Yeah the audience is more than capable of suspending disbelief - just have a great writing, decent characterisation and a good cast, its what Marvel had to do with something like Antman...
What person doesnt want to see an incredible superhero film
The really annoying thing is, is if he did a Watchmen and just stayed true to the source material we wouldnt have that much to complain about. Hell be a ****ing great advert...
I saw it tonight and thought it was very good, certainly far better than the critics made out. My only criticism was that although WW was ace, I think it could have been better to just focus on BM and SM.
I'd take this over the Avengers any day of the week.
I'm guessing you're not a fairly up-to-date DC comic reader? This is one of the few comic book films that actually reflects the source material. Try reading some modern Marvel books of any of the Avengers / X-Men / Deadpool / Spiderman and see how reflective they are of the source (they aren't).
I loved it, but wouldn't recommend it to anyone that wasn't a fairly significant DC nerd already. Snyder made a great film for people like me, but that probably doesn't mean global box-office franchise success
I'm guessing you're not a fairly up-to-date DC comic reader? This is one of the few comic book films that actually reflects the source material. Try reading some modern Marvel books of any of the Avengers / X-Men / Deadpool / Spiderman and see how reflective they are of the source (they aren't).
I loved it, but wouldn't recommend it to anyone that wasn't a fairly significant DC nerd already. Snyder made a great film for people like me, but that probably doesn't mean global box-office franchise success
Yeah I'm not really, but try and have an idea. I didn't think this film was anything but loosely based on The Dark Knight Returns, I wasn't aware of any large DC references Synder used to make this film...
Seems more inspired than true to source to me - but I'm sure I must be missing something after your post. I don't have an issue regards Whedons MCU because most of it is actually good, can't say the same for Synders at all...
I'm guessing you're not a fairly up-to-date DC comic reader? This is one of the few comic book films that actually reflects the source material. Try reading some modern Marvel books of any of the Avengers / X-Men / Deadpool / Spiderman and see how reflective they are of the source (they aren't).
I loved it, but wouldn't recommend it to anyone that wasn't a fairly significant DC nerd already. Snyder made a great film for people like me, but that probably doesn't mean global box-office franchise success
Quite right that neither Marvel nor Fox have been particularly about adapting anything directly (even if they may use certain arc names) instead opting to take broadstrokes and ideas to make an original story that's true to the characters (it's why I'm quite perplexed why Civil War was the one where suddenly everyone decided "but..but...but you can't do Civil War without <insert unavailable character that did something in a tie-in that had no real impact on the main Stark/Cap story here>").
Now I'll also admit between the powers that be at DC jettisoning every character I grew up with and their (literal) lifetime of development to pretend it's the silverage again by bringing back who they grew up with and the Nu-52 stuff I don't read much DC these days so outside of the obvious Dark Knight Returns influence on Batman and what appears to be a tease for Injustice where can I find the rest of this stuff that makes it true to the source. Particualrly looking for the stories of:
Batman gunning people down with the Batmobile
Lex Luthor engineering Doomsday (I suppose it's semi-adapted from the idea of Cadmus doing it in the JLA cartoon but nothing else lines up in even the broadest strokes)
Lex Luthor being evil Mark Zuckerberg instead of the cold calculating businessman
Jimmy Olson being a CIA agent who is unceremoniously killed
Batman branding people
Batman and Superman's usual Hope vs Fear debate is instead told as Fear vs Fear
Superman sits brooding during a disaster instead of helping people.
But then those are largely issues of characterisation and the centrepoint of Dawn of Justice's problem seems to be that instead of asking "How do we write the plot to get from A to B with these characters" they warped the characters to fit instead.
I enjoyed it. Bad casting though. The actor playing Lex Luther was good as Zuckerberg, but rubbish for Lex Luther. Lois should have been younger and better looking. And Jeremy Irons isn't old and eccentric enough to play Alfred.
The movie takes itself too seriously, there's zero humour. And watching it in a cinema during the day with not many people doesn't create any atmosphere.
Now I'll also admit between the powers that be at DC jettisoning every character I grew up with and their (literal) lifetime of development to pretend it's the silverage again by bringing back who they grew up with and the Nu-52 stuff I don't read much DC these days so outside of the obvious Dark Knight Returns influence on Batman and what appears to be a tease for Injustice where can I find the rest of this stuff that makes it true to the source. Particualrly looking for the stories of:
Batman gunning people down with the Batmobile: In Batman's very first outing, he was killing people. Way back in 1939. Using a gun
Lex Luthor engineering Doomsday (I suppose it's semi-adapted from the idea of Cadmus doing it in the JLA cartoon but nothing else lines up in even the broadest strokes): In the Superman/Doomsday animated movie from 2007, while he didn't directly create the monster. He was involved in the discovery of him.
Lex Luthor being evil Mark Zuckerberg instead of the cold calculating businessman: Superman Secret Origin. Young Lex is portrayed in this manner to some degree. He even has his father killed. But later on he becomes the cold calculating businessman
Jimmy Olson being a CIA agent who is unceremoniously killed: No idea about this one. Tho, this is a different universe, so maybe we have a Jimmy Olsen elswhere. Oh wait, we do on the Supergirl show. Tho he goes by the name of James Olsen
Batman branding people: More of a psychological thing regarding Batman than taken from a source material
Batman and Superman's usual Hope vs Fear debate is instead told as Fear vs Fear: I didn't see any of that in the movie. At least from Superman's side. Unless you're referring to him being seen as a god to Batman?
Superman sits brooding during a disaster instead of helping people: When did this happen exactly? If you're referring to the Capitol getting blown up, he did state to Lois later on that he was not even looking for the bomb. There also examples like this in the comics. Especially the New 52.
But then those are largely issues of characterisation and the centrepoint of Dawn of Justice's problem seems to be that instead of asking "How do we write the plot to get from A to B with these characters" they warped the characters to fit instead.
I see precisely one answer that's from the current continuity (and if true makes me weep that the deconstruction of Superman as a symbol of hope is actually DC mandated before Synder got there, we have enough expys in both DC and Marvel to explore the concept with without having to change the original). I'd also point out that at no point in Secret Origin did Lex Jr act like the Riddler like Eisenberg did, but since 9 months after it's publication DC said "screw it, this doesn't count we're gonna tell it again" it's moot anyway
Which isn't a problem for me, as per my last post I'm all for pulling together from various sources to make something new, but when you're having to go back 75 years, and 4 full reboots of a character ago to get a source for something can you really claim DC is "staying true to the source material"?
I see precisely one answer that's from the current continuity (and if true makes me weep that the deconstruction of Superman as a symbol of hope is actually DC mandated before Synder got there, we have enough expys in both DC and Marvel to explore the concept with without having to change the original). I'd also point out that at no point in Secret Origin did Lex Jr act like the Riddler like Eisenberg did, but since 9 months after it's publication DC said "screw it, this doesn't count we're gonna tell it again" it's moot anyway
Which isn't a problem for me, as per my last post I'm all for pulling together from various sources to make something new, but when you're having to go back 75 years, and 4 full reboots of a character ago to get a source for something can you really claim DC is "staying true to the source material"?
Can you say the same for Marvel? It all depends on what part of the material they borrow from. Whether it's Golden, Silver, Bronze or Modern Age. I don't think it really matters. What matters is that they are using stuff that has been depicted in the comics (regardless of the time period) and making their own spin on it.
Look at movies like Snow White And The Huntsman, Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters and Maleficent. World famous fable stories and these movies have essentially given them a new and dynamic twist. Not everyone liked them, but I found them to be interesting to see them take these stories in a different direction than what we are used to.
I would say it matters when you are going against current (and pretty long established) character tropes. Everyone who reads DC knows the character of Lex and the ideals of Bat and Superman. Ok at some stage in the far past they may briefly been slightly different but it really is distant past and pretty jarring.
It's like the next MCU film having a pacifist Wolverine (assuming of course they had the rights ) as he has went through very small stages of hating fighting, but is that the character?
Personally for me it's neither here nor there though, it is jarring but if it had Been a good film I would have not even slightly cared, they are just the cherry on top of a stinking cake (IMO of course)
Can you say the same for Marvel? It all depends on what part of the material they borrow from. Whether it's Golden, Silver, Bronze or Modern Age. I don't think it really matters. What matters is that they are using stuff that has been depicted in the comics (regardless of the time period) and making their own spin on it.
If the goalposts are "it happened in the last 70 years regardless of how brief a time or how at odds with subsequent characterisation it was" then yes, yes I can. The MCU has occasionally drawn from further afield but for matters of backstory and characterisation for the most part it wears it that it's a combination of 616 and Ultimate comics very evidently on it's sleeve.
I see precisely one answer that's from the current continuity (and if true makes me weep that the deconstruction of Superman as a symbol of hope is actually DC mandated before Synder got there, we have enough expys in both DC and Marvel to explore the concept with without having to change the original).
The fact you didn't know that Superman has changed in the New 52 shows you're not reading the comics. So you can weep all you want, but since you're not buying them, you can't really expect DC to cater to your wants
Which isn't a problem for me, as per my last post I'm all for pulling together from various sources to make something new, but when you're having to go back 75 years, and 4 full reboots of a character ago to get a source for something can you really claim DC is "staying true to the source material"?
Lex Luthor engineering Doomsday (I suppose it's semi-adapted from the idea of Cadmus doing it in the JLA cartoon but nothing else lines up in even the broadest strokes) Not specifically Doomsday, but a Kryptonian clone (using Jimmy Olsen) JLA - The Nail; Bizarro from Supes DNA, loads of times. That's not even broad strokes
Lex Luthor being evil Mark Zuckerberg instead of the cold calculating businessman Superman: Birthright; Secret Origin; New Krypton; One Year Later; Blackest Night - honestly, it's not a leap at all.
Jimmy Olson being a CIA agent who is unceremoniously killed Superman: Red Son. Or, since Jimmy isn't actually named, it could be his (secret agent) dad Jack Olsen from the New Adventures of Superman TV series
Batman branding people not exactly, but tonally...
Also, does this scene that Batman would never do look familiar?
All the picture references? Dark Knight Returns. The book the film is based on. There's loads of other bits as well, but I'm pretty sure you don't care enough for me to go through them all
I would say it matters when you are going against current (and pretty long established) character tropes. Everyone who reads DC knows the character of Lex and the ideals of Bat and Superman. Ok at some stage in the far past they may briefly been slightly different but it really is distant past and pretty jarring.
It's like the next MCU film having a pacifist Wolverine (assuming of course they had the rights ) as he has went through very small stages of hating fighting, but is that the character?
Personally for me it's neither here nor there though, it is jarring but if it had Been a good film I would have not even slightly cared, they are just the cherry on top of a stinking cake (IMO of course)
I totally disagree the tone is distant past - whether it's the New 52 Dark Knight / Detective Comics / Batman, or back to pre-52 series like War Games / No Mans Land / RIP / Final Crisis, tonally Batman has been grim - hell, arguably since Neal Adams in the 70s.
New 52 Superman is a young, inexperienced hero who worries he's helping and isn't really 100% sure how to use his powers for good...sound familiar?
Lex has been all over the place. To pick at that, well, madness lies that way
As for MCU, I meant it earlier - pick up any recent comic featuring an MCU character and see how close they match up - I recommend Ed Brubaker's truly astonishing Captain America run, which matches in name and characters and very little else. Or read Civil War, then see if you think the upcoming film will match anything beyond "has Spiderman and the same name".
I really think the problem with BvS is that it requires too much prior knowledge for the average film goer. While I sat there for 2+ hours getting excited about Flashpoint, Final Crisis, Trinity and DKR tie-ins, I get that most people didn't give a rat's backside. I've probably got 5 friends that are nerdy enough for me to recommend it to, and I reckon 3 of them still wouldn't like it.
Well i saw this today and thought it was great. The opening Tom and Martha Wayne death scene was excellent as was the later "Martha" scene. Very emotional, helped a lot by the score.
Wasnt totally convinced on Jesse as Lex. All i could hear was Blu from Rio everytime he spoke!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
) as he has went through very small stages of hating fighting, but is that the character?
