babynoz said:

I just realized that I didn't see Batman and Robin, which starred George Clooney...I wonder why I missed it?

I'm a bad fan, I'm gonna see if it's on Amazon on demand.

George Clooney sucked. If you want to be a good bat fan stick with watching all the animated stuff because they are better than the movies (and yes including the Bale movies)

JediMaster said:

babynoz said:

Good points.

What do you think of DC apparently throwing canon out of the window for the most part by declaring that almost everything is canon now? If that's the case then we can't entirely blame the movie makers for playing fast and loose with the story lines, can we?

What's a fan to do going forward?

That was from over a year ago, and the author of that article really missed the point of what DC was doing at the time. They weren't saying "everything is canon", but rather that all of the various incarnations of the DC Universe had existed at one point in the multiverse. The (truly awful) Convergence storyline showed that there was a version of Brainiac that was collecting pieces from each destroyed universe. DC is about to do a storyline called "Rebirth", that many believe will show the different DC Universes interacting with each other in much the same way that the pre-Crisis continuity used to feature Earth One and Earth Two having a yearly crossover.

The Flash TV series is playing around with this concept now, establishing that all the old DC series like the 90's Flash and Smallville exist in parallel universes (as well as the current Supergirl show).

For me, it isn't so much about them playing "fast and loose" with storylines. It's a movie, and I know they can't make it 100% like the comics. Different mediums means that stories will play differently, and have to be adjusted accordingly. Where I get disgruntled is when they change the core of who these characters are supposed to be. Sure, there are established universes in the DC Multiverse that feature deviations, like the "Red Rain" universe where Batman is a vampire, but those iterations are specifically designed to contrast with the core tenants of the characters as they are known. This is supposed to be the DC Cinematic Universe being built here, and the fact that they chose to make these characters so different from their comic counterparts is what is sad. I want to see BATMAN on the big screen alongside SUPERMAN. I don't want to see gun crazy thug in a bat costume teeming up with emo guy in a superman costume.

Thanks for clarifying because my poor little pumpkin head is spinning.

I think we have different sticking points though.

I find it a little bit easier to deal with them giving Bats and Supes different character traits than I do with all of the various multiverses. A few alternate realities would be okay but as namepeace suggests, DC has not been careful enough in developing their stories as the other franchises. What they have going right now is a hot mess.

Do you think that the traits will evolve with the next movies or will they stick with the thug vs emo guy personas?

JediMaster said:

babynoz said:

Oh my damn, he apologized?

Yeah...he apparently was stunned at how bad it was when he saw the finished film! It's like they tried to make it campy like the 60's series, but it's utterly devoid of the goofy humor and charm of that show. Instead, it's one bad joke after another, with action sequences that will have you cringing! Imagine a film with Arnold Swarzenegger running around making ice puns, while Batman and Robin click their heels together to reveal ice skates! No...I'm not making that up! Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy is an over-the-top, scenery chewing villain from the cheapest cartoon you can imagine (she actually yells out "curses" at one point!).

Now, understand...I love me some goofball, bad movies. There are plenty that qualify as "so bad they're good", but B&R isn't like that. It's just painful to watch, all the way through! They should show this movie to prisoners at Gitmo...those terrorists would be giving up their collaborators in a heartbeat!

Okay, I'm not paying to watch that.

Adam West still gets his props to this day for his portrayal because camp has to be done right. Hell, I still watch those reruns.

kpowers said:

babynoz said:

I just realized that I didn't see Batman and Robin, which starred George Clooney...I wonder why I missed it?

I'm a bad fan, I'm gonna see if it's on Amazon on demand.

George Clooney sucked. If you want to be a good bat fan stick with watching all the animated stuff because they are better than the movies (and yes including the Bale movies)

I think I'm having a crisis...I may need counseling to deal with this,

babynoz said:

kpowers said:

George Clooney sucked. If you want to be a good bat fan stick with watching all the animated stuff because they are better than the movies (and yes including the Bale movies)

I think I'm having a crisis...I may need counseling to deal with this,

The cure is to watch the following dvd's

JediMaster said:

babynoz said:

Good points.

What do you think of DC apparently throwing canon out of the window for the most part by declaring that almost everything is canon now? If that's the case then we can't entirely blame the movie makers for playing fast and loose with the story lines, can we?

What's a fan to do going forward?

