And that is completely fine. There are plenty of comics arcs I don't like. But if some director decides to make a movie on an arc I don't like, that doesn't mean it isn't being true to the source material that it is actually based on.
Actually, I enjoy TDKR as it's one of my favorite comics. Even with that as the source, the interpretation is still off IMO from what I've heard and read.
Now we're getting somewhere. So, if you accept A: that this Batman is based on TDKR version, and B: that TDKR version is more violent and willing to kill than the more standard Batman, what specifically are you saying is wrong with the Batman in this movie?
And that is completely fine. There are plenty of comics arcs I don't like. But if some director decides to make a movie on an arc I don't like, that doesn't mean it isn't being true to the source material that it is actually based on.
Actually, I enjoy TDKR as it's one of my favorite comics. Even with that as the source, the interpretation is still off IMO from what I've heard and read.
Now we're getting somewhere. So, if you accept A: that this Batman is based on TDKR version, and B: that TDKR version is more violent and willing to kill than the more standard Batman, what specifically are you saying is wrong with the Batman in this movie?
And that is completely fine. There are plenty of comics arcs I don't like. But if some director decides to make a movie on an arc I don't like, that doesn't mean it isn't being true to the source material that it is actually based on.
Actually, I enjoy TDKR as it's one of my favorite comics. Even with that as the source, the interpretation is still off IMO from what I've heard and read.
Now we're getting somewhere. So, if you accept A: that this Batman is based on TDKR version, and B: that TDKR version is more violent and willing to kill than the more standard Batman, what specifically are you saying is wrong with the Batman in this movie?
IMHO, he was being portrayed by Ben Affleck...
A completely valid opinion, as I don't care for certain actors either. But that has nothing to do with Batman's morals or decisions, which is what some people are taking issue with.
Now we're getting somewhere. So, if you accept A: that this Batman is based on TDKR version, and B: that TDKR version is more violent and willing to kill than the more standard Batman, what specifically are you saying is wrong with the Batman in this movie?
The character of Batman isn't defined by a single comic, at least to me.
But see, now we're going backwards again. We already established that the Batman in *THIS* movie is based on TDKR version. Don't you remember the conversation?
I don't disagree that this is what the film is heavily influenced by. I'm saying that I personally don't agree with the interpretation of the character, regardless of what comic(s) the film is based on.
And that is completely fine. There are plenty of comics arcs I don't like. But if some director decides to make a movie on an arc I don't like, that doesn't mean it isn't being true to the source material that it is actually based on.
Actually, I enjoy TDKR as it's one of my favorite comics. Even with that as the source, the interpretation is still off IMO from what I've heard and read.
Now we're getting somewhere. So, if you accept A: that this Batman is based on TDKR version, and B: that TDKR version is more violent and willing to kill than the more standard Batman, what specifically are you saying is wrong with the Batman in this movie?
So again. If you don't like the version of Batman that this movie is based on, that's fine. But that doesn't change the fact that the movie is still faithful to the source material it is using.
Now we're getting somewhere. So, if you accept A: that this Batman is based on TDKR version, and B: that TDKR version is more violent and willing to kill than the more standard Batman, what specifically are you saying is wrong with the Batman in this movie?
The character of Batman isn't defined by a single comic, at least to me.
But see, now we're going backwards again. We already established that the Batman in *THIS* movie is based on TDKR version. Whether you happen to like that version or not is a separate issue to whether the movie is being faithful to the version of Batman they are actually using as their source material.
I forget exactly where I read it, but I'm sure I read simeone say that TDKR is not actually considered a part of Batman canon... If that is indeed the case (it may or may not be) then people's beef would be that the film character is being based an a non canon source... It could also be that the average viewer isn't massively clued up on the entire Batman mythos, so is simply operating under the understandable (but eroneous) notion that Batman doesn't use guns, and doesn't kill...
I forget exactly where I read it, but I'm sure I read simeone say that TDKR is not actually considered a part of Batman canon...
Canon is comics is a temporary thing, because they reboot their universes ever few years and retell their characters stories in different ways. So, which canon are you referring to? The current canon? The last one? The next one?
The "Batman" family of titles strongly resemble the past continuity. However, former Batgirls Stephanie Brown and Cassandra Cain have had their histories erased.
Various character changes were also implemented, such as Starfire,[95] Guy Gardner,[96] and Tim Drake[97] having their origins significantly changed.
I forget exactly where I read it, but I'm sure I read simeone say that TDKR is not actually considered a part of Batman canon...
Canon is comics is a temporary thing, because they reboot their universes ever few years and retell their characters stories in different ways. So, which canon are you referring to? The current canon? The last one? The next one?
None specifically... I'm not a huge follower of Batman, so I don't have a particular canon in mind... I'm just saying that if TDKR is not considered part of any Batcanon, then as I said, people may be complaining that the character is being based off one writer's personal take on the character, rather than a take decided on by a writing team, so they may see it as the wrong source material to base the movie portrayal off. (again, I'm simply guessing at other people's possible beef...)
IMO, it's impossible to keep up with all of the reboots they do in comics, especially if you follow multiple brands like DC and Marvel. That being the case, the way *I* personally enjoy reading comics is to just seek out the "best" stories for each character, regardless of which reboot version they happen to be in. Rather than trying to follow a single Batman comic issue by issue, I might just follow a list like this:
That way I am seeing many different stories, from many different decades, and it doesn't really matter what reboot version of the character the story takes place in.
IMO, it's impossible to keep up with all of the reboots they do in comics, especially if you follow multiple brands like DC and Marvel. That being the case, the way *I* personally enjoy reading comics is to just seek out the "best" stories for each character, regardless of which reboot version they happen to be in. Rather than trying to follow a single Batman comic issue by issue, I might just follow a list like this:
That way I am seeing many different stories, from many different decades, and it doesn't really matter what reboot version of the character the story takes place in.
I agree, that is definitely a good way to sample the best stories, providing they are standalone stories, and don't require a reader to have read back-issues from that publication to understand a plotpoint... But even so, again, if TDKR is not considered a part of Batcanon, then it would say, be like basing the portrayal of Veronica Stadi, on her in-game appearance (in a Starship Creator game I forget the title of) rather than her on-screen appearance in Caretaker...
I haven't seen BvS and don't plan to until it's free on OnDemand, but if the descriptions I've heard about batfleck just mercilessly killing criminals is true it's just one more reason for me to skip it altogether, because to me that's not what batman is about. It's about Bruce Wayne going to that dark place necessary to do what he does, without losing his soul and becoming the very thing he fights against.
TBH, some people are exaggerating the killing in BvS. Yes, this Batman is based on TDKR version. Yes, Batman does kill some people in the movie. But he doesn't kill every criminal he fights, like some are claiming. I'm not sure why, but some people seem to think that exaggerating helps their point, but it actually invalidates it. If you have to exaggerate the truth to make your point, then that means your point can't stand on it's own merit.
Yeah, Batman is not the Punisher. The Punisher actually makes an effort to KILL criminals, especially drug lords. Frank Castle would happily shoot them in their sleep. Batman does not. He might resort to it but it's not his first option.
Anyway, I don't really have an opinion on the movie as I haven't seen it, but there is a lot of hate going around on it. Remember that Ben Affleck has feelings too!
So again. If you don't like the version of Batman that this movie is based on, that's fine. But that doesn't change the fact that the movie is still faithful to the source material it is using.
I disagree. As I've said all along, I don't see Batman as a ruthless merciless killer, even in TDKR. So in my opinion, no... the interpretation of the character isn't quite as faithful to the source material.
A "ruthless merciless killer" would try to kill everyone they fought(see mark's post above about the Punisher). Batman fights dozens of people in this movie. He kills...a few? I'm not sure what the exact number is, but he definitely is *NOT* making some effort to kill every criminal he fights. So, again, in what way are you claiming this Batman is not faithful to TDKR source material?
A "ruthless merciless killer" would try to kill everyone they fought(see mark's post above about the Punisher). Batman fights dozens of people in this movie. He kills...a few? I'm not sure what the exact number is, but he definitely is *NOT* making some effort to kill every criminal he fights. So, again, in what way are you claiming this Batman is not faithful to TDKR source material?
It's my opinion. Feel free to continue to disagree.
