• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Comic-Con Trailer

Status
Not open for further replies.
None of this is correct.

Are you sure you were paying attention when the movie was on?
So why did thousands of people die? Haha

Your point of view is warped

General Zod and his machine did 99.9999% of the damage to Metropolis

It was not Superman pounding the earth into oblivion with a spaceship with peoples bodies being lifted and slammed into the ground

Superman put an end to the machine and saved the entirety of the planet, and then put an end to Zod in order to stop the killing.

He did not let anyone die. This is a completely warped reading of the Man of Steel.
But if you want to justify the "he's a force of good, even if people dislike him" angle, he has to save everyone, or at the very least he can't lose thousands. The screenwriters made him unable to save those people because that's more realistic, but in the process crippled all of their potential story lines because in the real world Superman would be a terrible thing, as he is in these movies. They really didn't think it through. You can't spend a whole movie talking about how Superman is the next Jesus and then also have him be an understandably controversial figure that operates "realistically" lol
 
Four characters is too many
Guardians of The Galaxy establishes more than that in one movie and nobody gave it shit
Okay

Guardians of the Galaxy established characters with the same weight of Batman, Wonder Woman, Lex, and continued fucking Superman? Yeah, why not, Starlord has the same lore, richness and cult status as Superman, no big issue here. Ok.
 
So why did thousands of people die? Haha

He didn't let them die. The majority of destruction to Metrolpolis was done while he was destroying the World Engine on the other side of the Earth, a process that only he could do. The classic Superman problem is that he can't save everyone. Happens in countless cartoons, comics and movies. He has to make a choice that would save the most people. It sets up his biggest fear. Once he reached Metropolis he resolved the problem as quickly as possible once he realized there was only one way to actually stop Zod.
 
I get that Superman broke Batman's building and that's why Batman wants to fight, but why is Batman in the desert in post-apocalyptic gear wearing a trench coat over his Batsuit fighting para-military forces with Superman's symbol as their insignia? It doesn't make any sense.
I've just come from the future where I've just seen the entire movie, and will PM you the answer if you ask nicely.

On other news, this trailer looks amazing. Lex I'm still iffy about, Gadot still doesn't give me the badass feel though she's gorgeous, but everything else looks fantastic. I will go on blackout from other trailers from now.

and I've really not been a fan of the "no jokes seriouspants" direction Goyer/Snyder seem to be taking DC movies in.
If only there was another studio that made superhero movies every year that fit this criteria.
 
He didn't let them die. The majority of destruction to Metrolpolis was done while he was destroying the World Engine on the other side of the Earth, a process that only he could do. The classic Superman problem is that he can't save everyone. Happens in countless cartoons, comics and movies. He has to make a choice that would save the most people. It sets up his biggest fear. Once he reached Metropolis he resolved the problem as quickly as possible once he realized there was only one way to actually stop Zod.
The classic Superman problem has never ever been that he can't save everyone. The classic Superman problem is that he has the potential to save everyone or do anything, so he has to always do the right thing.

Did you miss the part where he was fighting the giant terraforming machine in an environment that dampened his powers so that all life on Earth wouldn't cease to exist?
There's always a way. Unless the writers don't make one because they want to write in destruction.
 
I'm saying its a terrible idea to make your fake fictional Superman a terrible hero that lets thousands of people die, because then you can't make a compelling Lex Luthor villain because everyone in the world should be of tne same mind as Lex Luthor. My original post was about how baffling it is that they went with this depressing tone for a Superman movie, and how ridiculous it is that Lex is supposed to be a villain in the world they've created.

The depressing part is you throwing out plot progression in order to keep up you're.... "concern" going.

Good news...the movie will have two plus hours to show how perception can change.
 
I'm super psyched for this movie, holy moly what a trailer!

I mean I know I got burnt from the MoS trailers, but I have so much faith after hearing the production was delayed a year and Goyer was scrapped.

I'll say that I think that addressing MoS's fallout definitely makes BvS more interesting, I don't think it absolves MoS as a stand alone. Just like how I feel like Avengers doesn't absolve Iron Man 2 and TASM2 doesn't absolve the first movie.

Still, this looks like the tits. Like god damn, we're getting a glimpse at Red fucking Son.
 
The depressing part is you throwing out plot progression in order to keep up you're.... "concern" going.