That was from over a year ago, and the author of that article really missed the point of what DC was doing at the time. They weren't saying "everything is canon", but rather that all of the various incarnations of the DC Universe had existed at one point in the multiverse. The (truly awful) Convergence storyline showed that there was a version of Brainiac that was collecting pieces from each destroyed universe. DC is about to do a storyline called "Rebirth", that many believe will show the different DC Universes interacting with each other in much the same way that the pre-Crisis continuity used to feature Earth One and Earth Two having a yearly crossover.

The Flash TV series is playing around with this concept now, establishing that all the old DC series like the 90's Flash and Smallville exist in parallel universes (as well as the current Supergirl show).

For me, it isn't so much about them playing "fast and loose" with storylines. It's a movie, and I know they can't make it 100% like the comics. Different mediums means that stories will play differently, and have to be adjusted accordingly. Where I get disgruntled is when they change the core of who these characters are supposed to be. Sure, there are established universes in the DC Multiverse that feature deviations, like the "Red Rain" universe where Batman is a vampire, but those iterations are specifically designed to contrast with the core tenants of the characters as they are known. This is supposed to be the DC Cinematic Universe being built here, and the fact that they chose to make these characters so different from their comic counterparts is what is sad. I want to see BATMAN on the big screen alongside SUPERMAN. I don't want to see gun crazy thug in a bat costume teeming up with emo guy in a superman costume.

Maybe you said this or maybe I read it on another forum, but what is also sad about Warner Bros. choosing these "Elseworlds" versions of Batman and Superman to anchor their cinematic universe is that many little kids will be seeing this movie and it will be their first exposure to live action versions of Batman and Superman and become for them the definitive versions of these heroes as they grow up.

sexton said:

JediMaster said:

That was from over a year ago, and the author of that article really missed the point of what DC was doing at the time. They weren't saying "everything is canon", but rather that all of the various incarnations of the DC Universe had existed at one point in the multiverse. The (truly awful) Convergence storyline showed that there was a version of Brainiac that was collecting pieces from each destroyed universe. DC is about to do a storyline called "Rebirth", that many believe will show the different DC Universes interacting with each other in much the same way that the pre-Crisis continuity used to feature Earth One and Earth Two having a yearly crossover.

The Flash TV series is playing around with this concept now, establishing that all the old DC series like the 90's Flash and Smallville exist in parallel universes (as well as the current Supergirl show).

For me, it isn't so much about them playing "fast and loose" with storylines. It's a movie, and I know they can't make it 100% like the comics. Different mediums means that stories will play differently, and have to be adjusted accordingly. Where I get disgruntled is when they change the core of who these characters are supposed to be. Sure, there are established universes in the DC Multiverse that feature deviations, like the "Red Rain" universe where Batman is a vampire, but those iterations are specifically designed to contrast with the core tenants of the characters as they are known. This is supposed to be the DC Cinematic Universe being built here, and the fact that they chose to make these characters so different from their comic counterparts is what is sad. I want to see BATMAN on the big screen alongside SUPERMAN. I don't want to see gun crazy thug in a bat costume teeming up with emo guy in a superman costume.

Maybe you said this or maybe I read it on another forum, but what is also sad about Warner Bros. choosing these "Elseworlds" versions of Batman and Superman to anchor their cinematic universe is that many little kids will be seeing this movie and it will be their first exposure to live action versions of Batman and Superman and become for them the definitive versions of these heroes as they grow up.

That is a very valid concern.

If we look at it overall they seem to be taking these stories and characters away from being kid friendly across the board, even on TV with shows like Grimm for example.

A lot of the stories that were primarily for kids in the past have become way too intense and dark for them nowadays. Even though younglings are more sophisticated nowadays I wouldn't let my kid see a lot of this stuff.

JediMaster said:

babynoz said:

Oh my damn, he apologized?

Yeah...he apparently was stunned at how bad it was when he saw the finished film! It's like they tried to make it campy like the 60's series, but it's utterly devoid of the goofy humor and charm of that show. Instead, it's one bad joke after another, with action sequences that will have you cringing! Imagine a film with Arnold Swarzenegger running around making ice puns, while Batman and Robin click their heels together to reveal ice skates! No...I'm not making that up! Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy is an over-the-top, scenery chewing villain from the cheapest cartoon you can imagine (she actually yells out "curses" at one point!).

Now, understand...I love me some goofball, bad movies. There are plenty that qualify as "so bad they're good", but B&R isn't like that. It's just painful to watch, all the way through! They should show this movie to prisoners at Gitmo...those terrorists would be giving up their collaborators in a heartbeat!

I blame the Ass-Known-As Joel Schumacher for that disaster, not Clooney. Schumacher said he wanted to make Batman "fun" again, and that it was time he got over the death of his parents. That's when you knew the film was in trouble. And don't get me started with the nipples on the Batsuit - what's up with that? Thank goodness for Nolan & Bale rescuing the franchise after Schumacher nearly killed it.

Hardcore comic/sci-fi geeks like me don't want light-hearted kiddie fare - fuck that shit. I'm glad these films are more "adult". I want dark, gritty superhero movies, with heroes and villians dying.

babynoz said:

I brought my 3 year old to see it and she loved it. She never once talked or complained or looked to leave. There was one bit that she jumped at and got a bit scared but she was ok. She laughed afterwards. It was the bit where the big bat appears in Bruces dream. Which, in fairness, frightened me more than it frightened her... She loves Batman though so I think she was just happy to see a live action version because up to now, she's only seen the animated series and the Arkham games my brother plays with her.

EmmaMcG said:

babynoz said:

That is a very valid concern.

If we look at it overall they seem to be taking these stories and characters away from being kid friendly across the board, even on TV with shows like Grimm for example.

A lot of the stories that were primarily for kids in the past have become way too intense and dark for them nowadays. Even though younglings are more sophisticated nowadays I wouldn't let my kid see a lot of this stuff.

I brought my 3 year old to see it and she loved it. She never once talked or complained or looked to leave. There was one bit that she jumped at and got a bit scared but she was ok. She laughed afterwards. It was the bit where the big bat appears in Bruces dream. Which, in fairness, frightened me more than it frightened her... She loves Batman though so I think she was just happy to see a live action version because up to now, she's only seen the animated series and the Arkham games my brother plays with her.

BVS was a little too intense for me to take a small child to see but it wasn't as gory as some of these shows have become.

Why you no likey the Tumbler though?

EmmaMcG said:

She loves Batman though so I think she was just happy to see a live action version because up to now, she's only seen the animated series and the Arkham games my brother plays with her.

Don't ever show her that awful 60s TV show.

uPtoWnNY said:

JediMaster said:

Yeah...he apparently was stunned at how bad it was when he saw the finished film! It's like they tried to make it campy like the 60's series, but it's utterly devoid of the goofy humor and charm of that show. Instead, it's one bad joke after another, with action sequences that will have you cringing! Imagine a film with Arnold Swarzenegger running around making ice puns, while Batman and Robin click their heels together to reveal ice skates! No...I'm not making that up! Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy is an over-the-top, scenery chewing villain from the cheapest cartoon you can imagine (she actually yells out "curses" at one point!).

Now, understand...I love me some goofball, bad movies. There are plenty that qualify as "so bad they're good", but B&R isn't like that. It's just painful to watch, all the way through! They should show this movie to prisoners at Gitmo...those terrorists would be giving up their collaborators in a heartbeat!

I blame the Ass-Known-As Joel Schumacher for that disaster, not Clooney. Schumacher said he wanted to make Batman "fun" again, and that it was time he got over the death of his parents. That's when you knew the film was in trouble. And don't get me started with the nipples on the Batsuit - what's up with that? Thank goodness for Nolan & Bale rescuing the franchise after Schumacher nearly killed it.

Hardcore comic/sci-fi geeks like me don't want light-hearted kiddie fare - fuck that shit. I'm glad these films are more "adult". I want dark, gritty superhero movies, with heroes and villians dying.

We already know you's a big 'ol meanie,

uPtoWnNY said:

EmmaMcG said:

She loves Batman though so I think she was just happy to see a live action version because up to now, she's only seen the animated series and the Arkham games my brother plays with her.

Don't ever show her that awful 60s TV show.

Stoppit....that was the fun of it!

[img:$uid]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/delivertheword/gifs/batman_zpsfb13e326.gif[/img:$uid]

[Edited 4/6/16 15:37pm]

kpowers said:

If you want to be a good bat fan stick with watching all the animated stuff because they are better than the movies (and yes including the Bale movies)

Looks like you forgot a couple of great animated shows:

TheBatman said:

kpowers said:

If you want to be a good bat fan stick with watching all the animated stuff because they are better than the movies (and yes including the Bale movies)

Looks like you forgot a couple of great animated shows:

I liked The Batman cartoon but did not like the annimation. looked like that Jackie Chan cartoon (Probably the same people).

