674 réponses à ce sujet

[Greenface21]

Wow... who needs to go to SDCC anymore?

 

[Hiemoth]

I loved that trailer and the movie does seem to be going for a really intense feeling. Also, I feel Affleck came across really well as Bruce Wayne in it and that confrontation is going to be awesome.

[Fast Jimmy]

Kryptonite + suit is the typical sort of Batman wizard asspull.

Ha. Why be wizard Batman when you can be wizard God?

http://community.wiz...threads/1146876

[Akrabra]

Awesome trailer, but we have to talk about the Jesse Eisenberg in the room. Is he the right fit for Lex Luthor?

[Milan92]

Awesome trailer, but we have to talk about the Jesse Eisenberg in the room. Is he the right fit for Lex Luthor?

 

No.

 

It should have been Billy Zane.

[Greenface21]

No.

 

It should have been Billy Zane.

 

I am not sure if you're being sarcastic but I can get behind that casting.

[Milan92]

I am not sure if you're being sarcastic but I can get behind that casting.

 

I'm serious!

[In Exile]

Having seen the trailer, I've got to ask, the **** is up with the Kent's moral compass?

 

Papa Kent: Just because you can effortlessly save the lives of a bunch of innocent children doesn't mean you should do it. 

Mama Kent: Who gives a **** about earth, you don't owe them anything just because you could efortlessly save their lives. 

 

For the record, trailer below:

 

[breakdown71289]

Awesome trailer, but we have to talk about the Jesse Eisenberg in the room. Is he the right fit for Lex Luthor?

 

I'm not buying him in that role just yet, but until I see the movie for myself, I can't really say one way or the other.

[Fast Jimmy]

No.

It should have been Billy Zane.

[Hiemoth]

Having seen the trailer, I've got to ask, the **** is up with the Kent's moral compass?

 

Papa Kent: Just because you can effortlessly save the lives of a bunch of innocent children doesn't mean you should do it. 

Mama Kent: Who gives a **** about earth, you don't owe them anything just because you could efortlessly save their lives. 

 

For the record, trailer below:

 

 

Because that is not at all what she is saying. She is saying that he can be everything the world wants him to be or nothing like that, because he does not owe the world anything. She is telling him to be the man he wants to be instead of what the world wants him to be.

 

Yeah, what horrible advice to give to your child to be their own person.

[In Exile]

Because that is not at all what she is saying. She is saying that he can be everything the world wants him to be or nothing like that, because he does not owe the world anything. She is telling him to be the man he wants to be instead of what the world wants him to be.

 

Yeah, what horrible advice to give to your child to be their own person.

 

When you're Superman, the moral obligation scale changes a lot. I can't personally save thousands of people in a flood, but Superman can. I much prefer the Earth One take on the Kents, as people who believe very much in Clark being a force for good, even if it's his choice in the end whether to do it. Here, it's:

 

"Clark, no one can force you to save innocent people form certain death. You don't owe those innocent people anything. Be the man you want, even if that man is someone who lets a lot of innocent people die when he could save them." 

 

That's the speech. There's no comparison to anyone IRL because no one has the ability Clark has to directly and immediately save lives. 

Edit:

I get what the writers are trying to go for: Clark doesn't have to be a symbol of anything if he doesn't want to be, he doesn't have to be worshiped, hated, whatever. Except that's missing the point of what it means to have godlike powers. 

[Linkenski]

My take is: it's directed by Zack Snyder, a sequel to MoS, a horrible, horrible movie. I'm almost not giving it a chance.

Zack Snyder only cares about the way his movies look, but he just doesn't get his source material.

[In Exile]

My take is: it's directed by Zack Snyder, a sequel to MoS, a horrible, horrible movie. I'm almost not giving it a chance.

Zack Snyder only cares about the way his movies look, but he just doesn't get his source material.

 

I don't think he doesn't care about the message, I just think he doesn't get quite it. Or at least has pretty alternative interpretations of a lot of characters. 

[Chewin]

Impressive trailer, though considering all that it brought up, I'm fearing that it will tackle too many aspects for one movie, with issues regarding Batman, Luthor, Superman, Wonderwoman and other characters and themes that seem to have some degree of relevance. Perfectly possible that it can make it work, though I remain ever skeptical about the movie.

[Hiemoth]

When you're Superman, the moral obligation scale changes a lot. I can't personally save thousands of people in a flood, but Superman can. I much prefer the Earth One take on the Kents, as people who believe very much in Clark being a force for good, even if it's his choice in the end whether to do it. Here, it's:

 

"Clark, no one can force you to save innocent people form certain death. You don't owe those innocent people anything. Be the man you want, even if that man is someone who lets a lot of innocent people die when he could save them." 

 

That's the speech. There's no comparison to anyone IRL because no one has the ability Clark has to directly and immediately save lives. 

Edit:

I get what the writers are trying to go for: Clark doesn't have to be a symbol of anything if he doesn't want to be, he doesn't have to be worshiped, hated, whatever. Except that's missing the point of what it means to have godlike powers. 

 

I am honestly struggling here a bit, because the quote you just did is essentially to what Martha said, just in a different way? Or are you arguing every single discussion Martha has with Clark about his choices needs to be prefaced with the comment about his godlike powers?

 

And no, they aren't missing the part that he has godlike powers, what they are saying that there is more to him than those godlike powers and that those do not make him a god or define who he is. Why do you feel that is a bad message?

[In Exile]

Do we know the expected runtime?

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Loved it. Bruce running into the debris, the anger in his face when he holds the little girl and the stare of at the end gave me goosebumps.

 

Ma Kent is right in my eyes. I would want my son to do whatever he wants, not what other people want him to do.

 

Edit: Also a dead Robin!!! It better be Jason.

[Vroom Vroom]

I still maintain that they should have cast Bryan Cranston as Lex Luthor. This incarnation of Lex is coming across as too goofy for me to take serious, so far anyway. 

[Hiemoth]

My take is: it's directed by Zack Snyder, a sequel to MoS, a horrible, horrible movie. I'm almost not giving it a chance.

Zack Snyder only cares about the way his movies look, but he just doesn't get his source material.

 

Well, that good for you as then you know to avoid his movie. Similarly as me having like MoS know that there is a good chance I will like it. And by the way, based on his interviews, he gets the source material, just chose a different approach.

 

Wow, it's almost as if we are talking about one of the iconic pop culture figures that has numerous iterations on his character and different approaches for it. Go figure.

 

I don't think he doesn't care about the message, I just think he doesn't get quite it. Or at least has pretty alternative interpretations of a lot of characters. 

 

No, I think he gets his message from Superman, it just might a be a different than someone else's take on the character.

 

Here's the thing about Superman, Batman or Wonder Woman. Of any of those characters, if we collected twenty or thirty of their diehard fans, who are familiar with the central and non-central stories of those characters, and asked them to explain what makes those characters tick or what is at their heart, there would be an insane amount of variation in the answers even from those superfans. No pun intended. There would be similarities in the answers, sure, but what would be evident is that everyone took something personal of those stories and what touched them in them.

 

So if we allow this for fans and writers of the stories, but for some reason when discussing the movies there is apparently a mythical ideal that no one can agree on, yet Snyder is a fool for not seeing it?

[In Exile]

I am honestly struggling here a bit, because the quote you just did is essentially to what Martha said, just in a different way? Or are you arguing every single discussion Martha has with Clark about his choices needs to be prefaced with the comment about his godlike powers?

 

And no, they aren't missing the part that he has godlike powers, what they are saying that there is more to him than those godlike powers and that those do not make him a god or define who he is. Why do you feel that is a bad message?

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The quote isn't from the Earth One comic. It's my (somewhat more blunt) take on what Martha is saying, which I think is totally morally repugnant. The underlying message - be who you want, not who other people want - doesn't work the same way when you're got an outright god. Let me try explaining it this way. Here's the issue, as the trailer potrays it:

 

Clark: People are mean to me in the media, just because I let a lot of innocent people die when aliens came to kill me. Now that I've started saving innocent people, everyone are treatment me like I'm different just because I have godlike powers and can save millions from floods and other natural disasters. 

 

There's just no comparison to anything we - as in actual IRL humans - experience that's anything like what Clark's experiencing. Talking about what he "owes" people is silly. It's about what he can do. And the advice to just let a whole bunch of innocent people die becuase he doesn't like the media attentio and how people treat him is, in my view, totally crazy town. 

 

Martha can't make Clark save innocent people from dying, but his issues aren't anything like, say, a 15 year old struggling with peer pressure or a math genius wanting to pursue a career as an electrician instead. 

[Hiemoth]

I still maintain that they should have cast Bryan Cranston as Lex Luthor. This incarnation of Lex is coming across as too goofy for me to take serious, so far anyway. 

 

I think age is a factor, Cranston isn't actually a young man and they seem to have a different feel for this approach than what Cranston would probably be going for.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Cranston would be an awesome Luthor, just no necessarily for this story.

[Jorji Costava]

My take is: it's directed by Zack Snyder, a sequel to MoS, a horrible, horrible movie. I'm almost not giving it a chance.

Zack Snyder only cares about the way his movies look, but he just doesn't get his source material

 

Pretty much. Watchmen, a graphic novel premised on the idea "What if superheroes existed in the real world?", is filmed by Snyder in a hyper-stylized manner heavy on slow motion and loud music. Meanwhile, Superman is the larger-than-life superhero par excellence, and Snyder films Man of Steel like it's a docu-drama or something (color desaturation, hand-held camera, the snap-zoom, etc.). The choices he made are exactly the opposite of the ones he should have made.

 

I don't think there's any obligation on the part of filmmakers to be true to the source material, but you should at least have some kind of take on that material beyond "Let 's make things look cool," even if it's a completely subversive take. I don't see any sign of that from Snyder's movies.

[In Exile]

Here's the thing about Superman, Batman or Wonder Woman. Of any of those characters, if we collected twenty or thirty of their diehard fans, who are familiar with the central and non-central stories of those characters, and asked them to explain what makes those characters tick or what is at their heart, there would be an insane amount of variation in the answers even from those superfans. No pun intended. There would be similarities in the answers, sure, but what would be evident is that everyone took something personal of those stories and what touched them in them.

 

So if we allow this for fans and writers of the stories, but for some reason when discussing the movies there is apparently a mythical ideal that no one can agree on, yet Snyder is a fool for not seeing it?

 

I wasn't very clear. I mentioned the alternative character interpretation because, for the big characters themselves, I think there's a lot of room to interpret what they are and where they're going or what they mean. 

 

But there are other parts of the mythology built up around these characters that aren't really that complicated or that have been portrayed differently. Portraying the Kent's as an insular group is a pretty different departure, but even that fits.

 

When I say that I don't think Synder gets it, I mean I don't think he gets the implications of what he's trying to do with an interpretation once he's envisioned it or signed off on it. 

 

I get what MOS wanted to go for here - it was Krypton Papa who was all about hope and heroism, whereas Earth Papa was all flawed and human - but that had all sorts of unfortunate implications (e.g. Krypton Papa gives Zod a speech about how it's immoral for Zod decide which bloodlines live or die before he goes off to execute his plan that's centered around having his son decide which Krypton bloodlines live or die). 

[Vroom Vroom]

I think age is a factor, Cranston isn't actually a young man and they seem to have a different feel for this approach than what Cranston would probably be going for.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Cranston would be an awesome Luthor, just no necessarily for this story.

I don't know, they decided to go with an older and experienced Batman. One of the themes could have been about experience vs. raw power.

 

Regardless, I'm not digging the current choice from what I have seen.