Petey_is_Spidey

If it's so natural, why can't they reproduce?

11855 0 32 99
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Just got around to watching Suicide Squad...

Well, not exactly. I really watched it like 2 months ago, but I've barely had time to get on CV recently.

But I got to say, damn that movie was bad. The pacing was off, the movie had MCU level inconsistencies in tone, except it didn't mesh nearly as well (which made the re-cuts and re-shoots far more apparent), the plot was basic, and the story didn't flow very well, and relegating Joker to be some psychopathic thug-gangster instead of an actual character didn't bug well with me. Also, what was up with the ending?

Usually I list the good, the bad, and the ugly, but since it's been a long time since I've watched the film - and I most likely never will again (at least the theatrical version) - then I can't really give a comprehensive review.

All in all, I'd give it a 4.5/10, about on Thor 2 & IM3 level. Maybe a little worse tbh. Perhaps I need to watch it a second time, as my understanding of the movie usually changes as I take more in.

But as of now, the TC is by far the worst DCEU film. I have no idea how anyone could think this was better than even the TC BvS.

Here's hoping to UC is good.

72 Comments

Hate to say it, but I told you so.

I remember 4 months ago, when everyone was going apeshit over BvS (Whether it will make enough money, it's quality, who's fault it was, whether the DCEU would continue, if it was overhated) and everyone seem to put the blame on Snyder. I (along with a few others) knew better, and knew all along from the beginning that this was the result of the horrible management at WB. I also predicted that the UC would be drastically better , and that unless WB get's their crap together, the exact same thing would happen to SS. But no, I was hounded at, and called a "Snyder fanboy" & was told that "SS would be the next Deadpool or GotG (a relatively small, unknown property [well, Deadpool isn't really unknown, but just roll with it], that would be a fun watch, wouldn't take itself too seriously, and would ultimately receive praise from critics and fans as the "savior of the DCEU).

Fast forward 3 months later, and what happened? UC was released, and received far better reception from fans and critics alike (though there are still those who dislike it for reasons like "too dark", trying too much to be "edgy", not "fun" enough, not my Batman or not my Superman, etc.). The narrative was drastically better, the character development felt complete, and it actually felt like Batman v. Superman, not Batman ft. Superman. It also seems like it will make a killing in Blu-Ray sales.

Fast forward another month to now, and what happened? The complete incompetence of WB, and knee jerk reaction they had over BvS prompted them to cut out 30 minutes of the film, reshoot more "funny" moments, and re-edit the entirety of the film. You know what that resulted in? Critics trashing the crap out of the film. Granted, the film might benefit from being a fun movie, which audiences seem to take more of a liking to, and can still make a killing at the Box Office (Just see IM2, Thor: the Dark World, and IM 2. Granted, IM3 was better received by fans than IM2 and Thor, but it was nothing spectacular); "fun" movies, no matter how trashy they are, will always receive better fan reception than "non fun" movies. For some reason people in general seem to be more forgiving of a movie's flaws if you inject a little humor into it and the characters' don't seem to take too much seriously. It's why some people legitimately think IM3 is a superior film to MoS.

Now what does this all mean? Firstly, you all should listen to me more (lol, jk). Secondly, Snyder is not the problem with the DCEU, it's WB who keeps shooting themselves in the foot. Lastly, there's still hope that SS makes money because it's "fun".

At the end of the day, unless WB let their directors do their job, WHICH IS DIRECT, then we'll keep getting the same result.

45 Comments

"Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" - Pre-Review (MAJOR SPOILERS)

It's finally here! No, not my review, that comes later (I need to watch a movie AT LEAST twice to give a good review), but the movie. I just watched the DCEU's second film, and let me tell you something.... IT DID NOT DISAPPOINT.

I'm just here to give my brief overview of the film

The Good

  • Phenomenal effects and visuals. I'm not just talking about the fight scenes and cgi, but just the way they told the movie through video; the beginning scene with Bruce was fantastic and emotional; Superman saving people was also very well done; the CGI was off the charts and no where near as overdone as people say it was (I was expecting CGI just everywhere, but it honestly had no more CGI than any other superhero film)
  • Great action.
  • Batman's character was phenomenally written and played. His combat was great and his character was even better.
  • The Flash scene, though short, was great.
  • I'm glad that they didn't show too much of the JL members. I was afraid this was gonna be a full on JL pre-quel, but it actually truly was Bruce Wayne Batman v Clark Kent Superman + Wonder Woman.
  • The emotion in the movie was handled wonderfully. Bruce witnessing his parent's death; the death of Bruce's employee; Superman's death. Wait, is there a pattern here...
  • The way they dealt with the philosophy of the whole matter was well done. The court hearings, citizen opinions, news articles, it all was well done. They realistically handled the whole matter.
  • Jesse Eisenberg's villain was great. Notice I didn't say Lex Luthor; I thought his Lex Luthor was horrible, but as a standalone villain, it was actually very psychotic, crazy, yet brilliant.
  • The movie actually convinced me of why Batman wants Superman dead. The death of what appeared to be one of his closest employees along with the flashback scene from the Flash foretelling Superman taking over the world. I was skeptical on how they were gonna handle that, but they really sold me on it.
  • Superman's sacrifices. It really showed you the hero he was and the risks he was willing to take. I don't know how anyone can say that Superman isn't heroic in the DCEU after this movie.
  • I love this Superman's personality. He shoewd that he can be badass and powerful, yet carring and heroic. He actually portrayed real emotion
  • How Superman straight up went Injustice in the alternate future reality.

The Bad and Ugly

  • Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor. Though I enjoy the villain himself, his Lex was, well, off. He was't intimidating nor demanding. He was so quirky. He was, well, Jesse Eisenberg.
  • This isn't exactly a bad thing, because I had no problem following the story, but it DID jump around a lot. I can understand why a non-comic book fan would be completely confused about the dream sequence; you wouldn't have gotten the Darkseid reference, nor would you have gotten the Injustice reference. It was sort of out of no where, and with the exception of the Flash part, the scene as a whole had no need to be in the movie at all.
  • The introduction of the Justice League members. It was so short that it honestly didn't need to be there. It was also underwhelming and out of place.
  • The actual fight, though entertaining, was short. I would have liked if it was longer.
  • The dream sequence could have been introduced better. It literally came out of no where. He goes from prepping to day dreaming in an instance.
  • They didn't focus on Superman nearly enough. Though they did do a great job addressing the after math of MoS, SUPERMAN (not Clark Kent) didn't evolve as a character all too much. I can understand why some considered him "just some character" in the movie.
  • Too many damn sub-plots. Again, this wasn't a problem for ME.
  • Batman killed. I understand if you're fighting a group full of gangsters with assault rifles, but do you REALLY need to ram cars into each other, or do you REALLY need to fire 20 mm canon fire into armor-less ground hostiles?
  • It felt too much like a Justice League setup film, rather than a Batman v Superman film. In fact, they should have just made the title "Dawn of Justice".
  • The ending scene with Batman made absolutely no sense. How in the hell did he get in there?!?!?
  • This is REALLY nitpicky, but there was a scene with Bruce and Alfred where his voice just changes OUT OF NO WHERE. It's NOTHING to ruin the movie, but just thought I would point it out.

What did people overreact on?

  • The story. Though it did jump around a lot, if you payed even the slightest attention, you shouldn't have a problem following it. In fact, I would say the plot was very predictable.
  • It was not too dark, nor was it "too serious" (if that's even a thing).
  • Wonder Woman. I was expecting this grand, phenomenal character who gave Doomsday a run for his money in the final fight. What I got was a good, not phenomenal, character who didn't do much to Doomsday but be an annoyance.
  • The writing was not as bad as I expected.
  • The CGI. I was expecting the CGI to be some huge distraction, but it was no where near that.

What do they (WB, Zack Snyder) need to improve on in the future? What could have this movie benefited from?

  • HAVE ONE WRITER! It felt like I was watching two entirely different movies at some points. It's not even so much that the script was bad (it was not at all), it just felt like two different styles. It would go from jokey to serious in a matter of minutes.
  • Be more consistent with the story.
  • Being longer. Watching this movie, I really felt like they had to edit A LOT out so it wouldn't be too long. I honestly felt like I was only watching half the movie, and with nearly 4 hours of actual footage, I'm confident the movie could have benefited from being much longer.
  • The plot holes. There are few, and TBH, you will barely notice them while watching the movie. With all the reviews, responses, and reactions, you'd think that there are plot-holes littered everywhere, when that is just not the truth.
  • It was far from sluggish and slow. Again, people are overrating about this aspect. Going into the movie, I was expecting that I was going to go 100 minutes without any action or good dialogue. In fact, between the dream sequence, the Superman scenes of him saving everyone, and the Batman scenes, it kinda felt like there was TOO MUCH action. When people have such conflicting problems with a movie, it really makes me wonder...
  • Now this is just a guess, but the movie felt like some of the higher ups were imposing their will on Snyder and the Writers. I REALLY felt a 9/10 in this movie (it could have been better than the Dark Knight, seriously), but between some of the forced cameos, tie ins, and sub-plots, and set-ups, it felt too much like "Dawn of Justice" than "Batman v Superman". There is probably 30 minutes worth of footage wasted on the above things mentioned. I have nothing backing this, but I can just TELL there were a lot of corporate hands in this movie screwing with it. HONESTLY, this time you can't blame it on Zack. Shoot, I bet from the remaining 1 hour and a half worth of footage is a PHENOMENAL film!

What should you expect from the film, and should you go see it?

Expect a film who delivers emotionally and also in the action department. However, if you're not a big comic fan (which many of you are) do expect to be slightly confused in certain scenes. This isn't as good as Winter Soldier, but its NO WHERE NEAR as bad as X-Men: Last Stand (I would use Fantastic Four 2015, but I have never seen it and thus don't know how bad/good it is). It has great visuals, and if you actually PAY ATTENTION, you should be able to follow the story with little difficulty. I wouldn't advise spending an IMax ticket on it (simply because you might not like it as much as me), but its definitely worth a measly 6-12 dollars.

My premature verdict: 7.5/10

As I've said previously, I have to watch the movie at least one more time to get a clearer picture (don't be surprised if I don't come out with a full, 2 page long review a month from now), but for now, the movie is fun, exhilarating, has a great story, awesome visuals, and is a fun ride. It was also a great Justice League set up movie. It wasn't as good as Watchmen, Man of Steel, X-Men: First Class, or Winter Soldier, but is still above The Avengers, the Wolverine, Ironman 3, and Age of Ultron. I'd put it at Dark Knight Rises level. Still in my top 10 CBMs of all time.

29 Comments

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Civil War

After months since the first trailer was released, Disney finally gives us a second trailer to their upcoming Captain America: Civil Skirmish War film. I'm gonna take a moment to step down from my BvS hype train to give my little $0.02 about the new Civil War trailer. I'll be describing what I liked, disliked, and what I'm looking forward to.

The Good

Though I thought to trailer as a whole was a little underwhelming, I did like a lot of things in it. For one, I really like how the MCU is addressing the destruction caused in previous conflicts. One of my biggest gripes with the MCU was that it wasn't realistic enough, especially when it came to addressing past issues and conflicts; for example, the battle of New York in the Avengers seem to just fly over their head, and it didn't seem until now that anyone really cared.

No Caption Provided

However, they're ACTUALLY ADDRESSING IT! That was one of the bright spots in the trailer for me; seeing Cap there uncomfortable with having to view the destruction really got me a little more excited for the plot.

I'm loving Black Panther. The look, the speed, the strength, the suit, the actor, EVERYTHING. I think Chadwick Boseman will really capture the character well (even if I would have preferred Idris Elba). I'm really excited how he will fair against Winter Soldier, seeing as he was pretty bad ass in CA: WS.

However, aside from these two points, nothing in the trailer got me hyped (not even the appearance of my favorite hero).

The Bad & Ugly

Spiderman. Now I know everyone is drooling over his suit, but for me, it just isn't doing it. I'm not digging the tiny ass Spider symbol (Batman has the opposite problem; his crap is too big and blaoted), I'm not digging the eye pieces (I like how they can be dilated mechanically, but they just remind me of that one Japanese live action show), the black lines are just ugly, and above all else, it just doesn't look like a teenager could have made it. Now, I'm guessing that of course it was created by Tony, which would be the only logical explanation for its rather "high" tech look. However, if Peter his self created it, I'll have a hard time believing that. Also, his voice. Please do not take any of my above criticism about his APPEARANCE AND VOICE as me casting judgement on how he'll actually be. But I know there will still be that ONE person.

No Caption Provided

My next gripe is not necessarily with the actual trailer, but with the movie in general. It just doesn't feel like a war. The conflict just doesn't feel grand enough and there just aren't enough set pieces. I said it before and I'll say it again; they should have waited maybe 2-5 years to make the film, and it should have been a two-parter. However, at the end of the day I will still take this movie for what it is, which is its own film.

Lastly is the quip at the very end of the trailer. The trailer is going good and feels like the Winter Soldier: serious tone with great dialogue. However, towards the end we get yet another quick quip from Tony, sucking the air out of the room (for me at least). My biggest fear for this is that it will just be another AoU; a movie that shows you a brilliant, more grounded tone in the trailers, only to give us more of the same (you can make the argument it is even worse) when the actual movie comes out. For the love of God, please don't give us another AoU!

The vibe it gave me and what I'm looking forward to

  • Cap is looking more and more like the aggressor, and with the Warmachine scene (where he gets shot down), it appears that team Cap started the whole matter. However, I'll need to wait for further information before I cast judgement.

  • Spiderman is playing a bigger role than is being let off. No way Tony gets Spiderman involved in the whole skirmish off of 15 minutes of footage. I won't be surprised if Spiderman gets slightly more spotlight than Natasha in the movie.
    • Does Tony know that Petey is a teen? If he does, why in the hell would he get a 15 year old involved in this. If he doesn't, how in the hell did Peter keep it a secret? Only time will tell.
    • How powerful will Spiderman be? I'm hoping he can whoop everyone's ass in the MCU with the exception of Thor, Vision, Ironman, Hulk, and Scarlet Witch (Which reminds me, a lot of the MCU characters are street levelers). However, I won't be surprised if they nurf him only to keep Ironman in the spotlight.
  • I'm calling it now; Batman Cap gets destroyed in his fight with Superman Ironman. Unlike Batman having Kryptonite, there is no magical weakness for IM, and I highly doubt a peak human individual is harming a man in a metal suit, and if the trailer is any indication, most likely I'm right.
  • How powerful is Black Panther? Cap level? Winter Soldier level? Maybe even Garfield Spiderman level(he was tanking assault rifle ammunition)?

My verdict

Ultimately, I think it was a good trailer in terms of showing us footage of what the movie will be like and who will be in it. However, it really didn't do much for me in term of hype (the first trailer was great at that). Ultimately this trailer didn't hurt anything for me, but I do wish for the next trailer they will show more of the plot. I'm looking forward to the movie, but its definitely not my most anticipated movie this year. Overall, I give the trailer a: 7.5/10.

20 Comments

Dispelling The Invalid and Hyprocritical Hate Against Man of Steel

It's March 6, 2016, and with the release of Batman v. Superman 19 days away, the users of ComicVine will get yet another Man of Steel review. As many of you know, I liked Man of Steel; a matter of fact, I liked it so much I considered it one of my 3 favorite CBMs of all time (the other two being X-Men: First Class and Captain America: Winter Soldier), and when you like something as much as I liked Man of Steel, you hate to here it get trashed. Now look, I get it, everyone has their own personal opinion, and no one single opinion holds more weight than the other (despite what many "professional" movie reviewers would like you to believe), but please, for the love of God, at least provide criticism that makes sense or that does not make you look like a hypocrite.

No Caption Provided

Now this isn't so much a review on Man of Steel as it is a review against some of the criticism it receives. Listen, I get it, you don't like the realistic approach to Superman, an approach that presents the hard truth, the hard truth that Superman can't save anyone; you don't like Superman making the hard, but good decision of taking another man's life; you don't like that a farther is looking out for the best interest of his son, even if his decision is flawed (as is every humans); you also don't like the interpretation of Superman. But please, for the love of God, at least be consistent with your judgment. There are multiple myths and hypocrisies that I can point out and debunk, but for the sake of my time and yours, I will only do 3 false assumptions and 2 hypocrisies of each.

Exhibit A.1: Superman doesn't save anyone, and in fact "kills" multiple people

Out of all the erroneous complaints, THIS is the funniest. Not only does it completely ignore the multiple times Superman saves someone in the film, but tries to make the blatantly false "point" that he was responsible for other's deaths. Lets first examine the people he save:

A relatively young Clark puts his life on the line to save 9 complete strangers.

"Put his life on the line? He's the Man of Steel! You're telling me he can't survive a little fire!? Or lift a oil drilling derrick?!"

Can he survive the explosion? Yes. Could he support that derrick? Yes. Did he know that? No. His whole life he was taught to conceal his powers, and to a point even discouraged to use them in fear of retribution from the people of Earth. He doesn't know his limits. For all he knew at 1:17 is that the derrick will crush him, and he and the other workers will die. But instead of being a coward, he acts selflessly. He lays his life on the line and jumps in front of the derrick to stop it, and buy the other workers time.

In the thick of battle, a helicopter pilot has fallen from his chopper and begins to descend to his potential doom. Despite being attacked by two beings that have proven they can give him more than enough trouble, Superman takes time out of his day to rescue a pilot before falling to his death, and even asks is he okay.

Here, we see a young Clark save a bus full of children, and what makes this scene even better is that he goes back to save his bully. Despite throwing insults and derogatory terms at him, Clark decides to go against his farther's instruction and save him. He could have let him die, and no one would have said a thing, but Clark, contrary to popular belief, has a heart. This scene perfectly displays his love for his fellow man, that, just like in the oil rig scene, he'll put his identity on the line to save others.

And these are only a few of the MANY times Superman has saved others throughout the film. the thing about this is that Superman is consistent in his moral stance. He doesn't sway, nor does he waver. Throughout the movie we see him lay it all down to save others, despite the way he was raised. This shows the character of a caring person, that he's willing to save strangers out of the good of his heart. He could have chickened out and got in the chopper with the oil drill workers, but he didn't. He could have let the pilot fall to his death while he continued to battle with Faora and Nam-Ek, but he didn't. He could have let those kids drown and die, ESPECIALLY that bully, and obeyed the commands of his farther, but he didn't. Shoot, he could have let the world get destroyed by Zod and the world engine, and see it that his race continues on. No, Clark makes the hard choice, the selfless choice that, despite his yearning to be around others like him, Krypton already had its chance but squandered it under the hands of moronic leaders.

Which leads me to

Exhibit A.2: Superman is careless, reckless and a murderer

This can't be farther from the truth. Even ignoring the multiple people DIRECTLY saves on screen, and the 7 billion he indirectly saves, no where in the movie is it shown, displayed, or implied that Superman is reckless.

People love to point out the Smallville battle as their argument point, stating the erroneously false opinion that Superman made no attempt to take the fight else, except he did, twice. He is LITERALLY seen attempting to fly away from the fight, in an attempt to draw the Kryptonians away, only to be caught by Nam-Ek. Then AGAIN he's seen grabbing Faora and attempting to take the fight elsewhere, only to be taken down by Nam-Ek. Not only that, but earlier in the scene we witness Clark literally telling others to "get inside, its not safe". Despite these three scenarios within the same scene, people still come to the false conclusion that Superman is careless for other's safety. And before you say "Look at the Battle in Metropolis and Gotham, he probably killed millions". Those buildings were obviously vacant and/or partially destroyed. There was no one in them. Yet you still complain. Even when they were battling in the nearby city, Superman was not the one throwing each other into buildings, Zod was. The one time Superman did use the buildings as a weapon was to run Zod's head through the side of one, and even then, he made sure not to actually take Zod inside. Besides that, Zod is the ONLY ONE putting other humans in harms way.

Superman even attempts to move the fight to the outer atmosphere, but Zod just takes the fight right back down to Earth.

Completely destroyed or evacuated buildings. No one was hurt in the process of this battle, except for maybe the few office workers in Metropolis who got caught in the cross-fire. In fact, the majority of the deaths were caused by the World Engine and the fighter jets and their missiles.
Completely destroyed or evacuated buildings. No one was hurt in the process of this battle, except for maybe the few office workers in Metropolis who got caught in the cross-fire. In fact, the majority of the deaths were caused by the World Engine and the fighter jets and their missiles.

It really raises the question of not whether Superman was reckless or not, but rather why do people think that in the first place. Sure, was he a little rash in certain scenes? Yeah, such as the one scene where he uses Zods head as a mop and the building as the floor, but never did he do so with the intent of hurting others, like many would want you to believe. Superman, like any other hero, cannot be in multiple places at once, and Zack Snyder did a wonderful job at conveying that. He didn't save everyone, as said in the Batman v. Superman trailers, but that's how things are supposed to be. In the real world there are consequences. Police don't stop all the crimes; fire fighters can't put out every fire; a judge and jury can't put every criminal in jail. However, all of them, just like Superman, try their best at saving as many people as they can, and making sure others stay out of harms way.

Oh, and side not for all those who think Superman committed genocide, those champers were empty.

Which leads to my last point:

Exhibit A.3: Superman didn't do enough to limit the damage in the final battle, and why didn't he just fly up when Zod tried to kill the family?

No Caption Provided

I mean, I don't know what else Zod has to say to make this clearer besides "I WILL KILL ALL HUMANS UNTIL THERE ARE NONE"

After seeing the death of his home planet, the planet which with he was born to protect destroyed, Zod will stop at nothing to achieve his goal, which is rebuilding Krypton. Nothing will stop him from achieving his goal. Throughout the movie he displays this; he even kills one of his closest allies and friends, Jor-El, out of anger for taking Krypton's future. This shows how he won't even let personal relationships get in his line of site. (I can write a whole blog on the dynamic of General Zod and why he was such a great character, but that is an endeavor for another day.)

When Zod's sole purpose was taken from him, he made it his absolute duty to take everything away from Superman, even at the expense of his own life. This is no empty threat. At this point in his life Zod has nothing to live for; his home world is gone and the one chance they have to rebuild it is also. He is fueled by rage and vengeance, and his threat towards Superman is not an empty one. Thus he engages in battle with Superman in an attempt to fulfill his new purpose in the world.

Zod attempts to cause as much collateral damage as possible, whether it have been him heat visioning a building in half or throwing Kal-El through multiple buildings at once. He is content in his goal, and makes it CLEAR AS DAY. What a lot of people fail to understand is that Zod was not trying to necessarily kill Superman, but trying to kill others. He was just using his battle with Superman as a means to kill two birds with one stone; even if he doesn't kill Superman, he can cause massive amounts of collateral damage in the process, putting dozens of others at risk. His goal, AS HE SAID, was to kill as many humans as possible. Superman attempting to move the fight elsewhere would not have worked like it did in the Smallville site (even there it didn't), because even if we assume he could (which he couldn't), there's no guaranteed Zod would have followed. Also, it would have been idiotic to risk leaving Zod with thousands, potentially millions of soft targets in a heavily populated city defenseless.

"But... but he didn't have to kill Zod. He could have just flew up."

Lets say he could have just done that (which is highly unlikely, seeing as their flight acts as a sort of tactical telekinesis, lifting objects in close proximity with them. Most likely Zod was holding himself down). Then what? He engage with Zod in an endless battle, which results in millions of property damage and the deaths of thousands as a result of people getting caught in the cross fire? They tire out, fall asleep, and repeat the process? There's no Phantom Zone, or some Deux-Ex-Machina device in which Kal-El can trap Zod in for eternity. Looking at you, Superman 2. There's no kryptonite prison in which they can hold Zod; there's no red sun in which they can drain Zod of his powers and kill him with a bullet. Not killing Zod then (which was the perfect opportunity to. He had him in a headlock and restraint. There's no guarantee he could get Zod in such a vulnerable position again.) would have resulted in a nearly endless battle. Killing Zod was the ONLY logical answer; taking the life of one to save the lives of many. For once, Superman is put in a situation where he has to make the tough choice, and thank God he made the right one.

Exhibit B: Hypocrisy #1: There's too much damage in this film! Superman didn't do enough to stop it! Superman doesn't care for the damage "he caused"!

I've already covered why I think the notion of Superman not doing enough to stop the damage is moronic, but I just want to address the notion in general. Why do people ask this question when analyzing Man of Steel, yet do it for NO OTHER MOVIE.

Think back to 2012. The Avengers is released, the 5th biggest film ever (then 3rd) to hit theaters. We get to see for the first time (well, not really) a band of heroes unite together to face a single foe, and in the face of evil, reign supreme. In the final act we witness the Avengers take on and defeat an army of Aliens to save the world!!!! Except there's one problem. They ravaged a good portion of the city.

No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

Or how bout in Age of Ultron, when they also destroyed an entire city!

No Caption Provided

Or how Ironman paid absolutely no regard for collateral damage.

There are a few other examples, but I specifically wanted to focus on these 3. Ironman gives complete disregard for others safety. He ACTIVELY tries to punch Hulk through inhabited buildings, and even destroys an entire building under construction. The Avengers, they destroy entire city blocks! They don't even try to save anyone! Oh the horror!

You will never here anyone complain about these events. You will never see anyone say that Ironman didn't try to save anyone, or that Joss Whedon unnecessarily devastated New York, or that Ultron cost the homes of multiple families.

However, when it comes to Man of Steel, this is people's biggest grievance. They ignore the circumstances around it (like the fact that the world engine caused 95% of the damage, or that the fighter jets did more bad than good, or that Zod purposefully kept the fight in the city). Instead, they make biased fueled judgments against the movie that THEY NEVER WOULD in any other circumstance. And when you call these individuals out on their biased claims, they can't provide you with a legitimate reason for it. If you were upset with all these situations (for whatever reason), fine, but don't accept one and go onto ignore the other.

People also love to point out how Superman was indifferent to killing Zod in the following scene, but seem to forget this

At least Superman shows emotional sorrow and regret for taking Zod's life, even if it was "short lived"; it was something that he DID NOT want to do but felt he needed to.

The Avengers on the other hand show NO guilt for the damage they caused. Its actually never even addressed at all. They just ignore it as if it didn't happen. But do not tell that to a Man of Steel hater critic.

Exhibit B2: It didn't capture the Superman! It didn't feel at all like a Superman film!

Before I divulge into why people who state this are often hypocrites, let me first tell you why this did capture the spirit of a Superman film in most aspects, but at the same time was never meant to be such. Superman inspired hope, through his actions and not through long speeches at the end of battles; he pushed through adversity when everything depended on him; he displayed heroism and selflessness; and above all, he showed what it meant to be a hero and that he could be trusted. Was the movie a little dark for a Superman film? Definitely. However, that's the thing with creative liberty; as long as you capture the core aspects of a character, which Snyder did, you can twist and turn to your liking (but that doesn't mean you can't receive backlash for those changes). But again, that is a topic for another day.

For this Hypocrisy, I will use what many consider as the undisputed GOAT of CBM: The Dark Knight. Dark Knight is a great film; terrific performances, great suspenseful plot, and great writing. HOWEVER, it is an absolutely HORRIBLE Batman film. It does an absolutely terrible job at capturing who Batman is.

We don't get to experience one of Earth's best crime fighters, trained in dozens of martial arts! Instead we get some guy who looks like all he took was high school wrestling, boxing at the nearby gym, and has gotten into tons of street fights. Its not as if he wasn't trained by one of the best martial artist in the world! But it seems as if Nolan through all that training out the window when he actually got into a fight.

We don't get to see one of the world's best detectives solve crimes with his brain! Instead, we see a guy who depends heavily on his butler, and who's best detective work is googling Bane and Selina on his bat computer. Even the spy tech was done by Freeman's character and was not his own. He even makes a huge mistake by leaving tech with a complete stranger.

We don't witness the tech genius that's Bruce Wayne. We get a guy who can barely develop a batsuit which allows him to move or function properly! A guy who couldn't think of a better Batmobile than what was basically a tank! And if Nolan wanted to aim for realism, he wouldn't give Batman a cape.

The plain fact is that when I, or anyone I know for that matter speaks highly of the Dark Knight, its of Heath Ledger's performance and the great plot, not Batman. Your main character should not be the least interesting part of your film, because when that happens, you failed at conveying him appropriately.

But you know what? Dark Knight is praised for its "Realism" and its "refreshing take on the character", but when Man of Steel turns around and attempts the EXACT SAME THING, and does so well, they are attacked for "straying away from what mad Superman Superman." Oh the hypocrisy.

These are only a few of the misconceptions, hypocrisies, and false assumptions towards Man of Steel. I could do and explain literally a dozen more, but at this point I assume you guys get it. If we are going to attempt to judge and condemn a movie, at least do so fairly and without bias, but do not try to accuse a film of something but then turnaround and praise a film for doing the exact same thing.

Lastly, if anyone would like to point out any grievances they had against Man of Steel, or believe there's any flaws in my logic, speak freely, and I'll try to address it.

132 Comments

Tier of comic characters

I just wanted to invent a tire for each level of characters, state what it takes to be in this tier, and give an example

Tier 1: Street Level

These are your typical street though or heroes. They typically don't deal with anything out side of their district or city. A good amount of them aren't even have powers, and the ones who do may have limited strength, speed, and agility. Do to most of them having a lack of powers, or limited powers, these guys typically are great with prep and have genius level intellect Good examples are:

  • Batman
  • Captain America
  • Wolverine
  • Daredevil
  • Black Panther
  • Iron Fist

Tier 2: City Level

This level typically consist of a lot of brawlers. Durability, strength, and speed increases extremely here, and heroes typically deal with city level threats. Examples are:

  • Thing
  • Cyborg
  • Spiderman(even though he borderlines on street leveler and city level)
  • Venom
  • Colossus
  • Ironman

Tier 3: National/Team Buster

These are guys that typically deal with threats on the national or international level, and can be team busters if necessary. They can have an array of powers and abilities and are high on durability. Examples consist of:

  • Red Hulk
  • Superboy
  • Terrax
  • Iceman
  • Quicksliver
  • Aquaman
  • Juggernaut
  • Flash(But like Spiderman, he borderlines on tier 3 and 4)

Tier 4: World Buster

These are guys who literally have the power to destroy worlds(or have the power to beat those who can destroy worlds). High in strength and energy projection, these heroes can do some damage if they turned evil. Most of these individuals are typically alien, though there are some exceptions. Examples are:

  • Superman
  • Zoom
  • Hulk
  • Shazam
  • Thor
  • Sentry

Tier 5: Cosmic Threats

These are typically heroes/villains who are powered by cosmic, energy, or have molecular manipulation. Examples are:

  • Silver Surfer
  • Genis Vell
  • Despero
  • Superboy Prime
  • Captain Atom

Tier 6: Skyfather

This trier consist of mostly God's, or high level cosmic characters. Examples are:

  • Odin
  • Zeus
  • The Wizard Shazam
  • Dormammu
  • Trigon

Tier 7: Nigh-Omnipotent

I really have no name for this level, but I can describe most of them as being high level reality warpers. The extent of their reality warping can put them near the level of some celestials. Some examples are:

  • The Beyonder
  • Galactus
  • Franklin Richards
  • Eternity
  • Mr. Mxyzptlk

Tier 8: Celestials/Omnipotent

These characters are typically are omnipotent(or very nearly are), and are not hero or villain, and are instead the "God" of their Universe(though some have shown to be able to be damaged by other beings of their level). Examples are:

  • The One Above All
  • Living Tribunal
  • Man of Miracles
  • The Spectre
  • The Presence
7 Comments

Justice League War Thoughts and Review

Hmm, what can I say about this movie. Well seeing that I'm not real "happy" about new–52, well, anything. Firstly, WHY THE F*CK is Darkseid about 30 feet tall. I mean in the comics, he's no midget, and even pre–52 he still like 8 feet, but this guys here is just huge. He would make Hulk look like a baby. Now the over all design of Darkseid is brilliant, with that touch of armor.

Character development was brilliant for some, while others was bland. Switching out Aquaman with Billy was a great mix, as it added variety and a great background story to both characters. Seeing Cyborg's back story and him and his father's development brought another dimension to the story. Now besides those two, everybody else was pretty 2 dimensional. Batman and Green Lantern did build a small character bond, but that was cut between scenes. Wonder Woman, Superman, and Flash appeared out of no where, and anyone that hasn't read up on the new 52, this is a downfall. Overall the fight scenes were great(well what would you expect from a DC animated film?), but some characters were slightly overpowered here; even the Batman vs Superman fight was spot on, Green Lantern was thrown around like a rag doll, which in reality he could hold his own, though still losing. Darkseid's healing factor was not shown to it's full effect, as shown when he gets stab. He really can just shrug that sword off like it was nothing, but do to them needing to add plot to the story, they had to give him some weakness.

Verdict

Overall, the movie was good, showing off the first new–52 animated film at it's finest. To mean, it is no Flashpoint Point Paradox or Crisis on Two Earth's, but it can still give you the entertainment a typical DC animated film can.

Overall: 7.9/10

Start the Conversation
  • 11 results
  • 1
  • 2