Messages

Yeah, that is definitely weird, and wrong.

Why?

As much as I loved Under the Red Hood, his resistance to kill due to a fear of permanently giving into his bloodthirsty tendencies doesn't quite hold up if you think too much about it. The problem is that while it might be understandable he has this personal dilemma, the other problem is he is essentially allowing Joker and co to escape and do more harm again. The writers really take away the nuance between murder outright and justifiable homicide too, though I don't necessarily blame them because this is a DC Comics edit. But no matter how hard they try justify Batman's unwillingness to kill under any circumstances, you'd have to really ignore the other side of the problem to fully buy into this reasoning.

I think it's only a real problem if you want to see it as one. How does it not hold up? Murder isn't the same as someone committing atrocities.

In spite of the edit not fully representing the scene, as there is more nuance to the moment he actually dies. But in the context of the developed intention of the character, that I remember, Bruce punches Joker over the ledge, with seemingly no intention for him to not die. In legal terms, I think, at worst it was murder, I think, at best it's manslaughter, maybe, structure wise.

Ivy values one form of life over another. If we are to believe religious scripture, humans inhabit the Earth to protect it. That explanation never made sense to me.

I don't think the Holy Bible says that humans inhabit earth to protect it. I think it says that "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it"

I liked the recent episode and the story.

I liked the Pilot for the most part. I wasn't into the color grading. I saw it as too similar to Man Of Steel and BvS and such. But I engaged with the characters and I felt the casual-ness of Superman in this version that I think was missing in MOS.

That's the point. It isn't a lot for her. But Diana lost more than just a boyfriend in World War I. A lot of people did. Even many of the survivors came home from the war with injuries, PTSD and so forth. Diana's experiences were intense enough to cause her to give up for quite a while. She came back to fight Doomsday because she was needed.

She stuck around because, as TDK says, "Men are still good. We fight, we kill, we betray one another, but we can rebuild. We can do better."

Nothing in any of the movies showcases PTSD or losing anything more than Steve, really, I think.

That statement is wrong. And it shouldn't matter.

People lose their souls all the time; what's the difference between Michael Corleone doing it and anyone else doing it? People reluctantly put their personal feelings aside to do the right thing all the time; what's the difference between Rick Blaine doing it and anyone else doing it? People marry their childhood sweethearts all the time; what's the difference between Forrest Gump doing it and anyone else doing it? People survive attempted murder all the time; what's the difference between Laurie Strode doing it and anyone else doing it? People go on revenge-fueled killing sprees all the time; what's the difference between Paul Kersey doing it and anyone else doing it?

The difference in each case is its those characters' stories. Their victories, failures, strengths and weaknesses are what define their character arcs and their stories. This is all about as basic as it can possibly get. Your seeming inability to grasp this simple concept of a main character having a story to play out his character arc just makes people wonder if you're a troll who misses the point on purpose.

I don't think this connects to what I said. This doesn't mean people in the fictional world of the movies would care that he died anymore than they care about anyone else.

Fish, for one. One director's work appeals to him while another director's work seems to be losing his appeal to him. You do understand the idea of expressing a preference for one thing over another, yes?

Isn't that more a taste or opinion based issue? Not a decider of who should go?

Nobody said otherwise.

I don't see what the issue, if it's not what's being said.

Because his MOS founded the DCEU. Allowing others the creative freedom to introduce unnecessary continuity problems and inconsistencies in the larger creative tapestry is a bad idea. In the case of Suicide Squad, Johns introduced unnecessary continuity problems within the movie's own context and continuity.

Who decides it's bad? If the studio, in control, doesn't care, what does it matter? I don't deny you the right to express your criticisms on what they do. But factually, this isn't important. If the studio wants to do what they want to do, whether by money or acclaim or art, why should they adhere to what Snyder wants?

Oh, I know, I know, if they're not exactly the same then they must be total opposites, right?

I don't remember what this part was talking about, but if they're not the same, they're not the same.

You know that expression "The customer is always right"? Do you know what it means?

It does not mean that a customer has the right to behave like a jerk, making unrealistic demands, etc. What it means is the customer wants something. And whatever it is that he wants, he's right to want it. If I want a cheeseburger, I'm right to want a cheeseburger. Or if I want to buy a blue car, I'm right to want a blue car.

And I want Snyder's story.

Who decides which customer is always right, at what time, for what reason? Which customer should be listened to? Theoretically, WB listened to some customers, and that led them to Whedon's Justice League. Were they always right? If they're not, why is anyone else?

In Snyder's case, peripheral players in DC Entertainment torpedoed his plan, aided and abetted by an ally on the WB side. It's like anything, politics is politics.

I don't think this negates what I said. His plan isn't owed anything. It and he aren't special.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

That I don't think that showcases a caring about Superman, so I don't think it really matters as a concept, if I remember correctly.

The new Superman and Lois TV show paid homage to Fleischer's Superman.

I see the Boy Scout/Donner purists praising this scene as "everything Superman should be", and how the costume shows the trunks can still work in film and TV. I don't think many of them have seen the Fleischer shorts, because Superman in those cartoons was too busy brawling with criminals, monsters, cultists and WWII Axis soldiers. He had no time to smile and make cheesy comments.

I would love to see a 1940s-esque Superman film in the style of Fleischer. Too bad the costume was wasted on Tyler Hoechlin.

What does saying the shorts still work have to do with how the Fleischer version acted, in the shorts?

[I think Batman Returns is an entertaining movie. As weird as it may seem, it and Batman 89 are some of the movies of my childhood. But I think it's missing elements and potential ideas that could tie the franchise together and further build on character dynamics and story elements that I think have already been set up, to me, in the movie in some ways. Here are the ideas God blessed me with for that:]

I think Batman Returns is an entertaining movie. As weird as it may seem, it and Batman 89 are some of the movies of my childhood. But I think it's missing elements and potential ideas that could tie the franchise together and further build on character dynamics and story elements that I think have already been set up, to me, in the movie in some ways. Here are the ideas God blessed me with for that:

The motive is more tied to Harvey Dent thinking the police need more financial backing, but the mayor is content to let Batman do all the work for the police, who Dent thinks they've become too reliant on.

This adds another element that fills out the idea of mistrust against Batman that the movie later touches on when he's framed by Penguin. And adds a more thorough thematic element that, while I think may be in the movie already, I think is mainly left in the Selina and Bruce last scenes they have together, where I think it comes off like Bruce has learned some form of lesson, in seeing Selina's viscous dark attitude and how it relates to him and now thinking that they're not above the law.

The stress of the job has begun to get to Dent and he's been blacking out and losing time, and seeing a therapist to deal with his problems and talk about his childhood abuse at the hands of his dad, him killing his dad in defense of his mom as he used his coin to force young Harvey what would happen.

Harvey has begun trying to use flipping the coin to make choices for himself as a way to relieve his stress.

Penguin approaches Harvey as a way to help him get his foothold, Harvey being the trusted figure that he is. Harvey thinks he may be able to use the situation to get Penguin in run for mayor and get the funding for the police department and less dependent on Batman.

Selina being his assistant, who accidentally stumbles across the file and information on his mental state and when Dent catches her, her trying to suggest that he step down (Harvey being unwilling to for his fear of leaving Gotham to be consumed by its insanity, him pressuring himself that he has to protect it), the stress of this causing him to snap and transition into his darker personality that takes over in his blackouts. This dark version pushing Selina out the window, in a perception of the ends of justify the means.

Naturally the change equals a change in how Bruce and Harvey interact, as opposed to how Bruce and Shreck interact. Now the dynamic is more one of opposing perspectives that Bruce begins to see Harvey's side of in the situation about Batman and how Batman may be responsible for the current insanity of their situation. We can maybe even parallel the idea of Bruce's obsession to save Gotham being connected to his parents death and Harvey's obsession to do so and how he pressures himself to is connected to him feeling powerless as a child to protect his mom and how he killed his dad to do so.

His mental breaking begins to become harsher, after finding out that he's made a deal with a criminal in Oswald, the stress beginning to consume him.

At the end, the stress finally causes a complete break when he's taken by Penguin (for Harvey turning on him after realizing what he is), and is nearly killed by Selina, him trying to kill her in his darker persona, and then her electrocuting him, burning half his face.

Amongst the ending parts of the movie, Bruce visits Harvey in the hospital, apologizing for failing him and the city, later showing Harvey no longer in his bed, and ending on an uncertain not for Bruce about himself and how he relates to the city.

Please review and tell me what you think!

Because Snyder was originally the creative pointman for the DCEU. Johns went out of his way to torpedo Snyder's vision and story because of course he did. The DCEU got dismantled for no obvious reason. I don't care about other filmmakers having their own vision. What I wanted was for Snyder's vision to be left tf alone.

This is it, right here.

The DCEU had a specific tone and continuity that has been diluted due to appeasement. I say Jenkins is a retrograde elitist and I would rather she be kicked to the curb, as hard as possible. Whedon style films go against my sensibilities, and I choose to ignore WW84. It's been slammed into a timeline where it doesn't fit. The studio ultimately decides about projects, but I know where I stand.

That's not how creativity works. Snyder, all by himself, doesn't have ownership over these characters or these stories. He isn't owed, all by himself, adhering to his vision anymore than Nolan or Burton are, and they aren't owed that. Each has their own desires, their own perceptions, their own goals. If Snyder gets to do what he wants, why should no one else? I think that's a double standard. What you want, all by itself, isn't owed to you.

If you change horses midstream, just abandon the series completely. If you hire Zack Snyder you get a Zack Snyder film. The studio kept him on for JL and then got cold feet. He kept his end of the bargain, and they didn't. That's on them. The enthusiasm for ZSJL speaks for itself, and in that regard the fans have decided.

And if the studio doesn't feel like he's delivered on what they want, they have no obligation to him, on his own, to continue with his vision. He's not special.

In respect to global protection, Superman is more important to normal humans and I fail to see why somebody would even pose the question. He has a much longer lifespan and can do what others cannot. Deciding to sacrifice that is a big deal as it greatly reduces the tenure of his heroic acts on Earth. A policeman isn't going to be able to push back an invading alien force.

Wonder Woman becomes the next in line to replace Superman in a world protector sense given her power levels. Superman's death solidifies her commitment to re-emerge.

I don't think Superman as a global protector is shown to be cared about by the people or in regards to his lifespan. And that doesn't equal people suddenly caring about him, like he's more important. He's not. Doing the right thing is doing the right thing, no matter how big in scale it is. To me, I think that's more like people look at Superman like a weapon.