Robert Pattinson is now the new Live Action Batman.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Agent_Z:

Casual Shinji:

Samtemdo8:

Superman saved the day in Man of Steel in the end. It was either have Zod's necked snap or have him ravage the entire world. And it would be grim dark if it was the latter.

And all of it was accompanied by excessive amounts of death, destruction, and military bravado, because Zack Snyder can't take superheroes seriously unless they're killing and screwing eachother. Didn't he also want Batman to have been raped in prison? That dude is just perpetually trapped in the 90's.

The amount of destruction that occurs in MoS is not that much larger than most superhero films and is about on par with what we see in the Avengers movies.

And the "military bravado" amounts to nothing more than the soldiers helping Superman and not being useless canon fodder. You'll see actually military bravado in the Captain America films.

In Captain America: The First Avenger, sure its got a pulpy WWII feel to it and there's definately bravado to spare. Winter Soldier and Civil War? Not so much I find.

Agent_Z:

The amount of destruction that occurs in MoS is not that much larger than most superhero films and is about on par with what we see in the Avengers movies.

And the "military bravado" amounts to nothing more than the soldiers helping Superman and not being useless canon fodder. You'll see actually military bravado in the Captain America films.

I think what makes Man of Steel 'grimdark' is the fact that civilians actually died as a result of the destruction and weren't magically saved by the heroes. IT seems to me that the MCU, and other Superhero movies in general have an attitude similar to the 80's G.I. Joe cartoon where nobody gets killed and every pilot 'parachutes to safety'.
Remember that in BvS Bruce says thousands died in Metropolis, contrast that to the MCU where only 274 civilians died in the final battles over three movies (Avengers, Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron).
Even the Dark Knight trilogy, as dark as it got, didn't have a civilian body count that high.

PS- I, for one, don't consider Man of Steel to be grimdark. Serious, yes. More on the somber side than lighthearted and comedic, yes. But it wasn't excessively dark and brooding.

twistedmic:

Agent_Z:

The amount of destruction that occurs in MoS is not that much larger than most superhero films and is about on par with what we see in the Avengers movies.

And the "military bravado" amounts to nothing more than the soldiers helping Superman and not being useless canon fodder. You'll see actually military bravado in the Captain America films.

I think what makes Man of Steel 'grimdark' is the fact that civilians actually died as a result of the destruction and weren't magically saved by the heroes. IT seems to me that the MCU, and other Superhero movies in general have an attitude similar to the 80's G.I. Joe cartoon where nobody gets killed and every pilot 'parachutes to safety'.
Remember that in BvS Bruce says thousands died in Metropolis, contrast that to the MCU where only 274 civilians died in the final battles over three movies (Avengers, Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron).
Even the Dark Knight trilogy, as dark as it got, didn't have a civilian body count that high.

PS- I, for one, don't consider Man of Steel to be grimdark. Serious, yes. More on the somber side than lighthearted and comedic, yes. But it wasn't excessively dark and brooding.

I wouldn't even say that civilians are "magically saved" in the MCU, they just aren't focused on (hence the scene from Civil War that showed civilians dying in New York)

Hell, civilians aren't really focused on that much in MoS either.

But what sets it apart is simply this;

Superman. Does. Not. Give a fuck.

While other movies might make a passing mention of evacuating citizens. Or go the Avengers route and show the heroes either saving individual groups of people, or physically moving the fight somewhere else. The city in MoS is nothing but a backdrop for his fight with Zod. Clark never bats an eye at what he's smashing through, or smashing Zod into, or what he's getting smashed into by Zod. They aren't buidlings. Streets. Houses. They're bundles of cgi sticks and rocks to explode when someone goes flying through them.

The city, for all intents and purposes, doesn't exist. To Clark, to Zod, to the movie.

Which, in turn just makes Superman feel like a sociopath god-baby, with shitty parents that the movie ruined.

undeadsuitor:

But what sets it apart is simply this;

Superman. Does. Not. Give a fuck.

While other movies might make a passing mention of evacuating citizens. Or go the Avengers route and show the heroes either saving individual groups of people, or physically moving the fight somewhere else. The city in MoS is nothing but a backdrop for his fight with Zod. Clark never bats an eye at what he's smashing through, or smashing Zod into, or what he's getting smashed into by Zod. They aren't buidlings. Streets. Houses. They're bundles of cgi sticks and rocks to explode when someone goes flying through them.

The city, for all intents and purposes, doesn't exist. To Clark, to Zod, to the movie.

Which, in turn just makes Superman feel like a sociopath god-baby, with shitty parents that the movie ruined.

Oh goodie, this argument again.

The whole "Supes doesn't care" argument has to rely on ignoring 90% of the film that led up to this point, where everything Supes does is in service to humanity, even though it's the harder route (how easy would it be to join the kryptonians - blood before water and all that). And the entire point of the Zod fight is that Zod's dangerous, not just physically, but in terms of the ideology he represents. So either you show him how dangerous he is and have Supes struggle to hold his own (a struggle that would be undercut if he magically found time to keep popping off and saving people), or you reduce the threat of Zod so that Supes can have time to save people on the side while fighting the villains.

Hawki:

undeadsuitor:

But what sets it apart is simply this;

Superman. Does. Not. Give a fuck.

While other movies might make a passing mention of evacuating citizens. Or go the Avengers route and show the heroes either saving individual groups of people, or physically moving the fight somewhere else. The city in MoS is nothing but a backdrop for his fight with Zod. Clark never bats an eye at what he's smashing through, or smashing Zod into, or what he's getting smashed into by Zod. They aren't buidlings. Streets. Houses. They're bundles of cgi sticks and rocks to explode when someone goes flying through them.

The city, for all intents and purposes, doesn't exist. To Clark, to Zod, to the movie.

Which, in turn just makes Superman feel like a sociopath god-baby, with shitty parents that the movie ruined.

Oh goodie, this argument again.

The whole "Supes doesn't care" argument has to rely on ignoring 90% of the film that led up to this point, where everything Supes does is in service to humanity, even though it's the harder route (how easy would it be to join the kryptonians - blood before water and all that). And the entire point of the Zod fight is that Zod's dangerous, not just physically, but in terms of the ideology he represents. So either you show him how dangerous he is and have Supes struggle to hold his own (a struggle that would be undercut if he magically found time to keep popping off and saving people), or you reduce the threat of Zod so that Supes can have time to save people on the side while fighting the villains.

or you have superman try and drag the fight away from the city

and when zod specifically targets the city because he knows clark cares about it, have clark express An Emotion towards that. either during, or after it.

or maybe not have the one time clark smiles in the movie be when he's sitting in his office as a news reporter, looking out over the 50% destroyed city he had a part in.

like....maybe the last scene could have had him, as superman, helping clean it up? interacting with people? being nice?

undeadsuitor:

or you have superman try and drag the fight away from the city

Either he'd fail miserably, or you'd undercut Zod as a threat. Take your pick.

and when zod specifically targets the city because he knows clark cares about it, have clark express An Emotion towards that. either during, or after it.

He doesn't target Metropolis because Clark cares about it, he targets it because he wants to wipe out humanity, because it's the only recourse left available to him (as he sees it). And Clark shows emotion before the fight (disgust), and at its end (desparation, grief).

or maybe not have the one time clark smiles in the movie be when he's sitting in his office as a news reporter, looking out over the 50% destroyed city he had a part in.

First of all, he does smile in the flight sequence.

Second of all, Clark's miserable through most of the film, and that's for good reason. That he smiles at the end is culmanative of his character arc, where he's finally found his place.

Third of all, saying Clark "had a part" in the destruction of Metropolis is like saying Peter is equally responsible for the train damage in Spider-Man 2. Or, if aliens invaded today, but were repelled, I'd understand that collateral damage is a thing.

like....maybe the last scene could have had him, as superman, helping clean it up? interacting with people? being nice?

I'll grant you this - I'll take such a scene over Supes destroying the drone.

undeadsuitor:

Hawki:

undeadsuitor:

But what sets it apart is simply this;

Superman. Does. Not. Give a fuck.

While other movies might make a passing mention of evacuating citizens. Or go the Avengers route and show the heroes either saving individual groups of people, or physically moving the fight somewhere else. The city in MoS is nothing but a backdrop for his fight with Zod. Clark never bats an eye at what he's smashing through, or smashing Zod into, or what he's getting smashed into by Zod. They aren't buidlings. Streets. Houses. They're bundles of cgi sticks and rocks to explode when someone goes flying through them.

The city, for all intents and purposes, doesn't exist. To Clark, to Zod, to the movie.

Which, in turn just makes Superman feel like a sociopath god-baby, with shitty parents that the movie ruined.

Oh goodie, this argument again.

The whole "Supes doesn't care" argument has to rely on ignoring 90% of the film that led up to this point, where everything Supes does is in service to humanity, even though it's the harder route (how easy would it be to join the kryptonians - blood before water and all that). And the entire point of the Zod fight is that Zod's dangerous, not just physically, but in terms of the ideology he represents. So either you show him how dangerous he is and have Supes struggle to hold his own (a struggle that would be undercut if he magically found time to keep popping off and saving people), or you reduce the threat of Zod so that Supes can have time to save people on the side while fighting the villains.

or you have superman try and drag the fight away from the city

and when zod specifically targets the city because he knows clark cares about it, have clark express An Emotion towards that. either during, or after it.

or maybe not have the one time clark smiles in the movie be when he's sitting in his office as a news reporter, looking out over the 50% destroyed city he had a part in.

like....maybe the last scene could have had him, as superman, helping clean it up? interacting with people? being nice?

And maybe not have the kiss with Amy Adams be in front a backdrop of collapsing buildings and burning rubble.

Superman has super hearing, he can hear people screaming for help and being crushed and burned while he makes out with Lois Lane.

twistedmic:

PS- I, for one, don't consider Man of Steel to be grimdark. Serious, yes. More on the somber side than lighthearted and comedic, yes. But it wasn't excessively dark and brooding.

I don't know, it's the movie where Superman's father tells him that he should let children die to protect his anonymity. That's pretty damn dark.

Dirty Hipsters:

And maybe not have the kiss with Amy Adams be in front a backdrop of collapsing buildings and burning rubble.

Superman has super hearing, he can hear people screaming for help and being crushed and burned while he makes out with Lois Lane.

He can hear people calling out all the time, and yet he still works as a journalist. No-one seems to ask him to give it 100% 100% of the time.

Dirty Hipsters:

PS- I, for one, don't consider Man of Steel to be grimdark. Serious, yes. More on the somber side than lighthearted and comedic, yes. But it wasn't excessively dark and brooding.

I don't know, it's the movie where Superman's father tells him that he should let children die to protect his anonymity. That's pretty damn dark.[/quote]

First of all, he doesn't say he should do it, he says "maybe." Second of all, it's clear in the context of the film that Pa Kent is in the wrong.

Hawki:

Either he'd fail miserably, or you'd undercut Zod as a threat. Take your pick.

He could fail miserably and still *try*.

And Clark shows emotion before the fight (disgust), and at its end (desparation, grief).

Those are shitty emotions for a superman movie that barfs out "the S means Hope" repeatedly over the movie.

Second of all, Clark's miserable through most of the film, and that's for good reason. That he smiles at the end is culmanative of his character arc, where he's finally found his place.

but why do I need to watch a two hour movie of a hopeful, boyscout hero being *miserable*?

Third of all, saying Clark "had a part" in the destruction of Metropolis is like saying Peter is equally responsible for the train damage in Spider-Man 2. Or, if aliens invaded today, but were repelled, I'd understand that collateral damage is a thing.

When Superman throws Zod into more buildings, he's contributing.

I'll grant you this

its cause its a decent, original, emotional idea in a movie lacking in any of them

I don't know, it's the movie where Superman's father tells him that he should let children die to protect his anonymity. That's pretty damn dark.

Does anyone who complains about this film actually watch it?

Clark Kent at 13: I just wanted to help.

Jonathan Kent: I know you did, but we talked about this. Right? Right? We talked about this! You have...!

[calms himself]

Jonathan Kent: Clark, you have to keep this side of yourself a secret.

Clark Kent at 13: What was I supposed to do? Just let them die?

Jonathan Kent: Maybe; but there's more at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us. When the world... When the world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything; our... our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human... everything. You saw how Pete's mom reacted, right? She was scared, Clark.

Clark Kent at 13: Why?

Jonathan Kent: People are afraid of what they don't understand.

undeadsuitor:

He could fail miserably and still *try*.

Which is what he did when he took the fight into outer space. Plus, let's be honest, with how Superman fans are, they'd still bitch about this because in their eyes, Superman can do no wrong. Never mind that the fight in MoS is actually fairly typical for superheroes fighting alone, including Superman.

Those are shitty emotions for a superman movie that barfs out "the S means Hope" repeatedly over the movie.

So... he's not supposed to care about the destruction?

but why do I need to watch a two hour movie of a hopeful, boyscout hero being *miserable*?

Calling him miserable throughout the movie is yet more hyperbole. Contrary to what the Internet says, not smiling 24/7 like a clown being paid by the hour does not equal misery.

When Superman throws Zod into more buildings, he's contributing.

So why don't other versions of Superman who do this get anywhere near this much flak? Look up "world of cardboard" speech on YouTube just for an example. Hell, Scarlet Witch deliberately sicced the Hulk on a populated area in AoU and no one had anything to say about her joining the Avengers later.
Btw, here's the actual fight. At no point does Superman throw Zod into any buildings. It's actually the other way around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNU0A7yz7IM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02Y0OA8GRGc

undeadsuitor:
When Superman throws Zod into more buildings, he's contributing.

My favorite is when an oil truck gets nudged toward Supes and he just calmly flies over it to let it exlode against the building behind him. Or when he picks up that one giant Kryptonian dude and deliberately punches him into a trainyard, exploding the surrounding area (note how before that fight started he advised everyone to stay indoors). Or when he goes for Zod at his home instead of flying his mother out of there to safety and not leaving her alone with the other Kryptonians. And ofcourse, when he eye-blasts that final ship and lets it crash into numerous buildings that likely have people trapped in them due to the previous terraforming disaster.

Man of Steel was a poor Superman movie that miraculously also had an actor who should have been the greatest Superman since Reeve. Unfortunately it was largely botched.

Pattinson... Batman...

Battinson?

Sure, why not. Expectations are at a record low for a Batman casting after the Snyder debacle. The vocal but tiny minority of Snyderverse fans will wail and wail (like they have been since the disaster that was MoS) But for the vast majority any new actor cast and Batman story told will be an improvement provided he doesn't walk out of the batcave and promptly soil his bat-armor. Feelings toward the franchise are such at the moment that you could tell me that Nick Frost was in talks for being the new batman and I'd say "could be worse, he was awesome in Into the Badlands, let's see what he's got" and give it a thumbs up.

Kyrian007:
Pattinson... Batman...

Battinson?

Sure, why not. Expectations are at a record low for a Batman casting after the Snyder debacle. The vocal but tiny minority of Snyderverse fans will wail and wail (like they have been since the disaster that was MoS) But for the vast majority any new actor cast and Batman story told will be an improvement provided he doesn't walk out of the batcave and promptly soil his bat-armor. Feelings toward the franchise are such at the moment that you could tell me that Nick Frost was in talks for being the new batman and I'd say "could be worse, he was awesome in Into the Badlands, let's see what he's got" and give it a thumbs up.

The majority of complaints about this are coming from the same people who hated Affleck.

Hell, any casting of Batman gets met with backlash going all the way back to Keaton as Batman.

And it was a vocal minority that hated MoS that was wailing. They're still wailing even after Snyder's left.

Kyrian007:
Pattinson... Batman...

Battinson?

Patman - celebrated legend amongst dogs.

undeadsuitor:

but why do I need to watch a two hour movie of a hopeful, boyscout hero being *miserable*?

I dunno. Why am I expected to watch a movie with a boyscout hero that's invincible and infalliable, and be expected to thank the writers for the 'privilige?'

Hawki:

undeadsuitor:

but why do I need to watch a two hour movie of a hopeful, boyscout hero being *miserable*?

I dunno. Why am I expected to watch a movie with a boyscout hero that's invincible and infalliable, and be expected to thank the writers for the 'privilige?'

Why are those the only two options? And why do you act like the clark from MoS isn't also invincible and infallible?

Are people who enjoy MoS incapable of even imagining tight, character driven narratives?

undeadsuitor:
Why are those the only two options?

There's a persistent belief that you just can't do anything interesting with Superman. Or at least the writers can't.

Personally, I tend to think that's true, he's almost as boring as Batman is. *hides*

undeadsuitor:

Hawki:

undeadsuitor:

but why do I need to watch a two hour movie of a hopeful, boyscout hero being *miserable*?

I dunno. Why am I expected to watch a movie with a boyscout hero that's invincible and infalliable, and be expected to thank the writers for the 'privilige?'

Why are those the only two options? And why do you act like the clark from MoS isn't also invincible and infallible?

Are people who enjoy MoS incapable of even imagining tight, character driven narratives?

How the hell is he invincible or infallible? Hell, that he's not seems to be the point of contention.

undeadsuitor:

Why are those the only two options?

I dunno - ask the people who frame them as such.

And why do you act like the clark from MoS isn't also invincible and infallible?

Because he isn't infalliable - the totality of many objections to it is that he isn't infalliable.

And while he's technically invincible, the film at least does a good job of conveying that saving the Earth isn't a cakewalk, given the kryptonians' technology (or in the case of Zod, biology).

Are people who enjoy MoS incapable of even imagining tight, character driven narratives?

Well, luckilly I don't have to imagine that with MoS, since as far as character narrative goes, it's solid.

Far from perfect mind you, but most of the issues with MoS come with the editing and pacing.

Agent_Z:

How the hell is he invincible or infallible? Hell, that he's not seems to be the point of contention.

This.

Hawki:

undeadsuitor:

Why are those the only two options?

I dunno - ask the people who frame them as such.

You. You framed them as such. So I'm asking you.

undeadsuitor:

Hawki:

undeadsuitor:

Why are those the only two options?

I dunno - ask the people who frame them as such.

You. You framed them as such. So I'm asking you.

When you start off with the absurd claim that "Superman does not give a fuck" (let's forget the very first time we see him in the film is him saving people, among other things), you're already framing the conversation in extremes. I'm just responding to them.

twistedmic:

I think what makes Man of Steel 'grimdark' is the fact that civilians actually died as a result of the destruction and weren't magically saved by the heroes.

I think a good part of it is actually a trick of visual design. The film is heavily desaturated, literally draining the color and vibrancy out of the movie. It's something that you don't necessarily recognize immediately, but it's a technique that's used explicitly because we don't need to recognize it to be affected by it. That said, it's easiest to recognize with an obvious contrast. Take for instance the Matrix. In every scene (up until the last one in the final movie) within the eponymous program, everything has a distinct green tint. It's sickly, it's claustrophobic, and it's representative of both the artificial nature of the Matrix's reality and the oppressive influence of the machine antagonists.

Limitless also employs a similar contrast. When the focal character is off NZT the colors are muted, but when they're on it everything brightens up, the colors become more vivid. And that's not just a visual shorthand. It affects how we figuratively view the scene.

To put it directly: Vivid colors energize and excite, desaturation drains and depresses. And let's take a look at Man of Steel for a moment.

Or to give a broader example, see here. There's no difference between the upper and lower footage outside of color, but the lower footage just feels so much more energetic and optimistic. Hence again my point that the choice to desaturate the film might be a major contributing factor to the perception of the film as 'grimdark'.

Samtemdo8:

Kenbo Slice:

Samtemdo8:

I never said it was good, I said it was only interesting. How would they pull of Batman getting Raped in Prison?

And yes in the end I would still prefer the Ross tone for DC then batman getting raped.

Even though he deserves it for usurping Superman as the face of DC and making everything grimdark

You're the one who seems to want everything to be grimdark homie.

IF the option is only Grimdark Seriousness or Goofy Quips and Lighthearted Irreverence, I choose the former. Because I take the idea of being a Superhero seriously. The whole with Great Power Comes Great Responsibility. It mabye be Grimdark but I can stomach grimdark stupidity better then what I saw in Shazam.

I just want the first half of Superman 1978 again. I want sweeping epic Orchestral Scores. I want it to FEEL heroic. I want this again:

I really want a high budget live action justice league tv show rather than the movies to be honest.

I just realized at least from the articles I've read he's been cast as Batman, and people just assume he's also been cast as Bruce Wayne. But what if he's been cast as Terry McGuiness in a Batman Beyond movie?

undeadsuitor:
Robert Downey Jr was also considered a mistake being cast as iron man

"That guy who played the human torch in that shitty ff movie" was considered a horrible choice for captain america

Gal gadot was considered a mistake to be cast for wonder woman

"That guy who played the human torch in that shitty ff movie" was considered a horribke choice for killmonger

Generally, the more vocal nerds are in crying about a casting choice, the better it will be

Let's not forget how people raged about Heath Ledger getting the role of Joker in The Dark Knight.

Honestly, a lot of people tend to jump the gun when it comes to assuming who'll do badly, based on the movie they're in. Not the guy's fault he starred in a terrible movie, Twilight and so on. Give him a chance and judge his performance in the movie he's going to be in.

Caramel Frappe:

undeadsuitor:
Robert Downey Jr was also considered a mistake being cast as iron man

"That guy who played the human torch in that shitty ff movie" was considered a horrible choice for captain america

Gal gadot was considered a mistake to be cast for wonder woman

"That guy who played the human torch in that shitty ff movie" was considered a horribke choice for killmonger

Generally, the more vocal nerds are in crying about a casting choice, the better it will be

Let's not forget how people raged about Heath Ledger getting the role of Joker in The Dark Knight.

Honestly, a lot of people tend to jump the gun when it comes to assuming who'll do badly, based on the movie they're in. Not the guy's fault he starred in a terrible movie, Twilight and so on. Give him a chance and judge his performance in the movie he's going to be in.

When Hugh Jackman was cast as Wolverine, lots of fans objected. Too tall and good-looking, they said. Superhero casting is rife with picks that ended up subverting everyone's expectations. I wonder how many of those detractors are now saying Wolverine can't be recast because they feel no one can fill Jackman's shoes.

I think Pattison can do fine. But like you said, it might not be entirely up to him. Even the best actors can't save a crappy script or poor direction, but I've seen some of his post-Twilight work so I know he at least has real chops. So does Affleck btw. They're kind of similar in that respect, if you ask me. Both fine actors who are best known for roles in bad movies.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here