No, you misunderstand. I'm not disagreeing with your opinion from a subjective point of view. However, I am asking you the *reasons* behind it, which in this case would be in what WAY(S) you think this Batman is not faithful to TDKR source material. As I mentioned in my previous post, he is NOT killing everyone he fights. Not even the majority. So again, what WAY(S) do you think he is not faithful to the source material?
good film a lot going on that requires your attention, but the overall tone of this film like Man Of Steel is fairly dark and grim and i found myself apathetic towards the heroes during the fight scenes, i didn't care either way, as they didn't feel like the heroes we have come to know from comics/cartoons and previous movies. They failed to inspire me and failed as symbols of hope.
On a side note, I finally started reading the "Injustice" comics this week, that tell the story of the video game by the same name. They are set in an alternate version of the DC world where Lois is killed and Superman decides to take a more "active" role in bringing peace to the Earth, which Batman opposes. Pretty much the same scenario we saw in Batman's dream in the movie. Regardless of what you think about the movie itself, I would highly recommend these comics:
I guess my main reason for not going to see it is that I'm an old school comics guy, and just don't want to see a bunch of arcs spliced together. I don't think I can stomach it.
But, I suppose ill watch it eventually on sat or bluray.
The whole Doomsday thing bugs me, a lot. Reminds me of Venom in Spider Man3.
And how they completely ruined an all time great villian.
I just don't feel like re-living that type of disapointment again.
So thats the main thing that kept me away from the theater.
Frankly I don't know which reviewers to believe atm, you got people saying "Its the worst ever", and on the other hand you got reviews saying "Don't trust the critics, this is a masterpiece."
Guess ill need to see it with my own 2 eyes.
But I'm wary, this old school comic guy can only take so much disapointment.
I don't ever expect the movie writers to actually make a comic series into a movie. So I don't expect to see the Superman vs Doomsday arc made into a movie. Instead I expect to see a new story that uses certain aspects.
I know what you mean, and it happens all the time in the movie industry.
But every so often you get a "Watchmen" or "Sin City".
Where there is no deviation from written work (within reason).
I think DKR by Miller could've been one of those.
But you may be right about the Death of Superman arc. Might be too long. Too messy.
Too much going on.
But I can remember reading it for the first time as a kid, and being totally blown away by all of the Superhero beatings Doomsday was handing out.
It was literally page after page of pure carnage, superheros getting beaten like rag dolls.
So yeah, lots of action filler...but good filler it was.
I remember Doomsday was one of the few Villains to ever frighten me (not unlike McFarlanes Venom and Lizard). He was so powerful, relentless... savage.
And with Clark's life (and everyone else he cared about) on the line, and stakes so high, Superman was more "human" then we've ever seen him before.
Some people complain that superman is one dimensional. But in this case he was not, he was far from it.
So I can see some merit to making the Doomsday thing it's own trilogy. Maybe not page by page re-telling like Watchmen or Sin City, but a close facsimile might have made for a great Superman Saga.
I think DC really missed a great opportunity on both arcs.
They've turned a possible 5 or 6 movies into 1.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
DC was so eager to compete with Marvel, and get their share of the superhero pie, that they rushed out the Justice League.
They were so focused on what Marvel is doing, and has done, that they lost sight of themselves.
All that aside, eventually I'll get to seeing this, just not in the theaters.
I still don't understand after Marvel doing such a good job that 'DC' sort of 'insists' of doing a crappy job.
From the first Iron Man film (all that time ago) Marvel has built up the franchise (and yes it was pretty much all based upon the success of Iron Man). From then (and it was a VERY long time ago in cinema terms, and even for us as cinema goers.) Marvel has drawn us in, inch by inch with other stuff and sequels (mostly done well).
Why is Marvel so successful and DC panned (as far as I can see?)
Well this is my 'theory':
I went to see 'Iron Man' with my Mrs (a very long time ago). She hates 'superhero TRIBBLE' (as she calls it) but she came and enjoyed it. Because she enjoyed it, she decided to see Iron Man 2, and 3. She even watched the Avengers with me. And then Jessica Jones, and then Dare Devil!
Imagine my joy! My wife loves to see the same things I do!
Then we went to see Superman VS Batman.
As we left she said to me:
"What was all that about?"
That was the epitome of failure to me. Synder tried to cram in about 10 years worth of films into a single (or reaching 2 films), only a hardcore fan (like myself) would have been able to follow what the hell was going on.
Why has Marvel succeeded and DC failed?
