there was NEVER a point in the movie where I was like "Wait, wtf? How did that just happen? They totally didn't explain that..."
Current tracking from thursday night sales suggest an opening in the vicinity of $150 - $160 million, and that projects out to $400-$500 million domestic. Depending on how strong it plays internationally, it has a shot at $800-$900 million total. That's not enough below expectations to cause Warner to toss out their entire future movie line up and start from scratch. And I doubt they'd fire Snyder this deep in the process. If the reviews cause Warner to do anything, it will probably be to get a producer with a much shorter leash for Snyder on JL.
The Batman vs Superman fight was irritating because it made no sense. They just threw it in because it had to be there. (it's in the title) Should have been called "Iron Man vs Super-idiot". Dumb characters irritate me.
Looked great as Diana but the costume for WW doesn't make any sense to me. I notice Batman and Superman don't go into battle dressed like that. While Affleck and Cavill look the part, Godot does not. Which one of these actresses DOESN'T look like a warrior?
Which one of these actresses DOESN'T look like a warrior?They all look like warriors to me. Though, technically, none of them are well armored, what with the thigh (and collarbone, for at least two of them) being a major target in melee for kill strikes.
(https://images.weserv.nl/?url=static02.mediaite.com%2Fthemarysue%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F03%2F8461545-menalippe-diana-hippolyta-antiope.jpg)
Spoiler for Hidden:
Also it appears:Spoiler for Hidden:
Getting back to Batman:Spoiler for Hidden:
Batfleck is awesome, but I was also bothered by his actions in the movie... especially after he proclaimed that his issue with Supes was the wanton destruction and complete disregard for human life that he seemed to have.. wha' th' duh?
A lot of reviews seem to be pointing this out; perhaps you could explain to me why this is a problem. Bruce's issue with Superman is not that he kills people, it is that he has the power to kill *everyone* and no one can hold him responsible at all for any of the deaths that can be attributed to him. He is an unrestrained existential threat to the human race.
But even if you characterize Bruce as abhorring Superman's wanton destruction and complete disregard for human life, does that mean it is obvious that is how Batman should view himself? If a soldier kills on the battlefield, does that mean he must acknowledge a personal complete disregard for human life? Even if you disagree philosophically, can you explain why this is so absurd as to be as ludicrous as a lot of people seem to be portraying it as?
Just to be clear, I'm not asking if Bruce is morally justified in his disgust of Superman's actions. I'm asking if it is so ridiculous for someone to both be willing to use lethal force against criminals who are themselves trying to kill him, and yet horrified at someone that causes hundreds or thousands of deaths of innocent people while leveling a city, that it is completely absurd.
"But even if you characterize Bruce as abhorring Superman's wanton destruction and complete disregard for human life"
He does, in fact, abhor that, and states such... And then, totally trashes the Gotham docks and warehouse district in a nigh speed chase where he guns people down, fires missiles at them and, literally, drives through a few people.
So, he trashes Superman, to his face, about his wanton disregard for life...
and then a few scenes later goes off to kill a bunch of people with an absolute, complete disregard for life.
Can you be specific? I honestly do not recall that. Bruce makes his feelings known to Alfred, and in that scene he is very specific about being concerned about Superman's threat to humanity, not any perceived disregard for human life. In the scene between Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne, which I assume is the scene you're referring to, I don't recall Bruce saying anything specific about Superman's callousness, only his clear unchecked power to "burn the whole place down."
Its possible I've forgotten something though. I might have a chance to see it again soon because I have friends who haven't seen it yet, but then again they might decide to wait for it to come out on video.
He ultimately kills people in that scene, yes, but I don't think it is fair to characterize that event as "goes off to kill a bunch of people" much less with "absolute, complete disregard for life." First, that wasn't his purpose: he went off to do something, not to kill people. Second, he only killed people who were using deadly force on him first. Are you saying, because I don't want to put words in your mouth, that your position is that there is no difference?
Well, he had guns and missiles installed on the car prior to getting into that chase... So at some point he intended to use them to kill people since that is what they are for, after all.
And if you kill someone, they are dead. You've killed them. Doesn't matter *why* you kill them, or what they may have done first, they're still dead. And, BATMAN DOES NOT KILL! There is not addendum to that. No "unless they shoot first." No "unless he's older and jaded." No addendum... BATMAN DOES NOT KILL! Period.
It's apparent the people making these movies don't just not know the characters but have an active disdain for them.
In any case, I think you should at least be consistent with this rule. The Dark Knight Returns Batman should be equally objectionable to you.
Personally, I don't think the problem is with Batman killing. The problem is that TDKR was written for comic book fans, and we had years, decades of Batman history in our heads.
Since the whole debate about Batman involves his view of Superman's actions that took place in Man Of Steel, I feel compelled to repost this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjSNLmb0Ndw
Just a reminder that, as per the usual with most incarnations of the character, if Superman had more than two Kryptonian brain cells he could have easily avoided the whole mess entirely.
Can't wait to see what they do with BvS... :D
There is a pretty big problem with Batman killing though, so much so that Miller leaves it ambiguous in TDKR whether even the grizzled, older, already more violent, and thinking he's dying himself Bats kills, or only paralyzes the Joker. Even if we take the position that the Joker suicide is hallucination or wish fulfillment, one killing, as a possible last act, of an obviously irredeemable villain by a guy who's convinced he's the only one who could possibly stop Joker (setting aside the fact Joker only starts back up because of Bats reappearing), still only does it when he thinks it's the only way to stop him, and for whom killing is so repellant that he has to immediately convince himself he didn't actually do it, is a far cry from the more random, unthinking killing people have been complaining about here.
Spoiler for Hidden:
Spoiler for Hidden:
Personally, I don't think the problem is with Batman killing. The problem is that TDKR was written for comic book fans, and we had years, decades of Batman history in our heads. And frankly, it was a bit stagnant history. TDKR didn't come right out and say "this is Batman" but rather "this is what Batman might become, if things continue to get worse." We were supposed to contrast this Batman with the Batman we knew and loved, and see they weren't different people, just the same person under different circumstances. We were supposed to appreciate the contrast: see what changed and what was constant. Would the Batman kill if he needed to, or would he refuse to kill even when necessary? Which one wins in Batman: the need to not kill or the need to do whatever it takes? In TDKR, the story answers that question in the latter. He doesn't kill indiscriminately, but he is willing to wage war when necessary even if it means killing.Batman doesn't kill anyone in DKR that I can recall. Even with his bat-tank, he makes a point of mentioning he uses rubber bullets. When confronted with a thug creeping up behind him in his first night back as Batman, he says there are 7 working defences from this position: 3 disarm with minimal contact, 3 kill and one hurts. He picks the "hurts" option and puts the thug in the hospital.
In TDKR, Batman doesn't just give up his rule on killing, he ultimately gives up being Batman.
Couldn't you say that about police officers, security guards, and soldiers? They are all armed, which means they intend to eventually use those arms if necessary, because that is what they are for. Are all armed people equally callous about killing?
Ironically, when Snyder tried to make Batman more human he made him less relateable. A heroic Batman - a violent vigilante - is something you shouldn't think about too closely. Unless you are really good at it, it will likely come off the rails for a lot of your audience. I think Nolan was good enough. I think Snyder was not.
In my experience... Yes.
Especially cops and young unarmed, harmless African Americans, these days.
But, then, DD has always been a Batman rip-off.
Or vice versa.
Or vice versa.
Worth noting that Frank Miller's run on Daredevil, which in many ways launched the modern version of the character most people know (including introducing Elektra and reconfiguring the stories around the Kingpin and the Hand), occurred several years before Miller wrote The Dark Knight Returns. Miller turned Daredevil into the brooding dark enti-hero of Hell's Kitchen before he kicked off the story that would eventually turn Batman into the modern version of the Dark Knight.
Well, since Batman pre-dates DD by decades, I'd say there is no vice versa.
Ugh. HATE Frank Miller.
Well, ok, not *him personally*... His work.
Oh also I can't stand Killing Joke. I love Moore (and Oracle) and it went a long way toward making the Joker *the* Joker but dammit I don't want my crazy psychopath explaining himself rationally (same reason i disliked the second half of Dark Knight, where Joker's not only explaining his behavior but he also seems to have just finished his cliched college freshman's reading of Nietzsche.) and I don't want my Joker having an origin story.
Given that DKR is being used to justify the Batman from BvS, I would like to iterate that Batman doesn't kill anyone in DKR. He also doesn't use guns.
...
So, even in the desperate, even nihilistic DKR, the core rules for Batman are stil:
- No killing
- No guns
There's this scene in TDKR:You could choose to see that as a low point for him in his war with the Mutants, as later on, he unequivocally rejects using guns. If you look closely at the picture, there is one spent casing, so one bullet fired. Since this was a public case with a kidnapping, if he had killed the mutant, this would have been in the news and later the talking head against Batman would have brought up the murder. The fact that he didn't kill her is made 100% clear (but not explicitly stated) within the book itself. I choose to look at it as lower numbered rules can be broken so long as higher numbered rules are not. ie. guns can be used, but only if they don't kill anyone.
Its not 100% clear that he kills her, but he is firing a machine gun at her and there is a big blood spatter behind her. In either case, he definitely uses a gun.
For example, there's the general's suicide. Its implied strongly Batman encouraged him to do it, and it is made more explicit in the animated version.It is a pretty big stretch from "Batman witnessed it", which is reasonable from his comment about "almost asking why", to Batman encouraged him. There's nothing to back that up. It's pretty clear that Batman's no killing rule is absolute, but cuts pretty close to the bone. If a scumbag responsible for arming gangs to kill people wants to take his own life, Batman isn't going to stop him (at this point in his career).
Its strongly implied he was there, and was conversing with the general when he did it, and did nothing to stop him.
In any case, there is 100% absolute unambiguous evidence that the TDKR Batman will at least under the right conditions use a gun, and not as a technicality (i.e. "the Batarang shooter is technically a gun" assertion): a real machine gun firing real bullets aimed at a living human being. I think there's strong evidence that Batman kills at least one person through his own direct actions, either the mutant kidnapper in the print version or at least one blown up mutant in the animated version.Yes, he used a gun, but this is one panel in the entire novel and later he explicitly rejects their use. Cherry picking instances like this is how Snyder and co. picked Superman killing Zod. It happened one time, so we can make it the new normal.
You could choose to see that as a low point for him in his war with the Mutants, as later on, he unequivocally rejects using guns. If you look closely at the picture, there is one spent casing, so one bullet fired. Since this was a public case with a kidnapping, if he had killed the mutant, this would have been in the news and later the talking head against Batman would have brought up the murder. The fact that he didn't kill her is made 100% clear (but not explicitly stated) within the book itself. I choose to look at it as lower numbered rules can be broken so long as higher numbered rules are not. ie. guns can be used, but only if they don't kill anyone.
It is a pretty big stretch from "Batman witnessed it", which is reasonable from his comment about "almost asking why", to Batman encouraged him. There's nothing to back that up. It's pretty clear that Batman's no killing rule is absolute, but cuts pretty close to the bone. If a scumbag responsible for arming gangs to kill people wants to take his own life, Batman isn't going to stop him (at this point in his career).
Yes, he used a gun, but this is one panel in the entire novel and later he explicitly rejects their use. Cherry picking instances like this is how Snyder and co. picked Superman killing Zod. It happened one time, so we can make it the new normal.
As I stated above, the Mutant didn't die or else Batman would have been crucified in the media. It is the death of the Joker (certainly more hated than any Mutant) that gives the authorities the official cover to want to bring him in. If a murder had happened earlier in the book, they would have gone after him earlier. So either there's a major public case where Batman murdered someone and the police, media and government covered it up and forgot about it, or the mutant didn't die.
BREAKING NEWS!: Warner Bros. just released a deleted scene from Batman vs. Superman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-MUzvASr8s
BREAKING NEWS!: Warner Bros. just released a deleted scene from Batman vs. Superman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-MUzvASr8s
interesting theory. could be.Spoiler for Hidden:Spoiler for Hidden:
I choose to see it as "Batman used a gun, ergo there is no rule that says Batman never uses guns."Fair enough. He used a gun.
