Author Topic: Batman v. Superman  (Read 26535 times)

Magus Prime

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 122
Batman v. Superman
« on: March 25, 2016, 08:14:24 AM »
I loved it.  Not all of it.  But most of it.

Tenzhi

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,642
    • My DeviantArt Page
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2016, 08:39:19 AM »
Luthor?
When you insult someone by calling them a "pig" or a "dog" you aren't maligning pigs and dogs everywhere.  The same is true of any term used as an insult.

Magus Prime

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 122
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2016, 09:10:00 AM »
I saw what Eisenberg was going for.  Like an unhinged Asperger savant.  Unfortunately I don't think he nailed it.  He would have been more suitable as Lex in a Donner film.  Hopefully he tones it down next time he takes on the role.  Can I call it the Eisenberg Uncertainty Principle?  :P

Tenzhi

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,642
    • My DeviantArt Page
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2016, 09:13:09 AM »
That depends on whether you think the movie has an Eisenberg Compensator.
When you insult someone by calling them a "pig" or a "dog" you aren't maligning pigs and dogs everywhere.  The same is true of any term used as an insult.

doc7924

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,315
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2016, 01:49:53 PM »
I think from reviews its going to have a strong opening weekend and drop off rather quick.

But I read there was quite a lot cut from the final version that will be restored on home video. I think it will make a killing on DVD and Blu Ray.


Golden Girl

  • One Liners and Winky Faces
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,242
    • Heroes and Villains
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2016, 07:48:26 PM »
This is a staggeringly bad "movie" - not just the worst comic book movie ever made, but arguably the worst movie ever made - to have failed so badly on this scale, with these characters and a budget that big defies belief - there have been plenty of expensive turkeys before, but nothing on this scale of incompetence.
"Heroes and Villains" website - http://www.heroes-and-villains.com
"Heroes and Villains" on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/HeroesAndVillainsMMORPG
"Heroes and Villains" on Twitter - https://twitter.com/Plan_Z_Studios
"Heroes and Villains" teaser trailer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnjKqNPfFv8
Artwork - http://goldengirlcoh.deviantart.com

Tenzhi

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,642
    • My DeviantArt Page
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2016, 05:57:51 AM »
A more balanced (no spoilers) review from Black Nerd:

https://youtu.be/zkD4S3KdaYA
When you insult someone by calling them a "pig" or a "dog" you aren't maligning pigs and dogs everywhere.  The same is true of any term used as an insult.

Golden Girl

  • One Liners and Winky Faces
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,242
    • Heroes and Villains
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2016, 09:09:08 AM »
Is this a spoiler thread or not?
"Heroes and Villains" website - http://www.heroes-and-villains.com
"Heroes and Villains" on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/HeroesAndVillainsMMORPG
"Heroes and Villains" on Twitter - https://twitter.com/Plan_Z_Studios
"Heroes and Villains" teaser trailer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnjKqNPfFv8
Artwork - http://goldengirlcoh.deviantart.com

Vee

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,364
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2016, 09:26:57 AM »
Just use the spoiler button.

Spoiler for Hidden:
Tilt back Shakespeare's head.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2016, 01:50:48 AM »
My no spoiler review is that it is in my opinion not nearly as bad a dumpster fire as some reviewers assert, but its flaws are exactly the kind of flaws that internet talking heads love to bash.  The three biggest flaws to me are, in order, a) they try to invent a new version of Batman without devoting enough time to properly fleshing out the differences, b) there's two and a half movies squeezed into one movie's run time, and c) the typical Snyder mistake of making pretty stills into draggy sequences.

What I liked:

Affleck's Batman.  I found myself wanting to see how the prototypical Batman becomes, over twenty years, into the "thousand yard stare" more soldier-ish version.  I think he did a good job with the material he had, but this really needed a Batman solo movie *before* BvS to really make this a reasonable thing to attempt.

Wonder Woman.  The little I saw makes me want to see the stand alone WW movie all the more.  It could be the "First Avenger" of the DC movies if done right, and maybe Gal Godot can pull off what Chris Evans did for Captain America: turn the fish out of water story into a great context for future stories.

The Doomsday fight.  I think they fixed the problem with the extended fight in Man of Steel by making the fight both a center piece scene *and* a background scene, breaking up the action so its not just exhausting.  It is an improvement of pacing, in a movie that in general still had lots of the same pacing problems MoS had.

What I found questionable:

Eisenberg's Luthor.  I think this is mostly the fault of the material he was given, and I can see what both the writing and the actor were going for, but I don't think it works in this incarnation of Superman.  I don't think this is the Luthor that is the appropriate foil for this Superman.

Lois Lane.  Honestly, why is she here?

What I didn't like:

Everything about the storyline revolving around Luthor.  Speaking about the Luthor story, and not the Luthor characterization, I found this to be one of the rare moments when if someone says this was an awful confusing jumble, I would have to agree.  And I disagreed when critics said that about Mission Impossible.  But even though I could figure out what was going on, its still the case that the story on its face is not sufficiently obvious for a movie audience.  Unless the movie is Clue, you're not supposed to have to work that hard to figure out what's going on.  In fact, no spoilers for those that haven't seen it yet, I think it isn't 100% clear - and different viewers could debate this - if Lex was taking advantage of Wallace or set him up.  I'm talking about the checks.

The teasers.  I know why they are there, and such things can work as a nod and a wink to the audience.  But this was too blatant, even for me.  Not "dumpster fire" awful, but clearly "Mr. Magoo in a china shop" clumsy.

The idiot ball parade.  I'm pretty generous when it comes to idiot balls, first because narrative imperative sometimes is necessary, and second because sometimes real people themselves sometimes act like idiots.  Truth in advertising.  But there were just too many moments in the movie when the rails were just too obvious and just too blatant.  Non-spoiler version that the movie goers will recognize: *why* does Lois do what she does with the thing in the last act when that seems to be the absolute *last* thing any sane person would do, and then why does she then go back later when exactly nothing in the movie itself would give her a reason to do so?  Its so Lois can be Lois, of course, but it is still stupidly crazy then magically prescient.


Overall, I think any fan of DC should go and see it for themselves, and make their own judgment.  I don't think its bad enough to warrant me recommending people not see it.  But I also think it requires an open mind.  If you go in with the early reviews in your head looking for something to hate, that's all you'll probably see.

On a scale of one to ten, I'd give it a solid 6.5, maybe 7.0.  I actually think - speaking purely as a work of cinema - that its slightly better than Iron Man 2 and Thor The Dark World.  And I'm not a hater of those movies either.

What's my biggest worry?  I think Affleck's Batman is an interesting one worth exploring.  But if he's going to be in Justice League, I'm worried they've painted themselves into a difficult corner to get out of.  The comic book Batman is in the JL because he's the genius world's greatest detective Batman.  He's the crazy-prepared "Tower of Babel" Batman.  The DCAU Batman is a slight variation on that theme: he's the "do whatever it takes to win" Batman, a force of will perhaps superior to Hal Jordan combined with a personal moral code that makes him willing to cross everyone else's lines while staying inside his own.  The DCAU's Batman always has the answers, because he's already asked himself the questions others are afraid to until they are forced to.  He does all his thinking yesterday so he can focus entirely on doing tomorrow.  I'm worried this Batman is neither of these things.  He's a driven, emotional engine, but he's not (at least as portrayed) a genius, a chess master, or possessing wildly superior technology.  What does he contribute?  The only hint I get is one I wouldn't want to play around with: he's paranoid.  And maybe that's what he is that the others won't be.  He sees threats everywhere, so he's the one that will bring them together and point them at the important threat(s).  But then what?

Ultimately, does this derail Wonder Woman and Aquaman?  Absolutely not.  Does it hurt the prospects for Justice League?  Maybe a little, but they have a couple of movies to tweak the direction they approach that movie from.

Ultimate15

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 207
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2016, 03:56:31 PM »
I agree with the majority of what Arcana said about the film (I know, I know - someone is agreeing with Arcana. Call page six, quick!).

I think if you're a fan of the comics and/or superheroes in general, then chances are you will probably enjoy this film. I think what the critics failed to cognitively comprehend with their reviews is that this is NOT part of the Marvel franchise, and therefore it will NOT be like one of the Marvel films - and it was never supposed to be. Movies like Captain America: The Winter Soldier and The Avengers were successful in their own rights, much because movie goers outside of the comic book/super hero community could enjoy them as well. Fun for (mostly) all ages, easy to follow/understand, and 'light'. I think Marvel accomplished exactly what it wanted to in that regard, and I think that's to their favor. But, on the flipside to that, I give props to a movie that isn't willing to play it so 'safe'. Safe can be boring. I don't think one film franchise is better than the other because one is a crowd pleaser, or a crowd 'favorite'.

This movie wasn't NEARLY as bad as what the critics painted it as. Like, not at all - to the point where I'm genuinely a little shocked with all that's gone down this past week over at Rotten Tomatoes. It wasn't a hot mess of a movie by any means, and I really don't think they tried to jam too much plot or backstory into it what so ever - 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..." (*coughs* THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, EVEN THOUGH I LOVE NOLAN AND ANNE HATHAWAY MADE MY LIFE IN THAT FILM *coughs*) And going into it, I thought that was going to be a huge problem - but truthfully, it was not. I had literally no hang up's with the plot or the story line at all. Everything from when in the DC Universe they decided to start the film, with the introduction of characters and how certain elements of the plot came to be - I genuinely believed everything, and never felt things were rushed or non-sensible.

The highlight of the film was when Gal Gadot entered as Wonder Woman. Literally gave me and everyone else in the theater chills. At first, I was a huge skeptic of her acting ability - they basically took a skinny Victoria's Secret model whom had little film experience outside of The Fast and the Furious franchise and molded her into the Amazon Princess. There were a couple times where I thought she wasn't naive enough - not 'regal' enough, I suppose. And there were a couple of dialogue pieces where I thought she was a little too snarky and/or witty when engaging in banter w/ Bruce Wayne - that's not really a characteristic of Wonder Woman, IMO. That's Catwoman. Buuuuut, all in all, she did me proud. Her presence in B v. S alone is enough to make me want to go see the Wonder Woman movie - I think that movie is going to do well.

I liked Ben Affleck as Batman. I liked him a little more than Bale, honestly - not only do I think he physically fit the role more, but he had a bit more pathos and more of an 'angry asshole' vibe to him - that's Batman. Batman is an angry asshole, lol. So, that in itself was refreshing to see. There was a certain flashback scene they did at the very beginning of the film (not going to give it away) that I thought was supppppper cheesy, and didn't fit with the vibe of the rest of the movie - but other than that, I think they did him well. *ALSO - I actually think it was smart of them not to go TOO deep into Batman's backstory with this. At first, I was wishing that they had done more of that - but the more I really dwell on it, the more I feel like that would have eaten up SO much of the plot time. They wouldn't have been able to get to half of the things in the film if they focused time to re-tell the story of how Bruce Wayne became The Dark Knight. I feel like that story has been told however many times over in countless other Batman films, anyway - I was ok with them leaving it out, as I didn't find it to be necessary.

Henry Cavill does just fine as Superman. He's so hot - physically, he fits the bill pretty well. Acting wise...eh? Then again, I never really thought that there was much to the Superman character anyway? I feel roles like Batman or perhaps even Lex Luthor might demand a bit more than a role like Superman - maybe I'm wrong, but that's just always been an opinion I've held.

I think the two roles I took the most issue with were Lex Luthor and Lois Lane. I haven't read the early comic adaptations of Lex Luthor, so I'm not sure how close or 'spot-on' Jessie Eisenberg was to this version of Lex...but I just felt like he was a completely different person lol. Like, will the real Lex Luthor please stand up? What the hell was he going for with that? He was more in the vein of a spoiled, evil little child that looked at Batman and Superman as toys he could play with as opposed to a political, power-hungry, calculating billionaire with an unforgettable bald head and a masked thirst for world domination. I dunno. I missed those real heavy and specific characteristics of Lex Luthor that all of us know and love...not this psychopathic, pre-pubescent tech nerd who resembles someone more like The Riddler. Perhaps we'll get a more matured Lex in the Dawn of the Justice League? If he'll even be in that? I dunno.

...Also, Amy Adams is a fantastic actress, but she just does not embody Lois Lane to me. Lois Lane is LOUD and crazy thick skinned. Nothing phases her, and she is literally unafraid of anything - she'll do whatever she can to get the story, because she's ambitious and competitive. Amy Adams brought a certain degree of femininity and soft-spokeness to the role - just in her physicality alone - that did not fit the character well. And I agree that they really tried to make her presence, like, SUPER important in the film...but really, she served absolutely little to no purpose what so ever haha. They could have done the whole movie without her. And lastly, I just have to say - I don't like that Lois Lane has red hair in these films. Lois Lane has black hair. Come on, people.

...PHEW. Okay, wow. I just typed a lot. BUT THAT'S MAH REVIEW.  :)
« Last Edit: March 27, 2016, 04:04:39 PM by Ultimate15 »
Viva la Virtue!

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2016, 08:31:21 PM »
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..."

I can think of three geniune plot holes, things they didn't explain and even upon reflection probably have no credible explanation:

Spoiler for Hidden:
When Lois goes back for the spear, that makes sense in the flow of the movie: Batman is heading back to Gotham for it.  Except Lois can't know that, and she's obviously too far away to see or hear what's going on, since she's across the bay from the fight.  She just magically realizes she should go back and get it.  Between when she dumps it and when she tries to get it back, her character doesn't learn anything that would cause her to change her mind.

Not to mention the fact that she's holding possibly the most important object in the world: a weapon that can kill Superman, not to mention her lover.  So she tosses it into an abandoned pool for the neighborhood kids to find in the first place?

Spoiler for Hidden:
Why is Diana in Metropolis?  To retrieve her picture right?  So she "borrows" Bruce's tap to get it but she's thwarted because of the encryption.  Bruce breaks the encryption and sends her the picture she was looking for, whereupon I guess mission accomplished and she decides to leave Metropolis?  But what's the point of getting a copy of the picture?  Isn't the reason she's after it because it is proof of her age?  Wouldn't she try to actually steal *the original*?  Or at least try to delete all electronic copies?  Having a copy seems entirely pointless.

Spoiler for Hidden:
Why did the ship's defenses not just kill Luthor?  He faked the biometric/fingerprint scanner to open the door, but the drone shouldn't care.  In Man of Steel, a drone just plain up tries to murder Lois when it found her on the ship.  A drone *even* tried to kill Clark.

There's also a couple of things I think have explanations, but there was just no time to explain them, because too much stuff already:

Spoiler for Hidden:
What turned Batman into a harsher vigilante?  It is implied that things like the branding were a recent occurrence.  Explaining what made this Batman a harsher Batman would have probably been meaningful to help make a connection to the character, more than the time burned on slow walks in the weeds.  But this is all just implied, and in my opinion insufficiently to allow audiences to make that connection.

Spoiler for Hidden:
What's the source of Luthor's obsession with metas?  There's some implication he's unhinged - his speech at the dedication ceremony - and he hints at daddy issues with Superman, but in my opinion Luthor isn't fleshed out enough to be an effective villain. 

And his actions and motivations are disjointed and often inexplicable.  He arms his henchmen with experimental bullets that can be traced back to him, when the right thing would be to arm them with location-appropriate weaponry.  He plants the bomb in a high tech wheelchair that no one has ever seen Wallace have before and will almost certainly be traced back to him.  A lot of time is spent portraying Luthor as psychotic and twitchy but not enough is spent showing him to be a chessmaster so his grand plan doesn't seem appropriate to the character when it is revealed.

And here's one that I'm not sure how to categorize, its just weird:

Spoiler for Hidden:
So the grand plan is that Luthor is going to try to import Kryptonite into Metropolis, but he needs import approval which the senator won't give.  But he seems to smuggle it in anyway just fine.  He's doing this because he wants Bruce to figure out what he's doing and try to steal the Kryptonite for himself to make anti-Superman weaponry.  But Lex is a multi-billionaire industrialist capable of sending people to the wreckage in the Indian Ocean to retrieve the Kryptonite ore in the first place.  Why doesn't he just try to develop the Kryptonite outside the country?  Why doesn't the senator ask "why do you need to import this anyway?  Why can't a smart and rich guy like you just go around me and research the Kryptonite in Mexico or something?"  For that matter, why does it need to be imported for Bruce to get it?  Why doesn't Luthor  let it slip that the White Portuguese is docked in Haiti waiting for customs to clear it and let Batman steal it from there?  And in any case wouldn't it have been easier to steal it from the ship than from the armed convoy?  This entire plot sequence just seems inexplicable except to force the plot to occur in Metropolis.

And for me, this one is the one I think is the most critical to the future of the franchise.  It is not a plot hole per se, but as a fan of the character this is what I'm left wondering the most about:

Spoiler for Hidden:
Why didn't Batman, paranoid genius detective, smell something rotten with Luthor?  His chain of evidence went from human traffickers to smugglers to Russian mobsters to the White Portuguese to Luthor.  Why didn't he think Luthor had something to do with all of it, and why didn't he investigate deeper?  Why didn't he put two and two together when he realized Luthor had a hard-on for meta humans?  Why didn't he try to figure out Luthor's true motivations in all of this?  To me, that's the one thing I think really potentially hurts the character, at least temporarily.  No matter what incarnation of Batman you're dealing with, and even if Batman isn't perfect and can get tricked, Batman should always at least smell a rat, even if he's tricked into smelling the wrong rat.  Even I would smell a rat when I see a disabled guy you know is broke and returning your checks show up at Congress in a new suit and expensive wheelchair and then blows it up.  He went from spray painting statues and getting arrested to high tech bomber in what, a couple days or weeks at most?

Luthor was scheduled to appear but didn't show up.  A broke disabled man shows up in an expensive wheelchair and uses a bomb sufficiently advanced to be undetected by Capitol security with no apparent financial means.  Luthor's files show he's fixated on meta humans.  He's trying to obtain Kryptonite.  Does Bruce's obsession with Superman's threat explain why he does nothing with this information?

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2016, 09:47:44 PM »
This is what I said on Friday:

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.

It now looks closer to a $170 million opener, with a shot at billion dollars world total.  We'll still have to see what the drop off curve is for the movie: 40 percent range or 60 percent range or somewhere in between.  But I find it amusing that the narrative has already changed from "this movie is going to bomb big time" to "why didn't this movie bomb big time" to "critics are irrelevant."  There's an interesting backlash current flowing against the people who piled on to this movie that might be helping it in a twisted way: expectations were set so low that it was not hard for the movie to overcome them, and then cause a lot of the movie audience to turn against the vitriol aimed at the movie.  People can sometimes psychologically take offense when you tell them something is irredeemable and they discover they kind of like it.  "Kind of like it" can quickly turn into a defensive "better than you think" attitude.

There were people on the internet slamming this movie before they even saw it.  I think the movie is damaging its critics' credibility more than the critics were able to damage it.  I find that honestly entertaining.  Had the critics been more measured in their criticism, its possible the movie's flaws would have stood out more.  Instead, none of them were remotely as bad as portrayed, and that makes them seem all the less important by comparison.

Nos482

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • We've gone and done the greatest crime...
    • My PSN profile
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2016, 09:53:08 PM »
Just watched it, and I'm glad I didn't bring my not-comic-fan-but-action-obsessed friend... he would've hated the film.
But I liked it (at least more than I had expected), despite all the plotholes.
The thing I had expected and am happy the movie confirmed... Affleck rocks as Batman.
I really liked the scene with
Spoiler for Hidden:
Neil deGrasse Tyson ;D
What I didn't like though, besides the casting fail (and bad writing) for Luthor and cramming two movies into one, the scene with Cyborg. Urgh!
Spoiler for Hidden:
Just the Mother-Box? Really? That's all it takes?
In the comics his body contains pretty much half the red room.


Oh, and it has no after credits scene...
« Last Edit: March 27, 2016, 10:57:36 PM by Nos482 »
I'm bad and that's good.
I'll never be good and that's not bad.
There's no one I'd rather be than me.

...unless I could be Batman, of course. Everybody wants to be Batman.

Vee

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,364
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #14 on: March 27, 2016, 10:35:40 PM »
My thinking it'd be bad had nothing to do with critics, who i pretty much ignore, but with the trailers. But I've decided it couldn't possibly be as bad as the trailers led me to believe because I'm not sure any movie could be that bad unless I was forced to watch it while being tortured.The stuff I've read from the critics has made me more guardedly optimistic because all of their trashing of it made it sound way better than what I was expecting from the trailers.

Harpospoke

  • New Efforts # 4,000!
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 608
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #15 on: March 28, 2016, 07:36:16 PM »

Golden Girl

  • One Liners and Winky Faces
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,242
    • Heroes and Villains
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #16 on: March 28, 2016, 08:26:38 PM »
Like the equally talentless Cavill, Gadot is an appalling choice for such an iconic character - having two out of the trinity be charisma-free planks is crippling the DCCU right from the start.
"Heroes and Villains" website - http://www.heroes-and-villains.com
"Heroes and Villains" on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/HeroesAndVillainsMMORPG
"Heroes and Villains" on Twitter - https://twitter.com/Plan_Z_Studios
"Heroes and Villains" teaser trailer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnjKqNPfFv8
Artwork - http://goldengirlcoh.deviantart.com

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #17 on: March 28, 2016, 08:28:25 PM »
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.

It can get a lot worse.  I saw Allegiant the week before.

Quote
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?

It is worth noting three things.  First, even when DC tried to update the costume with pants in the comic book, there was a backlash, and not just from the people who wanted to see more skin: there was even a split in the feminist activist community over whether it was messing with an empowerment heritage.  Many women grew up looking up to Wonder Woman, costume and all.  Second, its technically not fair to compare Diana to the other women in that picture, because he *isn't* technically an Amazonian warrior.  The other women are Amazons, meaning they are humans.  They are sensibly armored out of practicality.  But Diana, at least the comic book Diana (we won't know with certainty what the cinematic Diana is until her solo movie comes out) is a construct of the gods.  She's indestructible on a level of Superman - comic book Superman who is significantly stronger than the cinematic Superman.  In the fight with Doomsday, it even seemed like she took hits better than Superman.

Here's a really old depiction of Achilles, here killing Hector:



Hector is armored all over: chest plate, leggings, and even though he appears to have bare arms he has bracers covering half of them.  Achilles has a skirt, and much barer legs and arms, and less armor.  Why?  Because Achilles was bathed in the river Styx and that made his flesh completely invulnerable.  His armor was mostly decorative.  I think many depictions showed Achilles less armored to emphasize the fact he was indestructible - at least almost.

Third, Diana is a product of Greek mythology and her look is inspired by that.  Here's another depiction of Achilles:



He's the one in the center with the shield and sword.  Diana looks an awful lot like that, and that was *the* epitome of a Greek warrior of the ancient world.



I know there's going to be a lot of people who compare WW's armor to Batman's armor and find hers wanting, and I understand the context of the complaint, but personally I'm fine with it

Dev7on

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 488
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #18 on: March 31, 2016, 04:13:54 AM »
Spoiler for Hidden:
Can someone tell me who was the guy talking to Bruce Wayne in his dream?

Tenzhi

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,642
    • My DeviantArt Page
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #19 on: March 31, 2016, 04:47:21 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 05:24:54 AM by Tenzhi »
When you insult someone by calling them a "pig" or a "dog" you aren't maligning pigs and dogs everywhere.  The same is true of any term used as an insult.