Simply because they explained the story line well enough (and stretched out long enough) for 'normal' people to be able to enjoy it with family and friends.
My wife hated Superman vs Batman - simply because if you do not know the 'story behind it' you are lost.
She LOVED Iron Man. Simply because it was a simple (plausible) and that story gave weight to bigger stories (even if it did lead up to big green angry men in Avengers).
She laughed at Superman Vs Batman.
But she is looking forward to the next installments of Iron Man, Avengers and Captain America. (And even Guardians of the Galaxy!).
I guess my main reason for not going to see it is that I'm an old school comics guy, and just don't want to see a bunch of arcs spliced together. I don't think I can stomach it.
But, I suppose ill watch it eventually on sat or bluray.
The whole Doomsday thing bugs me, a lot. Reminds me of Venom in Spider Man3.
And how they completely ruined an all time great villian.
I just don't feel like re-living that type of disapointment again.
So thats the main thing that kept me away from the theater.
Frankly I don't know which reviewers to believe atm, you got people saying "Its the worst ever", and on the other hand you got reviews saying "Don't trust the critics, this is a masterpiece."
Guess ill need to see it with my own 2 eyes.
But I'm wary, this old school comic guy can only take so much disapointment.
I don't ever expect the movie writers to actually make a comic series into a movie. So I don't expect to see the Superman vs Doomsday arc made into a movie. Instead I expect to see a new story that uses certain aspects.
I know what you mean, and it happens all the time in the movie industry.
But every so often you get a "Watchmen" or "Sin City".
Where there is no deviation from written work (within reason).
I think DKR by Miller could've been one of those.
But you may be right about the Death of Superman arc. Might be too long. Too messy.
Too much going on.
But I can remember reading it for the first time as a kid, and being totally blown away by all of the Superhero beatings Doomsday was handing out.
It was literally page after page of pure carnage, superheros getting beaten like rag dolls.
So yeah, lots of action filler...but good filler it was.
I remember Doomsday was one of the few Villains to ever frighten me (not unlike McFarlanes Venom and Lizard). He was so powerful, relentless... savage.
And with Clark's life (and everyone else he cared about) on the line, and stakes so high, Superman was more "human" then we've ever seen him before.
Some people complain that superman is one dimensional. But in this case he was not, he was far from it.
So I can see some merit to making the Doomsday thing it's own trilogy. Maybe not page by page re-telling like Watchmen or Sin City, but a close facsimile might have made for a great Superman Saga.
I think DC really missed a great opportunity on both arcs.
They've turned a possible 5 or 6 movies into 1.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
5 or 6? nah, that's a bit much. they'd have to add a lot of stuff to make that work.
I still don't understand after Marvel doing such a good job that 'DC' sort of 'insists' of doing a crappy job.
From the first Iron Man film (all that time ago) Marvel has built up the franchise (and yes it was pretty much all based upon the success of Iron Man). From then (and it was a VERY long time ago in cinema terms, and even for us as cinema goers.) Marvel has drawn us in, inch by inch with other stuff and sequels (mostly done well).
Why is Marvel so successful and DC panned (as far as I can see?)
Well this is my 'theory':
I went to see 'Iron Man' with my Mrs (a very long time ago). She hates 'superhero TRIBBLE' (as she calls it) but she came and enjoyed it. Because she enjoyed it, she decided to see Iron Man 2, and 3. She even watched the Avengers with me. And then Jessica Jones, and then Dare Devil!
Imagine my joy! My wife loves to see the same things I do!
Then we went to see Superman VS Batman.
As we left she said to me:
"What was all that about?"
That was the epitome of failure to me. Synder tried to cram in about 10 years worth of films into a single (or reaching 2 films), only a hardcore fan (like myself) would have been able to follow what the hell was going on.
Why has Marvel succeeded and DC failed?
Simply because they explained the story line well enough (and stretched out long enough) for 'normal' people to be able to enjoy it with family and friends.
My wife hated Superman vs Batman - simply because if you do not know the 'story behind it' you are lost.
She LOVED Iron Man. Simply because it was a simple (plausible) and that story gave weight to bigger stories (even if it did lead up to big green angry men in Avengers).
She laughed at Superman Vs Batman.
But she is looking forward to the next installments of Iron Man, Avengers and Captain America. (And even Guardians of the Galaxy!).
2 films, a franchise it does not make.
One thing I find interesting is that, at least in my opinion anyway, even though marvel has been doing a much much better job with their films, DC has a much better grasp on the tv aspect. Now I haven't seen daredevil yet, but i was excited for season 1 of agents of shield. 5 or so episodes into it though, I started forgetting to watch it, and eventually i just deleted them all without watching and canceled the series recording.
DC, on the other hand, has me excited for every episode of Arrow, flash, and supergirl (idk why but legends of tomorrow hasn't captured me as much), and I never watch them more than a week late.
I still don't understand after Marvel doing such a good job that 'DC' sort of 'insists' of doing a crappy job.
From the first Iron Man film (all that time ago) Marvel has built up the franchise (and yes it was pretty much all based upon the success of Iron Man). From then (and it was a VERY long time ago in cinema terms, and even for us as cinema goers.) Marvel has drawn us in, inch by inch with other stuff and sequels (mostly done well).
Why is Marvel so successful and DC panned (as far as I can see?)
Well this is my 'theory':
I went to see 'Iron Man' with my Mrs (a very long time ago). She hates 'superhero TRIBBLE' (as she calls it) but she came and enjoyed it. Because she enjoyed it, she decided to see Iron Man 2, and 3. She even watched the Avengers with me. And then Jessica Jones, and then Dare Devil!
Imagine my joy! My wife loves to see the same things I do!
Then we went to see Superman VS Batman.
As we left she said to me:
"What was all that about?"
That was the epitome of failure to me. Synder tried to cram in about 10 years worth of films into a single (or reaching 2 films), only a hardcore fan (like myself) would have been able to follow what the hell was going on.
Why has Marvel succeeded and DC failed?
Simply because they explained the story line well enough (and stretched out long enough) for 'normal' people to be able to enjoy it with family and friends.
My wife hated Superman vs Batman - simply because if you do not know the 'story behind it' you are lost.
She LOVED Iron Man. Simply because it was a simple (plausible) and that story gave weight to bigger stories (even if it did lead up to big green angry men in Avengers).
She laughed at Superman Vs Batman.
But she is looking forward to the next installments of Iron Man, Avengers and Captain America. (And even Guardians of the Galaxy!).
2 films, a franchise it does not make.
One thing I find interesting is that, at least in my opinion anyway, even though marvel has been doing a much much better job with their films, DC has a much better grasp on the tv aspect. Now I haven't seen daredevil yet, but i was excited for season 1 of agents of shield. 5 or so episodes into it though, I started forgetting to watch it, and eventually i just deleted them all without watching and canceled the series recording.
DC, on the other hand, has me excited for every episode of Arrow, flash, and supergirl (idk why but legends of tomorrow hasn't captured me as much), and I never watch them more than a week late.
IMO, you can't really compare the DC and Marvel TV shows. Why, you ask? Because DC's shows aren't even in the same "shared universe" as their movies(which is why we have 2 different versions of the Flash). That being the case, DC can pretty much do whatever the hell they want with the stories of their TV shows, because they don't have to worry about conflicting with the movies. On the other hand, since Marvel's shows are in the same universe as their movies, they are much more limited in the stories they can tell, because they are basically handcuffed by the plots of the movies.
I still don't understand after Marvel doing such a good job that 'DC' sort of 'insists' of doing a crappy job.
From the first Iron Man film (all that time ago) Marvel has built up the franchise (and yes it was pretty much all based upon the success of Iron Man). From then (and it was a VERY long time ago in cinema terms, and even for us as cinema goers.) Marvel has drawn us in, inch by inch with other stuff and sequels (mostly done well).
Why is Marvel so successful and DC panned (as far as I can see?)
Well this is my 'theory':
I went to see 'Iron Man' with my Mrs (a very long time ago). She hates 'superhero TRIBBLE' (as she calls it) but she came and enjoyed it. Because she enjoyed it, she decided to see Iron Man 2, and 3. She even watched the Avengers with me. And then Jessica Jones, and then Dare Devil!
Imagine my joy! My wife loves to see the same things I do!
Then we went to see Superman VS Batman.
As we left she said to me:
"What was all that about?"
That was the epitome of failure to me. Synder tried to cram in about 10 years worth of films into a single (or reaching 2 films), only a hardcore fan (like myself) would have been able to follow what the hell was going on.
Why has Marvel succeeded and DC failed?
Simply because they explained the story line well enough (and stretched out long enough) for 'normal' people to be able to enjoy it with family and friends.
My wife hated Superman vs Batman - simply because if you do not know the 'story behind it' you are lost.
She LOVED Iron Man. Simply because it was a simple (plausible) and that story gave weight to bigger stories (even if it did lead up to big green angry men in Avengers).
She laughed at Superman Vs Batman.
But she is looking forward to the next installments of Iron Man, Avengers and Captain America. (And even Guardians of the Galaxy!).
2 films, a franchise it does not make.
One thing I find interesting is that, at least in my opinion anyway, even though marvel has been doing a much much better job with their films, DC has a much better grasp on the tv aspect. Now I haven't seen daredevil yet, but i was excited for season 1 of agents of shield. 5 or so episodes into it though, I started forgetting to watch it, and eventually i just deleted them all without watching and canceled the series recording.
DC, on the other hand, has me excited for every episode of Arrow, flash, and supergirl (idk why but legends of tomorrow hasn't captured me as much), and I never watch them more than a week late.
IMO, you can't really compare the DC and Marvel TV shows. Why, you ask? Because DC's shows aren't even in the same "shared universe" as their movies(which is why we have 2 different versions of the Flash). That being the case, DC can pretty much do whatever the hell they want with the stories of their TV shows, because they don't have to worry about conflicting with the movies. On the other hand, since Marvel's shows are in the same universe as their movies, they are much more limited in the stories they can tell, because they are basically handcuffed by the plots of the movies.
For me thats a bit of a weakness to both honestly. As you said, aos is handcuffed to the movies. On the other hand, 2 completely different flashes could be confusing for some viewers, especially for those familiar with how marvel is doing things. I know I personally will have trouble accepting any live action flash other than the CW version, and will probably skip the solo flash movie.
Comments
Now we're getting somewhere. So, if you accept A: that this Batman is based on TDKR version, and B: that TDKR version is more violent and willing to kill than the more standard Batman, what specifically are you saying is wrong with the Batman in this movie?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
A completely valid opinion, as I don't care for certain actors either. But that has nothing to do with Batman's morals or decisions, which is what some people are taking issue with.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
But see, now we're going backwards again. We already established that the Batman in *THIS* movie is based on TDKR version. Don't you remember the conversation?
So again. If you don't like the version of Batman that this movie is based on, that's fine. But that doesn't change the fact that the movie is still faithful to the source material it is using.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Canon is comics is a temporary thing, because they reboot their universes ever few years and retell their characters stories in different ways. So, which canon are you referring to? The current canon? The last one? The next one?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_Rebirth
The one they did before that(which is still "current", until the above one happens), is the "New 52":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_52
Here is a quote from the above article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_52#Changes_to_the_DC_Universe
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/04/10/the-25-greatest-batman-graphic-novels
That way I am seeing many different stories, from many different decades, and it doesn't really matter what reboot version of the character the story takes place in.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
My character Tsin'xing
ref: https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/batman-v-superman-sets-unwanted-box-office-record-085616119.html
Anyway, I don't really have an opinion on the movie as I haven't seen it, but there is a lot of hate going around on it. Remember that Ben Affleck has feelings too!
A "ruthless merciless killer" would try to kill everyone they fought(see mark's post above about the Punisher). Batman fights dozens of people in this movie. He kills...a few? I'm not sure what the exact number is, but he definitely is *NOT* making some effort to kill every criminal he fights. So, again, in what way are you claiming this Batman is not faithful to TDKR source material?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
No, you misunderstand. I'm not disagreeing with your opinion from a subjective point of view. However, I am asking you the *reasons* behind it, which in this case would be in what WAY(S) you think this Batman is not faithful to TDKR source material. As I mentioned in my previous post, he is NOT killing everyone he fights. Not even the majority. So again, what WAY(S) do you think he is not faithful to the source material?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
http://www.amazon.com/Injustice-Gods-Among-Us-Vol/dp/1401248438
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I know what you mean, and it happens all the time in the movie industry.
But every so often you get a "Watchmen" or "Sin City".
Where there is no deviation from written work (within reason).
I think DKR by Miller could've been one of those.
But you may be right about the Death of Superman arc. Might be too long. Too messy.
Too much going on.
But I can remember reading it for the first time as a kid, and being totally blown away by all of the Superhero beatings Doomsday was handing out.
It was literally page after page of pure carnage, superheros getting beaten like rag dolls.
So yeah, lots of action filler...but good filler it was.
I remember Doomsday was one of the few Villains to ever frighten me (not unlike McFarlanes Venom and Lizard). He was so powerful, relentless... savage.
And with Clark's life (and everyone else he cared about) on the line, and stakes so high, Superman was more "human" then we've ever seen him before.
Some people complain that superman is one dimensional. But in this case he was not, he was far from it.
So I can see some merit to making the Doomsday thing it's own trilogy. Maybe not page by page re-telling like Watchmen or Sin City, but a close facsimile might have made for a great Superman Saga.
I think DC really missed a great opportunity on both arcs.
They've turned a possible 5 or 6 movies into 1.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
DC was so eager to compete with Marvel, and get their share of the superhero pie, that they rushed out the Justice League.
They were so focused on what Marvel is doing, and has done, that they lost sight of themselves.
All that aside, eventually I'll get to seeing this, just not in the theaters.
From the first Iron Man film (all that time ago) Marvel has built up the franchise (and yes it was pretty much all based upon the success of Iron Man). From then (and it was a VERY long time ago in cinema terms, and even for us as cinema goers.) Marvel has drawn us in, inch by inch with other stuff and sequels (mostly done well).
Why is Marvel so successful and DC panned (as far as I can see?)
Well this is my 'theory':
I went to see 'Iron Man' with my Mrs (a very long time ago). She hates 'superhero TRIBBLE' (as she calls it) but she came and enjoyed it. Because she enjoyed it, she decided to see Iron Man 2, and 3. She even watched the Avengers with me. And then Jessica Jones, and then Dare Devil!
Imagine my joy! My wife loves to see the same things I do!
Then we went to see Superman VS Batman.
As we left she said to me:
"What was all that about?"
That was the epitome of failure to me. Synder tried to cram in about 10 years worth of films into a single (or reaching 2 films), only a hardcore fan (like myself) would have been able to follow what the hell was going on.
Why has Marvel succeeded and DC failed?
Simply because they explained the story line well enough (and stretched out long enough) for 'normal' people to be able to enjoy it with family and friends.
My wife hated Superman vs Batman - simply because if you do not know the 'story behind it' you are lost.
She LOVED Iron Man. Simply because it was a simple (plausible) and that story gave weight to bigger stories (even if it did lead up to big green angry men in Avengers).
She laughed at Superman Vs Batman.
But she is looking forward to the next installments of Iron Man, Avengers and Captain America. (And even Guardians of the Galaxy!).
2 films, a franchise it does not make.
And the Injustice comics sound like they're worth checking out, @ nagus.
Sort of reminds me of the "Speeding Bullets" Superman comic.
A "What if" Superman lived Batman's life. From youth to adulthood.
My character Tsin'xing
One thing I find interesting is that, at least in my opinion anyway, even though marvel has been doing a much much better job with their films, DC has a much better grasp on the tv aspect. Now I haven't seen daredevil yet, but i was excited for season 1 of agents of shield. 5 or so episodes into it though, I started forgetting to watch it, and eventually i just deleted them all without watching and canceled the series recording.
DC, on the other hand, has me excited for every episode of Arrow, flash, and supergirl (idk why but legends of tomorrow hasn't captured me as much), and I never watch them more than a week late.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
IMO, you can't really compare the DC and Marvel TV shows. Why, you ask? Because DC's shows aren't even in the same "shared universe" as their movies(which is why we have 2 different versions of the Flash). That being the case, DC can pretty much do whatever the hell they want with the stories of their TV shows, because they don't have to worry about conflicting with the movies. On the other hand, since Marvel's shows are in the same universe as their movies, they are much more limited in the stories they can tell, because they are basically handcuffed by the plots of the movies.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
My character Tsin'xing
It may have idk, but it lost me way before that.
For me thats a bit of a weakness to both honestly. As you said, aos is handcuffed to the movies. On the other hand, 2 completely different flashes could be confusing for some viewers, especially for those familiar with how marvel is doing things. I know I personally will have trouble accepting any live action flash other than the CW version, and will probably skip the solo flash movie.