It is only cherry picking if I was trying to assert that Batman is comfortable killing people: see, he did it once, so it must be normal for him. I did no such thing. I asserted your rules about Batman have exceptions. I am only required to produce one to demonstrate that fact.
Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I'm taking the exact opposite position of you. When I say that TDKR shows a Batman that has no rule against using guns, I'm not trying clumsily to say that Batman loves to use guns. I'm saying Batman in TDKR has no rule against using guns, at least no rule he isn't willing to break. If I meant more, I would have said more.Also fair. The problem with the general conversation is that these exceptions to the no guns rule are being held up as justification for normalizing his use in BvS. Just like Superman killing a handful of times in 75 years of comics being held up as justification for his actions in MoS. You weren't doing that and I didn't mean to imply that you were.
In either case, if you are going to apply a standard of "Batman doesn't kill unless there is unambiguous evidence of the kill" then it is hypocritical not to apply that standard to BvS.Ouch. I don't think hypocrisy accusations are called for.
It is obvious that Batman isn't making a personal confession about his attitude towards guns. He is trying to make sure his army isn't a murdering mob. This is the next panel:Frankly, the subsequent panel proves my argument. He isn't saying "you". He's saying "we". Then he shows them the weapons they use. Perhaps this is a reaffirmation of what his beliefs are, but other than one panel where he uses a gun, his characterization is pretty consistent: no guns.
(https://images.weserv.nl/?url=comicsalliance.com%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F01%2Fguns01.jpg)
He's trying to keep some control over his followers, not making a New Years resolution.
When you make a major motion picture and one of the most common screenshots from the movie has Batman with some kind of rifle or shotgun, this is a problem. These kind of exceptions shouldn't be what you put into a mass audience's exposure to the character. Until DC's Cinematic Universe starts to shape up, I won't be supporting them.
Alex Ross' art is always amazing! I would chalk up Batman's gun here as gizmo for delivering wacky payload, like a grapple or smoke gun. Clearly he uses gun-like items when the form factor calls for it.
it now seems much more logical to me that Batman does in fact kill the Joker.
You know, this does bring up a subtle point. When people say "Batman has a no-kill rule" or "Batman never uses guns" its not obvious if that refers to Batman the character or Batman the story. In other words, does the character of Batman believe he has this rule, or is that a rule that writers of Batman should always follow. Those aren't the same thing, because people are imperfect. In the Alex Ross story, Batman believes he has such a rule (against guns), and yet he also believes it is the right thing to do to break it in this one case. That's Batman having a rule that the character himself can choose to break or not break. Similarly, Alex Ross the writer understands that such a rule exists for writers but decides to play with that rule to tell an interesting story.Yes, I agree with the distinction about story vs. character.
It is certainly not the only interpretation of what happens at the end. But I think it is a viable one.Moore has said in the past that he meant it to be ambiguous.
Yes, I agree with the distinction about story vs. character.
I have made the same point to people who ask what's wrong with Superman killing Zod in MoS. I usually use this analogy: "If they remade Die Hard starring Bugs Bunny, is it still a Bugs Bunny movie? It's got Bugs Bunny in it, but does Bugs kill people with guns?" There are certain genre conventions for a Bugs Bunny story that you can't just remove without taking away some of the essential elements of the character. Similarly, a Superman story shouldn't generally have Superman the character killing people. There are any number of Superman rip-offs that aren't afraid of killing or mass carnage that would work very well for the story they told (Apollo, Invincible off the top of my head), but those characters don't have the box office name recognition of Superman.
It's because the writers put Superman in the position where that was the only solution. A good Superman story is where he doesn't have to kill anyone and he manages to save the day. There are stories where that isn't the case, but those are to contrast the "normal" story and provide some variation or examination. After which, they usually return to the no killing rules and experiment with some other aspect of the character.
Another point I like to make to friends is that the Marvel movies are made by the comic book company. Those characters are done in as much the same vein as the comic books as they can. The writers understand what made the characters popular in the first place and try to capture that and put it up on the screen.
DC movies are made by WB, DC's parent company. That's one step removed and as such, you get new creators wanting to put their own spin on the character, but don't have the comic's editorial staff to reign them in. So, you get something in the ballpark, but not always great from DC. (Donner and Burton worked out well, whereas Schumacher and Snyder chose to deviate from the normal story and were controversial)
For Fox and Sony, you're way removed from the DC comics company so all bets are off. It depends on the creative team and how closely to the source material they want to hew. Deadpool was so good because Ryan Reynolds and the rest of the team really loved comic book DP and wanted to put that up on the screen. Green Lantern, not so much.
http://www.hitfix.com/news/box-office-experts-batman-v-supermans-huge-second-weekend-drop-is-alarming
BvS box office dropped 68.4% in its second week. There's some debate about what the cause is (Wrestlemania, NCAA March Madness, Spring Break, bad word of mouth) and what the net effect will be.
Under a billion would be almost too delicious a level of humiliation for WB and Snyder's pitiful "movie".
Wait, if it doesn't get to a billion it's a delicious level of humiliation? We clearly have differing views of what constitutes 'humiliation'. The article you link predicts 900M worldwide which would put it ahead of all but 3 of the marvel cinematic u movies.There are questions about how much the movie cost to make and market. From what I've read, all that foreign box office doesn't make it back to WB. It might have a huge box office, but still not make a lot of money depending on what they spent to make/market it.
Under a billion would be almost too delicious a level of humiliation for WB and Snyder's pitiful "movie".
There are questions about how much the movie cost to make and market. From what I've read, all that foreign box office doesn't make it back to WB. It might have a huge box office, but still not make a lot of money depending on what they spent to make/market it.
There's also the actual box office vs. expectations. IIRC, it was expected to break a billion, easily.
Very good summation.
I'll add this, Superman killing Zod is not out of character. In extreme circumstances he has resorted to that very measure. However, it has always left him in a moral quandry (which I assume was what that horrid screeching thing he did in MoS was supposed to represent). :P
I also have no issue with there being wanton massive destruction as he attempts to stop Zod, since Zod wants to "kill all humans" and Superman is attempting to stop him. That makes sense. (However, Superman callously adding to the destruction rather than try to move them away from the "kill zone" does not sit well.)
But...
There is NO WAY that should have been the first story told with a new Superman who is "new" to the Earth. The renegade Kryptonians story should always be told well after Superman is established as a trusted hero on Earth and his refusal to kill is also well established. That lends the story serious gravitas and an emotional core that actually means something to the audience. Otherwise, the whole shebang is just a disaster-porn movie with superheroes. (MoS, I am looking at you)
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/the-final-box-office-verdict-for-batman-v-145633263.html
Looks like Batman v Superman will be topping out at less than $900 million in box office.
It was a ton of vignettes assembled in an order that tried to make sense.
That's so sad that it only made 900 million. Poor Warner Bros.
Word through the grapevine is they needed at least $1 billion to "break even" worldwide.
So, yeah, in that regard, only $900 million is not so good.
Word through the grapevine is they needed at least $1 billion to "break even" worldwide.
So, yeah, in that regard, only $900 million is not so good.
I grew up in the 60's and 70's - if a film made $30 million it was considered a big success. These days it costs $30 million just for catering probably.
If by "the grapevine" you mean "the internet" that's mostly a lot of repeated random wild guessing.
No... by "the grapevine" I mean people I know who work in the film industry. And I don't mean as gaffers or gofers. ;)
No... by "the grapevine" I mean people I know who work in the film industry. And I don't mean as gaffers or gofers. ;)
And thanks for taking the time to show off that you know how to add and subtract, but you're waaaaaaaaaayyyy over-simplifying the equations and waaaaaaaaaaayy under-thinking the total situation.
No, the "magic number" according to WB suits was $1 bn. Less than that, the film is a loss. (As in, might be profitable by all accounts, but not enough to make the suits happy)
Citation please. Whatever your sources are, no executive would peg the profitability of the movie on a vague theater revenue number, because that's not the only source of revenue. A billion dollars might have been the whisper number for expectations, but not "break even."
Finally got to see this. Not too bad considering the reviews I read.
I just thought Batman's sudden turn at the end because of "Martha" was a bit too quick.
And also -Spoiler for Hidden:
I just thought Batman's sudden turn at the end because of "Martha" was a bit too quick.
I just thought Batman's sudden turn at the end because of "Martha" was a bit too quick.
I didn't think the problem was that it was too quick of a turnaround. I thought it wasn't set up properly or at all. In the movie, Batman's expressed motivation for taking down Superman was that Batman felt Superman was a threat to humanity. If so, that doesn't change in that scene, and shouldn't change his motivation for killing Superman.
For that scene to have any meaning at all, it had to connect to something. If they had set it up so that Batman was convinced that Superman wasn't "one of us," that he seemed aloof and didn't seem to care about humans except in the abstract, that he did what he did for his own purely incomprehensible reasons, then discovering that Superman was willing to beg Batman to save the life of one single human being could have been portrayed as the shock to the system Batman needed to realize that the seeming incomprehensible way Superman behaved and the controversy that surrounded him was really not all that different from what drove him to become the Batman. That they were not as different as he originally believed. That might have been enough at least to make him think twice at that critical moment.
Spoiler for Hidden:
Makes sense. And believe or not - I have been reading comics since the 1960's and never realized until that part in the film that Clark's and Bruce's moms both are called Martha.
Finally got to see this. Not too bad considering the reviews I read.
I just thought Batman's sudden turn at the end because of "Martha" was a bit too quick.
And also -Spoiler for Hidden:
I always knew their names were Martha, of course, but I never thought it was significant.
I wonder if it is significant that the first names of the Justice League members Aquaman, Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman are Arthur, Bruce, Clark, and Diana.
Now that I think about it, Guy Gardner, Hal Jordan, John Stewart, Kyle Raynor. Someone named Iris Taylor needs to become the Green Lantern.
I knew both were Martha as well - but never really thought 'Hey - both their moms have the same name.'
A big gripe for me was Superman in The Capitol having zero dialogue. We have perhaps the most ideal actor to play the character and he's being under utilized.
This is true. Great actor who looks great as Superman, but it looks like the director, in every instance he's played Supes so far, has told him, "play it like a mannequin."
It can almost come across as arrogance, that he feels all of this is beneath him and its a chore he feels compelled to go through the motions of - interacting with people.
Actually a fridge logic moment just struck me. You're both correct that it seems like when he's one on one with someone, like Martha or Lois, Clark acts relatively normally but when he's out in public he always looks like a sad, detached statue, like he doesn't know how to act around people. He has an almost disinterested look - think about that moment when he is hovering over that family trapped by the flood, whom I'm certain he saved, but still. It can almost come across as arrogance, that he feels all of this is beneath him and its a chore he feels compelled to go through the motions of - interacting with people.
And that's exactly why Batman is afraid of him.
Yes, and it's exactly what's wrong with the portrayal.
and with an appalling Wonder Woman trailer
On the subject of WB's DC cinematic disasters, the predicate Suicide Squad train wreck is getting wonderfully shredded by reviewers - the Snydertrash desecration of DC is now at a hilarious 0 for 3, and with an appalling Wonder Woman trailer and laughable Justice League sneak peak, there's no end in sight for this humiliating parade of incompetence :P
But perhaps you should at least consider not just reading the articles written by the people making anti-Zack Snyder Change.org petitions to acquire your facts.
That trailer was really good. Steve Trevor, a period war piece, Wonder Woman's origin not relegated to mundanity, Wonder Woman fighting like a boss...
I reiterate: you're nuts.
Agreed. The Wonder Woman movie, so far, looks Amazing. But, if it's more Snyder-verse DC it'll probably suck.
Crossing my fingers, though.
Richard Suckle
<snigger>
He's got the producer's credit on Suicide Watch - his vile stench is all over the final "product".
Suckle worked with Roven previously on American Hustle.
Oh yeah... THERE'S a shining endorsement. :roll:
That's sort of Warner's default playbook, to get producers with some experience and track record in a similar area working with the talent on the movie.
With such staggering success :P
Just to satisfy my own curiosity, are you unaware facts exist and drive over them like invisible speed bumps, unconcerned about facts and just side swipe them out of your way, or harbor enough hated toward facts you back over them after running them over to make sure you finish the job.
Just returned from Suicide Squad... A few minor issues with the film, but as wrong as BvS was on the characters, this one was so right.