Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice

Tools    






Changing the ending worked fine in the context of the film. Please note you brought that up, not me.

Am I wrong in the violence?
Yeah. The point was made in the film that the violence wasnt "comic booky", and not even Sin City did the gore make such an impact. To go out of the way to focus on the blood in the film would have been a mistake as it would have taken away from the tone being set. In the comic its important for the panel to be mostly blood so it does make an impact. Zack Snyder nailed gore correctly in 300, he knows what hes doing.



I will tell you who did a film version of a Watchmen fight and did it well. Christopher Nolan.

In The Dark Knight Rises (which I like just fine in the context of the trilogy) when Bane and Batman first fight it is exactly how the violence of Watchmen should have been presented, IMO. There's no music and no slow motion. The fight is fast, brutal and violent. The result of the fight is only tamed slightly because of the need to keep it PG-13, but when Bane punches Batman in the head until his mask breaks it is one of the most perfectly captured moments of violence I've seen in a comic adaptation.

Chris Nolan would have made a solid Watchmen adaptation, and may have been closer to what youre going on about. I dont know if it would have made a better movie though. As it was Watchman wasnt commercially recieved well, and making it slower. darker, and less impactful I doubt would have improved it any.



Sheesh, I'm sorry I didn't go over all the characters one by one and psychoanalyze them.

But I'm not wrong. There is a certain amount of sociopathy on display in all of the masked heroes in Watchmen.
Define sociopathy? If anything, it's your own black & white labeling that does a disservice to the book's characters.

Yes, and again, I'm not writing a term paper on the comic. I'm pointing out how I think Snyder failed the material.
Nah, you're just saying he failed ad nauseam. I think he did a pretty good job, all said and done.



Ah, such beauty. Such grace. Especially in the frame where Dan rips a guys nose off...

No, I flat out disagree with you on the violence. At no point does the comic glorify or beautify the violence on display.


We'll have to agree to disagree. Those pages show a contrasting portrayal of static "snapshot" panels capturing gruesomeness vs. a relatively more fluid display of action. Blood alone does not equal a realistic fight scene. The fight between Dan & Laurie and the gang in the alley in the film was brutal in its own way, obviously an extension/elaboration of the comic's violence put into motion but not so dissimilar from it as the Veidt fight imagery shows. You are essentially cherrypicking and flatly asserting with one page what another page is clearly not.

We can argue about how the film's violence is generally more stylized in comparison to the book, but be prepared to rationalize the comic's absurdities in its "realistic" action such as Veidt's bullet-catching.
__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!



Define sociopathy? If anything, it's your own black & white labeling that does a disservice to the book's characters.
Not sure why you don't think they are, in some ways, not normal.

Just the idea that breaking the law to fight crime is step one to questionable behavior, but each character represents one form or another of very messed up people. If you knew anyone in real life like any of these characters I doubt you'd socialize with them.



Nah, you're just saying he failed ad nauseam. I think he did a pretty good job, all said and done.
As another example of why I felt he failed entirely, I'll sum it up with my favorite moment in the story. In the comic, when Rorschach is screaming for Dr. Manhattan to finish him and he does, it was one of the most devastating things I'd ever read in any comic ever. Because Snyder just can't get his characters to connect on any kind of emotional level that scene, along with pretty much any other scene where I'm supposed to feel something, I simply didn't. I felt for Rorschach because I had the knowledge of the comic to support the moment, but, had I never read the novels, that scene in the movie would have been emotionally empty. All of his films are emotionally empty, IMO.



We'll have to agree to disagree. Those pages show a contrasting portrayal of static "snapshot" panels capturing gruesomeness vs. a relatively more fluid display of action. Blood alone does not equal a realistic fight scene. The fight between Dan & Laurie and the gang in the alley in the film was brutal in its own way, obviously an extension/elaboration of the comic's violence put into motion but not so dissimilar from it as the Veidt fight imagery shows. You are essentially cherrypicking and flatly asserting with one page what another page is clearly not.

We can argue about how the film's violence is generally more stylized in comparison to the book, but be prepared to rationalize the comic's absurdities in its "realistic" action such as Veidt's bullet-catching.
I never tried to say the actual acts of violence are realistic. I said the consequences of violence in Watchmen are portrayed realistically versus what comics had presented up to that point in time. I showed the Batman picture vs the Watchmen page as an example. The results of violent action in Watchmen is never, ever pretty. In the film, even when it gets gory it's presented in a way that makes me think violence is cool despite the fact that the comics never meant it to be seen that way.
__________________



Not sure why you don't think they are, in some ways, not normal.

Just the idea that breaking the law to fight crime is step one to questionable behavior, but each character represents one form or another of very messed up people. If you knew anyone in real life like any of these characters I doubt you'd socialize with them.
There are extreme examples of maladjustment like Rorschach but Dan, Laurie? I think you're trying too hard to cast these characters as all very "crazy" which defeats the purpose of you whining about the film's supposed great lack of complexity in comparison. Though you did seem to have backpedaled a bit from your previous blanket generalization of all the characters being "complete sociopaths and/or narcissists". Not sure really whether to give credit or what, but maybe you should be a bit clearer in your language and clarify just what you think them being "sociopathic" really means in your mind? Because the majority of them clearly don't lack conscience and besides, moral conscience is exactly what makes them interesting as flawed people struggling with whether the ends really justify their means.

As another example of why I felt he failed entirely, I'll sum it up with my favorite moment in the story. In the comic, when Rorschach is screaming for Dr. Manhattan to finish him and he does, it was one of the most devastating things I'd ever read in any comic ever. Because Snyder just can't get his characters to connect on any kind of emotional level that scene, along with pretty much any other scene where I'm supposed to feel something, I simply didn't. I felt for Rorschach because I had the knowledge of the comic to support the moment, but, had I never read the novels, that scene in the movie would have been emotionally empty. All of his films are emotionally empty, IMO.
I felt JEH's performance as Rorschach was quite good but not merely a note for note copy of the comic's character. I think you were probably let down by the softer intonation Haley used as opposed to the comic Rorschach's defiant rage. Matter of taste but I can appreciate such small differences without screaming about Snyder "failing".

I never tried to say the actual acts of violence are realistic. I said the consequences of violence in Watchmen are portrayed realistically versus what comics had presented up to that point in time. I showed the Batman picture vs the Watchmen page as an example. The results of violent action in Watchmen is never, ever pretty. In the film, even when it gets gory it's presented in a way that makes me think violence is cool despite the fact that the comics never meant it to be seen that way.
The consequences? A woman shoots a man and he catches the bullet. You think that makes the book inherently morally superior and believable in its portrayal of violence? I simply cannot fathom the tightrope act of cognitive dissonance you are walking here. We can argue shades of grey in terms of stylized violence but your black & white assertions about book vs. film are ridiculously overstated and even sanctimoniously fanboyish.



Besides, as for your point Watchmen the comic portrayed realistic consequences "versus what comics had presented up to that point in time", I'm pretty sure that's not quite accurate even if I conceded that Watchmen's violence was wholly grounded and moral in its depiction of consequences. I'm pretty sure there are older, some even much older, examples of realistic consequences in comics. Gwen Stacy's death, I think, was a good deal older event in Spiderman comics.



There are extreme examples of maladjustment like Rorschach but Dan, Laurie? I think you're trying too hard to cast these characters as all very "crazy" which defeats the purpose of you whining about the film's supposed great lack of complexity in comparison. Though you did seem to have backpedaled a bit from your previous blanket generalization of all the characters being "complete sociopaths and/or narcissists". Not sure really whether to give credit or what, but maybe you should be a bit clearer in your language and clarify just what you think them being "sociopathic" really means in your mind? Because the majority of them clearly don't lack conscience and besides, moral conscience is exactly what makes them interesting as flawed people struggling with whether the ends really justify their means.
From Wiki :Moore said, "DC realized their expensive characters would end up either dead or dysfunctional."

Or Moore's own ideas about superheroes.

Someone else from Wiki (yes, I can admit my ideas aren't original, but I did come of them under my own reflection of repeated readings of the comic): "Geoff Klock eschewed the term "deconstruction" in favor of describing Watchmen as a "revisionary superhero narrative." He considers Watchmen and Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns to be "the first instances ... of [a] new kind of comic book ... a first phase of development, the transition of the superhero from fantasy to literature."[54] He elaborates by noting that "Alan Moore's realism ... performs a kenosis towards comic book history ... [which] does not ennoble and empower his characters ... Rather, it sends a wave of disruption back through superhero history ... devalue[ing] one of the basic superhero conventions by placing his masked crime fighters in a realistic world".[55] First and foremost, "Moore's exploration of the [often sexual] motives for costumed crimefighting sheds a disturbing light on past superhero stories, and forces the reader to reevaluate—to revision—every superhero in terms of Moore's kenosis—his emptying out of the tradition."[56] Klock relates the title to the quote by Juvenal to highlight the problem of controlling those who hold power and quoted repeatedly within the work itself.[57] The deconstructive nature of Watchmen is, Klock notes, played out on the page also as, "[l]ike Alan Moore's kenosis, [Veidt] must destroy, then reconstruct, in order to build 'a unity which would survive him."

