I think everyone'S negative judgement is unfair. I mean, you can barely see anything in the first place, how do you want to judge a movie based on that?
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I think everyone'S negative judgement is unfair. I mean, you can barely see anything in the first place, how do you want to judge a movie based on that?
Because that is the point of a trailer - to give a small preview of the movie, build hype, and try to sell people on the product (i.e., the movie). A trailer should broadly match the tone and the style of the movie that it is advertising so that people who are paying money for movie tickets won't feel cheated or wronged by not getting what was advertising. In sum, the trailer is trying to convince me that spending my hard-earned money and, more importantly, two-odd hours of my time on the movie is a worthwhile investment. So far, I am not convinced of that.
Consider...if you saw a commercial for a product that seemed like it was a camera, went out, bought the product, get home, and then discovered that in actuality the product is actually a toaster, you'd be annoyed, right? Even if it was a perfectly good toaster from a technical standpoint. Movies and their trailers are the same way. If you're making a funny movie, make a funny trailer. If you're making a horror movie, make a scary trailer. And so on.
The thing is that Dawn of Justice isn't just advertising a product, it's advertising an existing product - that is, Superman. And a very large number of people feel that Superman and his comics and movies and stories and so on are supposed to be upbeat, optimistic, and most emphatically, not dark. But the trailer is advertising exactly that: a dark, "realistic" look at what Superman showing up in the world would be like. That is not what I want, so, I react negatively to the trailer, and by extension the movie it's trying to sell.
I think everyone'S negative judgement is unfair. I mean, you can barely see anything in the first place, how do you want to judge a movie based on that?
We're not judging the movie on the trailer. The trailer is just the latest piece of an already large pile of evidence that this film is not going to be the big Avengers killer DC hopes it to be. An already too expansive cast of heroes, the weird implication that Kryptonians were behind the evolution of all powered beings on earth, Wonder Woman being regulated to a side character (and do NOT get me started on the two years of being told she wasn't getting a solo flick before the JLA film), that odd Aquaman/Criss Angel fusion and the fact that they're attempting to create a massive shared universe in A SINGLE GO.
This film just keeps getting weirder and weirder the more they reveal. I fully expect a frakking post credit scene where two twins sit in a cafe watching the carnage and one of them has a blue monkey on their shoulder.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP"
I seen the trailer and it looks good! From what I've been told Batman beat Superman in the comics every time they fought. This may be a turn around. I seen William Shatner will be on Entertainment tonight this evening talking about Leonard Nimoy.
From what I've been told Batman beat Superman in the comics every time they fought.
Sort of.
In Dark Knight Returns, Batman faked a heart attack after having run out of tricks. He didn't actually beat Superman, who was still more than able to get up and keep fighting had he felt like wailing on what he thought was a dying man.
In Hush, Batman was fighting Poison Ivy, not Superman. Superman was just Ivy's tool, but for all that he was under Ivy's control she couldn't force Superman to kill a man in cold blood and some part of Superman was constantly fighting against Ivy's control.
As for an out-and-out victory, in "Sacrifice" while being mind-controlled by Maxwell Lord, Superman thinks that he sees Braniac threatening Lois (a clever way to get around the problem of Superman's morals - he'd never kill a human, but Braniac isn't human and can take a punch) and goes all-out on him - only to snap out of it and realize that he'd been beating Batman to death. Batman has to go to a hospital and was at no point even close to winning the fight.
The only time I remember Batman and Superman having a *real* hand to hand fight(where Superman hits back) is in an "Elseworld" story called "The Nail". I won't spoil the story, but at the end Batman fights Superman hand to hand, while Green Lantern puts a protective shield around him. However, GL's ring is almost dead, and the shield starts to wear off, at which point Batman gets trashed.
PS: Darn, I just remembered Batman wasn't actually fighting Superman, but another Kryptonian LOL. Anyway.
The only time I remember Batman and Superman having a *real* hand to hand fight(where Superman hits back) is in an "Elseworld" story called "The Nail". I won't spoil the story, but at the end Batman fights Superman hand to hand, while Green Lantern puts a protective shield around him. However, GL's ring is almost dead, and the shield starts to wear off, at which point Batman gets trashed.
Of course, in "The Nail" we're dealing with a fairly different Superman. Also I can't remember whether or not that's just a sparring match or a real fight. Plus a lot of people in DC comics tend to hold back at all times for various reasons. Superman is very, very fast, but the Flash is and always has been faster.
Of course, in "The Nail" we're dealing with a fairly different Superman. Also I can't remember whether or not that's just a sparring match or a real fight. Plus a lot of people in DC comics tend to hold back at all times for various reasons. Superman is very, very fast, but the Flash is and always has been faster.
It was definitely a full blown "I want to kill you" fight, but see my PS that I added 3 minutes before your post.
In Dark Knight Returns, Batman faked a heart attack after having run out of tricks. He didn't actually beat Superman, who was still more than able to get up and keep fighting had he felt like wailing on what he thought was a dying man.
I clearly remember that bit. Bruce actually had Clark dead to rights (if you'll pardon the expression), and was strangling him. Of course, Bruce had also cheated and used Oliver and some synthetic kryptonite to rob Clark of his powers, but the only reason he "died" and Clark didn't was because Bruce figured out this new world didn't really have room for him - but he also knew he couldn't just retire, it wasn't in his nature, so all he could do was have the "good death" he'd been seeking for years.
Of course, before the kryptonite arrow, Clark had been holding back - Bruce was getting anxious about Ollie actually shooting because he'd finally made Clark mad.
Man of Steel. That ship that Clark found? Apparently Synder hinted it to be the whole catalyst for the origins of Atlantis and Thymescara and stuff. God forbid it turns out the guardians of Oa are using rings fashioned from Kryptonian ore and freaking Doctor Fate's helm was made in Zod's forge or something.
As I said, this film keeps getting weirder and weirder.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP"
Man of Steel. That ship that Clark found? Apparently Synder hinted it to be the whole catalyst for the origins of Atlantis and Thymescara and stuff. God forbid it turns out the guardians of Oa are using rings fashioned from Kryptonian ore and freaking Doctor Fate's helm was made in Zod's forge or something.
As I said, this film keeps getting weirder and weirder.
Or Darkseid is descended from one of those violent, ancient Kryptionian conquistadors described in the film's back story. Ugh. That'd be so like them to pull that sort of ****.
Quick, someone else reply and say the same thing for the 4th time! I don't think he got it yet.
LOL. That Krypton launched colony ships I remember, but I don't remember anything about it giving anyone on Earth, or anywhere else for that matter, any "powers".
Since the point of the ships was to expand the Kryptonian empire, what would be the point of making any indigenous inhabitants harder to conquer? Clearly you guys saw something I did not.
LOL. That Krypton launched colony ships I remember, but I don't remember anything about it giving anyone on Earth, or anywhere else for that matter, any "powers".
Since the point of the ships was to expand the Kryptonian empire, what would be the point of making any indigenous inhabitants harder to conquer? Clearly you guys saw something I did not.
The point, I believe, was that that ship *crashed* on Earth, and lost contact with Krypton. The survivors may have interbred with humans, and their "super powers" were diluted over time by the normal human DNA.
The point, I believe, was that that ship *crashed* on Earth, and lost contact with Krypton. The survivors may have interbred with humans, and their "super powers" were diluted over time by the normal human DNA.
Sorry, was this actually *in* the movie anywhere? For a "crashed ship" it sure took off immediately and with no problem from being buried under snow and ice for tens of thousands of years.
Or Darkseid is descended from one of those violent, ancient Kryptionian conquistadors described in the film's back story. Ugh. That'd be so like them to pull that sort of ****.
Oh god. That totally does sound like a pitch for the JLA movie plot.
Sorry, was this actually *in* the movie anywhere? For a "crashed ship" it sure took off immediately and with no problem from being buried under snow and ice for tens of thousands of years.
Well, you know that snow and ice used to be just regular water, so those Kryptonians must have evacuated the ship to a near by landmass that eventually sank beneath the waaaaaaaaOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH!
:eek:
"It's all connected!"
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP"
While the ice caps do fluctuate over time I do believe the poles and northern latitudes have pretty much always been covered.
So those pods with dead bodies in them was just a figment of my imagination?
But wait! There was one open pod! :eek: So that one Kryptonian got busy wit da natives, eh? ...and spawned both Amazonians and Atlantians? umm, ok.
That's Synder's amazing connected world! Totally makes sense and doesn't seem forceful at all in retconning over 50 years of already great story telling just to make one crossover film establish an entire universe!
:rolleyes:
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP"
While the ice caps do fluctuate over time I do believe the poles and northern latitudes have pretty much always been covered.
Nope. In fact an "ice age" is defined as a period wherein there is consistantly ice at at least one of the poles year-round. Technically we're still in an ice age, or more properly an interglacial period wherein the ice sheets are gradually retracting due to a combination of natural factors and human-caused climate change speeding up the process. But there have been in the past many occasions wherein the Earth had no ice at either of its poles for substantive periods of time (tens of millions of years) - and the amount of time that we do have ice at the poles is going to decrease over time as our sun gradually grows hotter at a rate of about 1% per 100 million years.
The ice at Antarctica is only about 15 million years old at most, for example, despite Antarctica being roughly where it is even when the first dinosaurs evolved 200 million years or so ago.
However - unless Kryptonian civilization is ludicrously ancient, it is safe to say that there has been ice at the antarctic and the arctic year-round for at least a few hundred thousand years, well within when the Kryptonians likely touched down and with more than enough time for them to have arrived before our species evolved, and possibly before all humans (homo is about 2.5 million years old; h. sapiens about 200,000 years, and "modern" humans about 50,000 years)
Comments
Because that is the point of a trailer - to give a small preview of the movie, build hype, and try to sell people on the product (i.e., the movie). A trailer should broadly match the tone and the style of the movie that it is advertising so that people who are paying money for movie tickets won't feel cheated or wronged by not getting what was advertising. In sum, the trailer is trying to convince me that spending my hard-earned money and, more importantly, two-odd hours of my time on the movie is a worthwhile investment. So far, I am not convinced of that.
Consider...if you saw a commercial for a product that seemed like it was a camera, went out, bought the product, get home, and then discovered that in actuality the product is actually a toaster, you'd be annoyed, right? Even if it was a perfectly good toaster from a technical standpoint. Movies and their trailers are the same way. If you're making a funny movie, make a funny trailer. If you're making a horror movie, make a scary trailer. And so on.
The thing is that Dawn of Justice isn't just advertising a product, it's advertising an existing product - that is, Superman. And a very large number of people feel that Superman and his comics and movies and stories and so on are supposed to be upbeat, optimistic, and most emphatically, not dark. But the trailer is advertising exactly that: a dark, "realistic" look at what Superman showing up in the world would be like. That is not what I want, so, I react negatively to the trailer, and by extension the movie it's trying to sell.
We're not judging the movie on the trailer. The trailer is just the latest piece of an already large pile of evidence that this film is not going to be the big Avengers killer DC hopes it to be. An already too expansive cast of heroes, the weird implication that Kryptonians were behind the evolution of all powered beings on earth, Wonder Woman being regulated to a side character (and do NOT get me started on the two years of being told she wasn't getting a solo flick before the JLA film), that odd Aquaman/Criss Angel fusion and the fact that they're attempting to create a massive shared universe in A SINGLE GO.
This film just keeps getting weirder and weirder the more they reveal. I fully expect a frakking post credit scene where two twins sit in a cafe watching the carnage and one of them has a blue monkey on their shoulder.
-Leonard Nimoy, RIP
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Sort of.
In Dark Knight Returns, Batman faked a heart attack after having run out of tricks. He didn't actually beat Superman, who was still more than able to get up and keep fighting had he felt like wailing on what he thought was a dying man.
In Hush, Batman was fighting Poison Ivy, not Superman. Superman was just Ivy's tool, but for all that he was under Ivy's control she couldn't force Superman to kill a man in cold blood and some part of Superman was constantly fighting against Ivy's control.
As for an out-and-out victory, in "Sacrifice" while being mind-controlled by Maxwell Lord, Superman thinks that he sees Braniac threatening Lois (a clever way to get around the problem of Superman's morals - he'd never kill a human, but Braniac isn't human and can take a punch) and goes all-out on him - only to snap out of it and realize that he'd been beating Batman to death. Batman has to go to a hospital and was at no point even close to winning the fight.
PS: Darn, I just remembered Batman wasn't actually fighting Superman, but another Kryptonian LOL. Anyway.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Of course, in "The Nail" we're dealing with a fairly different Superman. Also I can't remember whether or not that's just a sparring match or a real fight. Plus a lot of people in DC comics tend to hold back at all times for various reasons. Superman is very, very fast, but the Flash is and always has been faster.
It was definitely a full blown "I want to kill you" fight, but see my PS that I added 3 minutes before your post.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Of course, before the kryptonite arrow, Clark had been holding back - Bruce was getting anxious about Ollie actually shooting because he'd finally made Clark mad.
It wasn't from the B v S trailer, it was from the "Man of Steel" movie(the Kryptonian ship that crash-landed on Earth a long time ago).
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Man of Steel, the ancient Kryptonian colony ship.
Man of Steel. That ship that Clark found? Apparently Synder hinted it to be the whole catalyst for the origins of Atlantis and Thymescara and stuff. God forbid it turns out the guardians of Oa are using rings fashioned from Kryptonian ore and freaking Doctor Fate's helm was made in Zod's forge or something.
As I said, this film keeps getting weirder and weirder.
-Leonard Nimoy, RIP
Quick, someone else reply and say the same thing for the 4th time! I don't think he got it yet.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Or Darkseid is descended from one of those violent, ancient Kryptionian conquistadors described in the film's back story. Ugh. That'd be so like them to pull that sort of ****.
Since the point of the ships was to expand the Kryptonian empire, what would be the point of making any indigenous inhabitants harder to conquer? Clearly you guys saw something I did not.
The point, I believe, was that that ship *crashed* on Earth, and lost contact with Krypton. The survivors may have interbred with humans, and their "super powers" were diluted over time by the normal human DNA.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Oh god. That totally does sound like a pitch for the JLA movie plot.
Well, you know that snow and ice used to be just regular water, so those Kryptonians must have evacuated the ship to a near by landmass that eventually sank beneath the waaaaaaaaOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH!
:eek:
"It's all connected!"
-Leonard Nimoy, RIP
So those pods with dead bodies in them was just a figment of my imagination?
But wait! There was one open pod! :eek: So that one Kryptonian got busy wit da natives, eh? ...and spawned both Amazonians and Atlantians? umm, ok.
That's Synder's amazing connected world! Totally makes sense and doesn't seem forceful at all in retconning over 50 years of already great story telling just to make one crossover film establish an entire universe!
:rolleyes:
-Leonard Nimoy, RIP
Nope. In fact an "ice age" is defined as a period wherein there is consistantly ice at at least one of the poles year-round. Technically we're still in an ice age, or more properly an interglacial period wherein the ice sheets are gradually retracting due to a combination of natural factors and human-caused climate change speeding up the process. But there have been in the past many occasions wherein the Earth had no ice at either of its poles for substantive periods of time (tens of millions of years) - and the amount of time that we do have ice at the poles is going to decrease over time as our sun gradually grows hotter at a rate of about 1% per 100 million years.
The ice at Antarctica is only about 15 million years old at most, for example, despite Antarctica being roughly where it is even when the first dinosaurs evolved 200 million years or so ago.
However - unless Kryptonian civilization is ludicrously ancient, it is safe to say that there has been ice at the antarctic and the arctic year-round for at least a few hundred thousand years, well within when the Kryptonians likely touched down and with more than enough time for them to have arrived before our species evolved, and possibly before all humans (homo is about 2.5 million years old; h. sapiens about 200,000 years, and "modern" humans about 50,000 years)