his conflict and character archs over the years, and he didn't kill the joker in TDKR either for what it's worth.

It's all moot anyway, I'd be willing to put money on it being a dream sequence/nightmare vision of the future at this stage.

If they change it they change it though, they had superman kill in MoS so anything is possible (though it's arguable a less established trope for superman as he's killed plenty over the years), it annoyed me at the time but I'd have given it a pass if it wasn't such a poor film tbh.

Tazzimus

techdiver wrote: »

It ups the ante. Would be a bit boring watching 2 superpowered beings knock seven shades of ****e out of each other in the desert.

DBZ being an exception to that

techdiver

Mickeroo wrote: »

That pretty much sums up one of the most compelling aspects of the character though and a source of lots of his conflict and character archs over the years, and he didn't kill the joker in TDKR either for what it's worth.

It's all moot anyway, I'd be willing to put money on it being a dream sequence/nightmare vision of the future at this stage.

If they change it they change it though, they had superman kill in MoS so anything is possible (though it's arguable a less established trope for superman as he's killed plenty over the years), it annoyed me at the time but I'd have given it a pass if it wasn't such a poor film tbh.

I'd say so, after seeing those images of the toys.

It's probably best to avoid the internet for the next few months as so much of the movie will be spoiled.