Good news...the movie will have two plus hours to show how perception can change.
Why did you ask me to explain myself if you weren't interested in hearing the answer haha
 
I understand some of you hate DC and superhero movies in general. What's the purpose of posting in the threads if you really dislike them all it takes is one post "hey I don't like X" then you can leave. But people keep coming back time after time with the same shit its insane.

I already went to a mod about a certain poster here who is deeply "concerned".
 
The classic Superman problem has never ever been that he can't save everyone. The classic Superman problem is that he has the potential to save everyone or do anything, so he has to always do the right thing.

Yes it is. It's be a recurring theme in Superman for a good 40 years. Even in the first Chris Reeve film his ultimate dilemma was being unable to save everyone. Happened with his father with the heart attack and toward the end with Lois when he had to stop that Earthquake machine. Happens in plenty of Superman comic and cartoon stories as well. Even with all his power Superman is ultimately just one person.
 
It's a ridiculous talking point that continuously gets parroted, despite there being overwhelming visual narrative proof in the film that it is false.

It's incredible, because it's at once a reinforcement that Kevin Costner's Pa Kent was 100% right (and surprise most people saying Superman is responsible for all the destruction are the same who think Pa Kent was compeltely wrong in his thinking and how he raised Clark) and hilarious because it's the kind of thing that Lex Luthor would want people to believe. Script flaws be damned, Man of Steel actually becomes retroactively even better due to some audience reaction actually reinforcing in movie character philosophies.

The sheer irony is amazing.

Dead, check ou this channel:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8XKsaYUSlv3rLBnhH5DOyA

He goes into extreme detail rebuking the myths of MoS with visual evidence
 
Yes it is. It's be a recurring theme in Superman for a good 40 years. Even in the first Chris Reeve film his ultimate dilemma was being unable to save everyone. Happened with his father with the heart attack and toward the end with Lois when he had to stop that Earthquake machine. Happens in plenty of Superman comic and cartoon stories as well.
In the first Chris Reeve film Superman literally turned back time just so he could save everyone! He literally broke physics.

The Superman's dad dying thing has always been stupid because at this point he'd be able to save him, but it works well as a "but now he knows he'll have to save everyone else" sorta thing so I'll let it go.
 
It's a ridiculous talking point that continuously gets parroted, despite there being overwhelming visual narrative proof in the film that it is false.
You can partly blame Marvel.

Everytime some outragebait-GAFer complains how callous Tony Stark is about collateral damage, we defensively go "...but MOS!"
 
In the first Chris Reeve film Superman literally turned back time just so he could save everyone!

But that wasn't the main conflict in it. It was literally that he couldn't save Everyone even with all his power. The turnback time thing was one of the weaker parts of the story and sort of negates how Superman has to make difficult choices despite that being a theme throughout the first and second Reeve film constantly.
 
I think it's a mistake to have WW in this one. Cameo fine, and then more present in the next, but I feel if something can bring this movie down it's her.
 
By posting this, you have officially made it to the ignore list. Congratulations.
I can't believe that's what did it, but that was the climax of the film haha

I don't think anyone would have minded if Superman came up with a clever way like that to save Metropolis at the end of Man of Steel, but that wouldn't be "realistic" so they didn't do it.

But that wasn't the main conflict in it. It was literally that he couldn't save Everyone even with all his power. The turnback time thing was one of the weaker parts of the story and sort of negates how Superman has to make difficult choices despite that being a theme throughout the first and second Reeve film constantly.
No, that was the point of the whole thing. He always finds a way because he's Superman! "There's always a way" is basically his catchphrase, because he always finds a way to do the right thing and save everyone. It's not terribly realistic I suppose, but he's supposed to fill you with hope, not 9/11 comparisons. You're confusing Superman with someone like Spider-Man.
 
ok ill give this movie a chance
Wonder Woman looks good
and eisenberg is apparently capable of acting like a villain
man so many fucking super hero movies next year lol
 
Why did you ask me to explain myself if you weren't interested in hearing the answer haha

I was interested enough to nullify your concern...which I did. Because you're continuing to ignore the part where the plot will allow us to see how lexs perception could change during the movie.

Instead...you're going to continue dragging down the convo acting as though everything is concrete. I don't see how you get enjoyment out of this type of posting. It sucks.
 
I can't believe that's what did it, but that was the climax of the film haha

I don't think anyone would have minded if Superman came up with a clever way like that to save Metropolis at the end of Man of Steel, but that wouldn't be "realistic" so they didn't do it.


