| torok said:
That people was not in their way, how would they pose any threat to their search? They were just being ignored. It's not like the parademons were attacking tons of people during the film, they were mostly running errands for Steppenwolf.
Pointless wasted time spent in a movie that had precious time to spare. Cramming this movie to 2 hours and we spend 5 minutes of them with a pointless family? Flash had already saved people in the movie, and Superman had done it in prior movies. If the heroes were so bent on saving people, they should have done that before rushing the base. The didn't even consider people until midway through the fight.
In MoS he may saved this people, but he didn't cared when he was throwing Zod into buildings. Also, Supes wouldn't kill him. He would find a better way to deal with Zod (in a previously retconned 90s comic book he did it, but the 90s were mostly retconned due to terrible writing, both Marvel and DC).
Superman didn't throw Zod through buildings. He got thrown through buildings. The most he did to Zod was ram his head next to the buildings exterior. The only time superman did major damage himself to a building was the parking lot, and you can see him stare up at the damaging ramp like oh shit, letting Zod get a cheap shot in.
The final fighting scene in BvS was mostly OK in that aspect. I recon they were at least trying to make it look like they care about civilians. Most of the issues with that film are on the murderous rampage by Batman and the general nonsense they used for most of the plot.
Ignoring this, will touch on later.
A bully? In BvS he simply destroys the batmobile and threatens Batman saying he won't tolerate a vigilante (come on, Superman is also a freaking vigilante, it's not like he is a cop or something legal). I qualify ripping off his roof and threatening him because you're a god-like Kryptonian as being a bully. In that universe, Batman was completely right in creating a Kryptonian bust suit and using kryptonite.
You mean a vigilante that in your own words is murdering people left and right. Branding people that are dying. And other "evidence" that Luthor is sending Clark. I hardly call say going out and telling the Punisher for instance to quit doing what he is doing a bully. Superman has been doing 100% good since he showed up, minus if you call killing Zod to save the world bad. By breaking the Batmobile and giving someone a warning give Batman the perfect right to go and kill him?
In the ending, Luthor demands that Superman kill the Bat. Super goes to Bruce, tries to reason for 30 seconds, gets mad and starts to fight. So we can assume that he would basically do exactly that, kill the bat and take his head to Lex to save his mum.
There is zero evidence that he would kill batman. As you said he tried to tell him many times. He even tried again when he threw batman on the roof, just before he was weakened and then became Batmans punching bag until defeat. It was clear from the whole fight that Batman was not going to listen to him, so Superman went into incapacitate mode to make him finally listen.
The real Superman would rather let his mother die than killing someone to save her. He would find a way, but he would never, ever, try to attend such a demand (his second confrontation with Manchester Black on the comics shows exactly the kind of self control he has).
He was not going to kill Batman. The very fact you think this is baffling to me.
The Black Widow/Hulk thing was ridiculously forced. Anyway, I don't think having a romance with Batman will diminish WW as a feminist icon. In different ocasions in the film she saves him and she is clearly portrayed as the "muscle" until Supes arrives.
Wasn't just the romance, it was everything else in it as well that went to the cliché sex jokes for females.
100% agree here. I normally like Marvel films, but they are starting to be too formulaic. Ragnarok was basically Guardians of the Galaxy with a new painting. And they also ruined Planet Hulk in a single go.
Agree.
Batman does not usually kill. However, if he had to kill someone to save the Earth, he would do it. That's the difference between him and Supes, Batman will do it if extremely necessary. Supes wouldn't. I don't know how this makes BvS, where Batman was killing Luthor goons in a chasing scene for no reasonable motive acceptable. The problem isn't really having him kill people, but having him basically killing anyone even if with no reason at all. The scene where he kills the guy who would kill Martha was the only reasonable one: it was either that or she would die.
BTW, pay attention to the goons in the chase scene and those very same goons in the wharehouse. Many are the same guys. So he didn't kill them all that are thought. But regardless, this is a different Batman. This is a batman that is broken that had become bad. BvS was about him needing to find redemption. By the end he realizes that he was the evil he was trying to fight.
A good example is the old Justice League cartoon. In an episode, Deadshot was ready to kill one of the League members by surprise, but Batman ended up killing him when saving his friend. He felt terrible for that afterwards, but Batman is the guy that will do it if necessary.
I appreciate that. Not that he killed, but that he "had" to kill. It's the same reason I am not against Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel. Too many movies when a hero gets to a position where they are stuck between a rock and hard place, some duex ex machine comes in and saves them from having to make the hard choice. You know, someone else say kills Zod for Superman, or someone comes in to quickly save the family, ect. It's a cop-out. I'd like to think a seasoned Superman would not have gotten himself into that position, but he was a day 1 rookie on the job fighting a being as strong as Zod. And as we saw in this movie, kryptonians are F*ing strong, so its perfectly reasonable to
The old movies are hardly a good measure, they didn't cared about being close to the source material at all. In the Nolan films the whole Joker thing is based on him trying to make Bats kill him and failing to corrupt him.
Just pointing out hypocrisies. People cry that Supes kills Zod, yet in Superman 2 her throws a powerless Zod down a bottomless pit for all we know in the Antarctic. People bitch about Superman being petty and wrecking that guys Semi, yet in Superman 2, he goes back to a dinner to beat up and embarrass a guy. Same with batman. He kills and its a jolly old time in Keatonverse. In Nolan, he also kills people. Sometimes inadvertently by doing nothing. Apparantly letting someone die you can save is good. Or times when in vehicle chases he clearly kills the drive of other vehicles.
I wouldn't say that these characters are so inconsistent on comics. All these comic book Superman versions are mostly the same. The biggest difference between Gold/Silver/Bronze Superman is the power level, not his personality. The biggest change they did was New 52, where he was more arrogant and, in general, a douche. But he wouldn't kill anybody, he was just really kind of a douchebag. Things like Red Son or any other are basically "what if" scenarios. Batman is also consistent, except by the golden age (he killed people). He got a bit corny in the 60s to follow the TV series and then became the modern Dark Knight after Miller's run. And that was at the end of the 80s.
The current Batman dates from the late 80s. 30 years of consistency. Modern Superman is basically the post-crisis (mid 80s), but even his Silver age version was the same. They only rebooted it to the modern version because the Silver age Superman had ridiculous power levels and no villain was a threat to him anymore.
Not gonna go into versions of characters cause there are so many. Point is, this is just another version of the beloved characters. I think they are completely faithful to the current versions, just not as the current version you want YET. They are growing. Superman has become the superman people love. Batman was at a different stage, but through superman has been redeemed. Flash/Cyborg/Aquaman are just starting.
Don't think that I really feel these jokes are necessary. I just don't mind them unless they reach a ridiculous level. Ragnarok was probably the first Marvel movie where was basically wishing they stopped doing that because it was too much. I guess they need jokes for the mainstream public, just to go crazy adding them.
My problem with the tone Snyder set with BvS is that he was trying to be dark for no reason. It looked like a teenager wanting to be edgy. Just like his interview where he said that he would do a Batman movie where he could get raped in prison. It was like he was trying to be edgy and dark and thinking it looks cool.
I never found MoS to be dark. Go rewatch it. Maybe it felt dark when it first came out comparing it to Superman 1-4, or Returns. But it wasn't as dark as Nolan's trilogy and compare it to BvS and its insanely light.
BvS was dark. That was because it was supposed to be. One hero is lost and broken throughout the movie. The other is trying to find his place in this world that is scared of him. And in the end one hero dies. It's your typical dark middle movie in the trilogy. And besides, Batman will inherently darken any movie, unless they change his character.
|
