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
@chrisisall, you've hit the nail squarely on the head here.
I think my biggest complaints with this film, as well as those of many others, are derived from this same source. Snyder and his team went into this movie using the Watchmen formula, whose main tenets are thus:
1. Everyone is a bad person and does bad things, the levels of evil and selfishness just differ from person to person.
2. Someone may start out good, but they can never retain that goodness in the face of a world that has no place for them. (Bruce basically spells this out in a dialogue, and proves it by his own actions in the film)
3. The label "hero" and the concept of heroism is a fallacy. The films enforce this idea by giving the hero nothing important or positive to do and ensuring that the final battle with the carbon-copy villain leaves massive destruction behind, with deaths of innocents numbering into the hundreds or thousands.
4. While saving people may at first seem like a sound action, it only brings about destruction, despite it being unintended. Don't bother trying to be a hero, as they are no different from the villains they face when you see the havoc they wreak as they attempt to stop the evils they see in the world. (Pa Kent, worst father in cinematic history, explains this sour idea twice, once in MoS and once in BvS)
5. Anyone trying to protect people using their abilities or powers will be viewed as dangerous by the public and government at large, and killed on sight. If the super-powered individual turns out to be evil in intent, the action to destroy them is justified. If the individual meant well, sorry, but we couldn't take our chances. (The government in MoS and BvS prove this, as they openly kill innocents just to get a shot at killing Superman or getting him weak enough to subdue and contain)
And the list goes on, and on, and on. This all works wonderfully in Watchmen, but BvS should've fit a far different template.
As @chrisisall has said, you can't imprint this much raw reality (and sometimes logical fallacies) on such a fantasy backdrop. By trying to add such a high level of reality to a superhero world, you make the "heroes" do things that approach the boundary of character assassination in pursuit of this vision.
While Batman already lives in such a dark space, this imposed reality isn't as distressed or testing to his part in the movie, and he works better as a darker figure than a lighter one anyway. While I don't like his portrayal in this movie, his actions for the most part could be supported and seen as plausible for a man such as him who has been put through particular stressors/challenges over the years that'd break most men.
Superman on the other hand, is entirely different. You can't impose the same darkness on him that you do Batman, because they're two vastly different people. Films are pushing consequence these days, and they always have heroes or protagonists that do dark things to achieve great things, or make them cross lines they wouldn't when forced into it, all in an effort to make them seem more human and interesting and blah, blah, blah. But Superman is the ideal vision of us; he's incorruptible, always do-gooding and despite being an alien, he's just as all-American as any other corn-fed Kansas boy. By trying to bring him down to everyone else's level (ie. the Machiavellian-esque view that humans are inherently evil and that pursuing acts of good are futile), you tarnish everything his character stands for.
In this film, we have a Superman who allows himself to be manipulated by a man he could figure out a way to stop, along with all his nonsensical plans, in seconds. He is manipulated by this man to kill another who poses no threat, and the boy in blue even tells the woman he loves that it seems he can't be a good guy any more, and must embrace the bad to stop Luthor. Sorry folks, but that's just not Superman; the man we know would never allow himself to be broken, and never so embarrassingly easy, either. Snyder assassinated his character by trying to impose the same weight on him that he did to Night Owl or Rorschach in Watchmen, and Batman in the same film, forgetting that Superman isn't any of these people.
Superman is the vision of what we all want to be at our core. He doesn't allow himself to be controlled, he doesn't pursue any venture that isn't 100% in the best interests of the innocents around him, and he'd never, ever label himself as a bad guy. Of all the insulting hogwash this film pushes on you, that scene and that line delivery is the perfect representation of what this is: a movie made by people who don't understand the characters.
Marvel is able to impose similar pressures on their characters and inject some depth and complexity to the situations of the heroes, as in Civil War coming up, but in true superhero fashion, win or lose, these people die by their principles and never break underneath them like Batman has and Superman nearly does. They don't bow at the feet of those hurting innocents for any reason whatsoever, they don't accept the public opinion of them as evil or malicious as fact, and they don't fail their rules and promises as protectors by crossing lines the public wouldn't stand for, like those in BvS do.
We've got a Batman who has failed his parents' memory and is content with decimating criminals of any threat level in draconian ways, like he's a wired and drugged out pyro, and a Superman that mopes about the world not understanding and hating him (something his father told him a thousand times not to worry about) instead of showing them how great he is and in the end, he bends to the will of his enemy and is ready to embrace his dark side to save a woman he should've been able to protect in the first place.