No, that was the point of the whole thing. He always finds a way because he's Superman! "There's always a way" is basically his catchphrase, because he always finds a way to do the right thing and save everyone. You're confusing Superman with someone like Spider-Man.

U forget it superman begins

He just got the suit and the name the same week. He's totally inexperienced
 
No, that was the point of the whole thing. He always finds a way because he's Superman! "There's always a way" is basically his catchphrase, because he always finds a way to do the right thing and save everyone.

Superman always finding a way to win hasn't been a consistent thing and since the 70s him having to make the tough choice of either involving personal happiness, humans lives or both has been a thing. Even at his most absurdly powerful winning required sacrifices like not being able to fix the lives of people in Kandor, having to sacrifice a potential relationship, etc.
 
U forget it superman begins

He just got the suit and the name the same week. He's totally inexperienced
Oh it all makes sense in the more realistic context of the film, but I think it's a horrible decision to make a film like that in the first place. You could have still made a movie where he's just beginning and managed to save everyone anyway, and it wouldn't exactly have ruined the movie. You can even still add in choices about who to save for tension and still not have thousands of people die!

Superman always finding a way to win hasn't been a consistent thing and since the 70s him having to make the tough choice of either involving personal happiness, humans lives or both has been a thing. Even at his most absurdly powerful winning required sacrifices like not being able to fix the lives of people in Kandor, having to sacrifice a potential relationship, etc.
Superman letting thousands of people die though has never been a thing. You can still have him make tough choices without him failing to be a super hero.
 
Gadot is such a miscast as wonder woman, too skinny, poor acting, weird accent... I wish DC/Warner bros would think more about it but it's probably to late, we'll see.
 
Question.

What's the deal with the contrast and black levels of this trailer, both the youtube and the higher quality quicktime version exhibit poor contrast/black levels. I first thought it was just my PC monitor as it's not that good with contrast/black levels, but I tried watching them on both my Kuro and Panasonic plasma and the the black levels were all grey, what's up with that?
 
Question.

What's the deal with the contrast and black levels of this trailer, both the youtube and the higher quality quicktime version exhibit poor contrast/black levels. I first thought it was just my PC monitor as it's not that good with contrast/black levels, but I tried watching them on both my Kuro and Panasonic plasma and the the black levels were all grey, what's up with that?

It's Uncharted 4 vids all over again. Someone forgot to encode it properly methinks.
 
Oh it all makes sense in the more realistic context of the film, but I think it's a horrible decision to make a film like that in the first place. You could have still made a movie where he's just beginning and managed to save everyone anyway, and it wouldn't exactly have ruined the movie. You can even still add in choices about who to save for tension and still not have thousands of people die!


Superman letting thousands of people die though has never been a thing. You can still have him make tough choices without him failing to be a super hero.

I have the perfect movie for you to watch, it's called Superman The Movie featuring Chris Reeve.
 
Guardians of the Galaxy established characters with the same weight of Batman, Wonder Woman, Lex, and continued fucking Superman? Yeah, why not, Starlord has the same lore, richness and cult status as Superman, no big issue here. Ok.

What the hell does the weight of the characters have to do with anything?

If anything it makes it easier to introduce them in the same film.
 
Question.

What's the deal with the contrast and black levels of this trailer, both the youtube and the higher quality quicktime version exhibit poor contrast/black levels. I first thought it was just my PC monitor as it's not that good with contrast/black levels, but I tried watching them on both my Kuro and Panasonic plasma and the the black levels were all grey, what's up with that?
Yeah I watched it on a nice setup earlier and noticed that. Might just be a shit encode.
 
This thread needs this

9PjXFWi.png
 
Guardians of the Galaxy established characters with the same weight of Batman, Wonder Woman, Lex, and continued fucking Superman? Yeah, why not, Starlord has the same lore, richness and cult status as Superman, no big issue here. Ok.

You know it is the exact opposite, right?
 
I like that it links back to MoS and the destruction Superman caused. It retroactively makes MoS more meaningful because it actually sets up the next film and shows how his actions have consequences.
 
Guardians of the Galaxy established characters with the same weight of Batman, Wonder Woman, Lex, and continued fucking Superman? Yeah, why not, Starlord has the same lore, richness and cult status as Superman, no big issue here. Ok.

You're making no sense. Characters people knew nothing about before GoTG are now familiar to the general public. So how the FUCK is it that a movie with characters that people have been familiar with FOR DECADES is too much versus a bunch of "nobodies"? Characters having more weight and established and loved media in the public makes it EASIER to establish them in more media.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom