Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It depends on how the role was envisioned. Was the Wayne fortune not at "Master Bruce's" disposal? Did the Wayne fortune entrusted in bad deals and Bruce had to become a mechanic? Perhaps the beater was used for a disposable feel. Remember, in most Batman movies we have seen the Batmobile destroyed.
No, it was just Arronofsky's idea of "new" and "edgy." And it sucked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
I honestly don't think we have to be close to the comics, the main issue with Nolan's take is the liberties taken mostly with The Joker and Sent not truly becoming a criminal as I loved the idea of Two-Face. That said, the way they did The Dark Knight Rises made it easier to swallow.
I thought you were complaining about how the Batman movies are really just mob movies with Batman, and about the changes to Two-Face and Catwoman?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Captain America minus a few villains was always a grounded character besides say the weird tales era during the anti-superhero era after World War II. The feel of Winter Soldier was real world yet had the Marvel nuisances to it.
He's grounded compared to heroes who can fly, become invisible, and shoot ball bearings out of their rear, yeah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
My knock on the Nolan films (and some of the looks for members of the Suicide Squad) is that things are too grounded and gritty and not fantastical.
But that's what he was shooting for, and many of us liked it. I've always felt Batman is one of the few heroes, super or otherwise, who could possibly translate into the real world.
Gal Gadot is too skinny to play Wonder Woman, therefore the film will be "bloated, violent trash"?
Ben Affleck doesn't play Batman as well as Christian Bale, therefore the film will be "bloated, violent trash"?
All of your "reasonings" were ridiculous, but these ^^^ two were egregiously so. "
No, those are reasons why the film will be trash. It'll be bloated because it has too many characters and stories to tell, and it'll be violent because it's directed by Zack Snyder (also trash).
You overlook the fact that Evan's Cap is a guy raised in an altogether different era, but more importantly, whose origin has not been revised/updated — like those of Batman, Superman and Iron Man. If you're one of those people who demands his Superman still comport himself like the Kryptonian Boy Scout (dead giveaway there) of decades past, you're in for a rude awakening."
It won't be much of a surprise if Snyder's Superman is a violent, brooding a-hole, it's just not a very appealing take on the character.
Quote:
"Straw man argument. Wonder Woman's "introduction" comes in her own film. She'll mainly be in BvS in a support manner, and mainly action. Batman does not require a new origin in order for this movie to work. In fact, there will likely be enough flashback exposition where Batman is concerned to flesh out the DCEU version just enough. It doesn't require another two hours at this stage.
Aquaman and Cyborg will have very minor roles, if not merely cameos."
Either the rest of the Justice League gets introduced in some fashion, or they just pop up in the film as inchoate characters. And why waste even a second reviewing Batman's backstory?
Quote:
"Not enough time" for Lex? Seriously? It'll likely be a 140-minute film. Avengers: Age of Ultron introduced Scarlet Witch and Vision, and still had room for a long time-out on a farm. And a bizarrely placed "romance" between Bruce and Natasha."
Well, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver weren't very fleshed-out, and were a pretty minor part of the story. That said, they were at least present from the beginning of the film. I'm afraid that Wonder Woman et al. are just going to pop up in the middle of a fight scene near the end of the movie. Vision is sort of an enigmatic being, and at any rate, his origin was fully explained. So basically, Age of Ultron had to introduce Ultron and spend a bit of time on some minor characters. Not at all the same situation with Lex, Batman and Superman's relationship, Wonder Woman, Cyborg, Aquaman, Doomsday, etc.
Quote:
"I guess you've seen the movie. Must be nice."
That's an assumption, admittedly, but for the record, I'm not nearly so down on Affleck as Batman as many of his critics. I'm more troubled by Cavill as Superman and Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.
Quote:
"There you go. Never mind Jeremy Irons. He's some hack, right?"
Forgot about Irons. No, that's a pretty good choice as well, so I'll give Snyder that.
But that's what he was shooting for, and many of us liked it. I've always felt Batman is one of the few heroes, super or otherwise, who could possibly translate into the real world.
Heroes like Batman, DD, etc. The ones who didn't have powers made it more believable for most people is they were easier to get behind & root for. They have more to lose then say Superman, etc. It took someone other worldly to make someone like Superman break a sweat. Where a bullet, knife a wrong move could kill Batman, etc.
No, those are reasons why the film will be trash. It'll be bloated because it has too many characters and stories to tell, and it'll be violent because it's directed by Zack Snyder (also trash).
Captain America: The Winter Soldier had action and/or violence to spare, whichever label you presume is a better fit.
It won't be much of a surprise if Snyder's Superman is a violent, brooding a-hole, it's just not a very appealing take on the character.
What did you take away from Man of Steel? I can only assume you didn't like the movie, but even if I didn't like it (and I do), it's far and away better than Bryan Singer's sick, shameless regurgitation of "Superman according to Donner and Lester."
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael
Either the rest of the Justice League gets introduced in some fashion, or they just pop up in the film as inchoate characters. And why waste even a second reviewing Batman's backstory?
Batman is one of the titular characters, so it's natural he'd get some exposition. But that's not the film's primary focus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael
Well, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver weren't very fleshed-out, and were a pretty minor part of the story. That said, they were at least present from the beginning of the film. I'm afraid that Wonder Woman et al. are just going to pop up in the middle of a fight scene near the end of the movie. Vision is sort of an enigmatic being, and at any rate, his origin was fully explained.
Change "fully" to "barely" and we're in agreement. Vision's so-called origin is what it is because they're treating Hank Pym as a background character. However, what they did to him is still a joke. Thankfully, the Vision still looks and acts like the Vision, and he was one of the film's highlights. Quicksilver was Joss' stupid idea of making the film "dark" — another bait-and-switch tactic — but he was intended as a throwaway from the beginning, a disservice to fans.
Either way you color it, Age of Ultron was loaded with characters — Civil War will have even more, and has to introduce Black Panther and Spider-Man into the MCU, and possible one more character — and Aquaman, Flash and (presumably) Cyborg showing up in BvS doesn't mean you get to call the pot black and ignore the kettle beside it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael
That's an assumption, admittedly, but for the record, I'm not nearly so down on Affleck as Batman as many of his critics. I'm more troubled by Cavill as Superman and Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.
You're better off watching the film. You may be surprised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael
Forgot about Irons. No, that's a pretty good choice as well, so I'll give Snyder that.
Ask yourself this: who the hell was Chris Hemsworth before he wore Thor's cape? Before 2008, would you or anyone have ever contemplated Iron Man's armor being worn by...Robert Downey, Jr.?
Affleck, Adams, Irons and Eisenberg are all proven actors, not to mention higher up the public opinion record when they were hired on.
RDJ was regarded as a hasbeen before Iron Man. Favreau fought to get him the gig. The studio didn't want him.
No, those are reasons why the film will be trash. It'll be bloated because it has too many characters and stories to tell, and it'll be violent because it's directed by Zack Snyder (also trash).
They still makes no sense. A film will be "trash" because an actress is too skinny? There is no correlation between actors' weight and the overall quality of a movie. Oh, well... if it makes sense to you...
What did you take away from Man of Steel? I can only assume you didn't like the movie, but even if I didn't like it (and I do), it's far and away better than Bryan Singer's sick, shameless regurgitation of "Superman according to Donner and Lester."
Yep. Donner and Singer are both far better directors. Superman actually had some compassion and humanity.
Quote:
"Quicksilver was Joss' stupid idea of making the film "dark" — another bait-and-switch tactic — but he was intended as a throwaway from the beginning, a disservice to fans."
Quicksilver fans are always going to be disappointed. His treatment in Age of Ultron and Days of Future Past is as good as it's going to get. Now Cyclops, on the other hand ...
Quote:
"Either way you color it, Age of Ultron was loaded with characters ..."
Yeah, characters who have already been introduced over multiple movies.
Quote:
"You're better off watching the film. You may be surprised."
Given the director, I doubt it.
Quote:
"Ask yourself this: who the hell was Chris Hemsworth before he wore Thor's cape? Before 2008, would you or anyone have ever contemplated Iron Man's armor being worn by...Robert Downey, Jr.?"
Yeah, I could see both. A blond hunk and a smart, sarcastic fella. Makes perfect sense.
Quote:
"Affleck, Adams, Irons and Eisenberg are all proven actors, not to mention higher up the public opinion record when they were hired on."
I don't have much of a problem with any of the first three, but from what I've seen, Eisenberg isn't playing Lex Luthor.
Quote:
"RDJ was regarded as a hasbeen before Iron Man. Favreau fought to get him the gig. The studio didn't want him."
Didn't want him because of his drug/legal problems. But he's perfect for the role.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"