For many reasons, it seems erroneous to call this movie a superhero film, considering that these figures aren't super (they're downright miserable and cruel), and they certainly aren't heroes when the perfect solution to all their problems seems to be to blow it up or stab it with great force until it silences itself.
I get why some here find the opinions of those like me to be rather harsh, but how would you feel if your favorite characters, the ones that taught you about right and wrong as a child, were the same figures being made to do far too much of the latter by people (like Snyder) who have no conception of exactly why such a vision can't sustain itself?
The failure of BvS gives me hope for humanity.
Okay, that's maybe esoterically off topic here.....
/:)
As for "not presenting batman properly" have you read death in the family?
It is in some way shape or form quite nice to see the public striking back at something they're sick of seeing. Hopefully politics in America follows suit with Bernie at the helm.
I'm quite familiar with it, of course. Where are you trying to go with this?
This is a man who knows wtf he's talking about. @Brady you deserve a bloody medal for this kickass, comprehensively salient post.
http://batman-news.com/2016/04/11/ju...fabian-wagner/
JL will crash and burn next year, nobody will want to see DC Snyderverse Part III after MoS and BvS failed so miserably.
How can DC let this happen?!
I can't say I'm too excited and/or hopeful for the JL film, as much as I'd love to be. With Snyder at the helm again, I just don't know what to expect, beyond more of the same. Which is exactly the problem.
I used to respect Snyder, but lately he's really dropped in my estimation. He's got a great visual eye, but as far as story goes, he's inconsistent in its handling, though as much of that is down to his writers and editors as well, at least in this case. I'm of the opinion (now more than ever) that Snyder should've worked only as a cinematographer in this industry and stayed away from the director's chair.
It's only doing what has been done several times in print. It's still a fantasy, not hyper reality, but it brings into question the idea of Gods among men, which I think is interesting and tangible. The introspective moments are Clark and Bruce, even in capes, the humanity stems from them. Superman and Batman don't question, Clark and Bruce do. It's rare this duality is translated.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...superman-alone
First line from the article:
“Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice,” is poised to conquer the box office for the third straight weekend."
Well that turned out to not be the case as expected but how embarrassing. It's 100% impossible to try and spin. What's also more worrying is that the $278 million expected profit from the article actually INCLUDES home video, merchandise and licensing. For a film of this huge size and the astronomical budget invested into it, $278 million is shockingly miniscule, especially when compared to Avengers AOU that banked $850million plus in net profit!
I'm sure they're massively disappointed with the reception. From my point of view, BvS is a more interesting experience than AOU, which I found largely uninspired and pretty bland. Decent popcorn fare, but BvS has more spunk and on the whole is far more operatic, which I look for in these movies.
I completely agree with this; as much negativity as I had to say about BvS, I tried AoU when I was home one day a few months back and I couldn't get remotely close to finishing it.
AOU was just dull imho. Too much CGI & too much going on. Same problem as BvS (and Spider Man 3 etc.) of just introducing too many characters. The Avengers itself was excellent but AOU was tiresome. I tried watching it last night and by the time they made the assault on Sovakia I was tuning out. James Spader sold Ultron though.
I'm hopeful that my disappointment with that film won't continue on to Civil War. I loved Winter Soldier so if the new film can keep that tone, I'll be happy. I'm a little worried that Marvel is investing in two Avengers sequels in a row for 2018/2019 before an Iron Man sequel though.
PS: The Suicide Squad trailer looks very good, but I'll admit that 99% of my anticipation rests on the shoulders of the delectable Harley Quinn.
Have to admit, as much as I enjoyed it, Doomsday wasn't great. Looked like Abomination from The Incredible Hulk. When he turned up I kinda knew that there was only gonna be one outcome from it all.
However, as a whold I have to say I loved it. Ben Affleck steals the show and I look forward to a solo Batman movie from him. Gadot makes for a great Wonder Woman and Cavill, despite his naysayers was decent in my opinion. With Jeremy Irons being always watchable and the nice twist put on the Lex Luthor character I was impressed.
[Ben Affleck Confirmed to Direct and Star in Stand-Alone Batman Movie
I sort of thought his appearance in Suicide Squad was set before BvS but that ended up not being the case.
Great to see Ben getting so much control, and in addition, Snyder is far away from the project, so it already feels infinitely more promising.