Batman v Superman - New Official Trailer
- Thread starter EroticSushi
- Start date
- Status
Monocle
Member
I think they should have stopped short of revealing the second half of the film, including what should have been the main shocking reveal that propels the third act. You can piece together the whole story from the trailers, except for the very end.
I watched it twice, I don't want it to make a sucker out of me for the third time.
Mega Caprison
Member
This movie gonna be crowded
Not in a good way, I mean
Still gonna see it
Not in a good way, I mean
Still gonna see it
Eh, the finale was what redeemed the movie anyways. The twist doesn't hold any weight because Jason Clarke is hamming it up and everyone else is trying to be serious
Does it? It's more like you don't know what metropolitan police forces are called.
You thought it had it do with wine.
That's why I said it barely made sense for english speakers, and I mean barely because I can bet a good part of the population would be as confused and me, and let's not start with the non-english speaking world, how would they call it, "World's Metropolitan Policemen"? get outta here.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
I mean, if you can point me towards someone who can't figure out what "New York's Finest" means, fine, but this looks like your own personal blindspot.
Sibersk Esto
Banned
I know "finest" usually means "best"
That's not really the question.
It's whether a person with normal domain knowledge can figure out that "[Possessive Geographical Region] Finest" = "[That Region's] Law Enforcement" when describing people who actively participate in stopping villains and criminals routinely.
There's more than enough context to get you there. Your question is like asking your mom whether "an avenger" must imply a government-sponsored superhero team or if a "league" has to be made up of demigods. With the context of superheroes restored it's obvious those words are team names.
Just because you're not aware of a context that's existed for over a 100 years doesn't mean the context is confusing, it just means you didn't know it.
Oh I'm sorry that I don't know about a dead language usage from 800.000 miles I'm from. Guess I'm a dirty donkey then. Better call social services, I'm probably not safe by my own.
By the way, World's Finest in the context of the comics is totally calling them "World's best", because that was its original name actually. Know your context.
Well, it's never too late to learn and own it rather than try to pass it as some defect in something known for a century and not "dead" but actively used to this day. For your edification, "Bravest" is used for firemen, so you can call them to catch you if you're feeling so shamed you need to jump.
I'm well aware of the comic's title, but the persistence of the name for the duo is because of the law enforcement meaning. It's why that name doesn't apply to any of the other characters who appeared in the title first.
It's not a defect at all, that doesn't mean it's a good name for a Batman + Superman movie, at the slightliest, for many reasons incluiding
- Cheesyness
- Untranslateable meaning
- Obscure hidden context
- It doesn't really means anything relating to Batman and or Superman
Oh my god.
He had the Mutant Leader beat before he crippled him. In other stories, that would've been enough to dismantle the Mutants.
How about after he crippled random goon, "he's young, he'll walk again." Or when fries that one mutant and looks all satisfied.
Also, BvS Batman is old and there's a dead Robin.
It didn't look that way to me.
Anyway, I'm not arguing against Batman being brutal, but rather the act of branding criminals. It's not really something I identify with Batman. Maybe i'm alone in this, but it just seems unbelievably petty.
Batman seems petty as hell, him branding criminals seems like something a petty agitated Batman would do
First one is subjective. The fact that people still call their police forces that as an endearment with a straight face is proof that it isn't cheesy even in a real-world context, much less a spandex one... obviously, it doesn't work for you since you didn't know this 100-year-old context, which kind of makes you unreliable on points two and three.
As for point four, it's literally what we've called the duo for nearly 80 years, "man of steel" and "dark knight" have no intrinsic meaning other than their traditional attachment to the characters, which is the same.
Your arguments aren't really remotely compelling.
It's just weird watching you protest a thing when stemming entirely from the fact you thought "finest" applies to wines....
I mean, if you still want social services, the Finest will oblige.
Schweinehund
Member
I'm chalking up the branding and the blowing up criminals to Lex, what better way to make Superman go after Batman. Superman is apparently a hero in the public's eye, it'd be harder for Lex to run a smear campaign against him.
TheKaeptain
Banned
Batman is cruel. He will break every bone in your body.
Liquidsnake
Banned
Has Zach Snyder said anything yet?
Probably busy with pre-production on Justice League. I imagine he is secretly livid about his movie being fucked with.
SJRB
Gold Member
What about Obama? And Ja Rule?
shinra-bansho
Member
I wasn't aware it referred to the police force colloquialism.
RagingPhoenix
Neo Member
Perhaps that is the first night out of him coming out of retirement & him wanting the world to know. Bit extreme but maybe he's trying to send the same message that he did when he first started, a symbol of fear.
Or maybe as suggested above its not actually him who did this but probably Lex after Bats left that goon hanging upside down or something
unholyrevenger72
Banned
World's Finest will be the next Batman Superman Movie that isn't Justice League
OK, so lets say that there is no Doomsday and no Lex in the movie. That the whole movie is about Superman fighting Batman. How would you end it then? You know that neither of the heroes can't be killed and that in the end they have to eventually hug and kiss. That's why Lex and Doomsday exist in the movie - to deliver the reason for a spectacular team up fight against a bigger threat in the third act.
Did people really believe that this movie would just be a Batman Vs. Superman fight? People really believed that the whole movie would revolve around two heroes fighting and maybe some Lex instead of what we are likely to get which is some fighting between Batman and Superman, half of the Justice League being in the movie, a third act featuring Doomsday Zod, Lex doing more Lex shit to set up the future.
I expected the threat to be a surprise. Everyone knows that this wasn't Freddy vs Jason and that they wouldn't unite in a heated passion, clutching each other as they celebrate their growing friendship. That's why they should've just marketed the act 1 conflict, so people could've be surprised in the theatre.
It's also counter intuitive to hype. Leave it open and the internet will be abuzz with fans trying to piece theories together. Now fans are between needing to slander Marvel fans and being disappointed as far as I read this thread.
I was hoping for someone more interesting than Doomsday, and I was hoping Lex didn't come across as a very annoying caricature, and I was hoping the tone advertised wasn't extremely weird.
But, as many already stated, Doomsday is the perfect villain for this movie: he's just a big bad unstoppable monster with very little background and no character development. You can just throw him in late in the third act and let him fight the trio without sacrificing anything worthwhile.
Now that just make it sound lazy.
Yes, that's what I love in movies. Undeveloped, big monster enemies with what appears to be no personality and no background.
The true villain of the movie is Luthor. But he - as a person - would be no threat for Superman and Batman (and Wonder Woman) so that's why he uses Doomsday as a big bad goon. Would you rather prefer they waste a good villain just for the final spectacle or permanently disable Luthor in the first movie he appears in (because I hope he won't be a one-movie villain)?
The Lex I knew and loved would've build a robot suit with Kryptonite crotch piece and strong enough to withstand Supermans and Wonder Womans brute force.
People have been speculating this exact scenario for 2 years, people been putting together theories since this movie was announced. That aint stopping anytime soon. So many characters that none of us know about in the movie
Name one MCU villain that is given no backstory or background or relevance to the protagonist, however plain it may be.
shinra-bansho
Member
Thanos.
L
Lord Virgin
Unconfirmed Member
Are you guys under the impression that the characters you love are just born like that? No, people change and for Lex to get to that point he first has to go through other things. You are not the same person as you were 5 years ago, neither are these fictional characters.
The businessman Lex who is this golden idol for people isn't just born, he has to get to that point. It's way more interesting to see how this Lex is and how he handles things than any of the same, old boring real estate scam whatever Lex. Comparing how he behaves now and how he might in MoS is way more interesting.
Damn you got me.
What did he mean by this?
Member
exmachina64
Banned
This is the company that can't be bothered to use non-generic menus in its home video releases -- even for important releases like TDKR, MoS and Mad Max.
Discotheque
Banned
yeah their menus are trash tier. Still the transfers are fantastic though at least.
L
Lord Virgin
Unconfirmed Member
So what is it, is it the no backstory part that bugs you about DD or the fact that he got no personality? "however plain it may be", DD is created by Lex with the corpse of Zod. Boom, some background and relevance. However plain it is, you seem to be happy with that apparently, right? Happy now?
I can name enough MCU villains that were just awful (every single one of them), some of them undeveloped, some of them with no personality, some of them with no relevance to the heroes. And indeed Thanos, all of the above.
But that wasn't even my point, I just brought up the MCU as an example that you can be successful while having crappy villains, so I don't understand where this outrage comes from. People love GOTG, whatshisblueface was awful.
With that being said, do I like these throwaway villains? No, I too much rather have the Joker or something like that. But is something like DD perfect for this movie? Yes. Especially since he's basically an extention of Lex who is the real baddy, so you still get your villain with personality and whatnot.
Okay, you got me. I totally give you this point.
But, at least not yet, the movie isn't showing me anything I would care for except for the action maybe. At least, not based on MoS and this trailer.
Miles Quaritch
Member
While I agree, it makes sense that Lex would use the corpse of Zod for now. He'll fashion his armour into a battle suit/robot army soon enough, just give it time.
Nemesis121
Member
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Well nobody expected DC to commit the same or in this case an even worse mistake that they criticises the Marvel movies for, which is the setting up element for future movies and then affect the current movie.
Now we have 2 disjointed stories here: one where superman fight against batman with some justice leagues cameo, one where superman and batman (with wonder woman thrown in out from nowhere) against doomsday. Just so they can fast track the setting up of future movies, with the introduction of justice league members and then their alliance.
- Status