Also disappointed with the kiddish new Justice League cartoon

Also did not like Batman Brave and the Bold

babynoz said:

databank said:

I don't mind changing the characters a bit, movies always do that by nature. I was just expressing surprise and certain doubts about how cohesive the character treatment will be in the future. In some JLA comics, particularly the Giffen/DeMatteis era, Bats took certain responsibilities as the guy making sure the JLA was a functional unit, so it's not entirely unlike him. I just didn't expect him to be the guy to make the first call, and as for the visions if they are eventually explained I'm fine with that.

I hated MoS certainly not because of the changes done to the character (I don't mind darker) but because I found it too much of a rehash of the Donner/Lester movies, as well as slow, boring, terribly lacking characters' development and poor in plot.

I was totally pissed by the way SW7 was nothing but a reheash of ANH. And while I found Snyder to be incredibly faithful to the source material with Watchmen, I was amazed at the little change to the ending, that IMHO achieves the impossible, i.e. adding an improvement to Moore's masterpiece (looping the loop by replacing the fake alien monster by a fake Dr. M. attack).

For the most part I can go with the flow but when they veer too far from the source I get testy.

Going forward it seems we can look forward to a hot mess as far as the comics are concerned anyway.....

http://comicbook.com/2015...lly-canon/

This concept is very close to Grant Morrison's hypertime concept introduced in 1998 but soon given up, which also acknowledged every version/reboot of the DCU as authentic.

The DCU in comics makes no sense to me anymore now, it's more of a non-continuity than a continuity and their attempts to rationalize it are more and more pathetic.

After a few big post COIE continuity issues and inconsistencies, things had pretty much settled-up after Zero Hour and save a few quacks, from 1986 to 2004 the DCU had a pretty stable, cohesive and functional continuity. Then came Dan Didio who began to basically reboot either characters or the whole universe every other day, and that's when I lost interest. Didio will always be the man who destroyed the DCU, he's worse than the Anti-Monitor and Parallax altogether

JediMaster said:

databank said:

Snyder is a genius cinematographer and visual storyteller, there is simply no possible debate about that.

Now he's not much of a screenwriter (as proven by Sucker Punch) and directors shouldn't take the blame for the writer's job. Snyder didn't writer neither MoS nor BvS.

Snyder gave us Dawn of the dead, 300 and most of all Watchmen. For those 3 films alone I'll worship the guy forever no matter what he does next.

I'd say he's very good on visuals, very lacking in the "storytelling" department. His movies all look quite good, but they're all over the place in terms of substance. This is why I compare him to Bay, who is also all about style with a complete disregard for anything resembling substance.

I disagree that the director shouldn't take responsibility for bad writing, as it is the director's JOB to shape the script into a decent film. He has enough clout in Hollywood that he could have rejected the awful script for BvS, or at least ordered rewrites. He's admitted that crap like casting Eisenberg instead of Cranston (who was originally brought in by the studio for Luthor), having Batman use guns and having Superman be plagued with angst were all HIS ideas. Heck, he said the reason he didn't want to use the TV version of The Flash was because it wasn't "dark enough", when Flash isn't supposed to be "dark" at all! Heck, NONE of the Justice League are supposed to be, with the exception of Batman! He proves, time and again, that he doesn't understand these characters at all.

You cite DotD, 300 & Watchmen...all very angsty, dark films. Obviously, he cannot see beyond that. Maybe he should be directing the Spawn reboot instead, and stay away from characters who are a bit more complex than that.

OK you make a point with directorial powers and responsibilities.

Regarding dark n gritty I see where u're coming from and it's been an ongoiung debate since the mid 80's: should superheroes remain innocent or be darkened to be more realistic?

My take was always that superheroes are not Mickey Mouse and therefore grounded in the real world. They are people who take on violent situations, struggle against violent individuals and have to use physical force to stop them: I fail to see how their lives could be anything but filled with chaos and death. Their jobs are not unlike the jobs of policemen, soldiers or bounty hunters: violent professions.

Now it doesn't mean it can't be fun or light-hearted and still good. It can even be both dark and funny (Peter David is an expert at doing that with genius), and the very light-hearted Giffen-DeMatteis era of JLA is one of my favorite writer run ever. But as long as the story isn't dull (like Image comics in the 90's), I would never blame a writer or moviemaker for making a character darker than its original incarnation if it makes it all the more believeable to me.

Now the MCU has found quite a perfect balance between very happy-go-lucky characters such as Ant-Man or the Guardians of the Galaxy, very dark stories with the Netflix series, and things that are somewhat in between with for example Age of Ultron. I think the beauty of the DCU and the MU always have been that you can have a dark n gritty story coexisting with a hilarious series, a cursed anti-hero like Constantine coexisting with an idealistic hero like Superman in the same universe.

The DCEU is an attempt at putting the DCU on screen, the Arrowverse is another, one is dark and the other is more light-hearted, I find this a good compromise in the end

JediMaster said:

babynoz said:

Oh my damn, he apologized?

Yeah...he apparently was stunned at how bad it was when he saw the finished film! It's like they tried to make it campy like the 60's series, but it's utterly devoid of the goofy humor and charm of that show. Instead, it's one bad joke after another, with action sequences that will have you cringing! Imagine a film with Arnold Swarzenegger running around making ice puns, while Batman and Robin click their heels together to reveal ice skates! No...I'm not making that up! Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy is an over-the-top, scenery chewing villain from the cheapest cartoon you can imagine (she actually yells out "curses" at one point!).

Now, understand...I love me some goofball, bad movies. There are plenty that qualify as "so bad they're good", but B&R isn't like that. It's just painful to watch, all the way through! They should show this movie to prisoners at Gitmo...those terrorists would be giving up their collaborators in a heartbeat!

I finally watched B&R for the first time 3 years ago. God was I scared! In the end I realized it was just a cartoon and thought "well I'm bored to death but I'm sure it's a great film if u're 6 years old!". And then I read that Schumacher was shouting "this is a cartoon, remember!" to the actors before shooting scenes, so in that regard the director has achieved his purpose: a great film for 6 years-old. Now of course it wasn't what the more mature audiences wanted and the film got what it deserved

databank said:

It's weird that the ACTUAL cartoon from the 90's was more mature than either of Joel Schumacher's movies. I really don't understand why they don't have Paul Dini and Bruce Timm involved in making the new movies.

EmmaMcG said:

databank said:

I finally watched B&R for the first time 3 years ago. God was I scared! In the end I realized it was just a cartoon and thought "well I'm bored to death but I'm sure it's a great film if u're 6 years old!". And then I read that Schumacher was shouting "this is a cartoon, remember!" to the actors before shooting scenes, so in that regard the director has achieved his purpose: a great film for 6 years-old. Now of course it wasn't what the more mature audiences wanted and the film got what it deserved

It's weird that the ACTUAL cartoon from the 90's was more mature than either of Joel Schumacher's movies. I really don't understand why they don't have Paul Dini and Bruce Timm involved in making the new movies.

Good question. Have they ever spoken about this in interviews?

Nolan/Snyder seemed a perfect team though, given both their past records by the time the production of MoS was started, I really totally didn't anticipate for a minute that I wouldn't like MoS before I watched it.

One thing is that WB execs are just dicks when it comes to DC. To them DC is (or at least was) a minor property and they always considered only the 2 milk cows (Supes and Bats) had any cinematic potential. The rest was only good for lame b movies like Steel, Swamp Thing, Hex, Catwoman or The Losers, quick cash to make with teen audiences. Watchmen and V4Vendetta were sort of apart because mature comics, Alan Moore and not DCU, so they put more effort into those because they felt critical acclaim was a possibility. It's only when Marvel became big that they suddenly woke up and were like OK? maybe DC properties other than Bats and Supes can turn into blockbusters. But the problem is they have no love for, or knowledge of the source material. Marvel made a smart move by producing its own movies themselves: the company publishing the comics and the company making the movies is the same, the people working on the movies have respect for the properties they are working on. Sure they aim to make money but they know what a good comic is and they aim to take the best of comics and put it onscreen.

There's a consistency in quality in Marvel's self-produced films while with DC it's really hit (Burton's Batman, Nolan's Batman, Watchmen, V4Vendetta) or miss (virtually everything else), a bit like it was with non-Marvel produced MU films.

Now in the end was GL or is BvS as bad as some say? I don't think so, they are pretty decent superheroes films if u ask me but maybe they lack something, a little magic or passion that you have in Marvel's films. But as I said I pretty much liked BvS overall and my final judgment over it will depend on how they build the universe from that point on. For all I know I may even like MoS better when I see it again, not as a stand alone film but as an episode in a series. It did that to me with Batman begins or Spider-Man 3: I wasn't too hot about those but when I saw the trilogies in a row suddenly they made much more sense and I got to like them better.

[Edited 4/7/16 1:52am]

I really enjoyed this film.
I know that it was really intense and a lot of the scenes would be upsetting for younger fans, but, it was never meant to be for younger children. They can enjoy the cartoons!
A lot of the violence is over the top, but, this is supposed to be representative of a world that needs saving!
The film was far from perfect. Lex Luther was incredibly badly cast! We really didn't require that final shot. Doomsday had a much better backstory in the comicbooks.
I got the feeling that a lot of studio pressure was on the director to set up the next film where he should have been allowed to tell this tale over a couple of movies. Still, I think that The Dark Knight suffered from the same thing, where too much storytelling leads to an allegedly 'epic' film where two movies telling the same story could have had greater character development leading to a better emotional payoff.
All in all a great night's entertainment which provoked a lot of debate within our family. Definitely not recommended for small children and people who take these things far too seriously. It's a great spectacle that should be watched on a big screen and I promise you that you will want to talk about it afterwards. My favourite movies are the ones that provoke thought and debate and this was very successful at that!

uPtoWnNY said:

Yeah, Joel's Batman & Robin did suck. I never thought Clooney was bad it was just that script. I've always thought suppose Clooney was cast in Tim Burton's Batman & Batman Returns. Clooney in my opinion would have done well. Out of Clooney,Kilmer,Keaton I've always thought only Clooney could do both.
P
I've often wondered what we would have gotten In Batman 3 had Tim Burton,Michael Keaton had stayed with the the project.

databank said:

babynoz said:

For the most part I can go with the flow but when they veer too far from the source I get testy.

Going forward it seems we can look forward to a hot mess as far as the comics are concerned anyway.....

http://comicbook.com/2015...lly-canon/

This concept is very close to Grant Morrison's hypertime concept introduced in 1998 but soon given up, which also acknowledged every version/reboot of the DCU as authentic.

The DCU in comics makes no sense to me anymore now, it's more of a non-continuity than a continuity and their attempts to rationalize it are more and more pathetic.

After a few big post COIE continuity issues and inconsistencies, things had pretty much settled-up after Zero Hour and save a few quacks, from 1986 to 2004 the DCU had a pretty stable, cohesive and functional continuity. Then came Dan Didio who began to basically reboot either characters or the whole universe every other day, and that's when I lost interest. Didio will always be the man who destroyed the DCU, he's worse than the Anti-Monitor and Parallax altogether

Mackopolis said:

I really enjoyed this film. I know that it was really intense and a lot of the scenes would be upsetting for younger fans, but, it was never meant to be for younger children. They can enjoy the cartoons! A lot of the violence is over the top, but, this is supposed to be representative of a world that needs saving! The film was far from perfect. Lex Luther was incredibly badly cast! We really didn't require that final shot. Doomsday had a much better backstory in the comicbooks. I got the feeling that a lot of studio pressure was on the director to set up the next film where he should have been allowed to tell this tale over a couple of movies. Still, I think that The Dark Knight suffered from the same thing, where too much storytelling leads to an allegedly 'epic' film where two movies telling the same story could have had greater character development leading to a better emotional payoff. All in all a great night's entertainment which provoked a lot of debate within our family. Definitely not recommended for small children and people who take these things far too seriously. It's a great spectacle that should be watched on a big screen and I promise you that you will want to talk about it afterwards. My favourite movies are the ones that provoke thought and debate and this was very successful at that!

Definitely better not to take this stuff too seriously and just have fun with it. My kids are grown so we have some good debates back and forth. I wouldn't want to have the worry of whether or not I should have a small child with us but I think a lot of people still think of these as kids movies.

Altering Doomsday to resemble an Orc was unnecessary and it irked me. He also resembled that monster in Star Wars more than Doomsday from the comics. Lex Jr. also irked me.

I like the extended storytelling. I get fatigued when the film is too busy with fights, chases and explosions.

Overall we had a good time and will likely go see it again.

databank said:

babynoz said:

For the most part I can go with the flow but when they veer too far from the source I get testy.

Going forward it seems we can look forward to a hot mess as far as the comics are concerned anyway.....

http://comicbook.com/2015...lly-canon/

This concept is very close to Grant Morrison's hypertime concept introduced in 1998 but soon given up, which also acknowledged every version/reboot of the DCU as authentic.

The DCU in comics makes no sense to me anymore now, it's more of a non-continuity than a continuity and their attempts to rationalize it are more and more pathetic.

After a few big post COIE continuity issues and inconsistencies, things had pretty much settled-up after Zero Hour and save a few quacks, from 1986 to 2004 the DCU had a pretty stable, cohesive and functional continuity. Then came Dan Didio who began to basically reboot either characters or the whole universe every other day, and that's when I lost interest. Didio will always be the man who destroyed the DCU, he's worse than the Anti-Monitor and Parallax altogether

Mark Waid created the Hypertime concept. Morrison was one of the few writers who actually got what Waid was trying to do and wrote decent stories about it. There is a definite similarity, but in this case they are just opening up the possibility for stories to be told in the other universes. Whether or not Rebirth winds up using this or not remains to be seen. One encouraging thing, to me anyway, is that they seem to know they screwed the pooch with the New 52 reboot, and that the sense of legacy in the DCU took a massive hit. At this point, it may just be a band-aid on a shotgun wound though. We'll see.

babynoz said:

JediMaster said:

That was from over a year ago, and the author of that article really missed the point of what DC was doing at the time. They weren't saying "everything is canon", but rather that all of the various incarnations of the DC Universe had existed at one point in the multiverse. The (truly awful) Convergence storyline showed that there was a version of Brainiac that was collecting pieces from each destroyed universe. DC is about to do a storyline called "Rebirth", that many believe will show the different DC Universes interacting with each other in much the same way that the pre-Crisis continuity used to feature Earth One and Earth Two having a yearly crossover.

The Flash TV series is playing around with this concept now, establishing that all the old DC series like the 90's Flash and Smallville exist in parallel universes (as well as the current Supergirl show).

For me, it isn't so much about them playing "fast and loose" with storylines. It's a movie, and I know they can't make it 100% like the comics. Different mediums means that stories will play differently, and have to be adjusted accordingly. Where I get disgruntled is when they change the core of who these characters are supposed to be. Sure, there are established universes in the DC Multiverse that feature deviations, like the "Red Rain" universe where Batman is a vampire, but those iterations are specifically designed to contrast with the core tenants of the characters as they are known. This is supposed to be the DC Cinematic Universe being built here, and the fact that they chose to make these characters so different from their comic counterparts is what is sad. I want to see BATMAN on the big screen alongside SUPERMAN. I don't want to see gun crazy thug in a bat costume teeming up with emo guy in a superman costume.

Thanks for clarifying because my poor little pumpkin head is spinning.

I think we have different sticking points though.

I find it a little bit easier to deal with them giving Bats and Supes different character traits than I do with all of the various multiverses. A few alternate realities would be okay but as namepeace suggests, DC has not been careful enough in developing their stories as the other franchises. What they have going right now is a hot mess.

Do you think that the traits will evolve with the next movies or will they stick with the thug vs emo guy personas?

Well, I agree with you, to a certain extent. I don't have a problem with multiple universes, as long as they are telling stories primarily in one. Marvel also has a Multiverse, and (until recently) they were telling the stories within both the Marvel Universe and Ultimate Universe. Now that those two universes have merged, it might streamline things...or it might make them way more confusing!

Still, this is the problem with BvS. These characters all act like some sort of alternate reality versions of their characters, instead of how they are depicted in the prime continuity.

kpowers said:

babynoz said:

I just realized that I didn't see Batman and Robin, which starred George Clooney...I wonder why I missed it?

I'm a bad fan, I'm gonna see if it's on Amazon on demand.

George Clooney sucked. If you want to be a good bat fan stick with watching all the animated stuff because they are better than the movies (and yes including the Bale movies)

The various series that Bruce Timm and Paul Dini worked on (Batman: The Animated Series, The New Adventures of Batman & Robin, Superman: The Animated Series, Batman: Beyond, Justice League and Justice League: Unlimited) are the single best translations of DC characters to date. Kevin Conroy remains THE best Batman...PERIOD! When I read a Batman comic, I hear his voice in my head!