I really, really don't want to break it down character to character, honestly because I don't think I could, but I cannot imagine you can't see it. Nite Owl can't perform sexually unless he kicks the crap out of thugs (maybe commits murder) first. Rorschach, despite having clear ideas of right and wrong in his mind, thinks that his own brand of judge, jury, and executioner is acceptable. Ozimandias just thinks that mass murder is right because it pulls us back from the brink of destruction and he along with the Comedian are the narcissists I was referring to.

Do these sound like well balanced individuals? Really?

I felt JEH's performance as Rorschach was quite good but not merely a note for note copy of the comic's character. I think you were probably let down by the softer intonation Haley used as opposed to the comic Rorschach's defiant rage. Matter of taste but I can appreciate such small differences without screaming about Snyder "failing".
The film could have been less loyal to the source material and given us a better story. The thing about movies that are adapted from novels/comics/etc. is that films are a different medium. What works for a comic doesn't always work for a film (or mix and match that example). If Snyder had taken the concept and the general story of Watchmen and used it as a jumping off point for a deconstruction of the film superhero the way the original was used to deconstruct comics, he could have focused on characters and made something that resonated emotionally. There are hints that he or someone in the production considered that, e.g. the Bat-nipples on Ozmansias' costume, but instead he chose to just copy it almost word for word. That's fine when it's a comic book ripping apart comics, but this is a film. I don't think he's even capable of taking that concept and changing it for a film. I'm not saying I could, but I would have been more impressed if he had tried that and failed instead of just regurgitating Moore's comic.

The consequences? A woman shoots a man and he catches the bullet. You think that makes the book inherently morally superior and believable in its portrayal of violence? I simply cannot fathom the tightrope act of cognitive dissonance you are walking here. We can argue shades of grey in terms of stylized violence but your black & white assertions about book vs. film are ridiculously overstated and even sanctimoniously fanboyish.
???

I'm pretty sure you didn't even attempt to debate me on the point I'm trying to make. Are you saying I'm wrong in that violence in comics wasn't called into question in Watchmen? Are you saying Snyder didn't make it look cool on the big screen? Did you read my post about The Dark Knight Rises? I don't know what you're trying to say other than "you're wrong because I say you're wrong."

Besides, as for your point Watchmen the comic portrayed realistic consequences "versus what comics had presented up to that point in time", I'm pretty sure that's not quite accurate even if I conceded that Watchmen's violence was wholly grounded and moral in its depiction of consequences. I'm pretty sure there are older, some even much older, examples of realistic consequences in comics. Gwen Stacy's death, I think, was a good deal older event in Spiderman comics.
Evidence? I'll give you Gwen Stacey was shocking, but it was still safe. That was also made in a time when comics were still for kids. Moore and Gibbons and Miller forced comics to grow up. Snyder made the movie version that felt like it was aimed at 13-year-old boys.



Dude... wall of text, rambling,.. I dunno where to even begin?

I guess I could start by asking what you think the relevance of the Moore link is. Even if he had said something that was flatly contradictive, anyone familiar with him knows his tendency to be a provocateur. I never said the characters were well-balanced; I think flaws are what makes them interesting and y'know,human instead of cardboard idealized role models. If Moore truly abhorred that, he's being small-minded and hypocritical. But I've learned from his past talk not to put too much stock in his every word. He's a great writer but pretty nutty himself.

I also can't help but notice you rely on moving the goal posts when you're called out on being either too vague or too broad or even self-contradictory... Calling Stacey's death "safe" in response to a discussion about consequences comes off as a cheap ploy to get around your own previous phrasing, much like when you wrote all the characters had a "certain amount of sociopathy" without clearly defining the term when pressed about it.

And again I see a rant against Snyder without you clearly explaining your criticisms beyond bouncing back & forth between the film being too much like Watchmen and not enough like Watchmen. Sigh. I think I'm done with your scattershot and inconsistent complaining, tbh. It just feels like too much effort to try getting a sensible reply from you.

In fact I don't even know why I bothered to get this far mired in your hateful rambling argumentation after you were such a d!ck in your phrasing about Zach Snyder fans.



Dude... wall of text, rambling,.. I dunno where to even begin?

I guess I could start by asking what you think the relevance of the Moore link is. Even if he had said something that was flatly contradictive, anyone familiar with him knows his tendency to be a provocateur. I never said the characters were well-balanced; I think flaws are what makes them interesting and y'know,human instead of cardboard idealized role models. If Moore truly abhorred that, he's being small-minded and hypocritical. But I've learned from his past talk not to put too much stock in his every word. He's a great writer but pretty nutty himself.

I also can't help but notice you rely on moving the goal posts when you're called out on being either too vague or too broad or even self-contradictory... Calling Stacey's death "safe" in response to a discussion about consequences comes off as a cheap ploy to get around your own previous phrasing, much like when you wrote all the characters had a "certain amount of sociopathy" without clearly defining the term when pressed about it.
I did elaborate when pressed in my "wall of text."

And again I see a rant against Snyder without you clearly explaining your criticisms beyond bouncing back & forth between the film being too much like Watchmen and not enough like Watchmen. Sigh. I think I'm done with your scattershot and inconsistent complaining, tbh. It just feels like too much effort to try getting a sensible reply from you.
I'm not sure how saying the film is an exact copy of the comic without actually having the depth and resonance of the comic is too contradictory.

In fact I don't even know why I bothered to get this far mired in your hateful rambling argumentation after you were such a d!ck in your phrasing about Zach Snyder fans.
I can't help if he makes crappy movies. Also, if you haven't figured out I'm an a**hole by now I offer my sympathies. I have no friends in real life for a reason.



I did elaborate when pressed in my "wall of text."
Well I see it as a buttload of useless quote mining. I don't typically expect to engage in discussion here just to get the run-around with a bunch of copypasta opinions. You probably see it as adding "depth" to support you... I see it as a lazy appealling to experts fallacy. Cheap tactic and shows contempt for other posters who argue in good faith.

I'm not sure how saying the film is an exact copy of the comic without actually having the depth and resonance of the comic is too contradictory.
Because it's frustratingly insubstantial, sloppy, not thoughtful and clear point-based criticism to which anyone can meaningfully respond. It's also so obviously wrong to call it an "exact copy", so very obviously wrong I'm left baffled. This has been typical of your approach through-out; you wildly overstate your position and then gradually backpedal from there. I'm not interested in letting you whittle down your negativity on me until you figure out exactly what your point is.

I can't help if he makes crappy movies. Also, if you haven't figured out I'm an a**hole by now I offer my sympathies. I have no friends in real life for a reason.
I can't help it if you're an a-hole and inarticulate to boot, either, I wish you good luck, though. I think you could use some real friends to help you out of that echo chamber of your own arrogance.

Have a good one. I'm out.



Leben findet einen weg...
Deadite and bouncingbrick...


Best MoFo Couple? They got my vote.
__________________
Originally Posted by doubledenim
Garbage bag people fighting hippy love babies.

Bots gotta be bottin'



One last attempt at making my point.

I'll concede a bit that Gwen Stacey's death had a permanence that most comic violence doesn't, but it lacked the brutality and coldness of Watchmen. Watchmen held a mirror to the comic book audience the way no one had prior and it used its violence as just one of the many tactics to do so. The quotes and wall of text were there to help me say that better, because, as you say, I'm a **** tard. I don't think Snyder did with the film anything that the comic did so well. I also see it as a failed opportunity to try to do to the comic book film audience what the comic did to that audience and I think someone else on the production toyed with that idea because there are hints of it resent but they never committed.

Have fun hating me.



"Hey Look it's Masterman"
One last attempt at making my point.

I'll concede a bit that Gwen Stacey's death had a permanence that most comic violence doesn't, but it lacked the brutality and coldness of Watchmen. Watchmen held a mirror to the comic book audience the way no one had prior and it used its violence as just one of the many tactics to do so. The quotes and wall of text were there to help me say that better, because, as you say, I'm a **** tard. I don't think Snyder did with the film anything that the comic did so well. I also see it as a failed opportunity to try to do to the comic book film audience what the comic did to that audience and I think someone else on the production toyed with that idea because there are hints of it resent but they never committed.

Have fun hating me.
No one hates you.

Your views just suck.
__________________
--I Find Your Lack Of Faith Disturbing.



No one hates you.

Your views just suck.
You're views suck because you don't hate Snyder.

Hows that feel?



-KhaN-'s Avatar
I work for Keyser Soze. He feels you owe him.
You're views suck because you don't hate Snyder.

Hows that feel?
Man,I'm not 3,should I get mad because you said my view of Snyder sucks?Everyone tries to explain it,that is all.
__________________
“By definition, you have to live until you die. Better to make that life as complete and enjoyable an experience as possible, in case death is ****e, which I suspect it will be.”



Man,I'm not 3,should I get mad because you said my view of Snyder sucks?Everyone tries to explain it,that is all.
Why'd you call me out? Masterman started it.



If anyone "started it" it was you coming in here hating and ranting endlessly while insulting Snyder fans, then failing to intelligently back up your smack-talk. But I doubt anyone much cares what you think at this point anyway.



Registered User
This thread was interesting, once.



If anyone "started it" it was you coming in here hating and ranting endlessly while insulting Snyder fans, then failing to intelligently back up your smack-talk. But I doubt anyone much cares what you think at this point anyway.
At least the critics are on my side.