Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 10161718192021 LastLast
Results 286 to 300 of 315
  1. #286
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Most of the people you listed here either died in the first movie or don't even exist in the DCEU. It has nothing to do with him refusing to ally himself with anyone else and if Lois was maintaining contact with the general, then obviously Clark must have trusted him. It would be like calling Wonder Woman a lone wolf because the Wonder Girls, the Kapatealis, the embassy staff and all her other supporting cast from the comics aren't in the movies.
    One affects the other. Out of universe Snyder could have replaced them or used many of them, he did neither - leaving Superman without his traditional allies or supporting cast. It's not about Clark trusting the general, it's about him as Superman having a relationship with him and he hasn't got one in either identity.

    In universe Superman is alone, all he has is Martha and Lois, until Batman arrived and he spent most of that time trying to intimidate or kill him. The fact they didn't exist in the DCEU are a choice Snyder made, he didn't want them doing anything. Perry's role is reduced, despite the fact he set up a good piece for a conversation about how the two feel about Batman in it.

    Wonder Woman is in the same place in B v S, she has nobody until she teams up with Batman. She has got get her solo movie before she gets any of her traditional allies to support her. The ones she does mention in B vs S are long dead.

    None of these people are the "lone wolves" Snyder makes them out to be in his control because those aren't stories he wants to tell with them.

    Even in Nolan's Bat films he had many allies in it, he just focused on the non-costumed variety aside from Catwoman. Snyder just reduced Batman to Alfred, killed a Robin and everyone else is not worth a mention.

    Quote Originally Posted by adamTPTK View Post
    Quirks aren't bad writing, but thanks for clarifying it's not based on anything substantial.
    They are when Lex becomes more like Joker than how he's supposed to be written. The jar thing is a joke Joker himself would love to do. Those "quirks" inform his character to his detriment. He's meant to be Zuckerberg instead he's Joker 2.0.
    Last edited by Steel Inquisitor; 08-04-2020 at 04:03 AM.

  2. #287
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    153

    Default

    When a character is 80 years old, it is impossible to respect the canon, but to respect its bases. Lex (comic) is an intelligent, cunning man, who imposes and intimidates with his presence. Lex (BvS) is smart, cunning, but his presence is nil, when you see him with Superman, he looks like a child waiting for Superman to return the kitten that he couldn't get down from the tree. that's why for me the problem of lex (BvS) is not what he does or what he says, it is the actor.

  3. #288
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Inquisitor View Post
    They are when Lex becomes more like Joker than how he's supposed to be written. The jar thing is a joke Joker himself would love to do. Those "quirks" inform his character to his detriment. He's meant to be Zuckerberg instead he's Joker 2.0.
    I'd agree if you said that Eisenberg mistakenly borrowed inspiration from Ledger if only Ledger himself didn't present a completely fresh and unique take on Joker. And because he killed it, no one even dares to mention how close he is to "canon" (and he's not). So this is the argument anyway, was Eisenberg's take as good or even just good on its own merits? Probably not if most people found it as flawed. But was it inherently wrong? That's something that I'd argue worth a honest and detailed discussion.





    Quote Originally Posted by NaVi View Post
    When a character is 80 years old, it is impossible to respect the canon, but to respect its bases. Lex (comic) is an intelligent, cunning man, who imposes and intimidates with his presence. Lex (BvS) is smart, cunning, but his presence is nil, when you see him with Superman, he looks like a child waiting for Superman to return the kitten that he couldn't get down from the tree. that's why for me the problem of lex (BvS) is not what he does or what he says, it is the actor.
    There's a theory that interprets Lex's acting all quirky and neurotic as part of his plan to build a future case for his affirmative defense claiming his criminal insanity somewhere down the line. It's supported by his own admission to Batman in the end of BvS. In the future, the bald Lex would be a more stoic and cold blooded character. But we will never know now I guess...

  4. #289
    Astonishing Member batnbreakfast's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamTPTK View Post
    Quirks aren't bad writing, but thanks for clarifying it's not based on anything substantial.
    No, but leaving the movie theatre with an empty feeling is what bad writing does. The last SW movie was written by the same guy and left me with the same feeling but good for you if you like BvS.

  5. #290
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning Rider View Post
    I'm frankly shocked that anyone could think Superman killed that warlord when he save Lois.
    I'm not. It's a poorly done scene that goes by too quickly.

    I don't actually think Superman killed him, but it happens so violently and quickly that in particular I can see people in the theater (with no rewind option) thinking he obliterated him before they could process it and we moved onto the next scene.

  6. #291
    Extraordinary Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,215

    Default

    Well, i don't see what is done so poorly about it? Frankly, for me it wasn't even shocking. It's isn't the first time superman has thrown people through a wall. Lex would attest to that. I mean, i can see the people who have been accustomed to the boyscout harmless puppy portrayal will be shocked. Its a comic book movie, normal physics doesn't apply. Superman flies. Emotional realism is the only thing that can be attained easily.Besides, these guys killed jimmy and was holding lois hostage. They aren't exactly good. That guy was good as dead anyway. The us military was sending missile on him. Superman destroyed the missle to save lois and that guy. Lex's goons scorched that guys goons to make it look like superman did it.