Speaking of...THIS is washing away my pain from BvS! This looks simply superb!

https://youtu.be/hLxwK0kd5kE

sexton said:

JediMaster said:

That was from over a year ago, and the author of that article really missed the point of what DC was doing at the time. They weren't saying "everything is canon", but rather that all of the various incarnations of the DC Universe had existed at one point in the multiverse. The (truly awful) Convergence storyline showed that there was a version of Brainiac that was collecting pieces from each destroyed universe. DC is about to do a storyline called "Rebirth", that many believe will show the different DC Universes interacting with each other in much the same way that the pre-Crisis continuity used to feature Earth One and Earth Two having a yearly crossover.

The Flash TV series is playing around with this concept now, establishing that all the old DC series like the 90's Flash and Smallville exist in parallel universes (as well as the current Supergirl show).

For me, it isn't so much about them playing "fast and loose" with storylines. It's a movie, and I know they can't make it 100% like the comics. Different mediums means that stories will play differently, and have to be adjusted accordingly. Where I get disgruntled is when they change the core of who these characters are supposed to be. Sure, there are established universes in the DC Multiverse that feature deviations, like the "Red Rain" universe where Batman is a vampire, but those iterations are specifically designed to contrast with the core tenants of the characters as they are known. This is supposed to be the DC Cinematic Universe being built here, and the fact that they chose to make these characters so different from their comic counterparts is what is sad. I want to see BATMAN on the big screen alongside SUPERMAN. I don't want to see gun crazy thug in a bat costume teeming up with emo guy in a superman costume.

Maybe you said this or maybe I read it on another forum, but what is also sad about Warner Bros. choosing these "Elseworlds" versions of Batman and Superman to anchor their cinematic universe is that many little kids will be seeing this movie and it will be their first exposure to live action versions of Batman and Superman and become for them the definitive versions of these heroes as they grow up.

I definitely think it's a legitimate concern. I mean, I understand that they didn't make this movie with kids in mind, but these are iconic superheroes that kids will still want to see. Most kids won't be disturbed by the subject matter, but it bugs me that these children will grow up thinking that the Justice League is a bunch of gun-toting, neck-snapping thugs.

uPtoWnNY said:

JediMaster said:

Yeah...he apparently was stunned at how bad it was when he saw the finished film! It's like they tried to make it campy like the 60's series, but it's utterly devoid of the goofy humor and charm of that show. Instead, it's one bad joke after another, with action sequences that will have you cringing! Imagine a film with Arnold Swarzenegger running around making ice puns, while Batman and Robin click their heels together to reveal ice skates! No...I'm not making that up! Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy is an over-the-top, scenery chewing villain from the cheapest cartoon you can imagine (she actually yells out "curses" at one point!).

Now, understand...I love me some goofball, bad movies. There are plenty that qualify as "so bad they're good", but B&R isn't like that. It's just painful to watch, all the way through! They should show this movie to prisoners at Gitmo...those terrorists would be giving up their collaborators in a heartbeat!

I blame the Ass-Known-As Joel Schumacher for that disaster, not Clooney. Schumacher said he wanted to make Batman "fun" again, and that it was time he got over the death of his parents. That's when you knew the film was in trouble. And don't get me started with the nipples on the Batsuit - what's up with that? Thank goodness for Nolan & Bale rescuing the franchise after Schumacher nearly killed it.

Okay, this site really needs a "reply to multiple posts" function!!! Just saying!

While I definitely think Schumacher deserves at least half the blame, the other 50% goes to WB, who told JS up front that they wanted a live-action cartoon. They felt that the tone of Batman Forever was a step in the right direction, and wanted it to be even more goofy and silly. They actually told him, at one point, that he needed to make sure he was making a movie that would sell toys.

I think there is a happy medium. You can have movies that are "darker" but also keep with the tone of the characters from the comics. Also, there are different characters that lend themselves to this treatment. A Justice League film should probably have a tone more in line with what Marvel did with The Avengers, but DC also owns The Authority, which is a violent, adult-aimed book. If they want to do a movie with characters killing their antagonists left and right, adapt that one!

The scene in BvS where Batman rescues Martha Kent is a great example. I have NO problem with 90% of the action in that scene. In fact, if you take Batman's use of guns out of the scene, it would be the fight I've always wanted in a Batman film. Batman should be dark (but not murderous). Superman, on the other hand, should not be. There should be a contrast between the two characters. It's a dynamic that makes their team-ups in the comics fascinating.