Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Upcoming DC Extended Universe (DCEU) Movies

Options
1…1920222425…61

Comments

  • Options
    #632
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,655 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    IncognitoMan wrote: »
    I can't agree. I think that's some of the more interesting stuff you've cut there.

    Dream sequences - I liked it because it shows the universe has a lot more to come. But I can understand how it was confusing to some so this could maybe have gone, but I'm glad it didn't from a fan looking forward point of view. - Shows us, yes. But Batman shouldn't be having dreams featuring Darkseid's Omega symbol and parademons when he has no reason to at that point. Plus, the dreams at the very start (where we see his parents get killed and he gets lifted by bats out of the cave) and where blood drips from his mother's grave-thing are only there so clips from those dreams can be used when in the infamous Martha scene to remind us that was his mother's name.

    Lois and the bullet - I felt this was important because it shows Lex's scheming and the way he has been trying to damage the image of Superman in the public's eye and Batman's. It also gave us a chance to see Lois do her thing. - But it results in nothing. If it was Man of Steel 2, absolutely, but not enough comes from it in this film to warrant the amount of time and boring scenes it takes up. Lex isn't arrested at the end based on the bullet and what Lois found out, he was literally caught after having created Doomsday. Lois should have been chasing up the Batman story (especially since Clark was never supposed to be doing that story and Perry was still hounding him about a football story which was surely old news by that point) with Clark watching out for her as Superman in the background.

    half of the Lex scenes - While I don't like Jesse Eisenberg's Lex, you can't cut too much out or his character loses all impact on the film altogether. The jolly rancher scene could go though :pac: - I think he would have had much more impact as a shadowy figure behind the scenes. We all know he's evil, and a few small scenes showing that would have been enough. He loses his menace in some of the scenes he's featured in. Jolly rancher, basketball, his "come here to me" when they're wheeling over Zod's body to him.

    the Wally guy - Again this is all about showing how Lex has been setting events up behind the scenes. Also if you take wally out you lose the explosion at the court house which I thought was a really good example of just how far Lex was willing to go to make Superman the bad guy. All the effort to get that wally guy to kill himself showed a real dark side to him and even sacrificing his assistant who had been at his right hand side all along. Also getting rid of that senator who was standing in his way. That is actually the best thing Lex does in the film, It shows a real dark unhinged man. - I wouldn't take Wally out of it altogether, as like you say, you need the courthouse explosion. But scenes of him spraypainting the Superman statue, whatever he was making in his flat which he ended up never even using (he looked like he was taping a fuse to something), his newspaper cuttings. Rather than celebs on the news debating whether Superman is good, it should have been Wally. Wally has reason to hate him, and that could have been Lex's entry into using him to get the bomb in.

    celebs/news debating whether Superman is good or not - This I really liked. I thought it helped pad out the world so much. This is exactly what would happen if an alien who could fly appeared on earth. I wish they had gone deeper into this and explored just how much a superman would have changed the world. It's something I'd like them to delve a little deeper into in Man of Steel 2 but I doubt we will. Also when he comes back now he will be a hero to everyone after his sacrifice so I think this chapter is over. - But the point they were making was being made by others. The Senator, Wally and even Lex. No reason to have Nancy Grace and Neil Degrasse Tyson too.

    My feeling has always been they had a script for Man of Steel 2, then they were told to add Batman in, then they were told to put more Justice League stuff in. But each time they added stuff, they didn't take out stuff that was now surplus to requirement. If it was MoS2 where Lex creates Doomsday and Batman/WW aren't in the film, absolutely leave the Lois/Wally/Lex stuff in. But it's not needed with Batman/JL stuff in the film too.


  • Options
    #633
    Ben Gadot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,767 ✭✭✭Ben Gadot


    Aye I'd go along with that. I said before that if you take Batman out and edit it differently you have a nice little film.


  • Options
    #634
    IncognitoMan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,539 ✭✭✭IncognitoMan


    But you are talking about a completely different film then. Are we not talking about working in the confines of what was actually made. Because otherwise you can just go back and say 'should have made a better film'.

    Your line was "I still maintain that you could easily cut 30-40 minutes from BvS and it would have been a much better film". Not make a different film, you wanted to cut that from the movie that exists. That's the way I took it anyway.

    If you are arguing about reworking the whole script then sure yeah you could make it better.


  • Options
    #635
    techdiver
    Registered Users Posts: 3,158 ✭✭✭techdiver


    This is what I've thought all along. I think some peoples hatred of Snyder stops them from entertaining the fact that much of the issues with BvS were down to executive interference. Confirmation bias if you like. As soon as anything negative happens it's "**** Snyder", "he's a hack", etc, etc. I accept he has serious deficiencies in his directing, but he's not the source of all evil in the DCEU.

    It was initially supposed to be MOS2, then Batman was added, then Wonder Woman, then more Justice League stuff, etc, etc......

    That reeks of studio interference. Why would a director hamstring himself by doing that? Some will say, he was the director and should be ultimately responsible, that's fine, but these studio execs aren't exactly known for logical thought and they sign the cheques at the end of the day...


  • Options
    #636
    Ben Gadot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,767 ✭✭✭Ben Gadot


    I never had Snyder as the problem. You could tell throughout the production of BvS that Snyder wasn't getting to make the film he wanted.

    I own MOS on blu ray so I'm a fan of the film.

    WB ****ed SS as well so they are the common thread.

    To bring the point home of how talented Snyder is, amongst all of the deserved praise Gal Gadot is getting, people forget it was Snyder who cast her. It's even more funny that the same people who slated her casting in BvS are now praising her so yeah, Snyder knows his sh1t while his detractors have been proven just to be reactionary idiots.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #637
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,655 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    IncognitoMan wrote: »
    But you are talking about a completely different film then. Are we not talking about working in the confines of what was actually made. Because otherwise you can just go back and say 'should have made a better film'.

    Your line was "I still maintain that you could easily cut 30-40 minutes from BvS and it would have been a much better film". Not make a different film, you wanted to cut that from the movie that exists. That's the way I took it anyway.

    If you are arguing about reworking the whole script then sure yeah you could make it better.

    Fair point. It's both. Yes, from reworking the script, obviously you could make a better movie and maybe I went too far into that in my explanation in the previous post. However even if it just came down to editing, you could still cut 30 mins and it would be the same. Cut the Lois stuff and fewer Lex scenes and it would make no difference to the story and Lex would be more intimidating. Cut bits of Wally's scenes (no need to show him in his house with the newspaper cuttings and no need to have him interviewed on the court steps). Just spraying the statue and meeting Lex would be enough. Cut Batman's dream sequences to The Flash one and maybe replace the first one with a montage-type dream if you need clips for the Martha scene later. And I still maintain we don't need the celeb/news discussion except maybe the small bit with the Senator.

    Time was wasted in the film on stuff that had no effect on anything and making the same point repeatedly.


  • Options
    #638
    Nervous Wreck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    techdiver wrote: »
    This is what I've thought all along. I think some peoples hatred of Snyder stops them from entertaining the fact that much of the issues with BvS were down to executive interference. Confirmation bias if you like. As soon as anything negative happens it's "**** Snyder", "he's a hack", etc, etc. I accept he has serious deficiencies in his directing, but he's not the source of all evil in the DCEU.

    It was initially supposed to be MOS2, then Batman was added, then Wonder Woman, then more Justice League stuff, etc, etc......

    That reeks of studio interference. Why would a director hamstring himself by doing that? Some will say, he was the director and should be ultimately responsible, that's fine, but these studio execs aren't exactly known for logical thought and they sign the cheques at the end of the day...

    Studio interference didn't turn Batman and Superman into murderers. Snyder and Goyer did that. I can get behind the hate for the studio obviously forcing Justice League stuff into the film but Snyder was never going to make a good film with this because a) he's a piss poor director and b) he doesn't understand the characters.


  • Options
    #639
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    Nervous Wreck wrote: »
    Studio interference didn't turn Batman and Superman into murderers. Snyder and Goyer did that. I can't get behind the hate for the studio obviously forcing Justice League stuff into the film but Snyder was never going to make a good film with this because a) he's a piss poor director and b) he doesn't understand the characters.

    Yeah, my problem with BvS is that I was bored all the way through it and it was clear the creators either did not understand or care for the characters. It's got nothing to do with Snyder as a person, or Goyer. In fact, I'd argue both of them have good comic book films to their name.

    It's funny I've heard these arguments almost exactly for the Bay Transformers and I dislike them for the exact same reasons too: Boring films that refuse to give me good reasons to care.


  • Options
    #640
    IncognitoMan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,539 ✭✭✭IncognitoMan


    You'd swear it was the first time either had killed the way this gets brought up. Some have a very narrow field of vision of what each character should be and once it steps outside that they'll claim the characters are not "got". There's nothing wrong with the way Batman and Superman are portrayed in the DCEU.


  • Options
    #641
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    IncognitoMan wrote: »
    You'd swear it was the first time either had killed the way this gets brought up. Some have a very narrow field of vision of what each character should be and once it steps outside that they'll claim the characters are not "got". There's nothing wrong with the way Batman and Superman are portrayed in the DCEU.

    No sorry, BvS is a boring film. I dislike it mainly for being boring. Everyone I know was bored watching it, including people who've no attachment to the characters.

    How many people are you seeing complaining about Wonder Woman because it follows her new 52 origin story? Not many. Because it's a good film :)

    In any case, THIS type of thing is what I want to see in a film with Batman and Superman in it. It's this piece missing that turns me off having them in such a grim film.

    5432376-5983068546-M77OH.jpg

    I genuinely don't feel I like them, or care about them in BvS. If I don't find them interesting, or likeable, why bother?

    I think that's a problem with their portrayal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #642
    Nervous Wreck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    IncognitoMan wrote: »
    You'd swear it was the first time either had killed the way this gets brought up. Some have a very narrow field of vision of what each character should be and once it steps outside that they'll claim the characters are not "got". There's nothing wrong with the way Batman and Superman are portrayed in the DCEU.

    There absolutely is. At best, Superman is guilty of a few thousand counts of manslaughter and a couple of cases of first degree murder, while Batman could legitimately be described as a serial killer. There's a lot you can change about a character that is absolutely fine but turning those particular characters into what Snyder and Goyer turned them into shows how little he understands about the characters.

    Bonus fact: in Man of Steel, Krypton's sun is yellow. That speaks volumes.


  • Options
    #643
    Nervous Wreck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    Doctor DooM wrote: »
    How many people are you seeing complaining about Wonder Woman because it follows her new 52 origin story? Not many. Because it's a good film :)

    That annoyed me, I have to say. But, as you say, it's not a criticism I've raised because, on the whole, the film was pretty good!


  • Options
    #644
    IncognitoMan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,539 ✭✭✭IncognitoMan


    Nervous Wreck wrote: »

    Bonus fact: in Man of Steel, Krypton's sun is yellow. That speaks volumes.

    You mean on Krypton at the start of the film?


  • Options
    #645
    Nervous Wreck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    IncognitoMan wrote: »
    You mean on Krypton at the start of the film?

    Yep.


  • Options
    #646
    IncognitoMan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,539 ✭✭✭IncognitoMan


    Nervous Wreck wrote: »
    Yep.

    Its a red dwarf sun in Man of Steel isn't it? That's what wiki has it down as.

    But on the planet it wouldn't necessarily look red due to atmosphere. Is there a shot of the sun in space looking yellow/white? If not then your bonus fact doesn't hold up sorry.


  • Options
    #647
    Nervous Wreck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    IncognitoMan wrote: »
    Its a red dwarf sun in Man of Steel isn't it? That's what wiki has it down as.

    But on the planet it wouldn't necessarily look red due to atmosphere. Is there a shot of the sun in space looking yellow? If not then your bonus fact doesn't hold up sorry.

    Krypton's sun, as viewed from the planet, is red. Canonically, this has been a vital fact since 1960. Also, traditionally, Superman isn't a mass murderer.


  • Options
    #648
    Slydice
    Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    Says here it was a Red Dwarf:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krypton_(comics)#Man_of_Steel


  • Options
    #649
    IncognitoMan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,539 ✭✭✭IncognitoMan


    Nervous Wreck wrote: »
    Krypton's sun, as viewed from the planet, is red. Canonically, this has been a vital fact since 1960. Also, traditionally, Superman isn't a mass murderer.

    Well in this case the comic are wrong. Fair play to them for actually doing the research though and depicting the red dwarf sun correctly.


  • Options
    #650
    Nervous Wreck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    Slydice wrote: »
    Says here it was a Red Dwarf:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krypton_(comics)#Man_of_Steel

    And yet... https://goo.gl/images/UNLdKQ


  • Options
    #651
    Slydice
    Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    A red coloured sun is a Superman thing in my head.
    I guess it's not what they went with for MoS. Probably got red at sunset like ours does. The in-space scenes felt ambiguous about it.

    Suns are hard to do. White light is what you get when it gets hot.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #652
    Nervous Wreck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    IncognitoMan wrote: »
    Well in this case the comic are wrong. Fair play to them for actually doing the research though and depicting the red dwarf sun correctly.

    This is kinda my point. Snyder, without any real understanding of the source material, changes important aspects of them and relies on people not noticing or not caring or just making confabulations that he has gone to the effort of researching how a red dwarf star would appear through the lens of Krypton's atmosphere, to get away with it. I guarantee you he did not do this. The guy hasn't even bothered reading the comics. Gimme a break.


  • Options
    #653
    IncognitoMan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,539 ✭✭✭IncognitoMan


    Nervous Wreck wrote: »
    This is kinda my point. Snyder, without any real understanding of the source material, changes important aspects of them and relies on people not noticing or not caring or just making confabulations that he has gone to the effort of researching how a red dwarf star would appear through the lens of Krypton's atmosphere, to get away with it. I guarantee you he did not do this. The guy hasn't even bothered reading the comics. Gimme a break.

    Ok, look sure. I mean its a strange thing to be annoyed about considering the science behind it would be correct but sure I'm not going to convince you otherwise.


  • Options
    #654
    Nervous Wreck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    IncognitoMan wrote: »
    Ok, look sure. I mean its a strange thing to be annoyed about considering the science behind it would be correct but sure I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

    I'm not even annoyed by it. I'm much more annoyed by all the people Batman and Superman murdered in cold blood.


  • Options
    #655
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,655 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I've made the point before, but it's more than simply a case of not wanting Batman to kill. If they're going with a Batman who is willing to kill henchmen to get Kryptonite to kill Superman based on the chance that Superman may one day turn evil, then the Joker and Harley Quinn should not be alive considering they killed Robin. Whatever happened that caused Robin's death, Batman should have killed the people responsible.

    Batman killed henchmen to get Kryptonite. There's no reason the Joker should still be alive. Batman should have spent years tracking him down, never stopping until the Joker was dead.

    It's not just "Batman shouldn't kill", and fair enough if they're using Clark's sacrifice as something which means Batman decides not to kill any more, but for me it throws up a huge inconsistency in Batman's character in the past. Random henchmen transporting something I can use as a weapon against someone because they might turn evil? Fine. Robin's murderers? Ah, never really liked him anyway.


  • Options
    #656
    Nervous Wreck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    Another great point Penn.


  • Options
    #657
    IncognitoMan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,539 ✭✭✭IncognitoMan


    To be fair that's a much better point. I wonder will it be covered in The Batman should it ever get made? It's a genuinely interesting story point.

    Also cinematic Batman has kind of always been a bit of a d1ck.


  • Options
    #658
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,655 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Nervous Wreck wrote: »
    Another great point Penn.

    It all stems from Under The Red Hood. Jason Todd is furious at Batman for not caring about him enough to kill the Joker when he thought Joker had killed him, but Batman has to stand by the point that he can't cross that line because if he does, he won't be able to come back from it. Whereas now, that's exactly the situation we're in. Batman was willing to kill random henchmen but not the people who killed Robin, basically his adopted son.


  • Options
    #659
    Nervous Wreck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    Penn wrote: »
    It all stems from Under The Red Hood. Jason Todd is furious at Batman for not caring about him enough to kill the Joker when he thought Joker had killed him, but Batman has to stand by the point that he can't cross that line because if he does, he won't be able to come back from it. Whereas now, that's exactly the situation we're in. Batman was willing to kill random henchmen but not the people who killed Robin, basically his adopted son.

    I guess it's another in a long list of examples why beginning the universe with a Batman who's already 20 years in is a very complicated idea that doesn't seem to have been given the time and consideration it deserved.


  • Options
    #660
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,655 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Nervous Wreck wrote: »
    I guess it's another in a long list of examples why beginning the universe with a Batman who's already 20 years in is a very complicated idea that doesn't seem to have been given the time and consideration it deserved.

    That's why I can kinda forgive the destruction caused in MoS. Superman is new at this, fighting an enemy like Zod who will only get stronger as more time passes as he learns to control his powers on Earth, and Superman has no way of containing him even if he did capture him. I can accept Superman killing Zod and for the destruction caused during their fight (though I still think it was overdone for cinematic reasons without enough thought into the story and character effects).

    But Batman killing henchmen simply throws up inconsistencies for me that need to be addressed. I'd f*cking love if they did a version of Under The Red Hood and addressed it in their own way. They've already laid groundwork for it and it's a great solo Batman story to use as a framework.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #661
    IncognitoMan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,539 ✭✭✭IncognitoMan


    I'd love if they explained it by saying Batman did kill the Joker and it set him down the current path he was on in BvS. Leto's Joker can be explained by being a copycat that appeared after, or something along those lines. Not too worried about what they do with Leto's joker at this stage.


Advertisement