• Welcome to The Campaign Builder's Guild.
 

Batman V Superman and Man of Steel

Started by Xathan, February 13, 2016, 08:08:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

Xathan

February 13, 2016, 08:08:55 PM
Figured this should get it's own thread since Tavern is short...


QuoteLove of Awesome
"the way it ended"

Love of Awesome
It had really good action if i'm being honest. But they it ended is NOT Superman. That's not even Batman when you think about it.

O Senhor Leetz
I liked Man of Steel! I couldn't tell you why though...

Love of Awesome
I don't know, I'm tired of people trying to make Superman dark and gritty. It doesn't work for him. If they balance the white knight elements of Superman with the black knight elements of Batman, then I'm down.

Xathan
Seconded on that.

I really want Batman v Superman to be awesome. But then I remember man of steel. So...fingers are crossed.

Rhamnousia
Honestly, I'm just glad that their version of Lex Luthor isn't a Steve Jobs analogue.

O Senhor Leetz
I'm looking forward to Batman vs. Superman way more than I thought I would.

My big problem with Man of Steel wasn't the movie itself, although there were a few things about it that bugged me independent of what it was. However, what it was supposed to be was a superman movie, and it never really felt like Superman - and I'm not even a big fan of the character. However, Superman isn't a killer, and making him a killer in his first outing really changes...everything. Not to mention the wanton destruction of Metropolis was very out of character for him. If it had been a different character, I think I would have liked it a lot more.

That being said, it seems like 90% of Bats. Vs. Supes. is going to be with dealing from the fallout of this more brutal superman, and if it leads to Superman learning to be the hero we know he's supposed to be, I'd be willing to forgive a great deal of Man of Steel's flaws.
AnIndex of My Work

Quote from: Sparkletwist
It's llitul and the brain, llitul and the brain, one is a genius and the other's insane
Proud Receiver of a Golden Dorito
[spoiler=SRD AND OGC AND LEGAL JUNK]UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE POST, NONE OF THE ABOVE CONTENT IS CONSIDERED OGC, EXCEPT FOR MATERIALS ALREADY MADE OGC BY PRIOR PUBLISHERS
Appendix I: Open Game License Version 1.0a
The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc ("Wizards"). All Rights Reserved.
1. Definitions: (a)"Contributors" means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content; (b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; (c) "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute; (d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; (f) "Trademark" means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor (g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) "You" or "Your" means the licensee in terms of this agreement.
2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.
3. Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.
4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
5. Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.
6. Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.
7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.
8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.
11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so.
12 Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.
13 Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.
14 Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.
15 COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Fudge 10th Anniversary Edition Copyright 2005, Grey Ghost Press, Inc.; Authors Steffan O'Sullivan and Ann Dupuis, with additional material by Jonathan Benn, Peter Bonney, Deird'Re Brooks, Reimer Behrends, Don Bisdorf, Carl Cravens, Shawn Garbett, Steven Hammond, Ed Heil, Bernard Hsiung, J.M. "Thijs" Krijger, Sedge Lewis, Shawn Lockard, Gordon McCormick, Kent Matthewson, Peter Mikelsons, Robb Neumann, Anthony Roberson, Andy Skinner, William Stoddard, Stephan Szabo, John Ughrin, Alex Weldon, Duke York, Dmitri Zagidulin
System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.

Modern System Reference Doument Copyright 2002, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Bill Slavicsek, Jeff Grubb, Rich Redman, Charles Ryan, based on material by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Richard Baker, Peter Adkison, Bruce R. Cordell, John Tynes, Andy Collins, and JD Walker.

Unearthed Arcana Copyright 2004, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Andy Collins, Jesse Decker, David Noonan, Rich Redman.

Mutants and Masterminds Second Edition Copyright 2005, Green Ronin Publishing; Steve Kenson
Fate (Fantastic Adventures in Tabletop Entertainment) Copyright 2003 by Evil Hat Productions, LLC. Authors Robert Donoghue and Fred Hicks.
Spirit of the Century Copyright 2006 by Evil Hat Productions, LLC. Authors Robert Donoghue, Fred Hicks, and Leonard Balsera
Xathan's forum posts at http://www.thecbg.org Copyright 2006-2011, J.A. Raizman.
[/spoiler]

Rhamnousia

#1
February 13, 2016, 08:36:22 PM
I thought the whole Kryptonian Codex backstory was way overdone and unnecessary, but at the same time, I loved the characterization of Zod and his followers as not only murderous bastards, but fairly representative of their civilization as a whole. Having Superman kill Zod ruined the entire movie and squandered every bit of goodwill I had for it. I also didn't feel an ounce of the sympathy I feel like I was supposed to for the soldiers who get ripped through like tissue paper by said Kryptonians. One of my favorite parts of Superman has always been that his authority is beyond nation-states - the magic of the character is that he is so powerful that he never has to compromise his ethics in the name of expediency.

Like I said, I enjoy the direction they seem to be taking with Lex Luthor. I can't help but wonder if casting the kid from "The Social Network" was meant to deliberately connect him to the obnoxious Mark Zuckerberg tech startup brand of egomaniacal billionaire rather than the more common turtleneck-clad Steve Jobs mogul variety. The new Batman is basically going to be fascist Iron Man and what I've heard about Wonder Woman's character doesn't sound too terribly encouraging either.

O Senhor Leetz

#2
February 13, 2016, 10:15:03 PM Last Edit: February 13, 2016, 10:17:50 PM by O Senhor Leetz
I think part of why I did like Man of Steel was that Superman did have to compromise his ethics. Indeed, one of the reasons I don't and really haven't liked Superman is his infallibility - he's frankly boring because he always wins and never makes a mistake. While the movie far from perfect, I did enjoy seeing him struggle with his powers, hiding from the world and grappling with his responsibility in defending Earth and the often-infantile human race.

But really, the intro scene with Russel Crow Jor-El flying around on a space dinosaur while Krypton explodes was pretty, pretty, pretty cool.
Let's go teach these monkeys about evolution.
-Mark Wahlberg

Rhamnousia

#3
February 13, 2016, 10:40:15 PM
You can make mistakes that aren't "compromise you most defining, deeply-held moral conviction." I think the key to making Superman interesting, something that virtually no Superman movie I've seen has done, is proper scope. Supe's most interesting foes are one who he either can't simply pummel into submission, either because of their influence and intellect (Lex Luthor, Braniac), their own massive physical power (Doomsday, Mogul), or combination of both (Darkseid). If I could rework the plotting of Man of Steel, I would skip a lot of the origin stuff - which pretty much everyone already knows by now - make Zod's genocidal terraforming attempt the center of the film.

O Senhor Leetz

#4
February 14, 2016, 12:23:17 AM Last Edit: February 14, 2016, 12:27:26 AM by O Senhor Leetz
Quote from: Rhamnousia
You can make mistakes that aren't "compromise you most defining, deeply-held moral conviction." I think the key to making Superman interesting, something that virtually no Superman movie I've seen has done, is proper scope. Supe's most interesting foes are one who he either can't simply pummel into submission, either because of their influence and intellect (Lex Luthor, Braniac), their own massive physical power (Doomsday, Mogul), or combination of both (Darkseid). If I could rework the plotting of Man of Steel, I would skip a lot of the origin stuff - which pretty much everyone already knows by now - make Zod's genocidal terraforming attempt the center of the film.

Completely agree on the backstory argument - I'm a "Less is More" fan anyways. And while I do love the intro on Krypton (more for visuals than anything else) it was completely unnecessary - it was eye-candy, but coming from Zack Snyder it could have been way more oily. The rest of the plot was OK - gods and men and all that.

As much as I'm beginning to get get comic book movie fatigue, I really do love the movies that address the more mature and real-world implications that superheroes and superpowers would have, especially Captain America: The Winter Soldier (way underrated), the Thor movies in a way, and, of course, Man of Steel (maybe the post-Avengers movies like Iron Man 3, but I wish they would have gone beyond Tony Stark's own PTSD a bit more).
Let's go teach these monkeys about evolution.
-Mark Wahlberg

Rhamnousia

#5
February 14, 2016, 01:17:22 AM
Honestly, Sony needs to sell back the rights to the X-Men (and whatever other characters they're sitting on), DC needs to quit trying to make the next Avengers, and everyone needs to just let the two decade-long unstoppable juggernaut that is the Marvel Cinematic Universe run its course before trying to make anymore superhero movies.

O Senhor Leetz

#6
February 14, 2016, 01:51:54 AM
Quote from: Rhamnousia
Honestly, Sony needs to sell back the rights to the X-Men (and whatever other characters they're sitting on), DC needs to quit trying to make the next Avengers, and everyone needs to just let the two decade-long unstoppable juggernaut that is the Marvel Cinematic Universe run its course before trying to make anymore superhero movies.

I think it's pretty close to running its course. Unless movies like Guardians of the Galaxy (weird, off-kilter, fun) become the norm, I think Marvel will self-implode soon. Iron Man's burnt out, Spiderman's burnt out.
Let's go teach these monkeys about evolution.
-Mark Wahlberg

Rhamnousia

#7
February 14, 2016, 02:46:37 AM Last Edit: February 14, 2016, 02:52:37 AM by Rhamnousia
Well they're already "retired" Iron Man: he'll be in the films, of course, but Tony Stark's not getting any more movies of his own. And while I agree that Spiderman is overdone, I think the promise of a proper Marvel version will make sure that it makes the same insane profit as literally every single other movie the studio's made. Then there's Civil War, Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Thor: Ragnarok, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, multiple Avengers: Infinity Wars films (which will be directed by the Russo brothers who made CA:TWS so amazing), Captain Marvel, Ant-Man and Wasp, the Inhumans, and like three more that haven't even been named yet. I'm honestly not a Marvel fanatic, but I can't see the franchise imploding from anything less than the collapse of Western capitalism because the process is so diversified and downright weird at this point, with so many creative visions working on so many different IPs that it's yet to really seem stale. They managed to make a solid show out of Daredevil and one of the most powerful, nuanced shows ever made about the realities of trauma out of Jessica fucking Jones, and they're still planning on releasing independent Iron Fist and Luke Cage series before they all get their own big spin-off together. And Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D is probably going to keep blandly chugging along forever too...

Just from a purely-economic standpoint, Age of Ultron made enough money to fund like the next five movies entirely on its own. They're apparently going to pour something like a billion dollars into the Infinity Wars films and that's not even that big of a dent in their overall profits.

LoA

#8
February 14, 2016, 03:12:42 AM
Quote from: O Senhor Leetz
Quote from: Rhamnousia
Honestly, Sony needs to sell back the rights to the X-Men (and whatever other characters they're sitting on), DC needs to quit trying to make the next Avengers, and everyone needs to just let the two decade-long unstoppable juggernaut that is the Marvel Cinematic Universe run its course before trying to make anymore superhero movies.

I think it's pretty close to running its course. Unless movies like Guardians of the Galaxy (weird, off-kilter, fun) become the norm, I think Marvel will self-implode soon. Iron Man's burnt out, Spiderman's burnt out.

Not meaning to be one of those people, but X-Men, and Fantastic Four are made by Fox. Spiderman is owned by Sony.

Honestly I just think it's really cool that so many obscure characters are getting movies, and it's precisely because Marvel and Disney were put in a tight place and forced to look in weird places, and lo in behold we have a space action movie about a trucker, an assassin, a raccoon, an ent, and speaking as someone on the Autism Spectrum, it's finally nice being represented in a Superhero movie. And I only need to point to Rhamni's post above to point out how successful this has been.

Speaking as a huge Captain Marvel fan, there will never, ever be a SHAZAM! movie. Never. I wish, but never gonna happen. Justice League Unlimited did a good job on this, and so did Young Justice.... You know what? Screw a SHAZAM! Movie. Give me an animated series.

Rhamnousia

#9
February 14, 2016, 03:34:14 AM
Yeah, I forgot who owned the rights to which characters. Honestly, I am so tired of the X-Men movies: the younger cast isn't as compelling and Peter Singer's fetish for edgy black leather uniforms is even less appealing ever since the Avengers went full-blown four-color with their designs.

I think the overwhelming excellence of the DC animated series is definitely going to harm their goals of making an Avengers-style Justice League franchise. I've already seen people leveling criticism at Suicide Squad for how awful their version of Harely Quinn is compared to the original.

I am curious where the idea of a SHAZAM movie came from tho. Unless you thought I was talking about the other Captain Marvel.

LoA

#10
February 14, 2016, 02:10:51 PM Last Edit: February 14, 2016, 02:20:35 PM by Love of Awesome
Quote from: Rhamnousia
Yeah, I forgot who owned the rights to which characters. Honestly, I am so tired of the X-Men movies: the younger cast isn't as compelling and Peter Singer's fetish for edgy black leather uniforms is even less appealing ever since the Avengers went full-blown four-color with their designs.

I think the overwhelming excellence of the DC animated series is definitely going to harm their goals of making an Avengers-style Justice League franchise. I've already seen people leveling criticism at Suicide Squad for how awful their version of Harely Quinn is compared to the original.

I am curious where the idea of a SHAZAM movie came from tho. Unless you thought I was talking about the other Captain Marvel.

Yeah the Outfits in X-Men First Class where waaaayyy better.

No sorry, the point I was making with a SHAZAM! movie is that DC will never be able to make movies the way marvel does, for the simple fact that Warner Bros. owns every last scrap of the DC Universe. Green Lantern bombed hard, and therefore they probably have no incentive to ever go back and try to make movies about independent characters ever again. Justice League gives them the perfect oppurtunity to make movies about their characters... that also involve Superman and Batman. There is never going to be a movie that doesn't involve Superman and Batman. They don't have the pressure to do so like Marvel and Disney do for the simple fact that some of Marvel's biggest Cash Cows such as Spiderman, Xmen, and Fantastic Four are owned by other companies. DC has no such qualms. Batman and Robin bombs. Eh well just wait a few years, and.... OH! Batman Begins was successful! And look at that, it's follow up is quite possibly the most successful Superhero movie ever! DC has no incentive to grow with it's films. Frankly they already make the best superhero cartoons ever, managing to one up themselves with Young Justice.

And before you start saying "Suicide Squad", that's probably only happening because it has Joker in it, and he's Batman's most beloved nemesis.
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions