Sure thing, Kingfish.  

 

shouldn't we be wanting both to be successful? lol i mean if both are successful, then the quality of both movie series will have to continue to increase in order to be able to compete with each other better, or am i wrong?

plus it will give lesser known superheroes and comic books a chance in the sun.

 

Stranger things have happened, but I'm not about ready to breakout my black armband for the MCU just yet.

 

Uh where did the trailer show Batman blowing people up on purpose? I think you might be taken whatever scene you watch out of context and not really knowing what happened yet. Also this version of Batman is only branding Superman because he feels he's a threat that needs to be taken down hard and not anyone else.

 

Why can't I have it be successful and good at the same time? That's the problem. DC has never given their titles to another studio, they have always had them and have failed every time they didn't do a Batman movie. It's not like Marvel where they were passing out licenses like an STD. DC failed with Green Lantern. They couldn't even bother to even try to make Jonah Hex right. How can I expect them to actually put effort into these movies when they are already stuffing the movies up with as many characters as they can without even developing them first?

Hell, they didn't even try to actually make a good Superman movie with Man of Steel. They just retold the same story over but added in CG porn and put in gameplay from Injustice Gods Among Us, just with the MoS designs.

 

Well there was that one crook that he left handcuffed to a pipe with a brand on his pec/shoulder. It's in the original trailer I believe.

 

The scene where he is in the Batwing shooting rockets at the people in their vans shooting at him, blowing them all up.

And I wasn't talking about Batman branding Superman as a threat. I'm talking about the dude who Batman burned a batrang logo into his shoulder.

I want this movie to be good, but I don't want to like it just because it's Batman vs Superman on the big screen. Both The Dark Knight and The Winter Soldier have proven you can be a super hero movie and have deep meaningful story telling that goes beyond the norm.

 

That's one of the reasons I don't trust them. Plus, it's mostly fans that were going to love it anyway. For now, it's just initial reactions. I'm interested in reading reviews that explain why it is good or bad, and what kind of movie I should go in expecting. I still love The Force Awakens, but there is no way I could have objectively reviewed it ten minutes after seeing it.

 

excuse me for thinking a good movie IS a successful movie.   sorry.

 

Not originally. Originally, he was kind of a jerk and definitely a bully.

He has killed intentionally numerous times. Especially if you are talking about the ORIGINAL "original source". People have posted examples so many times, it's not worth doing again. Including shooting people from an airplane.

Yeah, absolutely this. I want to hope for the best, and I'm not questioning these people's honesty, but there's no way to be objective right out of the theater.

 

i've been meaning to read some of the original batman series. i read batman's first issue a few months ago. and it's pretty neat stuff.

 

Thing is, with characters this old, that have evolved so much, you can't really reference their roots as the only thing that matters. You have to take into account what their status quo is, what has become the staples of the characters. Batman not killing and Superman being a boy scout may not exist in their first publications, but it's what the characters are now. You cna reference the fact that Batman had purple gloves and gunned people down to start till you're blue in the face, but it's not going to presuade people into changing their views of what Batman should be. Not when those views are founded on so much of the character's history. Wether or not that's truely the origins of the characters.

But I'm also not against deviating from the status quo, I just think BvS is a shitty deviation that's not bringing anything new or substancial to the table. It's not that it's different, it's that it's bad, it just happens to also be the different stuff that is the bad stuff. Keaton Batman killed but that was a good movie so I don't care.

 

Yeah, if you're crazy enough to go through hell to see the early screenings or even opening day, chances are you're a diehard fan who'll love it anyway (or at least at first till it sinks in that it sucks or something).

 

I don't think you have to. You can. Or you can take something as an adaptation of the original, or of one of the many, many variations that has existed between then and now. I think it's egotistical to believe the version you or I grew up with is somehow more valid than the original creation by the original creators, just because it's the version you first experienced as a kid. If you want to think of the version you grew up with as being AS valid, that's fine. But never more. It's insulting to the people who did the actual creative heavy lifting. It's a billion times easier to alter something to reflect changing sensibilities or a writer's personal tastes than it is to actually create something from nothing. Especially when you're talking about Siegel & Shuster or Bill Finger, who essentially created an entire genre that never existed before them. I'm supposed to pretend the work of the current writers holds as much weight? hahahaNO. Never.

 

It's not a bad thing to be egotistical about things you like. Why would we care what other people like? It does not make us happy to get something that makes other people happy.

I have to agree with Split Lip, that changes can be OK, but especially in a million dollar movie about a beloved franchise it should prefer to reflect the current status quo, otherwise you risk alienating the audience if the movie is felt bad and only some hardcore nerds who know stuff that others don't think "woah, they were totally going for the ORIGINAL source way back then!"

 

I'm don't really bother with reviews myself......I do check and see what audience approval is like but most times Ireland gets stuff before the US and I will have seen it before general consensus is formed.

Star Wars: TFA & Batman Vs Superman are rare recent exceptions over here.

 

It must get boring trolling DC/Marvel threads every day.

I mean I don't even have to think that you have to go with what we grew up with, but rather what's been the norm for the majority of the character's existence, which isn't his original portrayal. I get that we can't disregard Batman's roots in remembering him, but those roots haven't been relevant to the character in any media outside of the character's name for many years.

And besides, when Batman is branding people as a way of

Spoiler

marking them for death in prison

as rumors have suggested, it doesn't match up with most versions of the characters to date.

 

Me neither. Often critics speak of movies to be good that I don't like and vice versa.

 

I actually wrote my dissertation on adaptations of comics and films, I can't be arsed getting in to it as I've just woke up and have a whole day of work ahead of me, but the most successful adaptations I found capture the feel of the original while changing enough to utilise the strengths of the media you're adapting it to.

A straight up panel for panel comic to movie film doesn't work because you're basically bogging down the conventions of one medium into another- this goes for story, style, and execution. There are few exceptions to the rule, but they're few and far between.

 

Very true, but we weren't talking about the comics  

Don't remind us.  

Tis no secret that old(er) Batman is a bitter fekker. I mean, look at Batman Beyond  

^^ *nods*