Page 37 of 48 FirstFirst ... 2733343536373839404147 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 555 of 719
  1. #541
    Fantastic Member The_Lurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Reading the occasional "Marthaaa hur hur" trash talk here I wonder whats so hard to get in that scene? It made Batman snap and realize that he was about to become the thing he hates. He suddenly realized where he stood once and what has become of him. Sure, he had, most likely, criminal collateral in his fight scenes. But that was entirely different; this was him about to murder a man because he is afraid of the things he could do. And he did not liked that realization one bit. I thought it be a pretty obvious to understand scene.

  2. #542
    Extraordinary Member Lightning Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    5,176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Lurk View Post
    Reading the occasional "Marthaaa hur hur" trash talk here I wonder whats so hard to get in that scene? It made Batman snap and realize that he was about to become the thing he hates. He suddenly realized where he stood once and what has become of him. Sure, he had, most likely, criminal collateral in his fight scenes. But that was entirely different; this was him about to murder a man because he is afraid of the things he could do. And he did not liked that realization one bit. I thought it be a pretty obvious to understand scene.
    I never got that.

  3. #543
    Astonishing Member marhawkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    2,493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Lurk View Post
    Reading the occasional "Marthaaa hur hur" trash talk here I wonder whats so hard to get in that scene? It made Batman snap and realize that he was about to become the thing he hates. He suddenly realized where he stood once and what has become of him. Sure, he had, most likely, criminal collateral in his fight scenes. But that was entirely different; this was him about to murder a man because he is afraid of the things he could do. And he did not liked that realization one bit. I thought it be a pretty obvious to understand scene.
    Yeah it's the point where Batman realized he was a dangerously unstable lunatic. Problem is that it came an hour too late.

  4. #544
    Astonishing Member Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Lurk View Post
    Reading the occasional "Marthaaa hur hur" trash talk here I wonder whats so hard to get in that scene? It made Batman snap and realize that he was about to become the thing he hates. He suddenly realized where he stood once and what has become of him. Sure, he had, most likely, criminal collateral in his fight scenes. But that was entirely different; this was him about to murder a man because he is afraid of the things he could do. And he did not liked that realization one bit. I thought it be a pretty obvious to understand scene.
    From what I've read, Batman was suffering from classic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and it's common for someone in that situation to encounter one simple thing that shocks him into realizing how far he's gone off the deep end.
    His name is CAPTAIN MARVEL.

  5. #545
    Mighty Member Robanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    1,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Lurk View Post
    Reading the occasional "Marthaaa hur hur" trash talk here I wonder whats so hard to get in that scene? It made Batman snap and realize that he was about to become the thing he hates. He suddenly realized where he stood once and what has become of him. Sure, he had, most likely, criminal collateral in his fight scenes. But that was entirely different; this was him about to murder a man because he is afraid of the things he could do. And he did not liked that realization one bit. I thought it be a pretty obvious to understand scene.
    Oh sure, it's easy to understand as an audience member, but the entire bit feels so clunky. It's not a natural way to bring up that dialogue and it feels so silly that you can picture a smug Snyder dusting off that page with pride as he felt he'd stumbled on a chestnut we'd all overlooked-- both their names are Martha. The entire scene builds to that moment and Clark essentially cries "mom!" Yes, we all understood the reason for the scene, but it's so overly melodramatic and self-congratulatory when all that we needed was for Clark to say something selfless-- even "stop Luthor" to show that while Bruce was motivated by hatred, revenge and a desire to murder his newly designated white whale, Clark actually was trying to make the world a better place. Instead, Snyder wanted to make the one scene he built the entire movie around resolve around something anyone in a test screening could tell him would instantly be a meme to the movie's detriment. He needed to let everyone know he was aware of the deepest cut, their mothers share a first name. Because I guess that's just really important.

    But for what it's worth, the entire movie is overly melodramatic, so it does fit in its own way.

  6. #546
    Extraordinary Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Considering the reaction to Diana killing Maxwell Lord at the time, I'd say it doesn't matter the execution. People will find some reason to be mad Superman (or any superhero) using lethal force for one reason or another.
    And yet they are not mad with the Marvel heroes for doing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Bale's Batman breaks the rule despite the director insisting he never kills at all. BvS never shies away from the fact that this Batman is utterly vicious and frankly he's the perfect end result of what Batman has been like in the past decades. As much as fans want to cry about how much they want an emotionally stable Batman he has not been that way for a long, long time if he ever was at all. And at least Snyder mostly limited Batman's brutality to criminals and had his dickishness towards Superman be a result of his PTSD being taken advantage of by Luthor. Nothing Snyder's Batman did remotely came close to Bruce's attempts at mass surveillance (which got numerous people including the Amazons killed) or his physical and emotional abuse of the Batfamily.
    And yet I've seen you say that the Bale Batman is morally superior and more healthy than comic Batman. Suddenly he's not that great when compared to the Snyder version

    "If he ever was at all." Read some comics before 1986. He was no more emotionally unstable than anyone else, and the character wasn't created by Frank Miller.

    Yes, I'd prefer Snyder's Batman to some other takes. But the film still revels in his violence while at the same time trying to condemn it. It is morally confused. And it's not as if just because we reject his Batman it means we only have the other options you list. Plenty of fans hate all of the above. You can't use those as a shield to deflect criticism away from Snyder. Especially as his Batman was rejected by the mainstream, and they have no idea any of those comics exist nor would they care if they did. They're not going to read them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    I find Snyder's DC movies a hell lot less pretentious than morally confused, masturbatory crap like Kingdom Come and Superman vs The Elite which spend more time whining about how people see Superman as outdated and pissing on his competition than just focusing on what actually makes him an interesting character.
    As if Snyder's films aren't aren't pretentious, morally confused and masturbatory crap.

    Again you're just using your dislike of these other stories to deflect criticism. I didn't bring these stories up or say I liked them (I don't). The mainstream audience who have never opened a comic book in their life, including those, rejected this Superman, so you can't use that as a shield either. Because whatever you feel makes him an interesting character was determined by most to not have made it onto the screen. A common complaint is that audience's don't feel like they were engaged with this character. He is either silently mopey and moved around passively by the plot or put on a pedestal as Super Jesus so he can later be used as a sacrificial lamb for Batman's arc. The director's cut rectifies this somewhat, but not by much. Snyder didn't make him interesting, he put him at a distance and didn't let us see him.

    The version you find interesting was disliked by the audience's and that's why we aren't getting more of him. And no you can't blame JL, because they weren't happy with him before that and that actually redeemed him somewhat in the eyes of the mainstream. But too little, too late.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    It's not hard to come to the conclusion that fans only relate to these characters as power fantasies when phrases like "Superman always find a way" get repeated ad nauseum. A lot of Superman fans flat out complain when he isn't written as a power fantasy to the point of demonizing him and whoever depicts him in a non-power fantasy way and the positive reception to what he does to the other heroes and Steppenwolf in Justice League sure doesn't help this perception. When the only Superman stories these fans of his like are the ones where he steam rolls over everybody with a wink and a smile at the camera what else are people supposed to think?
    All superheroes are power fantasies. You don't have to go to the extreme of JL. he didn't even get the power fantasy treatment that Wonder Woman, Shazam and Aquaman got. What exactly is wrong with any of those? They got luckier in that they had talented filmmaker's who knew what they were doing and loved the characters for who they were.

    What is wrong with people wanting power fantasies? They are not inherently bad. Especially the mainstream who deals with the daily grind and just wants to be entertained when they go see a movie. It's their money the studios need and they didn't want Snyder's pretentious art house film. That's why we aren't getting any more of them. None of them were turned off by the other superheroes in JL due to Superman. None of them are under the delusion that Aquaman, Cyborg or Batman have any chance in hell against a pissed off Kryptonian, and yet they still went out and saw Aquaman. His IP is fine.

    A lot of the stories Superman fans love that show him at his best don't involve other heroes at all and still show him struggling before his victories without going into dour territory, so you need to look at a wider array of opinions before determining that JL is all people want. Meanwhile, Snyder blew Jimmy Olsen's face off (yay, another children's character gets a violent death) and Dick Grayson was killed off screen. His films probably shouldn't be defended if we're concerned with other characters getting screwed over, on top of arguably already screwing the Trinity over.

  7. #547
    Extraordinary Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    The drop was because they expected something like the animated crossover and instead got a snyder movie. People who wantthe live action version of animated movies aren't going to be Snyder's audience. That's it.snyder has an audience. Let the people who enjoy his Movies enjoy it. Expecting too much and something else from snyder movies too soon, led to the downfall of the verse. Snyder could have build his own audiences with these movies. Instead, they tried to appease the naysayers and Butchered justice league.
    So it's the audience's fault that they foolishly put Snyder in charge and spent a ridiculous amount of money on a film that needed the broadest possible appeal to be a success, and instead it was incredibly bleak and divisive? No, it's the studio's fault. Snyder did what they asked of him, but he shouldn't have been put in charge in the first place.

    It is not a wise business decision to spend that much money on a risky film. Joker meanwhile is a more experimental film, but can get away with it because it's budget was far more reasonable. This was a stupid risk they didn't need to take and it blew up in their faces, causing the Batman IP to take a heavy hit and Superman to take an even worse one.

    His audience is allowed to like it, but if some of them are just going to say "you don't like it because you just didn't get it and all you want are shallow power fantasies," they are going to get responses.

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Your argument is jl sucking wasn't because of complaining. It was. It absolutely was. Jl is atleast a caricature of the cookie cutter movie if nothing else. If Your definition of 'right director' is some guy who would make a cookie cutter movie. No thanks, i don't want avengers with capes Because i have seen the Avengers already.
    It was a Snyder film and a sequel to BvS, and the leaked plans do not inspire confidence. It absolutely would have been bad.
    A pure Whedon production from start to finish would have been better because Joss knows what he's doing more in comparison. I'd still rather not have either one of them though.

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    The complaining made corporates be scared and replace him. The jackasses even used the death of Snyder's daughter against him. That's the lowest of the low. It could have or should have is'nt even worthwhile argument. It is corporate as it gets because they asked him too.Snyder had the tendcy to always put easter eggs of the these characters . His idea was just kryptonite being dumped into wayne manor. It just blew up. Snyder doesn't go aginst the wb. Even now he hasn't done anything directly. I am sure, he could sue them or atleast tell the reality of his firing. He is not nolan. He doesn't have the level of pull to stop corporate decisions. It's not jl the cookie cutter nonsense did better. What snyder did was make movies with the limited freedom he gets with his vision.
    So basically they are still corporate driven movies...?

    I have more sympathy for Snyder than I do the studio. He just shouldn't have been in charge in the first place. Nobody should look at his filmography and think he's the best person to build up a cinematic DC universe.

  8. #548
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    21,145

    Default

    it has occurred to me that I have been out of line and have gone too far. I apologize. I meant to defend a version of Superman I liked and took it too far. It isn't easy seeing something I like repeatedly get criticized but I will try not to let my temper get the better of me in future.
    Last edited by Agent Z; 11-12-2019 at 08:17 AM.

  9. #549
    Astonishing Member DochaDocha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Son of Krypton View Post
    I don't think it would've changed much. Affleck had his say on the BvS script and was the one wanting it rewritten by Chris "Martha!!!!" Terrio or he wouldn't have signed to play Batman.
    I often wonder if part of the reason the movie is so Batman centric, and why the theatrical cut features so little Superman, is because Affleck was not going to accept a minor role. I remember reading stories about how Affleck would be in costume while making last-minute edits to the script, and I wondered if he was re-writing scenes to feature Batman more.

    Anyway, I often joke we need to get a Hollywood diva to play the next Superman, so that if there's an ensemble film there's no way said diva would allow Superman to be a background character.

  10. #550
    Astonishing Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    3,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Lurk View Post
    Reading the occasional "Marthaaa hur hur" trash talk here I wonder whats so hard to get in that scene? It made Batman snap and realize that he was about to become the thing he hates. He suddenly realized where he stood once and what has become of him. Sure, he had, most likely, criminal collateral in his fight scenes. But that was entirely different; this was him about to murder a man because he is afraid of the things he could do. And he did not liked that realization one bit. I thought it be a pretty obvious to understand scene.
    Because it’s hilariously campy like something out of the Silver Age in a movie that’s trying to be DARK and SERIOUS. It’s like Eisenberg’s piss jar, I get what it’s supposed to stand in for, a “**** you” to the senator, but it’s so hilariously camp that I can’t take it seriously and it totally throws off the tone.

  11. #551
    Extraordinary Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    No it isn't. Every thing Bruce does is treated as terrifying.
    That car chase sequence is not shot in a way to make him terrifying. or not JUST terrifying, it definitely tries to paint it as exciting and badass, which seems to confuse the message.

    Superman, meanwhile, is just watching the whole thing play and decides not to do anything besides make some passive aggressive threats and fly off.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    When did I blame JL for the poor reception to the Snyder films?
    "The only Superman stories people want are when he steamrolls over everyone else with a wink and a smile to the camera, what are people supposed to think?"

    So if they don't want Snyder's take or something like it, that's all they want?


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Um, yes he did. He's been getting it for decades now.
    Where is the current cinematic movie, which is the main thing relevant to this discussion? Those three had theirs in the modern superhero cinema landscape and it worked out fine, why didn't they need to get deconstructed?

    Why doesn't Spider-Man who has had a few takes of his own?


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Snyder killed off characters he either didn't have use for or whose deaths he thought would serve some kind of purpose. It's pretty narrow definition of screwed over just to view it as killing off characters and given he introduced a well received Wonder Woman to the world and was involved in the writing for the film, I'd say he didn't screw the Trinity over. In fact, Snyder's script was actually going to have Diana be the one to take out Steppenwolf which you can see people on this thread or others complaining about.

    Snyder didn't put Superman at a distance. He just didn't have him with all the answers immediately.
    What story purpose is there in shooting Jimmy in the face? it's just too self indulgent and comes off as unintentionally hilarious. If he has no use for them, he could just not use them. Comic writers get condemned for doing stuff like this all the time.

    Wonder Woman was well received, but there was contention with her "man made it impossible to stand together line" and with good reason. Thankfully it is vague enough that Jenkins can wisely ignore it and work around it. Jenkins and Gadot have been public about their thoughts about that line and how it didn't make sense for Diana's character.

    Superman never found answers or had them, and didn't seem like he was poised to ever get them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    Because it’s hilariously campy like something out of the Silver Age in a movie that’s trying to be DARK and SERIOUS. It’s like Eisenberg’s piss jar, I get what it’s supposed to stand in for, a “**** you” to the senator, but it’s so hilariously camp that I can’t take it seriously and it totally throws off the tone.
    yes the the whole thing is so dour that it becomes hysterical.
    I have to laugh or else I'll cry

  12. #552
    Ultimate Member Last Son of Krypton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    10,753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DochaDocha View Post
    I often wonder if part of the reason the movie is so Batman centric, and why the theatrical cut features so little Superman, is because Affleck was not going to accept a minor role. I remember reading stories about how Affleck would be in costume while making last-minute edits to the script, and I wondered if he was re-writing scenes to feature Batman more.
    I don't think Affleck is the one to blame for that. He was already courted to direct MoS and a pre-Snyder JL movie. WB wanted him involved with their superhero movies somehow and he ended up being chosen to play Batman because they needed a known actor to be the face of their cinematic universe. Also, Snyder was pushing for Superman getting out of the picture and Batman being the one forming the JL (as well the big arc involving the character in the sequels) which mean more focus and screentime to spend on him because his of upcoming pivotal role and cameos everywhere.

    Anyway, I often joke we need to get a Hollywood diva to play the next Superman, so that if there's an ensemble film there's no way said diva would allow Superman to be a background character.
    Cast The Rock as Superman.

  13. #553
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    21,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    That car chase sequence is not shot in a way to make him terrifying. or not JUST terrifying, it definitely tries to paint it as exciting and badass, which seems to confuse the message.

    Superman, meanwhile, is just watching the whole thing play and decides not to do anything besides make some passive aggressive threats and fly off.




    "The only Superman stories people want are when he steamrolls over everyone else with a wink and a smile to the camera, what are people supposed to think?"

    So if they don't want Snyder's take or something like it, that's all they want?




    Where is the current cinematic movie, which is the main thing relevant to this discussion? Those three had theirs in the modern superhero cinema landscape and it worked out fine, why didn't they need to get deconstructed?

    Why doesn't Spider-Man who has had a few takes of his own?




    What story purpose is there in shooting Jimmy in the face? it's just too self indulgent and comes off as unintentionally hilarious. If he has no use for them, he could just not use them. Comic writers get condemned for doing stuff like this all the time.

    Wonder Woman was well received, but there was contention with her "man made it impossible to stand together line" and with good reason. Thankfully it is vague enough that Jenkins can wisely ignore it and work around it. Jenkins and Gadot have been public about their thoughts about that line and how it didn't make sense for Diana's character.

    Superman never found answers or had them, and didn't seem like he was poised to ever get them.



    yes the the whole thing is so dour that it becomes hysterical.
    I have to laugh or else I'll cry
    I apologize. I have gotten too far and lost my temper where I shouldn't have. You do your idea of what Superman is like and I should respect that. I am sorry I took my defense of Snyder too far.

  14. #554
    Astonishing Member DochaDocha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Son of Krypton View Post
    I don't think Affleck is the one to blame for that. He was already courted to direct MoS and a pre-Snyder JL movie. WB wanted him involved with their superhero movies somehow and he ended up being chosen to play Batman because they needed a known actor to be the face of their cinematic universe. Also, Snyder was pushing for Superman getting out of the picture and Batman being the one forming the JL (as well the big arc involving the character in the sequels) which mean more focus and screentime to spend on him because his of upcoming pivotal role and cameos everywhere.
    Yeah, I read that about Snyder's vision. I would guess, though, that Affleck helped push the movie in that direction, and if he were in charge it would've been even more extreme. From my understanding, he had a lot of creative pull at it was, and giving him directorship would've made an already-Batman-centric movie even more so.

    It's just my thinking out loud, of course.


    Quote Originally Posted by Last Son of Krypton View Post
    Cast The Rock as Superman.
    And Vin Diesel as Batman. I like it.

  15. #555
    Ultimate Member Last Son of Krypton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    10,753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DochaDocha View Post
    Yeah, I read that about Snyder's vision. I would guess, though, that Affleck helped push the movie in that direction, and if he were in charge it would've been even more extreme. From my understanding, he had a lot of creative pull at it was, and giving him directorship would've made an already-Batman-centric movie even more so.

    It's just my thinking out loud, of course.
    I think that the kind of influence he had over the script made it more "pretentious" than bat-centric. Hiring Terrio to rewrite the script is an example of that.

    And Vin Diesel as Batman. I like it.
    Who Jason Statham plays in this?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •