It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I skipped the WW84 part as not seen the movie yet and was fearful of spoilers.
Speaking about Snyder, his 4 hours epic is gonna be amazing, just like the previous two. Can’t wait for March.
Snyder has been the only inspiring and visionary voice within the superhero genre, alongside Nolan and Raimi, and maybe James Gunn. Haters gonna hate, but who cares.
Glad to see fellow Snyder fans here! Love and enjoy MOS and BvS. I recognize their flaws as films, and I personally prefer the likes of Superman 78, Batman 89, and The Dark Knight, but that doesn’t really matter for me. I’m looking forward to seeing his version of JL, the way it was meant to be.
Without mentioning Watchmen!
The cool thing is this new JL cut is gonna be very different from the potential 2017 Snyder version. Just think about the mammoth running time, the black suit and the different designs for Steppenwolf and the Parademons. He even removed all the stuff written by Johns, who lost credits for the Snyder Cut. Thanks to this new HBO Max window there won’t be any interference from the studio this time around.
That’s exactly why I’m excited for his cut. The possibilities are endless with what he could do. Whether people like him, or not, he’s one of WB’s biggest assets right now, and clearly AT&T saw that. I’m sure there is going to be an influx of subscribers for HBOMax around the time his JL comes out, that’s certainly what I’m going to do. Not to mention, this could potentially lead to more Snyder related DC projects on HBOMax, maybe more JL films from him. I’m just excited as a DC fan!
I can respect that. The Snyderverse really isn’t for everybody, but that’s kind of why I like it. It has its own unique vision that, while some may not like, others like myself are captivated by it. Although it isn’t my favorite DC continuity, I personally love the DCAU from 1992-2006, that’s my all time favorite set of comic book adaptations from any medium. I find it superior to anything DC, or Marvel has been doing with their movies/TV shows, but that’s just me. But I definitely agree with you on The Batman, everything I’ve seen from that film so far has done nothing else but impress me, and make me excited. It looks so visceral, so raw, so captivating, and that trailer was absolutely superb. The talent in front of, and behind the camera is very impressive too. I truly believe it has the potential to top The Dark Knight, and even Superman 78 as my favorite superhero film, I’m just so excited that I can hardly contain it :D
I've just seen WW84, btw. It's not a bad film, IMO. It dives into the yuppy culture of the '80s with an in-your-face attitude, but it keeps things simple. The First Wonder Woman is probably my favourite film in the Snyderverse. It's an emotional film that keeps everything in balance, has an epic scope and deserves trophies for having such an amazing actress playing the character. WW84, by contrast, is stupid fun, but fun enough to have a good time with. But it's definitely not a direct sequel to WW in tone or scope.
Those kinds of gatekeeping fans are the worst. I’ve had to endure the same kind of comments as well. I always find it hilarious that people dismiss Snyder’s Superman and Batman when Christopher Reeves depowered Zod and his thugs/ sent them falling to their deaths, beat up a truck driver after he regained his powers, and Michael Keaton blew up an entire chemical factory filled with men, lit thugs on fire with the exhaust of the Batmobile, strapped a bomb to a thug, and was responsible for the deaths of Joker and Penguin. At least those “questionable” aspects of Snyder’s vision for these characters are in service to the story. Snyder’s Batman is a great example of this. BvS outright criticizes the Snyder Batman by pointing out at several different points throughout the film, that Batman has gone too far, and has broken his no kill rule, but by the end of the film, Batman realizes the same thing, and vows to change. So in its own way, BvS actually embraces Batman’s no kill rule. It boggles me that people didn’t get that point.
I still have to see WW84 though.
Opinion and all, I get it. If people don't like the Snyderverse -- and many people don't like the Snyderverse -- then fine. I have read sensible reasons for that, dealing with the aesthetic and the casting choices, the tone of the stories and the grotesqueness of the action and whatnot. All subjective, all valid. But please, don't pretend that people who do like MOS, BvS and JL are complete idiots who just don't get it.
I get my Batman, don't worry. The Dark Knight consumes a lot of my spare (and some of my professional) time, as well as quite a bit of my pocketbook reserves. But I'd never consider my preferences somehow more valid than other fans'.
The funniest example of a person claiming to understand the "true" world of Batman was posted in one of our threads back in 2012 as we were coming close to the premiere of TDKR. A former member of this forum claimed that Anne Hathaway's Catwoman was not "the real Catwoman" because -- get this -- her suit didn't have "the cat ears" in one of the publicity stills. No cat ears (in one of the publicity stills), hence no Catwoman. Yeah, sounds legit...
Agreed 100%, Superman and Batman are the two oldest heroes of the superhero genre, 80+ years of great stories backing both of them. Their also my two favorite superheroes ever. I’m able to enjoy the highs, as well as the “lows”, meaning that I can even enjoy something as ridiculous as Superman IV, or Batman and Robin. I just love engaging in any interpretation of the characters, I find they, much like James Bond, are open to so many different visions and stories from so many talented artists and filmmakers. At the end of the day, those interpretations are just another addition to the overall history and lore of these characters.
I completely understand if people don’t like Snyder’s films, but they just seem to continually grab at straws for coming up with reasons not to like them. They say Snyder’s Superman isn’t comic accurate; yet Snyder’s Superman took heavy influence from Dan Jurgen’s run on the character following Crisis. They say Snyder’s Batman is a fundamentally flawed version of the character for his killing; yet they fail to pay attention to the fact that the killing is criticized within the film as part of the plot, it’s supposed to be a Batman who lost his way, only to be redeemed at the end of the film.
It’s wrong to make assumptions about someone’s love for the character purely because they love an incarnation that isn’t loved by many. If people don’t like Snyder’s visions of these characters, that’s 100% completely fine. That one fellow earlier in the thread said that in a respectable manner, which I’m completely okay with. It’s when people dismiss our opinions and saying that we don’t get the characters that’s where I draw the line.
Interesting story about that one user though. I love Hathaway’s Catwoman, she may be my favorite incarnation of the character personally. I’m willing to bet that person probably thought Michelle Pieffer’s version was superior because she had the cat ears, despite the fact that Pieffer’s Catwoman had little to nothing in common with the comic version. Still love Pieffer’s Catwoman though.
Correct. Even the "lows", and there are some, will always be invited in any marathon of mine. But I must say that consider us pretty lucky overall. It's not hard to name disappointing Batman / Superman films, but it's pretty hard to name more than a mere few. Especially when we throw in the animated films, we're looking at a fairly respectable output.
Yes! Yes! Yes! I've been saying this for years! Thank you. What's with that whole "it's un-Batman-like?" Is that like saying "it's un-American" whenever people don't like a particular something? And the penny usually drops when Burton is dragged in as the high-bar.
I'm fed up with the false notion that Burton's Batman sticks a lot closer to the comic book version. First of all, I must repeat myself by saying there's no such thing as "the" comic book version. Also, no. Burton and the writers of the '89 film -- which is a good and enjoyable film, don't get me wrong -- had no clue about the comics, that much was clear. They may have selected a few ideas from famous comic book stories, but they neglected the deeper layers of some of those stories. In an era when Moench and Dixon, Adams and O'Neill, Miller, Moore and others were delivering some high-quality books, it's almost baffling to hear Burton confess he wasn't really paying attention to the medium. So what's your template then, mate? The Dozier Batman? I doubt even that. Because if Batman '89 is Burton making a film, then Batman Returns is Burton making a Burton film. Even the groundbreaking Batman: The Animated Series couldn't make the film producers see things differently. And for a while, they were going to allow Burton to make another Superman film?
Then again, it sounds like I'm undermining my own point by pretending that only a comic book based Batman or Superman is a "legit" Batman or Superman. Obviously, that's not true. But the Snyderverse is often accused of taking these characters in as yet unexplored, deliriously misjudged territories, that the colour palettes are "off" and that anyone who can endorse this should be called a fan no longer. Well, as you said, @007ClassicBondFan, there are enough elements in these films that make them match with the comic book medium proper. That, at least, should keep people from making all sorts of silly claims about the people making these films as well as about the people enjoying them.
This.
He was actually referring to The Catwoman from the then freshly released Arkham City game, and while I absolutely LOVE that game, it doesn't hold any supreme authority over anything, really.
*... and obviously Lex Luthor represents the opposite of meaning. He represents the (attacked) ego of men at its worst. He doesn’t believe in anything beside knowledge, without any sign of humanity.
I absolutely agree, it’s a weak argument whenever I see people drag the Burton films into their bashing of Snyder’s Batman. Burton’s Batman was blowing up chemical factories filled with thugs, lighting thugs on fire with the exhaust of the Batmobile, strapping Bombs to thugs, he was directly responsible for the deaths of Joker, and Penguin, he knocked Catwoman off a rooftop, causing her to lose one of her 9 lives (another BS element that people tend to forget). It’s painfully obvious that Burton never read the comics of that era. The 80’s era of Batman was filled to the brim with some of the best story arcs in the history of comics, as was the 70’s era. The Dark Knight Returns, Year One, Death in the Family, The Killing Joke, Arkham Asylum (my personal favorite of that decade) are all timeless stories that rank amongst the best not only in Batman’s canon, but amongst the best of the entire industry. I think it’s fair to say that while the then newly invigorated success of the 70’s, and 80’s era of Batman gave WB the confidence to make a darker Batman film, it’s equally fair to say Burton’s Batman wasn’t exactly comic accurate. In fact my theory is he’s only ever read The Killing Joke, and possibly the early “pre-Robin” Batman comics from 1939-1940. Daniel Waters (Batman Returns screenwriter) even addressed this criticism by dismissing it saying “We don’t live in an era where you can drop thugs off at city hall and save the day”, and that certainly rings true to an extent. Ironically, Batman Forever (in its early scripts, and deleted footage), also addressed their controversy as well, and I think that film was the closest to the comics in terms of its characterization of Batman, out of that initial 1989-1997 run of films. I’m sure Burton would’ve made Superman just as edgy as well. I love the Burton films, I previously mentioned that I personally prefer them to the Snyderverse (that’s more rooted in nostalgia if anything), and it’s the same with Superman ‘78 and The Dark Knight Trilogy (first two, not TDKR), but Snyder was able to bring these characters to life in ways no other filmmaker has ever been able to before. Just like he was able to bring Watchmen to the big screen after many filmmakers considered it impossible to film.
For people to outright criticize Snyder as having little to no understanding of these characters/comics is outright ludicrous. For one thing, and this is controversial to some, I truly believe Ben Affleck is the best Live Action Batman. He looks the part, he’s massive in size, his fighting skills are out of this world, and he’s terrifying, yet heroic. I absolutely love his introduction as Batman where he saves those women from the sex trafficking operation, and I love his story arc in the film. I equally love Henry Cavil as Superman, I think he’s the first actor in the role to successfully escape the shadow of Christopher Reeve as the character. He’s the Post-Crisis Superman brought to life, where Reeves was the Silver Age Superman brought to life. I’ve seen ridiculous comparisons to Homelander, from The Boys, which tells me that people do not know what the hell they’re talking about. It’s as I said earlier, grasping at straws to come up with reasons not to like these films, and these versions of the characters, rather than just being upfront and keeping it simple, is absolutely absurd. Even Jesse Eisenberg as Luthor was based off of Superman Birthright, and even though I’m not a personal fan of that portrayal, I think it’s interesting as well what they decided to do, even if it didn’t work for me.
I understand people’s disappointment with the Snyder films, they wanted something similar to the DCAU, which I completely understand. I love the DCAU, as I mentioned, it’s my favorite adaptation of a comic book universe out of any medium. I absolutely find Batman TAS to Justice League Unlimited 100% completely flawless. But I’m also old enough to recognize that we live in a world where people, filmmakers I’m particular, have differing viewpoints and interpretations. If people want something like the DCAU so bad, then they can just go and watch it, it’s still holds up. Zack Snyder didn’t want to do that, and I respect him enormously for that. Part of the reason Batman and Superman have lasted for a long as they have is because their open to so many different incarnations and interpretations, one does not, and should not invalidate the other, and I wish more, and more comic book fans would recognize that. I think WB caught onto that as well, that’s why I think they’re going with the Multiverse angle, which I think is brilliant. We’re finally going to see Michael Keaton come back to the role, we’re getting another Ben Affleck Batman performance (which I doubt will be the last; I’m willing to bet HBOMax will give him his own Batman project), we have Robert Pattinson, who looks superb so far. It’s a brilliant strategy, so brilliant that Marvel is doing the exact same thing. I’m more interested to see what DC will do with it, because I think DC does better at the multiverse angle than Marvel has. That and the fact that I’ve never been too interested in the MCU (just my opinion, just don’t really like those films that much, but that’s another story). I think WB took that debate over which version of which character is better, and they used it to their own advantage, which is brilliant.
Those types of gatekeeping fans are really insufferable, especially on Twitter (a platform which I’m personally glad that I’ve never signed up for), where these gatekeepers pass of their opinions as fact. So many Snyder bashing tweets get thousands of likes, and thousands of retweets, and it’s sad. But at the same time, I’m so glad that there is a slow, but ever growing reevaluation of the Snyder films. It seems that more, and more people are finally understanding what Snyder was trying to do, and respecting that, and I’m happy about that, because I do think their great films that were misjudged and misunderstood.
+1, despite my personal preference for Reeve/Donner’s version, Snyder/Cavil’s is just as superb, and if I was to be objective (I hate using that term when it comes to entertainment), Snyder/Cavil’s version is much more layered, complex, and interesting.
DCEU ranking:
BIRDS OF PREY (AND THE FANTABULOUS EMANCIPATION OF ONE HARLEY QUINN)
WONDER WOMAN 1984
WONDER WOMAN
SHAZAM!
AQUAMAN
JUSTICE LEAGUE
BATMAN V SUPERMAN
MAN OF STEEL
SUICIDE SQUAD
Speaking about my experience, it was very cool to see Diana throwing away everything Steve taught her in the first one. It was very cool to see Diana accepting the fact that someone else’s life has been eradicated to make her have sex with her previously dead boyfriend again after 60 years. It was very cool to see the character of Cheetah being an exact rip off of Pfeiffer’s Selina from Batman Returns. It was cool to see the portrayal of the men genre in this film (on a side note, some of us are still able to at least talk with a woman even tho she’s not hot!). It was very cool to see 75% of them action scenes of a $200 million blockbuster look like some Bollywood picture... etc etc etc...
EDIT: Forbes just published an article about the questionable morality behind this crap.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2020/12/26/the-warped-morality-of-wonder-woman-1984/?sh=329c6a173e23
The article has good points to make. Thanks for sharing, @matt_u. I wouldn't think about it too hard, though, as the film clearly talks about Diana being imperfect after all. The opening of the film even highlights that
Questionable morality? Or just a superhero with flaws to overcome?
Either way, I wouldn't call the film crap or boring, but that's just me, of course. ;-)
Look I don’t want to sound too harsh, but this thing left me quite disappointed. I think the general concept is quite good. Heroes must have flaws, and that’s perfectly fine for Diana to feel what she feels, but they really came up with the worst possible idea to put that situation on screen. In such a fantasy world, wouldn’t be wiser to just have Steve resurrected without stealing someone else’s life? They even make jokes about that and that’s not even a plot point. That’s too much, they’re not deconstructing a character, they’re making her look kinda... bad. Just think about BvS. Clark has issues and as a result he questions his actions and suffers because even tho he’s trying to do the right thing the world still judges him and attack him, forcing him to do potentially bad things. That’s pretty solid and realistic, but this? That’s kinda weird and creepy in a way. Plus, it’s like what Steve did in the first one taught nothing to her.
Birds of Prey at #1! I clearly did not get as much out of that film as you did, @MakeshiftPython! Which surprised me because Margot Robbie is a solid live-action Harley Quinn, and as demonstrated by Batman: The Animated Series the character is deeply fascinating and fully capable of carrying a story on her own apart from the likes of the Joker or Poison Ivy (case in point: the simply delightful "Harley's Holiday"). What did you enjoy about Birds of Prey that you would rank it over all the rest of the DCEU?
It could be worse. Diana could have snapped Maxwell Lord’s neck.
I just thought it was the most fun of the films, mainly because of Robbie’s performance.
Truthfully, I only merely like half of the films. From Aquabro it’s downhill for me.
My advice is to wait if you don't care all that much about seeing it today.
I’ll take it, don’t really have much money to spend after this holiday season, I’ll try and see the film sometime in Mid January
I daresay those people are quite outnumbered by the amount of gatekeepers who dragged the Burton films for showing a Batman as lethal as the 1939 comics version. Most of those who dislike a lethal Batman don't make exceptions.
Burton not being a comic nerd has also been perpetually used by gatekeepers as a knock against him.
Sam Hamm, who scripted the first film, was a long-time Batman fan ("the stuff that I really responded to when I was a kid was the stuff they reprinted in the 80 page Giants, stuff from the late '40s, early '50s, which had a much more pulpy and noir-ish tone to it--a lot of disfigured villains in the Dick Tracy vein") and was influenced by The Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke--his earlier scripts contained self-confessed "swipes" and quotes from both. And after he came on the project he read the Steve Englehart Batman comics from the late 70s, which had been the source of Tom Mankiewicz's script (and a major inspiration for BTAS).
Burton read both The Killing Joke ("It’s my favorite") and The Dark Knight Returns and also commented,"I remember when Sam Hamm and I first started working on it [the '89 film], we got the Batman Encyclopedia [Vol. 01 of Michael Fleischer's Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes] which shows that the series disrupts its own history: First, this is how Batman was created and then this is how he was created; this is how the Joker was and then there's this; and then Robin is here and then he's not here. There's no such thing as a consistent history. Batman's an archetypal character. You have to take it as that. I thought 'Why can't there be a place for everything?' It's like any sort of folk character. There are 50 Sherlock Holmes, 50,000 Phantom of the Operas, 100,000 Beauty and the Beasts, and you're going to get that with these type of characters. People should be more open."
To be fair that’s the point I was trying to make. Maybe I got a little too colorful in my thoughts, but I don’t consider the Burton films as bad versions of Batman simply for those decisions. I mentioned I personally love them, more than the Snyder versions, it’s just my issue is when people use them to dismay the Snyder films as if their definitive versions of the characters, and I’ve seen that happen many times unfortunately.
That “pulpy” feeling you describe is exactly why I love Batman, and Batman Returns. I know it’s not much of a popular notion within Batman fandom, but I’ve always loved the 1939-1940 era of Batman before they introduced Robin, I’ve always loved the “Shadow” and “Zorro” inspirations on those early stories, this dark, mysterious Avenger who would kill most opponents he went up against, and I felt Burton captured that perfectly. Coupled that with the atmosphere, the retro-fitted style of those films, and Elfman’s music. I put the Burton films on equal footing with Nolan’s first 2 Batman films, which is much more “comic accurate.”
I’m very accepting of that fact that Batman is going to have many different incarnations, and that if I want something more definitive, I’ll watch Nolan, or the DCAU Batman. But I hope my little “tyrade” didn’t give you the impression that I absolutely despise the Burton films, because I really do love them! :)
+1, I love the 1989-1997 era of Batman for that reason, even if half of those films aren’t well critically regarded. They’re also quite fun as well, even Batman and Robin has its moments for me.
Let's have a laugh.
Anyway, in the meantime...
Wonder Woman 1984 Is the Scariest Body Horror Movie of 2020
Collider makes some good points as well.
That's not even getting into by far the most disturbing element of Steve's return, which is the fact that Steve and Diana almost immediately have sex. It's easy to get swept up in the classic romance vibes that come with a long-lost love returning to life — and the charm of Gadot and Pine make it even easier — but to stop and think about what's actually happening here is...not okay? Not just in an "ah, classic comic book blockbuster" sense, but in legitimately troubling ways the creative team doesn't seem to realize. To hand-wave a person's lack of autonomy in a sexual situation with "I only see you" is a dangerously lazy explanation. Especially in a sequel to a film that was so simultaneously sex-positive (that boat conversation!)and built around a character learning to separate mankind's capacity for evil and mankind's worthiness of being saved.
It's indicative of how much Wonder Woman 1984 strangely seems to misunderstand Diana as a character, much less the magic that makes Wonder Woman so fantastic. It's a film that suggests Diana is useless without superpowers, that a person's capacity to be great comes from magic lassos and wrist gauntlets, not any inner strength. Nowhere is that cynicism more apparent than the moment the movie brings back the supernaturally handsome, fan-demanded character by gleefully wiping out a regular person.
Seriously? Lord was redeemable. Zod not. He would've killed 7.8 billion people one by one because he had noting left, nothing to lose. And Clark still suffered a lot from that. 1978 was a long time ago.
Zack Snyder's Superman died for humanity even tho half of the world hated him and the other half questioned him. Donner's Superman gave up his powers in order to stay with Lois, even tho everybody loved him. Come on.