    If you look at it lois and clark smile at each other. She knows Clark's got this.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 08-04-2020 at 08:36 AM.

  7. #292
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Well, i don't see what is done so poorly about it? Frankly, for me it wasn't even shocking. It's isn't the first time superman has thrown people through a wall. Lex would attest to that. I mean, i can see the people who have been accustomed to the boyscout harmless puppy portrayal will be shocked. Its a comic book movie, normal physics doesn't apply. Superman flies. Emotional realism is the only thing that can be attained easily.Besides, these guys killed jimmy and was holding lois hostage. They aren't exactly good. That guy was good as dead anyway. The us military was sending missile on him. Superman destroyed the missle to save lois and that guy. Lex's goons scorched that guys goons to make it look like superman did it.

    If you look at it lois and clark smile at each other. She knows Clark's got this.
    Keep in mind that people aren't as familiar with the portrayals of Superman that throw people through walls. And "not a good guy" and "he might have died anyway" are really lousy defenses.

    I don't see how the best response to the criticisms of MoS Superman being destructive and callous (some of it warranted, some of it not) is really gonna be helped by doubling down and doing a scene like this. Of course some people may think that dude is dead, it happens VERY quickly, looks like he's tackled through walls, and since the films like to frame violence as realistic in some aspects, why wouldn't they think the realistic option of him being pulped? Even what I think actually happened (Superman flying past him and grabbing him, himself knocking down the walls) would realistically result in a possible fatal injury for that man.

    Lois and Clark smiling at each other means nothing. It could seem like she's comfortable with the fact that he will kill this dude.

  8. #293
    Mighty Member Gaius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    1,427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamTPTK View Post
    Poorly written meaning?
    He's a discount Heath Ledger Joker who mainly just talks in speeches.

  9. #294
    Extraordinary Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    Keep in mind that people aren't as familiar with the portrayals of Superman that throw people through walls. And "not a good guy" and "he might have died anyway" are really lousy defenses.

    I don't see how the best response to the criticisms of MoS Superman being destructive and callous (some of it warranted, some of it not) is really gonna be helped by doubling down and doing a scene like this. Of course some people may think that dude is dead, it happens VERY quickly, looks like he's tackled through walls, and since the films like to frame violence as realistic in some aspects, why wouldn't they think the realistic option of him being pulped? Even what I think actually happened (Superman flying past him and grabbing him, himself knocking down the walls) would realistically result in a possible fatal injury for that man.

    Lois and Clark smiling at each other means nothing. It could seem like she's comfortable with the fact that he will kill this dude.
    Those weren't my defense. Those were just observations. The guy and lois both would have died had not been for clark. Cia was bombing the place to kingdom come.
    Coming to the specific instance. I don't see anything worth defending. My superman has always done this and yes he is destructive.I mean, nobody needs to defend batman for breaking bones of criminals does it. Its just part of the character as a vigilante . A guy who can lift gazillions of pounds is gonna break a few eggs accidentally. The guy started of by wrecking a car of jackasses that were out to molest lois lane.Its not like clark caused the destruction in mos. The only thing destruction caused by him was after he got pissed when his mom got threatened. Everything else was basically zod. Hey! Better than a dead planet anyhow with human skulls. This is a movie with a portrayal based on someones view of the character,Not a debate. Snyder isn't defending anything by that view. He doesn't need to either. So, he shows superman take the guy through a wall to scare him.What should he do? make superman the harmless puppy to satiate guys that want some kind of moral paragon that's not even a real thing. That kinda superman is boring, anyways. He has a story with batman and superman in mind from things he has read. He is portraying his superman, not defending anything .There is fair amount of uncomfortablility and ambiguities left in superman's action. Because that's what it was meant to have. Superman is questioned to be whether a devil or jesus character. He is neither. By the end of the story, he dies like a man and buried in a farm with friends and family attending. He isn't given a grand burial were people shoot to the sky with flag or things like that. As a guy with sins,He is prone to destruction even by mistake.
    Really, is that why she looks relieved and let's go of the warlords hand?No, she doesn't look abit uncomfortable.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 08-04-2020 at 10:06 AM.

  10. #295
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius View Post
    He's a discount Heath Ledger Joker who mainly just talks in speeches.
    That's poor acting. I could agree if I didn't see behind it some interesting concept. Still not bad writing.

    Quote Originally Posted by batnbreakfast View Post
    No, but leaving the movie theatre with an empty feeling is what bad writing does. The last SW movie was written by the same guy and left me with the same feeling but good for you if you like BvS.
    No, bad writing means you can point out something doesn't make sense or work narratively from point A to point B. Leaving the theater with an empty feeling is something strong cinema also can also do. That's how I felt after leaving Joker, Logan and Revenant. Just because the movie doesn't end on a triumphant note doesn't make it a bad movie. But I won't play around saying I liked BvS right off the bat, leaving the theater all I could think of "damn, there must've been some really good movie hidden in those choppy, abrupt collection of scenes." Then I learned they edited a 5 act Revenge Tragedy it was intended to be into a 3 act Hero Journey most people accustomed to. And the results were quite self evident. Now, I don't say everyone would've loved it if that was the full version, but being honest about your vision and not trying to make it seem like just another superhero blockbuster the second abysmal and spoilery trailer promised, would be a much better better move.

    You really believe it was the writer's fault all of what happened to RoS? It was clearly Dinsney's own slightly more coherent JL.

  11. #296
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamTPTK View Post
    There's a theory that interprets Lex's acting all quirky and neurotic as part of his plan to build a future case for his affirmative defense claiming his criminal insanity somewhere down the line. It's supported by his own admission to Batman in the end of BvS. In the future, the bald Lex would be a more stoic and cold blooded character. But we will never know now I guess...
    that's precisely snyder's biggest mistake. his characters and ideas need several movies to take shape. It is good to look at the future, but you must also look at the present, because if the present does not work, there is no future, which is what has happened to snyder.

  12. #297
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NaVi View Post
    that's precisely snyder's biggest mistake. his characters and ideas need several movies to take shape. It is good to look at the future, but you must also look at the present, because if the present does not work, there is no future, which is what has happened to snyder.
    I don't know, after the massive tide of standardized, safe and similar CBMs, I've grown to appreciate Snyder's take, with all of it flaws, even more in retrospect. Here he pays homage to Secret Origins, Birthright and other iterations that showed him to be a mad scientist, with an intention to bring the character to a more classic, modern form, and creates and environment for that to happen within the boundaries of the movie's narrative and plot. I think it's quite remarkable.
    Make no mistake, I do agree that this Lex is the weakest aspect of the movie, and it took time to get used to him, but there are redeemable qualities. I think the scene where he gets emotional around Zod's body was really strong, and so is the idea of that fusion of all canonical versions of the character. The acting that invokes some bizarre Ledger connotations, not so much...

  13. #298
    Extraordinary Member Lightning Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    5,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by batnbreakfast View Post
    The movie being unclear about this is a good argument for the writer's storytelling skills.
    It's not unclear. Nothing in Man of Steel would lead a reasonable view to conclude that Superman would kill a person so casually. Superman telling Lois he didn't kill anyone minutes later should remove all doubt.

  14. #299
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Well, i don't see what is done so poorly about it? Frankly, for me it wasn't even shocking. It's isn't the first time superman has thrown people through a wall. Lex would attest to that. I mean, i can see the people who have been accustomed to the boyscout harmless puppy portrayal will be shocked. Its a comic book movie, normal physics doesn't apply. Superman flies. Emotional realism is the only thing that can be attained easily.Besides, these guys killed jimmy and was holding lois hostage. They aren't exactly good. That guy was good as dead anyway. The us military was sending missile on him. Superman destroyed the missle to save lois and that guy. Lex's goons scorched that guys goons to make it look like superman did it.

    If you look at it lois and clark smile at each other. She knows Clark's got this.
    Snyder's vision is supposed to be like Nolan's, a DCU which is through a "realistic" lens and where death and failure is a far more potent force for everyone. And this Superman hasn't got the trust from the public like he's supposed to have out of universe, he's a controversial figure who's known for not caring about collateral damage in Man of Steel. It is a comic book movie Snyder's movies aren't meant to be the average comic book films, Man of Steel was an alien invasion sci-fi story and B vs S was an over indulgent student art film that thought it had more to say when it had shallow depth about interesting subjects like how Superman interacts with the government and big business and does nothing substantial with it. Jimmy was dead before Superman arrived, he was so outwitted by Lex and this is the beginning of the movie. They don't need to be "good" for Superman not to kill them, Superman's not meant to be a murderer - that's Black Adam. Superman can deal with missiles, it's like a hobby of his in any other media. Nobody cares about him destroying the missile it's how he saved Lois. Yes, the fact Lois is so casual about it has unsettling implications, that this a regular thing they do when she gets held hostage. Ploughing the hostage taker through walls at high speed, and since this is a Snyder film and he loves to inject death and destruction in his movies and have his "heroes" get away with it. His films never truly had him reckon with him being responsible for the deaths in the Battle of Metropolis and Smallville, which is a huge disappointment. Snyder could have mined that for a great Superman story to make him more like the traditional Superman we know.

  15. #300
    Better than YOU! Alan2099's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius View Post
    He's a discount Heath Ledger Joker who mainly just talks in speeches.
    You give him far too much credit. '

    He's far closer to Jim Carrey's Riddler than any incarnation of the Joker. Except Riddler felt like he had an actual plan and a personality. And he was more threatening.

Posting Permissions

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