• We have completed a significant site update. Come see what's new!
  • Community Spotlight sign-ups are open once again for both Gaming and EtcetEra Hangout threads! If you want to shine a spotlight on your community, please register now.

DCEU Era |OT2| Thundercrack!

Erza won

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 30.3%
  • Oh hell yes

    Votes: 23 69.7%

  • Total voters
    33

Dyl

Member
Oct 27, 2017
171
I'm really surprised Margot opted to keep the tattoos. This doesn't bode well for Leto if his Joker appears again (whose chances are looking slimmer by the day, but still).
 

J_Viper

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,885
If Reeves chooses fucking Ansel Egort over Armie Hammer just burn this entire project to the ground
 

bigstef71

Member
Jul 5, 2018
183
Chicago
Yeah. Even if they adjust his personality, the tattoos will still catch a lot of flak. Deservedly so.
I personally liked the tattoos. It was something different. Definitely though the personality has to change. He was too goofy in suicide squad
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,176
I hope WB would draw the line at some point because that list of candidates is terrible besides Hammer
They likely can't, seeing as how they gave Reeves full creative control during his negotiations for the gig back in 2017. And honestly no, that list isn't quite "terrible." It's just different from what I think a number of fans are expecting right now. Granted, not every name on that list excites me either.

But guys like Jack O'Connell, Aaron Taylor Johnson and Nicholas Hoult? They're all legit and would crush it as Batman in their own unique way. Which seems to be what Reeves wants for his film- something more idiosyncratic than a Don Draper type. This has been the case since he was initially looking at Jake Gyllenhaal for the part.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,176
None of the candidates on that list excite me.

Ryan Gosling is the one we need.
Not what Reeves is looking for. He's deliberately going for that late 20's crowd of actors. Best of those are O'Connell (aka The Next Tom Hardy), Hoult (who's been wasted on the Beast btw) and ATJ (see: Nocturnal Animals).
 

Pein

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,023
NYC
What an idiotic hot take. How do you explain all the comics, animated cartoons/movies, and TV shows that do not at all back this up? Snyder’s Superman failed because if anything he wasn’t human enough. People weren’t exactly thrilled with Snyder’s “Emo Space Jesus”.

Also it looks like Cavill wanted to be able to approve the director choice, which ties back into the rumors over the contract negotiation breakdowns. Plus some directors might not be interested in trying to rebuild Snyder’s Superman, rather than totally rebooting Supes.
Idiotic hot take? Superman would be a a god among us and how Snyder handled him as a dude coming to grips with his power was amazing. I know you got it out for cavill Superman but people just wanted him to be classic supes who saves the day and you can get that bullshit outta my face. Some People took that neck snap like it was their neck being snapped.
Smallville did it. Superman's like any powerful character, make him relatable and vulnerable just make it faithful and don't do it poorly. I'd be there on day one for a James Gunn Superman, just by his GOTG movies.
I’m not a fan of Gunn’s quirky style for Superman, I really think he needs that team dynamic. So weird he wants krypto to just be hanging out in his movie.
 

Ocarina_117

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,468
Zod was going to kill every single human to spite Supes

What other choice did he have in that instance?

The neck snap outrage is tiring. You can see the agony it caused supes in his reaction to it.
 

Greendomo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
157
Zod was going to kill every single human to spite Supes

What other choice did he have in that instance?

The neck snap outrage is tiring. You can see the agony it caused supes in his reaction to it.
There’s a million different ways you can have that moment playout without Supes having to snap Zods neck. Can you imagine if Bale’s Batman has snapped Ra’s neck? But by leaving Ra’s to his own fate “I don’t have to save you”, we don’t see him as a killer. It’s the difference between Keaton’s “rubber bullets” and Affleck’s gunning henchmen down in the dozens.
 

INST

Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,210
There’s a million different ways you can have that moment playout without Supes having to snap Zods neck. Can you imagine if Bale’s Batman has snapped Ra’s neck? But by leaving Ra’s to his own fate “I don’t have to save you”, we don’t see him as a killer. It’s the difference between Keaton’s “rubber bullets” and Affleck’s gunning henchmen down in the dozens.
Here we go.

Again.
 
Aug 28, 2018
28
Maybe it’s the Twilight baggage but I’m surprised Robert Pattinson isn’t thrown around more for Batman. He’d be a great Keaton-y choice.
 

J_Viper

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,885
I like Hoult but I think Dark Phoenix is gonna wreck that entire cast's career, and WB isn't gonna want anyone associated with that sure-to-be dumpster fire with their most important blockbuster franchise

ATJ would be great. Dude is jacked

Haven't seen O'Connell in anything, but he looks the the part

Jakey G is Mysterio, I don't even know why he'd be on the studio's wishlist
 

Ninjimbo

Member
Dec 6, 2017
1,688
Still can’t believe the neck snap caused that much outrage lol. Snyder’s justification for it always rang true for me.

Do it once so you can know never to do it again.

The agony he felt after doing it is the most honest moment we have in this silly genre.
 

Neophant

Member
Oct 25, 2017
385
I think it's important that Superman knew the value of life after having to regretfully put down the last living member of his race. If anything it makes him more compassionate and knowing the value of a life after realizing the costs of taking one are.
Finally I'm sure it was brought up before but considering how slow Zod moved his head it was clear he wanted Superman to kill him. He had nothing else to live for you and he was willing to go down as a last ditch resort. Apparently the principle is called "Suicide by Cop"?
 

IconGrist

Member
Oct 26, 2017
289
The neck snap's full story hit in BvS when he says, "No one stays good in this world." Angers me it goes unnoticed. He killed Zod to save the world. And he hated having to do it even though it can be seen as necessary. Then he realizes when Lex ultimatums him that it seems impossible to stay good which is easy for him to believe considering he's been doubting his role (actually due to Lex behind the scenes). Despite feeling that way HE STILL TRIES TO REASON WITH BATMAN! And even says "If I wanted it you'd be dead already." He resists the whole time because he doesn't want to believe it has to be done. So in his final moments knowing he's about to die he pleads for Bruce to save his mother. He chose to let himself be beaten rather than take Batman's life as Lex demanded.

Emo and conflicted are not the same thing and I wouldn't even consider Superman conflicted based on his actions. He fought that mentality to the bitter end.
 

Greendomo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
157
Here we go.

Again.
Yes the defending of the necksnap is just as tiring as the outrage. But it’s tiring having to hear how we don’t get the brilliance or genius of Snyder.

People can know the value of life without having to take one. Even if he had to kill Zod, there’s something over the top about having to snap his neck. Again. A million different ways to write it. Defend it all you want, but it’s divisive. Written another way it would still portray the same emotions and beats that you enjoy, but without alienating so many viewers.
 

Ninjimbo

Member
Dec 6, 2017
1,688
The neck snap's full story hit in BvS when he says, "No one stays good in this world." Angers me it goes unnoticed. He killed Zod to save the world. And he hated having to do it even though it can be seen as necessary. Then he realizes when Lex ultimatums him that it seems impossible to stay good which is easy for him to believe considering he's been doubting his role (actually due to Lex behind the scenes). Despite feeling that way HE STILL TRIES TO REASON WITH BATMAN! And even says "If I wanted it you'd be dead already." He resists the whole time because he doesn't want to believe it has to be done. So in his final moments knowing he's about to die he pleads for Bruce to save his mother. He chose to let himself be beaten rather than take Batman's life as Lex demanded.

Emo and conflicted are not the same thing and I wouldn't even consider Superman conflicted based on his actions. He fought that mentality to the bitter end.
The fact that Superman willingly gives his life at the end to save the planet should be the indicator that he was never really conflicted about what he was trying to be. It drives me bonkers that people still characterize him as an asshole, or a jerk and whatever other superlative they can think of. Superman isn’t perfect and he isn’t supposed to be, but in the age of misinformation you kinda have to be to past society’s inane purity tests.

The fact that BvS frames its whole story through this lens is what makes it so excellent. Superman is seen rescuing people after the bombing and yet the media still will go about framing it negatively. It’s a fucking reflection of our pitiful state.
 

INST

Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,210
The neck snap's full story hit in BvS when he says, "No one stays good in this world." Angers me it goes unnoticed. He killed Zod to save the world. And he hated having to do it even though it can be seen as necessary. Then he realizes when Lex ultimatums him that it seems impossible to stay good which is easy for him to believe considering he's been doubting his role (actually due to Lex behind the scenes). Despite feeling that way HE STILL TRIES TO REASON WITH BATMAN! And even says "If I wanted it you'd be dead already." He resists the whole time because he doesn't want to believe it has to be done. So in his final moments knowing he's about to die he pleads for Bruce to save his mother. He chose to let himself be beaten rather than take Batman's life as Lex demanded.

