Board Logo
« Batman+Superman=BS »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Sep 19th, 2017, 11:50pm



« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 2 3  ...  5 Notify Send Topic Print
 veryhotthread  Author  Topic: Batman+Superman=BS  (Read 5319 times)
Will

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 706
xx Batman+Superman=BS
« Thread started on: Jul 22nd, 2013, 03:59am »

This is all Joss Whedon's fault. Or maybe Disney's.

It will be written by Goyer and filmed by Snyder. I'm somewhere between 'meh' and 'ugh'.

Will Batman's Brain (Lucius Fox) be making a return? Oh please, oh please...
User IP Logged

Nick

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 749
xx Re: Batman+Superman=BS
« Reply #1 on: Jul 22nd, 2013, 3:23pm »

Could be worse, at least they didnt't give it to Tony Daniel to write.

Personally I'd love Warner to just say 'fuck it' and hand complete creative control of all DC films to Grant Morrison to do with as he pleases.
« Last Edit: Jul 22nd, 2013, 3:23pm by Nick » User IP Logged

Will

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 706
xx Re: Batman+Superman=BS
« Reply #2 on: Jul 24th, 2013, 01:48am »

"It could be worse," is always a good start, isn't it?

Wasn't Geoff Johns a major force behind the Ryan Reynolds GL? I'm sure that train wreck further strengthened Goyer at Warners. So it certainly could be worse...Goyer's mediocre (often bad, if that's not the same thing inherently) but Batman has had worse.

Look no further than Oscar Winner Akiva Goldsman, the greatest example of a modern studio hack we have.

If a director's any good (well, also a strong enough Brand), it's all down to him anyway. The only way it isn't his responsibility is when he's either lost control of the picture because of the aforementioned politics or, worse, doesn't have a strong enough aesthetic to know what he wants. I continue to suspect that Snyder likes "cool" superhero tableau, but is rather indifferent as to what the mise-en-scene actually means or is supposed to mean (I'm back and forth as to what the poor man's Malick lifts mean in Steel; it makes some sense in the eugenics/Platonic struggle of the Soul, but falls apart when considering that the film is inescapably about an Overman). I also suspect that Nolan/Goyer are as much the authors of Man of Steel as Snyder; and I might be underselling.

Whither the auteur.
« Last Edit: Jul 24th, 2013, 01:55am by Will » User IP Logged

snipe
Administrator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Master Dick


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1952
xx Re: Batman+Superman=BS
« Reply #3 on: Nov 12th, 2014, 6:54pm »

GREAT NEWS EVERYONE! THEY'RE DOING BATMAN'S ORIGIN IN THE NEW MOVIE!!!11G

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=57047

seriously?
User IP Logged

Nick

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 749
xx Re: Batman+Superman=BS
« Reply #4 on: Nov 13th, 2014, 02:46am »

on Nov 12th, 2014, 6:54pm, snipe wrote:
GREAT NEWS EVERYONE! THEY'RE DOING BATMAN'S ORIGIN IN THE NEW MOVIE!!!11G


HOW WILL I CONTAIN MY EXCITEMENT UNTIL THEN?! I NEED TO KNOW BATMAN'S ORIGINS NOW! WHO HE IS AND HOW HE CAME TO BE IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST MYSTERIES, I BET IT'S AMAZING!
User IP Logged

Clerk

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Beside Clerk In Time


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 526
xx Re: Batman+Superman=BS
« Reply #5 on: Nov 15th, 2014, 9:57pm »

on Nov 12th, 2014, 6:54pm, snipe wrote:
GREAT NEWS EVERYONE! THEY'RE DOING BATMAN'S ORIGIN IN THE NEW MOVIE!!!11G

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=57047

seriously?


But John Winchester is now Batman's dad.
User IP Logged

snipe
Administrator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Master Dick


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1952
xx Re: Batman+Superman=BS
« Reply #6 on: Nov 15th, 2014, 10:17pm »

Robin Hood is Superman's dad(s). Both of them.
User IP Logged

Clerk

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Beside Clerk In Time


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 526
xx Re: Batman+Superman=BS
« Reply #7 on: Nov 15th, 2014, 10:20pm »

I almost walked out at Jonathan Kent's death. That rustled me so damn hard. All I want is for Clark to go back to the farm and chill with his folks.
User IP Logged

TurkeyMoose

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 211
xx Re: Batman+Superman=BS
« Reply #8 on: Apr 18th, 2015, 12:23pm »



Thoughts?
User IP Logged

My ongoing definitive DC Universe timeline
Nick

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 749
xx Re: Batman+Superman=BS
« Reply #9 on: Apr 19th, 2015, 04:51am »

Great, had a nice long post that got deleted near the end of writing it. Thanks laptop. I'll do it again.

I genuinely liked the trailer. It came across much darker than the Nolan films (which get a reputation for being dark when they really weren't). That's great for Batman, and I think is the right approach to the premise of this film. But I am concerned that this is going to be the approach for all forthcoming DC films. And it shouldn't be. Man Of Steel was a piece of shit, Superman should not have faux darkness and grittiness. Superman can do darker storylines, but to force it in such a juvenile way simply does not work. In future I want to see a brighter and more colourful Superman, Wonder Woman etc etc.

The approach to Batman seemed much darker and determined than Bale's weak performance. But that is the approach the trailer suggests. I am still very concerned about Affleck's lack of acting abilities. If this was Casey I'd have no concerns because he can actually act very well. And the stupid effects on the voice are fucking ridiculous. Seems like only Keaton can do the voice unaided. In my mind I still think Misha Collins could have done it. Right age, right look, can do the voice without effects, can act.

I don't like CG wankfests, give me practical effects all the way. But surprisingly I didn't hate Watchmen, and this appears very visually and tonally similar, so I reserve judgment for the finished product. I am worried about it being neutered for a PG13 US 12A UK age rating. Give me a solid US R and UK 18 (or at least 15) and you'll really have my interest.

But ANY trailer can make ANY film look good. I was disappointed by Star Wars Episode I, mostly because of the unacceptable story contradictions with the real Trilogy (and also because it was a pathetically lazy CG wankfest compared to the love and effort poured into the real films). I saw the Star Wars Episode II trailer and I was like 'this is going to be so awesome'. I came out of the cinema feeling like I had been raped. Star Wars Episode II remains without a doubt the most artiscally barren and worst film ever made. A film made with utter contempt for the audience that made a film maker rich just so he could cynically cheat them out of another billion and laugh his way to the bank.

Heh: http://en.webfail.com/3918081fdc6
« Last Edit: Apr 19th, 2015, 05:31am by Nick » User IP Logged

Chaos

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 342
xx Re: Batman+Superman=BS
« Reply #10 on: Apr 19th, 2015, 08:16am »

Jesus, Batman looks like a beast who would snap Bale's bats in half

Pretty good teaser/trailer

Do you bleed?
You will

That is amazingly bad ass line though
User IP Logged

angry

User Image

User Image
Will

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 706
xx Re: Batman+Superman=BS
« Reply #11 on: Apr 21st, 2015, 07:24am »

Snyder's best work usually comes through trailers. This is less evocative than the Man of Steel teaser. It plays on the fanboy id in a similar, if less successful, context to that Force Awakens trailer.

Quote:
Superman can do darker storylines, but to force it in such a juvenile way simply does not work.


But that's Snyder, isn't it? Watchman is such a blatant example of how he creates;"cool" scenes that are professionally framed, but with little to no dynamism or reflection. He takes superhero texts, drains them of intent and from that, largely, implication.

Man of Steel's Platonic thematic roots make for an interesting bookend to the Kantian obsessions of Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. But the film feels compromised not only in pacing -- that "action" climax (coma or blue balls?) -- but also through its director, period.

Snyder makes films that are about little more than aesthetic (instead of aesthetic saying something about character, greater philosophies or emotions, it comes down to how "cool" and "close" it looks to a comic book panel); thus he simplifies and deadens the text he's translating in the case of Watchmen (take a deconstruction and perverse exploration of the genre and turn it into COOL Superhero Tableaux).

In the case of Man of Steel there's knowing balance, at least at a script level, between Forms (Jor-El) and Matter (Zod), yet the film is dragged into a morass of action film cliches for an interminable amount of time, until it, mercifully, ends.

The Big Idea (of ideas) driving Man of Steel is smart, both as larger thematic rumination and specifically as a commentary on its main character: instead of being about the physical, it reconfigures the text and pivots on the spiritual. These films and this character need that, desperately. But genre expectations drag the film right back to the former obsession. If you trace the thematic arguments of the film, the lasting impression is that the joke's on you.

In the teaser we got a far better idea of where, and what, Superman is. With Batman? He looks pretty human. God versus man. Man kills god? Man kills G-d?!

Quote:
But ANY trailer can make ANY film look good. I was disappointed by Star Wars Episode I, mostly because of the unacceptable story contradictions with the real Trilogy (and also because it was a pathetically lazy CG wankfest compared to the love and effort poured into the real films). I saw the Star Wars Episode II trailer and I was like 'this is going to be so awesome'. I came out of the cinema feeling like I had been raped. Star Wars Episode II remains without a doubt the most artiscally barren and worst film ever made. A film made with utter contempt for the audience that made a film maker rich just so he could cynically cheat them out of another billion and laugh his way to the bank.


There's a cynicism to the prequels. But that's the case with any big production. Whether Lucas felt contempt for his audience, I also think he became more and more interested in the minutiae of the universe and, became broadly interesting, as byproduct, with the prequels. I remember a review that made a point that I find rather relevant for all three: if Lucas had contempt for Star Wars, and by extension, the fans, it probably started with the first film rather than subsequent episodes. After all, A New Hope is a very simplistic film, at least on plot and tone. And it comes directly after the contemplative, prescient THX 1138. That film is predictive of Star Wars, perhaps, as an opiate for the masses. How to manufacture and move product, in the case of THX; with Star Wars, well, the result. A pill that wasn't so bitter when he saw the first week's box office.

THX was a financial crater, if I remember correctly. It was Lucas being honest and idealistic, in the sense of densely exploring societal dangers through filmmaking. And he was soundly rejected for it. With that film as backdrop, Star Wars always feels like a condemnation of the average moviegoer; notice how accessible and simplistic the film is by comparison. It's simplifying the universe quite simply, into Black and White. He then drives the point home, if one follows this line-of-thought-as-mise-en-scene, by lifting directly from Triumph of the Will in the final scene. It's a cynical propaganda film, then: how to manipulate the masses, and benefit greatly. And that is hilarious.

The prequels subvert notions of pure black and white, good versus evil. The Force, which represents all this, is corrupted. The films become political. They become about greys rather than black and white. Anakin is the perfect protagonist to hang this on: manipulated into being, and manipulated throughout by both the Sith and Jedi.

That's why Lucas uses the slave text in the first film. The character is always a slave. He's a slave not despite his great power, but because of it. It's all about fate, and the self-awareness intrinsic to that in (meta) text: there is no escape for Anakin, he was created for a purpose and he will complete it. A New Hope is Buck Rogers, sans license. The Phantom Menace is Gottfried Leibniz and Ben Hur.

Likewise, making Anakin the sun god is both obvious and kind of brilliant. It subverts and exponentiates the omnipresent cliches of both the IP and the Campbellian structure associated. Anakin is the Force. The Force is corrupted. Anakin is both Good and Evil. He's the sun god locked in black, after losing half of himself physically and spiritually.

Building off that is the much-maligned midichlorians. Thus half the reason for the execrable Jar Jar Binks (the other half being a misguided idea of selling mountains of merch). Anakin's the High Creature and Jar Jar is the Low; the two as personifications of Leibniz's Monadology. So Lucas graduates the Force, explicitly, into both a binary and bloodline text. He thus conflates science with spiritualism, to represent a more "enlightened" age.

I love that the films work as some sort of expressionistic subversion through Anakin: half man and half machine, represented and built upon through Palpatine's machinations (which is visualized through the droids, and then the clones; manipulating life; creating both and controlling both sides of the conflict).

I love that Sith is basically the Iliad and the Gethsemane.

Lucas does a fantastic job of deconstructing modern societies and political theatre. Palpatine/Sideous and, maybe the Force itself/Anakin himself, as the ultimate Hegalian exponent.

Long way of saying: I do think he cared. I think he arguably put more thought into the prequels than he did for, at least, [sic] A New Hope. That doesn't mean the acting is passable (it's pretty awful in all the films, honestly, with the possible exception of Empire). Or that the High School Play Romance was anything other than an insulated billionaire trying to remember how to make a pass, or why he would ever have to. Or that Jar Jar was an acceptable CGI Al Jolson.

But the prequels are so interesting as big, mainstream films with a, surprisingly, complex thematic outlay that I can't help but at least love(?) them as much as I despise them. Clones goes so far as to have an intertextual strand dedicated to THX 1138 -- an arguable signifier of Lucas fully embracing the idea of a big popcorn film married to a textually rich art film.

And because of all that, I kind of dread the new trilogy. The symmetry of six is gone, and the idea of the saga fully centering on Vader/Anakin's life, almost without question. I suppose 9 is a very religious number -- Tet, infinite fertility. A franchise that will be driven into the ground with never-ending spinoffs. Holy shit.

But then the number and the new film's title also speak to the infinite nature of the afterlife.

The most interesting shot, aside from Vader's mangled helmet (what rests awakes?), was the downed Star Destroyer. The entire trailer is symbolic of being grounded. As a message on practical effects, that's exciting. If it means subverting the midichlorian text of the prequels, I'm much less enthused (though, logically, Hamill's voice over and the implications of the original trilogy always pointed back to the importance of genetics and their conflation with spirituality, so...).

Two of the new characters look like they're played by Lego Blockheads. And Harrison Ford's reveal was kind of...in need of the Love Boat theme.

Similarly, the Batman V Superman trailer centers on character placement. The tone is very Batman, but the shots are subservient to Superman to the very end. He is above, we are below. I wish this film wasn't likely to be a crass launch pad for Miss Israel's Wonder Woman and a Justice League series. I also wish Gal Gadot had a body, and that she didn't look like she was on downers.
« Last Edit: Apr 21st, 2015, 07:39am by Will » User IP Logged

TheMidnighter

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1224
xx Re: Batman+Superman=BS
« Reply #12 on: Apr 22nd, 2015, 08:49am »

I can't get too excited about a trailer/movie that pits Superman against Batman. These two guys could sit around a table, talk for ten minutes, figure out they're both on the same page, and become partners.

It's what they'll do at the end of the story anyway, so the battle between them results from lack of communication. They really are just like an old couple.
User IP Logged

"One among you will shortly perish."

My free music
Nick

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 749
xx Re: Batman+Superman=BS
« Reply #13 on: Jul 10th, 2015, 12:51am »

The rumour is (and I see no reason for it to be untrue) that Ben Affleck & Geoff Johns are writing the next solo Batman film. *sigh* Finally they get a comic writer on board, and they go with Johns? Obviously he's the one in the position of power to put himself there, but he just does not write a good Batman, I don't think he understands the character at all. I'd even have preferred someone like Scott Snyder, I don't like his Reboot rehashes, but he has at least proved himself as a good writer (although too reliant on homages for my tastes) and has the status with the hipsters who loved his Death Of A Family rubbish.

More and more I wish Warner had given total creative control of the on-screen DCU to Grant Morrison to do whatever he wanted with every character. Want to beat Disney do you Warner? That is how you beat Disney.
« Last Edit: Jul 10th, 2015, 12:57am by Nick » User IP Logged

Nick

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 749
xx Re: Batman+Superman=BS
« Reply #14 on: Jul 11th, 2015, 1:30pm »

User IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 3  ...  5 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| Conforums Support |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls