• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Batman vs Superman: World's Finest Three-Year Wait

Status
Not open for further replies.

ReiGun

Member
jla_99_5.jpg

YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
 

Dead

well not really...yet
What do you get when you cross a meathead bro with a geek? A Snyder.

Is Snyder even geeky, anyway? He only seems that way because of the movies he has worked on.
You'd have to be a pretty fucking big geek to write visualize and direct a movie like sucker punch.

It is funny how he really is a geek and meathead in one.
 

BadAss2961

Member
Rumor about Scoot McNairy's role. (small spoiler if true)
The extra states it like this: "Scoot is playing Jimmy Olsen, but with a bit of a twist. Jimmy was injured during the battle of Zod vs Superman. His legs where pinned under falling building rubble and that caused him to lose the legs. He now walks with the use of two prosthetic legs." The source goes on to add "He doesn't blame Superman for it [his loss of legs]. He feels grateful that Superman saved the world."
 
Seems odd..like...why add that addition? Who cares?
Yeah... If they want to reference the amount of damage done to Metropolis, there are plenty of other, logical ways, to do so. Something as simple as Lex holding a press conference or talking on some news network panel about how much of a menace Superman is and how he destroyed half of the city. Or Bruce talking to Alfred in the cave about how this Superman must be contained, etc.

We don't really need a new backstory for Jimmy Olsen...

Holding out hope that Scoot is The Flash but my faith in Snyder and Goyer after MoS is pretty low.
 

Ashhong

Member
You need a face for the destruction whom audience can relate to. Not sure what his name winds up being but still an interesting story to tell. Looks like movie is setting up distancing ourselves from Supes through Bruce and these citizens only to build him back up to a hero.

Not sure a new character is that face though. Just seems weird to me. It doesn't sound like jimmy at all other than name. They should just make it a new character. I didn't care when they made female jimmy for seemingly no reason, and I don't really care here, it just seemed unnecessary. Oh well, it will probably be fine in the movie
 
Yeah... If they want to reference the amount of damage done to Metropolis, there are plenty of other, logical ways, to do so. Something as simple as Lex holding a press conference or talking on some news network panel about how much of a menace Superman is and how he destroyed half of the city. Or Bruce talking to Alfred in the cave about how this Superman must be contained, etc.

We don't really need a new backstory for Jimmy Olsen...

Holding out hope that Scoot is The Flash but my faith in Snyder and Goyer after MoS is pretty low.

Your example is not as good as if Clark Kent comes face to face with the destruction he caused through a colleague.
 
Not sure a new character is that face though. Just seems weird to me. It doesn't sound like jimmy at all other than name. They should just make it a new character. I didn't care when they made female jimmy for seemingly no reason, and I don't really care here, it just seemed unnecessary. Oh well, it will probably be fine in the movie

It makes sense Jimmy Olsen loves Superman as a friend in the comics it would mean a lot that he still appreciates him even though the fight in Metropolis caused him to lose his legs.
 

BadAss2961

Member
Your example is not as good as if Clark Kent comes face to face with the destruction he caused through a colleague.
Agreed.

I wouldn't mind this addition to Jimmy. Since he'd only get but so much screentime in this universe, this is good way of making his role more memorable and meaningful than it would be otherwise.
 
Your example is not as good as if Clark Kent comes face to face with the destruction he caused through a colleague.
Couldn't that be done via any of the Daily Planet workers featured in the first film? Or some connection to them? Perry White could come into the Planet flustered and upset with a vendetta against Superman because the chaos he brought upon Metropolis caused his (insert relative) harm.
My point is just that these movies continue to stray from source material when they have creators like Johns heading the creative side of production to point to and get script advising. It's been a constant detriment to DC on film to ignore the comics and try to inject some sort of "edginess" that doesn't necessarily need to exist.
I don't prefer Marvel in any way: comics, animation or film; but at least in their film adaptations they are pooling the comics. Winter Soldier and Guardians are as close to direct adaptations as Hollywood will ever get.
I just wish DC and Warner Bros. would adhere to what makes these stories special for us and stop trying to rewrite what was already sufficient in the comics.
 
He's great in Halt and Catch Fire as well.

while i kinda enjoyed that show he was such a whiny shit in that. he played the role well but god-damn...

his wife better leave him next season.

...yeah he was pretty good in the show, my judgement of his character is clouding his performance.
 

DeathyBoy

Banned
Couldn't that be done via any of the Daily Planet workers featured in the first film? Or some connection to them? Perry White could come into the Planet flustered and upset with a vendetta against Superman because the chaos he brought upon Metropolis caused his (insert relative) harm.
My point is just that these movies continue to stray from source material when they have creators like Johns heading the creative side of production to point to and get script advising. It's been a constant detriment to DC on film to ignore the comics and try to inject some sort of "edginess" that doesn't necessarily need to exist.
I don't prefer Marvel in any way: comics, animation or film; but at least in their film adaptations they are pooling the comics. Winter Soldier and Guardians are as close to direct adaptations as Hollywood will ever get.
I just wish DC and Warner Bros. would adhere to what makes these stories special for us and stop trying to rewrite what was already sufficient in the comics.

GOTG is not even close to a direct adaptation of any part of the comics. Which is fine, it's a great film on its own rights. But Nolan's trilogy (which actually takes elements from Long Halloween, Dark Victory, Killing Joke, No Mans Land, Year One and Dark Knight Returns) is extremely faithful.

As for veering away, what's wrong with that?

It should only matter that it's good, not whether it's faithful, in the end. LOTR films aren't that faithful beyond basic plot, and they're universally acclaimed.
 
Couldn't that be done via any of the Daily Planet workers featured in the first film? Or some connection to them? Perry White could come into the Planet flustered and upset with a vendetta against Superman because the chaos he brought upon Metropolis caused his (insert relative) harm.
My point is just that these movies continue to stray from source material when they have creators like Johns heading the creative side of production to point to and get script advising. It's been a constant detriment to DC on film to ignore the comics and try to inject some sort of "edginess" that doesn't necessarily need to exist.
I don't prefer Marvel in any way: comics, animation or film; but at least in their film adaptations they are pooling the comics. Winter Soldier and Guardians are as close to direct adaptations as Hollywood will ever get.
I just wish DC and Warner Bros. would adhere to what makes these stories special for us and stop trying to rewrite what was already sufficient in the comics.

The Marvel movies have a lot of deviations from the comics...
 
GOTG is not even close to a direct adaptation of any part of the comics. Which is fine, it's a great film on its own rights. But Nolan's trilogy (which actually takes elements from Long Halloween, Dark Victory, Killing Joke, No Mans Land, Year One and Dark Knight Returns) is extremely faithful.

As for veering away, what's wrong with that?

It should only matter that it's good, not whether it's faithful, in the end. LOTR films aren't that faithful beyond basic plot, and they're universally acclaimed.
Perhaps not a direct adaptation but GOTG takes from the 2008 series. And yeah, you're right. The Nolan trilogy borrows bits from all of those and was smart for doing so. But as high as I place those films on the pedestal, they injected a lot of needless bullshit in lieu of canonical reference. Rachel Dawes did not need to exist. There are already love interests for Bruce, and she refocused the narrative of those films to make it seem that Bruce wanted to do what he did in order to impress her and eventually be with her.
I'm with you again, that veering away CAN be okay and in some examples it can be preferable to the source. But every time that DC has done it on film it just causes my eyes to roll. Man of Steel was a huge victim of that for me, and I worry for BvS that MoS is the launch pad for the DC cinematic universe. I liked the wandering Superman, searching for a place he belongs. I hated the Pa Kent encouraging him to hide.
I just want them to do great and I don't want to constantly feel my palm gracing my face as I sit in a darkened theater in 2016
 
The Marvel movies have a lot of deviations from the comics...
I know that, I mean that the more recent iterations and what it seems they are building to in some sort of Infinity Gauntlet story- they've been using actual stories with contributions from creators to guide the narrative in their movies. DC cherry picks from certain stories to inject a little here or there, while ignoring certain parts of canon that could have made the movies better.
 

BLACKLAC

Member
Yeah... If they want to reference the amount of damage done to Metropolis, there are plenty of other, logical ways, to do so. Something as simple as Lex holding a press conference or talking on some news network panel about how much of a menace Superman is and how he destroyed half of the city. Or Bruce talking to Alfred in the cave about how this Superman must be contained, etc.

We don't really need a new backstory for Jimmy Olsen...

Holding out hope that Scoot is The Flash but my faith in Snyder and Goyer after MoS is pretty low.

I think the point is (If this is true), "Stop hating on the destruction in MoS, even Jimmy Olsen is ok with it!". Seems like they're trying to alleviate some of the ill will from MoS.

Has a sequel ever been this effected by fan reaction to the previous movie?
 

DaveH

Member
Just a random reaction: To this day, there are people who think Jenny is a gender-swapped Jimmy because of pre-release rumors that people accepted as fact.

I think I'd save Jimmy for the solo sequel.

My mental fanfiction that will never happen, is that Lex Luthor is "Superman's Pal".

To me, that makes much more sense than trying to antagonize an unkillable demigod who saved the planet. What does it profit Lex to make Superman his enemy? Whereas imagine the profit if Superman's your pal... access to Superman's Kryptonian technology, him as a live test subject (people enjoy that All-Star scene where Superman benches for Quintum), merchandising, poster boy for need to develop anti-extraterrestrial incursion weaponry, and so on.

From Superman's perspective, it's mutually beneficial, the alliance is private- rather than being beholden to the government- and Luthor's money provides a lot of the lubricant to made superheroing realistically plausible. Teams of high-payed lawyers to run interference with press, public, government, etc. Someone of high station to speak publicly on his behalf. Someone with a track record of philaptropy. Someone who can rebuild.

Luthor's profit motive makes him an independent / intelligent agent rather than a ridiculous bigot, and will make the betrayal more meaningful when he fields his anti-Kryptonian counter measures based on the tests and technology Superman voluntarily undertook and shared.

Plus you get the scene where Lex and Lois each sarcastically call each other, "Superman's Pal" and "Superman's Girlfriend" respectively. :p
 
Just a random reaction: To this day, there are people who think Jenny is a gender-swapped Jimmy because of pre-release rumors that people accepted as fact.

I think I'd save Jimmy for the solo sequel.

My mental fanfiction that will never happen, is that Lex Luthor is "Superman's Pal".

To me, that makes much more sense than trying to antagonize an unkillable demigod who saved the planet. What does it profit Lex to make Superman his enemy? Whereas imagine the profit if Superman's your pal... access to Superman's Kryptonian technology, him as a live test subject (people enjoy that All-Star scene where Superman benches for Quintum), merchandising, poster boy for need to develop anti-extraterrestrial incursion weaponry, and so on.

From Superman's perspective, it's mutually beneficial, the alliance is private- rather than being beholden to the government- and Luthor's money provides a lot of the lubricant to made superheroing realistically plausible. Teams of high-payed lawyers to run interference with press, public, government, etc. Someone of high station to speak publicly on his behalf. Someone with a track record of philaptropy. Someone who can rebuild.

Luthor's profit motive makes him an independent / intelligent agent rather than a ridiculous bigot, and will make the betrayal more meaningful when he fields his anti-Kryptonian counter measures based on the tests and technology Superman voluntarily undertook and shared.

Plus you get the scene where Lex and Lois each sarcastically call each other, "Superman's Pal" and "Superman's Girlfriend" respectively. :p

Isn't there a fan theory that Quintum actually is Luthor in the future or an alternate version of himself or something?

I like that theory. I like All Star Superman...
 
Just a random reaction: To this day, there are people who think Jenny is a gender-swapped Jimmy because of pre-release rumors that people accepted as fact.

I think I'd save Jimmy for the solo sequel.

My mental fanfiction that will never happen, is that Lex Luthor is "Superman's Pal".

To me, that makes much more sense than trying to antagonize an unkillable demigod who saved the planet. What does it profit Lex to make Superman his enemy? Whereas imagine the profit if Superman's your pal... access to Superman's Kryptonian technology, him as a live test subject (people enjoy that All-Star scene where Superman benches for Quintum), merchandising, poster boy for need to develop anti-extraterrestrial incursion weaponry, and so on.

From Superman's perspective, it's mutually beneficial, the alliance is private- rather than being beholden to the government- and Luthor's money provides a lot of the lubricant to made superheroing realistically plausible. Teams of high-payed lawyers to run interference with press, public, government, etc. Someone of high station to speak publicly on his behalf. Someone with a track record of philaptropy. Someone who can rebuild.

Luthor's profit motive makes him an independent / intelligent agent rather than a ridiculous bigot, and will make the betrayal more meaningful when he fields his anti-Kryptonian counter measures based on the tests and technology Superman voluntarily undertook and shared.

Plus you get the scene where Lex and Lois each sarcastically call each other, "Superman's Pal" and "Superman's Girlfriend" respectively. :p

Luther's motivations have always been more than money. I think he has an interesting motive - that Superman can be too great a threat for humanity but also that he makes humanity looks insignificant. That's a good reason to hate him.
 

DaveH

Member
Luther's motivations have always been more than money. I think he has an interesting motive - that Superman can be too great a threat for humanity but also that he makes humanity looks insignificant. That's a good reason to hate him.
Sure, no one is just money, but I mean more "ideologically pure" motives rather than bigotry. I disagree that the insignificance of humanity is a good reason, generally speaking (you can make it work, like any author can may anything work).

First, it makes Luthor seem insecure. Second, it makes Luthor irrational. Outside of comics, the idea of "peak humanity" is absurd. We understand that specialization is inevitable and no one can be the best at all things... much less, be worried about how much better others outside our species are at those things. In the DCU at large, Superman is hardly the only example of humanity's insignificance... singling Superman out for that reason is irrational.

Now that Luthor can be petty and human, and therefore irrationally jealous, is plausible too... but I think in a realistic / grounded approach, to take on Superman and potential real-world consequences, you need a villain that is hyper-competent... and that means someone's who's efficacy shouldn't be hamstrung by psychological disorder or bigotry (at least public, all-out, acted upon). Not to the degree that it plagues Luthor in the comics (shooting up venom, trying to conquer Metropolis in a warship, etc).
 

Ermac

Proudly debt free. If you need a couple bucks, just ask.
Just a random reaction: To this day, there are people who think Jenny is a gender-swapped Jimmy because of pre-release rumors that people accepted as fact.

I think I'd save Jimmy for the solo sequel.

My mental fanfiction that will never happen, is that Lex Luthor is "Superman's Pal".

To me, that makes much more sense than trying to antagonize an unkillable demigod who saved the planet. What does it profit Lex to make Superman his enemy? Whereas imagine the profit if Superman's your pal... access to Superman's Kryptonian technology, him as a live test subject (people enjoy that All-Star scene where Superman benches for Quintum), merchandising, poster boy for need to develop anti-extraterrestrial incursion weaponry, and so on.

From Superman's perspective, it's mutually beneficial, the alliance is private- rather than being beholden to the government- and Luthor's money provides a lot of the lubricant to made superheroing realistically plausible. Teams of high-payed lawyers to run interference with press, public, government, etc. Someone of high station to speak publicly on his behalf. Someone with a track record of philaptropy. Someone who can rebuild.

Luthor's profit motive makes him an independent / intelligent agent rather than a ridiculous bigot, and will make the betrayal more meaningful when he fields his anti-Kryptonian counter measures based on the tests and technology Superman voluntarily undertook and shared.

Plus you get the scene where Lex and Lois each sarcastically call each other, "Superman's Pal" and "Superman's Girlfriend" respectively. :p

Huh. I always thought she did play Jenny Olsen because the actress says she does in this interview. Though most other signs point that she's not Jenny Olsen. Her ID Tag in the movie says Jenny Jurwich, which is probably the best proof.

Jenny_Jarwich.jpg
 
Looks good, seeing some vascularity on his bicep in those pics.

I never realised he had no neck though... or is his head too small for his body?
 
So now we're looking for comics that make you laugh. I can't help you with that as I don't know you.

That being said I'm pretty sure everything you listed has at least some humor in it, even if most of what you listed is big crossover events where the situation is particularly serious.

let's try this again as you seem to want to make this an issue. the comics and the characters from these particular franchises (Superman, Batman) are not what I would call laugh a minute funny or for the most part have mild humor. I can name you more if you wish every day ongoing series that aren't exactly brimming with humor. the movies reflect this.

I think the point is (If this is true), "Stop hating on the destruction in MoS, even Jimmy Olsen is ok with it!". Seems like they're trying to alleviate some of the ill will from MoS.

Has a sequel ever been this effected by fan reaction to the previous movie?

you're reaching. this is just a rumor at this point.
 
Hmm... weren't Warner/DC supposed to announce at least one of their movies by the end of the month?

Yeah they said that in one of the articles, I'm not holding my breath for any movie that isn't Batman or Superman at this point though, giving how much development hell Shazam or Wonder Woman has gone through over the past decade.

or Batman Begins

NIMR_Batman_Begins.jpg

I guess that falls into Nolan's interpretation (a plain ass building) but I still want the Akrham from comics or the game :(.
 
let's try this again as you seem to want to make this an issue. the comics and the characters from these particular franchises (Superman, Batman) are not what I would call laugh a minute funny or for the most part have mild humor. I can name you more if you wish every day ongoing series that aren't exactly brimming with humor. the movies reflect this.

The truth of the matter is that most mainstream superhero comics contain humor. Even the darker stuff like Batman needs a bit of levity once in awhile to put things in perspective. But you probably know that already, which is why you changed your tune from "most comics are humorless", to "they don't make me laugh", to now "Batman is not laugh-a-minute funny".

Sure, Batman is not laugh-a-minute funny. Let's agree on that and move on.
 

DeathyBoy

Banned
The funny part was when PG asks if its necessary, and BA says yes.

I'd love to see Black Adam and Sinestro team up onscreen. Save Darkseid, have the Secret Society form for JL. Then just use the one from Forever Evil (Luthor, Cold, Adam, Bizarro, Manta, Sinestro and throw in Cheetah too.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom