Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Blu-ray-07/19/2016,DDL-6/28/2016

[taksraven]

I'm surprised that no one here has mentioned how Batfleck's version of Bruce Wayne is the most involved in his day job. In comparison, Michael Keaton and George Clooney never stepped foot in their own corporate offices while Val Kilmer only visited one of his labs where Jim Carrey worked and Christian Bale spent his office time dozing off. For this one, Batfleck actually cares about all of his employees.

That's because there are some interesting ideas and nuances in this film that very few are bothering to pay attention to. The thing that shocked me about the film was the level of violence that Batman was getting up to, and it's barely been mentioned. Don't get me wrong though, I enjoyed the level of violence Batman was dealing out.

I thought that the new Batmobile looked freaking awesome in combat as well.

[areaseven]

Marv Wolfman's Thoughts on the Film

[Negotiator]

It was interesting to cast Jeffery Morgan as Bruce's father. He would be a convincing Batman in flashpoint paradox.

[Graham]

One of my complaints with the movie was that the transmuted-Zod-corpse-monster looked too much like a generic LotR movie CGI Troll.......LOL!

Actually, I didn't know this was supoosed to be Doomsday, until I read it online after seeing the movie. I'm not as familiar with DC as I am Marvel, what can I say.

[areaseven]

One of my complaints with the movie was that the transmuted-Zod-corpse-monster looked too much like a generic LotR movie CGI Troll.......LOL!

Actually, I didn't know this was supposed to be Doomsday, until I read it online after seeing the movie. I'm not as familiar with DC as I am Marvel, what can I say.

As I posted on my review a few days ago, when I saw that thing emit EMP shockwaves, I was waiting for Gipsy Danger to jump in and empty the clip on it.

"No pulse."

[Vepariga]

Saw it the other day and really enjoyed it. Certianly does not deserve that RT score.

Best Batman yet.

[Dobber]

I agree, my wife and I saw it the other night and we both really liked it.

Chris

[areaseven]

[myk]

I too enjoy Cavil's depiction of Kal El-I would dare say he will probably own that role like RDJ literally IS Tony Stark, but everytime I hear Ben Affleck's super serious gravel voice and see his super serious knitted eyebrows face I have to laugh;I just don't respect him as an actor and that's my take on it.

As for the hate towards this movie? As GA mentioned the pace and the editing are horrendous; ask any amateur film major and they'll tell you that can make or break a film. But in general I think it's just DC's characters; they don't seem to garner the respect that Marvel's lineup does. I personally find the DC universe easily dismissable. Make sense? Maybe not, again it's just my take on the matter...

Edited April 3, 2016 by myk

[Golden Arms]

Saw the film a 2nd time last night and I still continue to really like the film. As a Comic book fan, I geek out over the subtle nuance that hints of things to come, and reference to some of their classic and current stories. Really excited to see where they decide to go with things. I was able to make out all of the dialog in one of the dream sequences a 2nd time.

I agree with you MYK as, I believe Cavil owns the role. He really got short changed in this film as it was originally intended to be a MOS sequel, but once WB decided to reintroduce Batman the rest is as we say history. On a personal note, he really motivated me about 1 year and a half ago to get back into weight training after seeing the training routine he went into to prepare for the role. That's why I have made love for his portrayal. The discipline and hard work that these actors have to endure to bring these characters to life is really motivational. Ditto for Bale, RDJ, Tom Hardy, Jackman, Chris Evans, etc.

There are several scenes in the film that he really nails Clark as the farm boy/ man of the people. The scene of him at the party and then the day of the dead scene from the trailer. Very subtle, but impactful when you think about our current political climate in regards to immigration,1st world VS third world. Most will miss it, but it's there.

Affleck is bar none the best Batman to date without question. He own's both the Batman Persona and Bruce Wayne roles equally. I believe none of the other actors before him have been able to master both aspects of the character and he has. His depiction is the first one to make me actually feel that the film makers got Batman as also being a detective. Ditto for Bruce. He feels fleshed out for the first time. Bale's Bruce was almost none existent. Nolan's Bruce dies and we don't see him reborn until after he sacrifices himself for Gotham. Too often the filmmakers in the past forgot that Bruce is in charge of a Billion dollar Corporate empire! Both Bruce and Batman know only one speed. To live life hard and fast on both ends and we really see him doing that.

I think the DC universe is as rich, diverse and exciting as Marvel's. Marvel has out right copied a lot from DC over the years. Depending what types of stories you like to read, I'm sure there is something you would enjoy. The fluidity of the comic industry is one of it's greatest strengths. Everything won't appeal to your sensibilities, and that's okay. But it changes enough that I'm sure there will be something that will.

[kajnrig]

DC and Marvel are like SNK and Capcom, respectively. They are the top rivals of an entire genre, and yet they cooperate and trade ideas and steal from each other liberally without any concern for copyright infringement. And, like SNK, DC eventually fell behind the times and lost its notoriety to the point that it left its mainstay business altogether and got into gambling instead and okay that part's not comparable at all but what I mean is that DC is definitely the lesser of the two. It still has my absolute favorite comic of all time, though, so it will never be all bad.

[Mr March]

Just saw it late last night. I'm going to forego an in-depth review for right now because I wanted to really counter one of the more problematic criticisms I've seen about the film from my regular film blogs and podcasts. For now, I can say it was simply an average super hero film, not much better than Man of Steel. I liked Affleck's Batman, appreciated Iron's Alfred, still really like Cavil's Superman, always enjoy Amy Adam's Lane, loved Gadot's Wonder Woman, and enjoyed the action. Everything else (plot, script, dialog, editing) was pretty much a disappointment.

I’ve read a lot of objections to the killing in this film. The idea that Superman and Batman don’t kill. Well, I think most know what I think of the status quo and how it can piss off and die.

I found Batman v Superman challenging viewing in one, small regard; the audience had to face the reality of super heroes running around committing acts of violence against criminals and each other. The idea that all this comic book violence would never lead to anyone ever dying is one of the things I have always harshly criticized about depictions of violence in North American pop culture for kids. Particularly comic books or entertainment aimed at children, like cartoons. Violence is so often shown without consequence. Bullets without blood. Harm without pain and suffering. These sheltered depictions of “family friendly fighting" or G-Rated violence infantilize youth and teach of a false world without a human cost for inflicting harm upon others. In fact, I did and still do criticize the Nolan Batman films for the lack of blood in the battles and the problematic nature of sanitized violence. An objection I’ve read and heard from others, so I'm a little bewildered to hear those same folks now on the opposite side of those objections for Batman v Superman. To quote Ben Affleck's Bruce Wayne; "Seems a little hypocritical, don't you think?"

Now, I’m not saying that the violence in BvS had anything to say or that it was even acknowledged during the action. But that mortal violence is present and that so many critics reacted poorly toward those real consequences when performed by comic book characters says an awful lot about people's poor opinion of comic books. Apparently, some believe comic book characters can be enjoyed only as long as they remain pure or infantilized; should ever they be forced to face the realities of violence or depicted as real humans who may kill to survive, that’s somehow strongly objectionable. We then have a situation where comic books aren’t permitted to be adult. Comic book characters and films are not allowed to deal with these human moral realities and as long as they remain in arrested development, they can never be accepted as a sophisticated, adult and legitimate art form.

Now, before I'm laughed at, yes, I realize Batman v Superman is a poor example upon which to state my case. With the exception of showing the consequences of violence (physical, if not moral), this movie is anything but sophisticated, mature or legitimate. Zack Snyder's films never have - and likely never will - help legitimize comic books or broaden social acceptance as an art form. But maybe it can help us see comic book heroes as real human beings that are not excluded from the same moral struggles we all are. That makes them more relevant, more relatable and more human.

[Golden Arms]

Mr M I agree with you on the violence. You hit the nail on the head. The general audience wants these characters to be realistic, yet scoff at the notion that in the real world when someone is trying to kill you, you don't have the luxury of disarming them without lethal consequences. Very hypocritical. They've gotten too accustomed to the Star Wars/ LOR level of violence and expect comic book films to adhere to those silly depictions as well. This depiction of Batman borrows heavily from the Dark Knight Returns and Earth One. He's part crazy and has lost too much. Both lead credence to how he treats evil doers in the film. The general public, and some of the critics idea of a comic book is the old superfriends cartoon or the old WB Justice League animated series. Most of them are completely ignorant of what has been taking place in comics for over the last two decades. Not to say that this film doesn't have issues, because it does. So I can understand and agree with some criticisms of story(too much going on), editing and pacing.

I can't believe I'm defending Zack Snyder, but I think that this film suffered from the edits. His original cut was slated to be a 3 hour film. 30 minutes was edited out of the final version. WB was worried that a 3 hour film would be too long to release and so the film was cut back to 2 and 1/2 hours. From the get go, WB should've only approved a script that would have netted a 2/12 hour film. I think once the full 3 hour film is released, all of the editing and some of the story mistakes won't be as damaging. At least I hope.

I can't wait to hear your thoughts on the film. So please link your podcast in the thread once you post it.

I'm actually in Toronto this week and Marveling at Snow this late in the year!

Edited April 4, 2016 by Golden Arms

[mickyg]

Saw it and really enjoyed it. I was unfortunately expecting it to be terrible, based on reviews. Actually no, not reviews, simply the "word on the street" about the reviews. So perhaps because I was expecting disappointment, I actually enjoyed it more? Not sure. Either way though, I definitely liked it.

My main issues:

I couldn't understand why Bats was so hell-bent on killing Supes. Hurting him, convincing him he's not invincible, that I could get, but outright killing him? I don't know, seemed a little too much to me. I mean I get that he was being played by Lex and really thought Supes was behind a lot more than he really was. Still though...

And the next irritation is that merely at the mention of his own mother's name he stops his murderous rampage and starts being friends with the guy? Really? That part sort of lost me. It really did feel like something important had been cut from the scene.

And lastly, I wish they'd have fleshed out the Doomsday origin a bit better. The genesis pit can create this monstrosity by simply mixing human blood with a Kryptonian corpse? What?!! Perhaps that was spelled out in MoS and missed it?

All that said, I still really liked it and honestly enjoyed Eisenberg's Luthor as well. Again, didn't think I would and was fully expecting to hate him but found myself appreciating this take on Lex. Slightly unhinged, super smart, a bit wounded psychologically, and downright scary.

Edited April 3, 2016 by mickyg

[spanner]

@mickyg.. that's good to hear you enjoyed it! Im going to watch it too but like yourself I was expecting to be disappointed but I now have some hope for it! And im a big fan of Jesse Eisenberg too!

[Dobber]

I *think*

He stopped at hearing "Martha" was just so personal yo him and when told it was Clark's mothers name too it drove home that he is more than just some "dangerous alien". Also it seemed to me he also finally realized he was being played by Lex.

The Genesis pit thing looked like it was just making Kyrptonians from a small skull fragment all along, so if they want yo say taking genetic material from Lex's Blood and Zod's corpse can make a Frakenstein, I can accept that. Not a fan of the whole concept, but if they established that in MoS, and no one complained then, they shouldn't now

Chris

[kajnrig]

I had a lot to say re: Mr March's bit about superhero violence, but then my computer crashed and I lost about 2000 words' worth of response, so I think I'll sum it up with

"I disagree that the audience 'had to face the reality of super heroes running around committing acts of violence,' mostly just because it was so shoddily done. Otherwise I agree on the 'sanitized violence' bit, generally. I think you got a wrong read on the general tone of criticism towards the movie, but then I could just be personally defensive because I thought it was awful. Awful with potentially good ideas, but awful nonetheless. I think your problem is more with the MPAA and how its warped moral sensibilities has undue power over national media."

That said, I will respond to this:

The general audience wants these characters to be realistic, yet scoff at the notion that in the real world when someone is trying to kill you, you don't have the luxury of disarming them without lethal consequences. Very hypocritical. They've gotten too accustomed to the Star Wars/ LOR level of violence and expect comic book films to adhere to those silly depictions as well.

...

The general public, and mainly most of the critics idea of a comic book is the old superfriends cartoon or the old WB Justice League animated series. Most of them are completely ignorant of what has been taking place in comics for over the last two decades and so I feel they don't have much credence to fully critique these films. Not to say that this film doesn't have issues, because it does.

A rather reductive and presumptuous statement, no? It conveniently ignores how Deadpool is the highest-grossing R-rated film of all time and has received universal acclaim. Blade and Blade 2 are held up as two prime examples of comic-to-movie adaptations (and are also generally well-regarded). The hyper-violent Marvel Netflix shows are just as wildly popular as their PG-13 film counterparts. EDIT: I'm sitting here watching V for Vendetta on Netflix and by god, you could hardly call that bloodless, can you?

This sentiment doesn't hold much water.

EDIT:

So I'm sure some of you must have seen this already, but really, they had to steal ideas from THIS story arc?

Edited April 4, 2016 by kajnrig

[badboy00z]

What did Clark's obituary say at the end? Did Perry make the connection with Clark and Superman?

[Golden Arms]

None of those properties were/are regarded as tent pole franchises for studios to world build upon. Dead pool was made for under 60 million. So if it flopped it wasn't a huge loss for Fox. They had no plans for a sequel or spinoffs from the outset. Ditto for Blade. Blade was released by New Line Cinema if memory serves me. Blade coincidentally was the return of Marvel properties being turned into movie franchises. Since they weren't huge investments, and likely returns would be profitable even if they flopped, the producers had more room to ultimately make the film they wanted too make once they got green lite. Studios are willing to take more risk with lesser regarded properties, than with those deemed as cornerstones. I really liked the ambition of the film because nowadays the film industry has been plagued with the studios too afraid to take any risk with novel ideas. Maybe WB was too ambitious. Too much at one time.

I stand by what I said about critics being ignorant of comics. I think some of them genuinely didn't like the film ( which is fine), while others may have been expecting a 2 hour jokey cartoon that you could take your 8 year child to. Pacing and editing issues aside, this film didn't deserve to be lumped with the likes of an Adam Sandler film, Super Mario Bros, or Pixels.

It does fails with too much story in the time frame allotted. If the film was more focused on a singular plot point and not hampered with setting up the DC universe, I think the critics of the film would've been more favorable. Maybe a cautionary tale for the studio's to take heed of. Focus on a single story not on an entire universe. WB was late to the game and instead of focusing on a sequel to MOS may have spent too much attention to setting up the next set of films down the road. Maybe this is what the critics are really peeved about. Focus on one or two plot points and let the film breathe.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Golden Arms

[Mr March]

Golden Arms
You're in Toronto? Well, you're a long way from home. Yeah, this snow kinda came out of nowhere, especially this winter where it's been almost completely without snow at all. Which is a rather alarming occurence

I’m not sure if I have much more insightful to say about Batman v Superman. But I suppose I can talk about what I liked and what I didn’t like.

As a piece of visual entertainment I liked almost everything about Batman v Superman, as I do with almost every Zack Snyder film. Snyder is a strong visual artist and his skills are once again put to good use for BvS. Not only can Snyder really compose good dramatic shots and compelling framing, but his action is also fun to watch. I found many of the battle sequences very engaging and I love how Snyder takes advantage of Kal-El’s super human speed. Batman was also a blast to see in this movie, as he moved with a grace and speed that we’ve not yet seen from Batman in any film to date. Particularly the Batman costume seemed to have a lot more pliability to it, allowing Affleck and the stuntmen to really move more freely.

Speaking of costumes, I loved this version of Batman’s garb. I really like the grey colors and the less pronounced ear design of the cowl. It almost felt more SWAT-like and the suit design really seemed more natural to wear, while still being distinctly Batman! I’m also a big fan of the Man of Steel outfit as well. I feel this version – in addition to Cavil’s insane physique – really makes Superman feel imposing and the texture promotes this sense of invulnerability. I love what they’ve done for Wonder Woman’s costume; a more muted, but no less impressive outfit and somehow complimented Gal Gadot’s frame without being fan service.

Performances were strong across the board, despite the script sometimes failing the roles. Ben Affleck’s Batman, despite all the pre-release resentment at his casting, delivered an interesting take on the character I really enjoyed, despite some bad dialogue or questionable choices made on the plot level. Everyone else was solid and again, Wonder Woman was a clear stand out. One of those times where you look at a character and wish you were watching her film instead of the mediocrity you’re stuck viewing. I wasn’t really sure what Eisenberg was doing with Lex Luthor and he felt at odds with the film.

On a script level, Luthor’s plan came across as really stupid; creating one super-being to kill another, yet having no way to control said being (which wastes no time attempting to murder Lex, who survives only thanks to Superman’s intervention). Speaking of which, I think Superman was treated like garbage in this movie, both in-universe and from the director/writers themselves. The racist and xenophobic themes surrounding Superman as an alien were certainly overt, but there was also this ugly, macho hatred directed at Superman on an almost primal level. As if Superman’s very existence threatens human self-determination and agency (specifically MALE self-determination). It’s like the film was trying to prove violence as a virtue and that it only takes “a good man turned cruel” to re-establish human/male dominance against this alien. Felt like the filmmakers had an intense dislike for the very idea of Superman. “If there’s even a 1% chance he’s bad, then we have to kill him” as it’s written for Batman; spoken like a true radical fundamentalist.

Which is sad because Superman has a solid character arc; he struggles to remain a good man in a bad world. But when facing his death at the hands of Batman, Superman’s plea to rescue his mother is the same goodness that ultimately saves his life. But then of course we have to contend with lack of logic from the Batman arc. Somehow knowing Superman’s mother has the same name as his own is supposed to be enough to stop the path of Batman’s nearly religious-level hatred for Superman? That came across as incredibly disingenuous and really silly. Although I did appreciate that Batman’s ultimate dramatic peak does justify the retelling of Batman’s origin story at the beginning of the film. I just wish the moment was more human-driven and less plot-driven.

I hated most of the hero cameo's setting up the other DC heroes, especially the "dream" sequence with the Flash. They were just painfully obstrusive and obnoxious, especially in contrast to how well Wonder Woman was handled.

One last thing about which I really felt disappointed was Doomsday. The battles were fun, but the mundane visualization for him was just lame. The comic book version of Doomsday actually has a rather interesting and distinct character design. In the BvS film, it feels like the heroes are fighting a cave troll from Lord of the Rings.

kajnrig
My read on the criticisms from the podcasts I heard and the film blogs I read is pretty solid. I have had some folks come back and claim that it is the characterizations of Batman and Superman with which they have a problem even more than the violence or any limitations of comic book stories. Which is fair, but that opens up a whole other can of worms about self-censorship, creative rights and the fact that these characters have always been reinvented, with few at this point resembling anything like their silver age counterparts.

I also think it's important to remember that creativity is distinct from quality. The whole idea behind creativity is to try, even if we don't yet know how to do so perfectly. We don't have the luxury of being creative ONLY IF IT'S GOOD. We have to take creativity as is, try to work it and hopefully refine it into something of quality. Just because Zack Snyder's film failed, doesn't mean all of it's ideas or it's depictions have no merit by default. I believe BvS had plenty of potential, mostly wasted via poor execution.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Mr March

[ArchieNov]

I'm probably one of the few people that wasn't impressed with Wonder Woman in this film. Cal Gadot just doesn't do it for me. She doesn't quite look right as WW. I think it's probably her hair, or lack of it. I'm used to seeing a WW that has more volume in her hair like in the comics, art, or animation. Cal's hair just seems kinda sparse. Also her face/head looks pretty large (probably again due to her hair).

I also don't like her accent. She should work on neutralizing it more. It feels like she's struggling to speak English fluently, and that's a minus in my book if you're playing a confident and capable Wonder Woman.

Moreover, what's with all the eye contact with Bruce Wayne towards the end of the party as she was leaving? At that time, there was no reason for her to have any further contact with him and could've left without him noticing. But instead it's like she's leading him on or luring him to notice her for no reason at all.

Lastly, there wasn't too much of a fight scene with her to make me go WOW. She probably just did 2-3 relevant things during the fight to my recollection. If there was more, I probably missed it because it wasn't that dramatic.

I just don't get why a lot of people are praising WW so much. From her showings in the movie, it still leaves a lot to be desired IMO. Hopefully it gets better in her standalone movie. But if she performs the same as she did here, I am not optimistic.

[kajnrig]

None of those properties were/are regarded as tent pole franchises for studios to world build upon. Dead pool was made for under 60 million. So if it flopped it wasn't a huge loss for Fox. They had no plans for a sequel or spinoffs from the outset. Ditto for Blade. Blade was released by New Line Cinema if memory serves me. Blade coincidentally was the return of Marvel properties being turned into movie franchises. Since they weren't huge investments, and likely returns would be profitable even if they flopped, the producers had more room to ultimately make the film they wanted too make once they got green lite. Studios are willing to take more risk with lesser regarded properties, than with those deemed as cornerstones.

Regardless of whether they're "tent pole franchises" or not, your argument was that people, the general public, want superheroes to be more realistic(ally violent) yet hypocritically "scoff at the notion ... of disarming them without lethal consequences." My counterargument was to point out the many "realistic" violent superhero films that have been both financially and critically successful. The degree to which financial returns and critical acclaim accurately represent what the general public wants out of a superhero movie is questionable, certainly, but all the same.

You're moving goal posts here.

kajnrig

My read on the criticisms from the podcasts I heard and the film blogs I read is pretty solid. I have had some folks come back and claim that it is the characterizations of Batman and Superman with which they have a problem even more than the violence or any limitations of comic book stories. Which is fair, but that opens up a whole other can of worms about self-censorship, creative rights and the fact that these characters have always been reinvented, with few at this point resembling anything like their silver age counterparts.

I also think it's important to remember that creativity is distinct from quality. The whole idea behind creativity is to try, even if we don't yet know how to do so perfectly. We don't have the luxury of being creative ONLY IF IT'S GOOD. We have to take creativity as is, try to work it and hopefully refine it into something of quality. Just because Zack Snyder's film failed, doesn't mean all of it's ideas or it's depictions have no merit by default. I believe BvS had plenty of potential, mostly wasted via poor execution.

That's fair, and I do agree that BvS has potential, but like you say, potential =/= substance. The idea of a morally compromised Superman isn't bad. The idea of a Batman who kills isn't bad. Neither was executed particularly well.

But what gets me about that is that it was PREDICTABLE that they wouldn't execute those ideas well. I just don't understand why they - DC - would gamble $400 million ($250M budget + $150 marketing) of potentially good ideas away on a director with such little chance of winning the bet for them. Like, EVERYBODY agrees that Snyder is a visual maestro lacking in all other substantial filmmaking qualities. 300 was proof of that, Watchmen was proof of that, Sucker Punch and Man of Steel were proof of that. It's not like he's gotten incrementally better since 300 and had a burgeoning grasp of cinematic storytelling and/or exploration of ideas/themes that they were banking on fully maturing with this movie. He has consistently been all style and almost zero substance, and... avoiding him should have been obvious, but it wasn't.

But it'll make its costs back and then some regardless, and so I guess in that regard it's a success. It's just disheartening to think about how much better DC's cinematic universe could have been. It could have been a legitimate contender to the MCU.

[Negotiator]

some more perspective

[areaseven]

I'm surprised that It's Just Some Random Guy hasn't posted his video parodies of this film or Deadpool. Normally, when a superhero film is released, he jumps in on it with his action figures immediately.

[Dangard Ace]

I'm actually in Toronto this week and Marveling at Snow this late in the year!

[rant]Completely off topic but YOU BROUGHT THE POLAR VORTEX. There was almost no snow this winter until you showed up!!!![/rant]

Tempted to change your member name to Blizzard, or Captain Cold or something similar.

[peter]

What Wonder Woman should really look like.....you know, being from the Amazon and all:

[Golden Arms]

To be Fair DA, I was naïvely enjoying the mid 80F weather of Central Texas and made some assumptions about Spring time! I should've brought a Warmer Jacket and some gloves. Lesson learned for when I come back in 2 weeks time. Praying that it doesn't' snow too bad tomorrow. Though Captain Cold sounds nice!

I think the real question is WB capable of salvaging the DCE going forward? Suicide squad will be released this summer and WW is slated for a 2017 release. If Suicide Squad is meet with similar response, then WB will be in full panic mode. Justice league starts filming next week. So it may be too late for this film. Also, is Superman too damaged of property at this point for a future sequel? I don't think Ben Affleck's schedule is open if they wanted to push JL back and move up the production schedule on a Batman film to course correct. I think their main problem is not with the filmmakers, but at the Studio level. Few of us think much of Snyder as a filmmaker, but a director is only as good as the script that he's working with. The director is responsible for the visual expression of the film. Goyer and Therio sp? should be accountable as they were the script writers. It seems that WB needs someone at the studio level that is setting a cohesive direction for their universe. Said executive shouldn't be too close to the film process but more closely tied to the Studio, and DC comics. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they need someone in a role similar to Kevin Feige at Marvel Studio's to hire the right talent for each project. It's kinda baffling because their animated division worked so well under the guise of Paul Dini and Bruce Timm. They need vision and it can't from the filmmakers(writers and directors) who are only tied to the projects they are hired to work on. This is the one thing they should've mimicked from Marvel. This too may be too late at this juncture.

I've always argued that Wonder Woman is one of the most difficult characters to cast. I liked what Gal Gadot did with what she was given to do so I look forward to her solo film. My biggest question for Gadot has always been her acting chops. Wonder woman can mean so many different things to different people. She has to drop be dead gorgeous, Strong willed, confident, kickass, athletic, exotic looking, tall and physical. The actress has to be able to not only emote those properties, but also look the part. Also has to be young enough make sequels if deemed viable. Very few actresses have any or all of those qualities in combination, so no matter who is chosen will meet with some level of scrutiny. Hopefully Patty Jenkins highlight Gadot's strengths and cover her shortcomings as an actress with limited abilities.

[spanner]

so yeah watched this yesterday but it just didn't tickle my fancy..

[areaseven]

[Dobber]

What Wonder Woman should really look like.....you know, being from the Amazon and all:

Wrong Amazon. She is from Greek mythology.

Chris

[sh9000]

Cool.

[Tking22]

frakk you Snyder...

http://io9.gizmodo.com/robin-was-also-a-killer-in-zack-snyders-dc-cinematic-mu-1771781312

A frakking halberd? Really? See I thought they'd attempt to backtrack and say Batman only slaughtered thugs in this because he was unhinged and it was after the loss of Robin, which probably led to his lack of giving a crap and being like Batman, but NOOOOOOO, Robin apparently dropped fools left and right as well. This film is easily the biggest, most expensive, mishandled superhero property in history, and Snyder is the officially the hackiest of hacks. My question now? How in the flying frakk is anyone from the Suicide Squad film alive? If Batman and Robin murdered random thugs, why the hell are the big bad super villains locked up? I saw this film for free and I still feel blatantly ripped off, my life was shortened because of this film, I'm done now.

[Negotiator]

How do you know he murdered people? Maybe he liked to "disarm" them?

[Tking22]

How do you know he murdered people? Maybe he liked to "disarm" them?

Lol sounds about right. I mean, according to Snyder and his "proxy" excuse, if Robin chops a dude's arm off in the street then Robin didn't kill him, if he bleeds out then that's on him for not seeking medical attention. Also, just maybe, every member of the Suicide Squad's mom is named Martha too, just maybe. But in all seriousness, frakk Snyder, everything he is doing now is backpedaling and damage control.

[azrael]

...Jason Todd?