Emo and conflicted are not the same thing and I wouldn't even consider Superman conflicted based on his actions. He fought that mentality to the bitter end.
Era good enough for u but we aren't huh? I see how it is.
 

MHWilliams

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,431
I'm really surprised Margot opted to keep the tattoos. This doesn't bode well for Leto if his Joker appears again (whose chances are looking slimmer by the day, but still).
I assume part of the "emancipation of Harley Quinn" requires the acknowledgement that the previous relationship wasn't good. The tattoos are a mark of that relationship.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,693
NYC
There’s a million different ways you can have that moment playout without Supes having to snap Zods neck. Can you imagine if Bale’s Batman has snapped Ra’s neck? But by leaving Ra’s to his own fate “I don’t have to save you”, we don’t see him as a killer. It’s the difference between Keaton’s “rubber bullets” and Affleck’s gunning henchmen down in the dozens.
Rubber bullets and “I don’t have to save you” are excuses you use on a child, not to mention they don’t pass the logic test.
Sometimes you don’t have a lot of choices and you learn from them.
 

Firemind

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,912
I never understood why people gave "I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you" a pass. Imagine if TAS Batman said that. Bruce Timm would be vilified.

Also the whole "I won't kill this man who murdered someone, but I will set fire and kill many more men while not saving that man but instead save the man who orchestrated the whole thing instead."
 

Greendomo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
157
Rubber bullets and “I don’t have to save you” are excuses you use on a child, not to mention they don’t pass the logic test.
Sometimes you don’t have a lot of choices and you learn from them.
I'm not trying to open up old wounds and I'm not trying to troll. But breaking Zod's neck wasn't Clark's choice. It was Snyders. They wanted Clark to snap Zod's neck, so they wrote a way they felt naturally led to that.

What if Zod forced him to make that choice, but it didn't involve the actual neck being snapped. What if it involved a dilemma where Clark couldn't be in two places at once? You would still have Clark having to chose between saving an innocent family, or saving the last remaining member of his race? No-one is discounting the impact of him having to make a terrible decision. But I am saying there are many other ways to execute it that don't involve him snapping someones neck.
 

Shingi_70

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,320
The main issue with Clark Killing, is it's never really brought up in Batman v Superman. We never see Clark Kent/Superman talk in his own words for what he stands for. One of the changes i would have made would have not made Bruce a Killer, but getting brutal and have have him on the Edge and lean into Clark talking him down from the ledge and how the cost is too high.
 

Vordan

Member
Aug 12, 2018
807
The main issue with Clark Killing, is it's never really brought up in Batman v Superman. We never see Clark Kent/Superman talk in his own words for what he stands for. One of the changes i would have made would have not made Bruce a Killer, but getting brutal and have have him on the Edge and lean into Clark talking him down from the ledge and how the cost is too high.
And then he kills Zod again in BvS. If Snyder really intended for the MoS to be Clark’s “Never again” moment why the hell did he shove a villain in that forced Clark to kill AGAIN? And kill the same guy AGAIN no less?
WB totally slipped in a multi-film commitment into his contract
Isn’t he one of those actors who hates multi-movie commitments? I can’t see him sticking around past this one movie. But I’m really curious if Leto will be returning. Gunn doesn’t like Leto, Reeves doesn’t plan to use Joker, and Leto’s Joker would seriously need a redesign if he ever did come back. Get rid of those idiotic tattoos.
 

Bor Gullet

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,317
I never understood why people gave "I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you" a pass. Imagine if TAS Batman said that. Bruce Timm would be vilified.

Also the whole "I won't kill this man who murdered someone, but I will set fire and kill many more men while not saving that man but instead save the man who orchestrated the whole thing instead."
I've seen people criticize Begins for that, especially when it came out.
 

Shingi_70

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,320
About BvS

Superman never should have died
The Villain should have been Metallo instead of Doomsday
Clark should have been the driving force of the formation of the Justice league and not the memory of his death.

Man of Steel is a great opening movie to a cinematic Universe but Snyder completely misunderstood how to move the character forward and the DC Universe.

Batman v Superman as a film is a sound concept but it should have been more DC New Frontier and less The Dark Knight Returns.
 

Ocarina_117

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,468
Morrison? It’s great, highly recommend. Has a 2000 AD feel to it that I enjoy, but I was burnt out from all the “GLC is on the verge of extinction!” Stories.
Great! May hunt down the floppies next time I'm in west end London.

Trying to find some disposable income so I can pick up the new Kingdom Come Absolute.

About BvS

Superman never should have died
The Villain should have been Metallo instead of Doomsday
Clark should have been the driving force of the formation of the Justice league and not the memory of his death.

Man of Steel is a great opening movie to a cinematic Universe but Snyder completely misunderstood how to move the character forward and the DC Universe.

Batman v Superman as a film is a sound concept but it should have been more DC New Frontier and less The Dark Knight Returns.
Though I love BvS UC, I hear all this.

In terms of what Snyder wanted to do with his movies, it made sense.

In terms of WB wanting an MCU it should have been the coming together of Batman, Wonder Woman and Superman. Wonder Woman slapping sense into Clark and Bruce to stop their beef and unite against a common enemy would have been ideal.
 

Neophant

Member
Oct 25, 2017
385
About BvS

Superman never should have died
The Villain should have been Metallo instead of Doomsday
Clark should have been the driving force of the formation of the Justice league and not the memory of his death.

Man of Steel is a great opening movie to a cinematic Universe but Snyder completely misunderstood how to move the character forward and the DC Universe.

Batman v Superman as a film is a sound concept but it should have been more DC New Frontier and less The Dark Knight Returns.
If Superman didn't die, then where would the impetus for forming the Justice League begin? Superman could practically handle the world (and Steppenwolf as we saw) and save everybody, so why would a team needed to be formed in the first place?
Dan Jurgens, who wrote the original Death of Superman comic story, believed that BvS made the Doomsday fight more meaningful than in his own book.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,693
NYC
I'm not trying to open up old wounds and I'm not trying to troll. But breaking Zod's neck wasn't Clark's choice. It was Snyders. They wanted Clark to snap Zod's neck, so they wrote a way they felt naturally led to that.

What if Zod forced him to make that choice, but it didn't involve the actual neck being snapped. What if it involved a dilemma where Clark couldn't be in two places at once? You would still have Clark having to chose between saving an innocent family, or saving the last remaining member of his race? No-one is discounting the impact of him having to make a terrible decision. But I am saying there are many other ways to execute it that don't involve him snapping someones neck.
so in the end you have more of an issue with how Clark did it rather than him doing it? I can understand that.
 

Shingi_70

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,320
If Superman didn't die, then where would the impetus for forming the Justice League begin? Superman could practically handle the world (and Steppenwolf as we saw) and save everybody, so why would a team needed to be formed in the first place?
Dan Jurgens, who wrote the original Death of Superman comic story, believed that BvS made the Doomsday fight more meaningful than in his own book.
If Superman doesn't die, I think he helps form the league too inspire the planet, and on the idea that one man even a Superman isn't enough to fight future threats. If your looking at why form the league in the first place, than after Clark is brought back why deal with the team anyway.

I would have waited a few films and had a Death and Return of Superman work to introduce new character's and a new Team after the big 7.
 

Vordan

Member
Aug 12, 2018
807
If Superman didn't die, then where would the impetus for forming the Justice League begin? Superman could practically handle the world (and Steppenwolf as we saw) and save everybody, so why would a team needed to be formed in the first place?
Dan Jurgens, who wrote the original Death of Superman comic story, believed that BvS made the Doomsday fight more meaningful than in his own book.
How we make it so he *can’t* handle the villain of the first JL movie by himself? You know like the fucking comics and cartoons have been doing for years? Also Snyder Supes did a terrible job of controlling collateral damage so he totally could’ve used some help with Zod.

You guys keep acting like Snyder didn’t have a creative choice and the he somehow had to portray the characters the way he did. But he didn’t. He didn’t have to choose freaking Steppenwolf. He didn’t have to make WW someone who rage quit on humanity, and Patty and Gal are walking that shit back. He didn’t have to have the shitty Bart Allan with Barry’s name Flash, or make Cyborg a human head on a robot body. He didn’t have to make Supes the freaking Deus Ex Machina. Supes has been alive and well and still helped found the JL, so I have idea where you got this notion that the JL only makes sense with Supes dead. Those were all genius ideas from capekino director Zack Snyder.
 
Last edited: