The Snyder Cut

[Tyrant]

Yeah just gonna reiterate what GloatingSwine is saying here. Watchman was written and released in a very specific time. Where a lot of things were happening that cannot get into on this board. But importantly, the Doomsday Clock was rolling back. The situation that was happening at the time that the clock was marking was winding down. While the situation the clock was marking hadn’t disappeared yet, it was getting pretty clear that nuclear Holocaust wasn’t likely to happen. And readers would know this. It doesn’t seem to be ending in the doom of the world.

That should color everyone’s reading of the story. That the analysis of the Soviets given within the story is wrong. It’s just wrong and people would know it was wrong. But because Moore is a pretty talented guy who realizes that some might not get that meta text, he added the Black Freighter. A story about a man who damns himself to stop a tragedy that... wasn’t happening.

And the story starts with a few soft parallels what Rorschach is going through on a smaller beat by beat basis. But at the end, so the reader knows who the story is referring to. Veidt starts to say in his dreams he sees the black frei-

I think there are a few very critical differences to their world and ours and they are enough that I question if it is safe to assume events would have had a similar trajectory. Dr. Manhattan's existence creates a chain reaction. America doesn't lose Vietnam, making it still feel invincible. Nixon is still president, so policy would be different (a leader who is undefeated as opposed to one who is intentionally engaging in brinksmanship to bankrupt his opponent). Russia has a much larger stockpile of nuclear weapons and is dealing with an opponent that has not been dealt a defeat that dealt a blow to it's national psyche. Once Manhattan is gone, the two sides only have a few options. Either Russia presses it's newfound, overwhelming advantage, which likely leads to nuclear doom. Or the U.S. hits first thinking the Russians will do that, leading to nuclear doom. Ozymandias realized Manhattan was the destabilizing factor. He also had every reason to believe he would eventually leave Earth. To him, it was better to control those events than leave them to chance and hope everything worked out.

I admit it's been quite a while since I read it, but I believe the nuclear war was only one possible bad outcome he was trying to avoid. I thought he also mentioned the possibility that there would be no nuclear war and instead one or both powers would suffer economic collapse having spent ungodly amounts of resources to prepare for war with each other. The resulting collapse would also be tremendously destructive. To him, this was the path of least death and destruction (though it did come with the possibility that it would be the catalyst for Armageddon). It's debatable if his course of action was correct (I feel most people would say no) and it's possible that he was wrong (he was only human). But I don't think you can use the real world resolution to that conflict as any kind of proof of how it would've gone in the book. There were too many critical differences to make me think it likely.

Ugh, the writing is just so good.

But yes. We the reader are most certainly supposed to have doubts about Veidt and his plan.

I do agree with this however. While I can understand Veidt's point and I do believe he is right in the two main probably outcomes, I do have to wonder if what he did was the only way.

Hopefully that breakdown of the differences is broad enough to not be an issue on here. Not trying to debate the politics of any of it, just noting the differences.

[Aedilred]

I agree, Fury Road was very light on plot.

And regardless, I never said dialogue is the only way to help deliver, further, and expose the plot. Nor did I ever say that all dialogue heavy movies will be better than non-dialogue heavy movies. You can pull out example after example but you're not going to have a "gotcha!" moment here, anymore than a scientific study that concludes "blue is the most popular color" will have a "gotcha!" moment when Fred says "well I like brown!"

I think the point is that "you can't follow the plot from dialogue alone" isn't a valid criticism when it comes to film, because it's an audiovisual medium. Indeed, I'd say that a film where you can follow what's going on purely from listening to dialogue is doing something wrong, because it's ignoring at least half of the communicative options at its dispoal. At that point it's not a film, it's an illustrated radio play.

You can criticise the plot in Avengers as hard to follow but only if you're taking into account the whole picture - and that's not a criticism I've ever heard of it. Saying that you can't follow it from dialogue alone is setting an unfair goal that the film isn't even - and, imo, should'nt be - aiming for and then blaming it for falling short.

You can also criticise the dialogue as arch and unrealistic, and that's fair up to a point. I would argue that comedic writing doesn't have to further the plot with every line and given that Avengers is aiming to entertain rather than to tell a deep story, this is to be expected. It does depend on whether you find the Whedon style funny or entertaining, of course. I do, for the most part, but if you don't, then, yeah, you're going to have a tough time of it.

[Kitten Champion]

I would also argue that comic book dialogue is also arch and unrealistic.

I think Bob Chipman's Really That Good is the best argument in favour of why Avengers isn't overrated.

[Saintheart]

I think there are a few very critical differences to their world and ours and they are enough that I question if it is safe to assume events would have had a similar trajectory. Dr. Manhattan's existence creates a chain reaction. America doesn't lose Vietnam, making it still feel invincible. Nixon is still president, so policy would be different (a leader who is undefeated as opposed to one who is intentionally engaging in brinksmanship to bankrupt his opponent). Russia has a much larger stockpile of nuclear weapons and is dealing with an opponent that has not been dealt a defeat that dealt a blow to it's national psyche. Once Manhattan is gone, the two sides only have a few options. Either Russia presses it's newfound, overwhelming advantage, which likely leads to nuclear doom. Or the U.S. hits first thinking the Russians will do that, leading to nuclear doom. Ozymandias realized Manhattan was the destabilizing factor. He also had every reason to believe he would eventually leave Earth. To him, it was better to control those events than leave them to chance and hope everything worked out.

I admit it's been quite a while since I read it, but I believe the nuclear war was only one possible bad outcome he was trying to avoid. I thought he also mentioned the possibility that there would be no nuclear war and instead one or both powers would suffer economic collapse having spent ungodly amounts of resources to prepare for war with each other. The resulting collapse would also be tremendously destructive. To him, this was the path of least death and destruction (though it did come with the possibility that it would be the catalyst for Armageddon). It's debatable if his course of action was correct (I feel most people would say no) and it's possible that he was wrong (he was only human). But I don't think you can use the real world resolution to that conflict as any kind of proof of how it would've gone in the book. There were too many critical differences to make me think it likely.

Pretty much the whole point of placing it in an alternate timeline is meant to allow the author to confine down the possible outcomes and serve up the moral problem without having annoying bits of reality get in the way.

Let's first remember that maybe the overarching theme of Watchmen is really about the sort of personality that becomes and then stays as a superhero. The simplest deviation from reality's timeline is that (a) there were superheroes at all and (b) Dr Manhattan existed. I find Moore's projection via this alternate timeline that America would have gone to the dogs even if it had won the Vietnam War is meant to be a rebuke to those who still think bombing Hanoi or introducing nukes into the picture would have made a long-term difference. Indeed that is the dominant theme, or story beat, or iconography, that is laid on thick in the final pages of Watchmen: it doesn't actually make a long-term difference.

This theme is deliberately drawn out and clearly for the reader with Ozymandias and Manhattan's last conversation. Remembering Manhattan can see the future again, Veidt asks him: "Was what I did right, John? In the end?" Manhattan's reply, before he disappears to a lifeless universe to create some, is "'In the end?' Nothing ever ends, Adrian." And then he disappears, leaving Veidt - and the audience - with the distinct feeling that the dreadful solution Ozymandias employed was not, in fact, a concrete ending to humanity's problems. This is laid on even harder in the final page or so of the novel: the images are all those of hopeful rebuilding; there are Veidt posters all around, and life seems to be getting back to normal if not better along the precise track that Adrian put in place: once you have a common (and entirely imagined) enemy, humanity works together. And then the final images in the newspaper office, with the editor complaining that everything seems to be going right and therefore there's nothing to report on: with Rorschach's journal setting out how humanity has been duped on the top of the intray. Are his ramblings published, does Veidt's scheme go to bits? It's left to the bumbling copy boy of the paper to decide whether the journal is published, and, in the end -- haha -- left to the audience quite literally: "I leave it to you."

Indeed one might say the selection of Veidt of the name Ozymandias as his identity serves that theme. Ozymandias was basically Rameses II, which I always found a bit of an odd selection for a name since Veidt in the book is more overtly a "What Would Alexander The Great Do?" type right down to the mythical golden locks. The pick of Ozymandias to my mind makes more sense when you bear in mind Percy Bysse Shelley's poem of the same name:


I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

Some say the poem's about the decline of rulers, but I regard it far more as a statement of ultimate futility: no matter how great the works, the sands of time wear them away. Unlike a comic book, there is no last page that preserves the state of affairs forever. Nothing, it seems, ever ends.

[Dragonus45]

I would also argue that comic book dialogue is also arch and unrealistic.

I think Bob Chipman's Really That Good is the best argument in favour of why Avengers isn't overrated.

He did and his analysis very solid, and his really that good series is him at his least insufferable.

[Cikomyr2]

He did and his analysis very solid, and his really that good series is him at his least insufferable.

Well that was just gratuitous...

[Peelee]

I think the point is that "you can't follow the plot from dialogue alone" isn't a valid criticism when it comes to film, because it's an audiovisual medium. Indeed, I'd say that a film where you can follow what's going on purely from listening to dialogue is doing something wrong, because it's ignoring at least half of the communicative options at its dispoal. At that point it's not a film, it's an illustrated radio play.

You can criticise the plot in Avengers as hard to follow but only if you're taking into account the whole picture - and that's not a criticism I've ever heard of it. Saying that you can't follow it from dialogue alone is setting an unfair goal that the film isn't even - and, imo, should'nt be - aiming for and then blaming it for falling short.

You can also criticise the dialogue as arch and unrealistic, and that's fair up to a point. I would argue that comedic writing doesn't have to further the plot with every line and given that Avengers is aiming to entertain rather than to tell a deep story, this is to be expected. It does depend on whether you find the Whedon style funny or entertaining, of course. I do, for the most part, but if you don't, then, yeah, you're going to have a tough time of it.

That's a good argument, but I'm confused as to why it's being made at me; not only did I not make that criticism to start with, but I also very explicitly bowed out of talking about dialogue and plot as it relates to Avengers:

I don't remember much of Avengers 1 so I can't speak to how accurate the statement was

[Dire_Flumph]

That's a good argument, but I'm confused as to why it's being made at me; not only did I not make that criticism to start with, but I also very explicitly bowed out of talking about dialogue and plot as it relates to Avengers:

Because if we can't protect the dialogue in the Avengers, you can be darned sure we'll avenge it!

[Aedilred]

That's a good argument, but I'm confused as to why it's being made at me; not only did I not make that criticism to start with, but I also very explicitly bowed out of talking about dialogue and plot as it relates to Avengers:

Because... shut up!

For some reason I thought it had been you making that argument. I suggest you take your revenge on GloatingSwine.

[GloatingSwine]

Sadly, you'll never be able to convince me that the dialogue in Avengers 1 ever satisfies a goal other than making Joss Whedon feel smug for having written it.

Like someone brought up Fury Road, a movie so light on dialogue it didn't even have a script, but every line of dialogue in that movie does work. It tells you about relationships between characters, what they believe about the world and their emotional state.

Most of the dialogue in Avengers does nothing except "be quotable".

[Peelee]

Because... shut up!

You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!

Most of the dialogue in Avengers does nothing except "be quotable".

I would argue it doesn't achieve that, based solely on the fact that I can't remember a single line from that movie.

Anecdotal evidence is the best kind of evidence.

[Fyraltari]

Because if we can't protect the dialogue in the Avengers, you can be darned sure we'll avenge it!

Still a better reason to be called "The Avengers" than the actual reason they're called that.

You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!


I would argue it doesn't achieve that, based solely on the fact that I can't remember a single line from that movie.

Anecdotal evidence is the best kind of evidence.

Well, I never watched that movie and I know the line Dire_Flumph quoted as well as "I have an army- We have a Hulk", "I AM A GOD! -Puny god" and "Not a great plan." So I'd say the goal of being quotable has been somewhat successful.

[Cikomyr2]

Sadly, you'll never be able to convince me that the dialogue in Avengers 1 ever satisfies a goal other than making Joss Whedon feel smug for having written it.

Like someone brought up Fury Road, a movie so light on dialogue it didn't even have a script, but every line of dialogue in that movie does work. It tells you about relationships between characters, what they believe about the world and their emotional state.

Most of the dialogue in Avengers does nothing except "be quotable".

The dialogue in the Avengers is either very straight plot advancement or character-based interaction meant to entertain us.

It's not about the prose, but how it sets the rhythm of the movie. And it does that superbly.

[Tyrant]

I'm going to preface this with two comments: 1) It has been quite a while since I read the book and 2) I might be missing part of your point.

Pretty much the whole point of placing it in an alternate timeline is meant to allow the author to confine down the possible outcomes and serve up the moral problem without having annoying bits of reality get in the way.

Yeah, that is generally the point. My point was that with it being an alternate reality with notable differences that you can't look to reality to say the conflict would end the same way. Especially since the book was written before the end of the Cold War.

Let's first remember that maybe the overarching theme of Watchmen is really about the sort of personality that becomes and then stays as a superhero. The simplest deviation from reality's timeline is that (a) there were superheroes at all and (b) Dr Manhattan existed. I find Moore's projection via this alternate timeline that America would have gone to the dogs even if it had won the Vietnam War is meant to be a rebuke to those who still think bombing Hanoi or introducing nukes into the picture would have made a long-term difference. Indeed that is the dominant theme, or story beat, or iconography, that is laid on thick in the final pages of Watchmen: it doesn't actually make a long-term difference.

I agree that the main theme is about the types of people who willingly take up and keep the mantle of super hero. I don't believe the victory in Vietnam ultimately made no difference. Just Nixon still being president the entire time would be enough to cause drastic changes. Or Vietnam becoming the 51st state. Is the public perception of war the same? Were there numerous movies made to drive home the horrors of war in the jungle, or were there instead movies that glorify it like several films about WWII? But, even if there is evidence of some of the same type of decline (not sure there is), the most important difference is the US showed the rest of the world that they had a living god and weren't afraid to use it. The entire Soviet mindset of how to deal with the US would have to be radically altered (hence the notably larger number of nuclear weapons) to take that into account. Could things end the same way? Yes, they could. How likely is it though? In my opinion, not very.

This theme is deliberately drawn out and clearly for the reader with Ozymandias and Manhattan's last conversation. Remembering Manhattan can see the future again, Veidt asks him: "Was what I did right, John? In the end?" Manhattan's reply, before he disappears to a lifeless universe to create some, is "'In the end?' Nothing ever ends, Adrian." And then he disappears, leaving Veidt - and the audience - with the distinct feeling that the dreadful solution Ozymandias employed was not, in fact, a concrete ending to humanity's problems. This is laid on even harder in the final page or so of the novel: the images are all those of hopeful rebuilding; there are Veidt posters all around, and life seems to be getting back to normal if not better along the precise track that Adrian put in place: once you have a common (and entirely imagined) enemy, humanity works together. And then the final images in the newspaper office, with the editor complaining that everything seems to be going right and therefore there's nothing to report on: with Rorschach's journal setting out how humanity has been duped on the top of the intray. Are his ramblings published, does Veidt's scheme go to bits? It's left to the bumbling copy boy of the paper to decide whether the journal is published, and, in the end -- haha -- left to the audience quite literally: "I leave it to you."

Indeed one might say the selection of Veidt of the name Ozymandias as his identity serves that theme. Ozymandias was basically Rameses II, which I always found a bit of an odd selection for a name since Veidt in the book is more overtly a "What Would Alexander The Great Do?" type right down to the mythical golden locks. The pick of Ozymandias to my mind makes more sense when you bear in mind Percy Bysse Shelley's poem of the same name:


I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

Some say the poem's about the decline of rulers, but I regard it far more as a statement of ultimate futility: no matter how great the works, the sands of time wear them away. Unlike a comic book, there is no last page that preserves the state of affairs forever. Nothing, it seems, ever ends.

I agree that there are several elements of the ending that make us question if his plan actually worked. I believe that is the point. I concede that he could be wrong about the plan. I don't think he's wrong about the threat. And to that point, I feel it is pointless to say the Cold War ended one way in reality so it would've likely ended that way in a reality with Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.

[Psyren]

This will not prove/disprove your hypothesis...I believe the null should certainly be rejected, but I would not count on Johnson for a quality data point.

I made no hypothesis, i only expressed belief/hope.

To sum up my opinion simply: Snyder has one basic style that he uses regardless of whether it's appropriate or not. If you like the style, you'll enjoy his movies. If you don't, you won't.

I don't think it's that simple. As I mentioned above, I did like his edgy style for Sucker Punch - and even 300 to an extent. I just don't think dark and gritty is a very good fit for a set of heroes whose chief trait happens to be their idealism. I'd feel the same way about Nolan - I liked the Dark Knight Trilogy quite a lot (well, the first two anyway), but I wouldn't want him making Justice League either.

In other words, I don't have to dislike his style to believe that it's a poor fit for this property.

Wait, they're making up a new generic white dude protagonist for that Mortal Kombat movie? Did Mortal Kombat somehow not have enough potential main protagonists to choose from? Because I'm not even a big MK fan (hence why I haven't watched the trailers for that film to know this), but I can name ten good options just off the top of my head. One of them's even a white dude, Johnny Cage.

...and yeah, quick internet search, and it does look like this Cole guy is new to the film, not some obscure pull from one of the less popular games. Wow.

Well, I did a bit more digging and to be fairer to them, his actor (Lewis Tan) is Chinese-British. Furthermore, the current rumor is that Cole

Spoiler: MK rumor

Show

will be revealed to be Kuai Liang, aka Sub-Zero The Younger, and that all the birthmark/new-chosen-one stuff is a bit of amnesiac misdirect. If that's the case, he is one of the more logical choices for "chosen one" after Liu Kang and Johnny Cage, and would also let them do the Cyber Lin Kuei plot more justice than most prior attempts have, so I'd let it slide.

(...I should probably make a separate thread to talk MK stuff)

[Tyndmyr]

Out of curiosity who do you think Rorschach is sacrificing for?

Others. A vague sense of society, but most often in practice the defenseless.

Because I remember a man that held the idea that someone was gay as a reason to have doubt about him. I remember a guy whose opening monologue he states his desire to condemn not just the murderers but those who live in the gutter (poor people), prostitutes, and politicians.

Yes. His ideal for society is warped. Condemnation is different than action, though. Those he acts against are pretty universally deserving by any standards.

That said, he does not condemn the poor, and condemning the politicians in the world of Watchmen is...honestly fair. It's a bleak world and we see them straight up murdering pacifistic students in a much more brutal version of Kent State.

I can’t think of a time he actually helps anyone in the whole comic. He’s just raging and murdering. That was kind of the point. Even the heroes who do unequivocally help people (Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II rescue people in a fire) do it so Nite Owl can feel like a man and have sex.

Sure they do. They all have personal motivations. Doesn't matter, those folks still got to not burn. And yeah, Rorschach is absolutely raging over the injustices done to him, and punching out those who do injustices to others.

But Batman literally does the same, and people accept Batman as heroic.

Why? Is it the money, the style, the nice words said? At the end of the day, both are punching crooks in the streets.

You, as a reader, are making a fairly large assumption. You assume that Ozymandius is wrong. Or at least has a large chance of being wrong. That the world isn't 5 minutes from midnight and about to be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust that will kill everyone and that his plan isn't the only thing that can stop it, at a cost of a few million instead.

The world as depicted most definitely has problems. However, Oxymandius is...arrogant. I accept that *he* believes that what he is doing is right, but he is most certainly monstrous. His belief in genocide caused him to literally kill millions.

Using evil to justify evil causes...more evil. This premise is repeated over and over in both the film and comic.

There is a fundamental difference between targeting innocents and not. Veidt's actions were not merely retaliatory, but instead targeted those who had done nothing wrong.

And in the end, it's strongly hinted at that it won't work. Manhattan refuses to give him the validation he seeks, and the journal showing up in the slush pile indicates that the secret is leaking out. That's a problem with basing a plan on deception, after all.

You should absolutely not have faith that Veidt is 100% correct. No person in the comic/film is 100% correct, really. Even Manhattan, for all his power, is extremely flawed. Their characters are amazingly strong and consistent, but nobody is intended as a model of perfection to the viewer. It's sort of the inverse of the usual DC model of approaching superheros.

[Rodin]

But Batman literally does the same, and people accept Batman as heroic.

Why? Is it the money, the style, the nice words said? At the end of the day, both are punching crooks in the streets.

No, Batman punches crooks in the street. Rorschach murders crooks in the street, quite often in cold blood. He sets up Saw-style traps (chop your arm off before the house burns down) and watches with no emotion. He was planning on taking revenge on a defenseless unarmed woman until he saw her kids and had a change of heart.

There's an argument that people like Batman because he's sanitized. We don't typically see him inflicting extreme bodily harm on people, especially not in gory detail. This is even more true at the movies, where the most extreme Batman we've ever seen is the Batman vs. Superman version. And people hated that version.

I would still argue that Rorschach is far worse. He murders criminals with a religious fervor, without any off the self doubt we see from Batman. He has zero problem with murdering police trying to arrest him. He utters Bond* one-liners when he disposes of criminals.

And it's not like Rorschach has no choice in the matter. He used to be a Batman style superhero. He punched crooks in the streets with Nite Owl and then left them tied up for the cops to deal with. He just...snapped one day. And on that day he ceased to be a hero and became something much darker.


*Bond is a whole different matter - there you CAN make a very persuasive argument that Bond gets away with horrific behaviour because he's "cool".

[Tyndmyr]

Fair enough with regards to Batman, most incarnations do have him with a no killing rule. Punisher, perhaps. He most definitely straight up kills criminals.

In any case, people certainly do make fun of Arkham's revolving door, and that motif is perhaps why Rorschach's portrayal is as it is. Either you embrace the game of cops and robbers and play by the rules, making little difference and hanging up your hat when told to(closer to either Night Owl), or you end up on a fairly dark and violent path.

It's most definitely a darker, more realistic portrayal, particularly compared to the high fantasy of James Bond, but I don't think that precludes heroism. It just changes what a hero looks like.

On the subject of that Snyder aesthetic, I actually wouldn't mind seeing him do Snow Crash. That is, like Watchman, probably nigh unfilmable, but if it can be done...Snyder's aesthetic would probably work for it.

[Psyren]

Eh, Batman might not kill, but they certainly do gloss over (and want you to gloss over) all the concussions, fractures, dislocations, psychological trauma etc that likely result from his nightly excursions too.

I get it, people reading a Batman comic or watching a Batman movie aren't really supposed to be thinking of stuff like that, but when his biggest budget properties (like the latest Robert Pattinson vehicle) keep putting that aspect of the character front and center, I can see how it becomes difficult not to. He doesn't exactly seem reluctant or restrained in that trailer.

As for Rorschach, he's much worse in a capacity for violence sense it's true. But at the same time, it's not like he has billions of inherited dollars laying around to try addressing a gang violence problem any other way either. That it's even a question which one might be doing a worse job overall is not exactly a point in Bruce's favor.

[Fyraltari]

Eh, Batman might not kill, but they certainly do gloss over (and want you to gloss over) all the concussions, fractures, dislocations, psychological trauma etc that likely result from his nightly excursions too.

I mean, if the universe bends itself so that the villains can escape custody twice a week it's only fair that it bends itself so that Batman beat them unconscious without lasting consequences.

[Cazero]

This is even more true at the movies, where the most extreme Batman we've ever seen is the Batman vs. Superman version.

Burton Batman dumped a clown tied to a bomb in a sewer and burned a firespitter alive.

[Dire_Flumph]

Burton Batman dumped a clown tied to a bomb in a sewer and burned a firespitter alive.

It's absolutely amazing how much everyone seems to forget the body count that Batman racked up. Lowballing the first movie alone puts the kill count in the teens at least.

Back on track, there's an interesting article about the Snyder cut on Vanity Fair today. It's not giving me a lot of hope this version will be much better, but it was an interesting read.

“The intention was that Bruce fell in love with Lois and then realized that the only way to save the world was to bring Superman back to life,” says Snyder. “So he had this insane conflict, because Lois, of course, was still in love with Superman. We had this beautiful speech where [Bruce] said to Alfred: ‘I never had a life outside the cave. I never imagined a world for me beyond this. But this woman makes me think that if I can get this group of gods together, then my job is done. I can quit. I can stop.’ And of course that doesn’t work out for him.”

*sigh*

Edit: cleanup.

[Trafalgar]

Back on track, there's an interesting article about the Snyder cut on Vanity Fair today. It's not giving me a lot of hope this version will be much better, but it was an interesting read.

That's a pretty heart wrenching article in places. I thought the use of "Hallelujah" in the trailer back in November was weird but now it makes more sense. Quote from the last paragraph:
"The movie closes with Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah,” performed by Allison Crowe, a friend who also sang it at Autumn’s funeral. It was Autumn’s favorite song."



One complaint about Man of Steel that I thought was valid, was some of the Jesus imagery around Superman. In this article, we see Jared Leto's Joker in a crown of thorns. I hope that's just Snyder trolling the critics.

[Dragonus45]

Ohhhhh, there is a line from there that really sums up my interest in the Snyder cut perfectly.

“I would rather watch one person’s chaos than a committee’s snooze-fest.”

[Willie the Duck]

Burton Batman dumped a clown tied to a bomb in a sewer and burned a firespitter alive.

It's absolutely amazing how much everyone seems to forget the body count that Batman racked up. Lowballing the first movie alone puts the kill count in the teens at least.

As I recall, although movie #1 generally had rave reviews, a lot of the complaints about it were how much it deviated from the no guns/no killing rules.

[Imbalance]

Just glancing through, but I'm glad that both the Black Freighter and Batman's brutality have been brought up, and the only thing I'll add to that (at the risk of sounding Joker) is that even apart from the films there are ample victims of Batman's "justice" who, though they may live to face a jury of their peers, will suffer far more than inevitable death. Consider how many underprivileged young men who only turned to a life of crime for survival, may have only been guilty of a handful of misdemeanors in the employ of the only bosses that would hire them to simply defend against the violence that Batman brings, and now may never walk again or must eat all of their meals through a straw the rest of their lives.

I'm not saying Rorschach is a better guy, but a swift death at the bottom of an elevator shaft may be a preferable fate. Also, remember

Spoiler: Watchmen spoilers

Show

that Ozy deliberately gave people cancer in order to deceive the world against Manhattan, and took the one redeemed villain of the story under his wing to help spread that disease. It's not just the horrific numbers that will result from his plan, but when you take the early steps into account, there is nothing about him or his results to vindicate his methods. He's no savior - Veidt is the worst kind of monster and the ultimate villain that has the story beg

"who watches the Watchmen?"

[Keltest]

Just glancing through, but I'm glad that both the Black Freighter and Batman's brutality have been brought up, and the only thing I'll add to that (at the risk of sounding Joker) is that even apart from the films there are ample victims of Batman's "justice" who, though they may live to face a jury of their peers, will suffer far more than inevitable death. Consider how many underprivileged young men who only turned to a life of crime for survival, may have only been guilty of a handful of misdemeanors in the employ of the only bosses that would hire them to simply defend against the violence that Batman brings, and now may never walk again or must eat all of their meals through a straw the rest of their lives.

I'm not saying Rorschach is a better guy, but a swift death at the bottom of an elevator shaft may be a preferable fate. Also, remember

Spoiler: Watchmen spoilers

Show

that Ozy deliberately gave people cancer in order to deceive the world against Manhattan, and took the one redeemed villain of the story under his wing to help spread that disease. It's not just the horrific numbers that will result from his plan, but when you take the early steps into account, there is nothing about him or his results to vindicate his methods. He's no savior - Veidt is the worst kind of monster and the ultimate villain that has the story beg

"who watches the Watchmen?"

At least in the comics, Bruce Wayne goes out of his way to try and give the generic henchmen, who are largely desperate and short on options rather than evil, legitimate jobs and wages to keep them out of crime. We just dont see much of it because the story of Steve the Accountant is not terribly exciting even if he is a former thief.

[Dienekes]

Others. A vague sense of society, but most often in practice the defenseless.



Yes. His ideal for society is warped. Condemnation is different than action, though. Those he acts against are pretty universally deserving by any standards.

That said, he does not condemn the poor, and condemning the politicians in the world of Watchmen is...honestly fair. It's a bleak world and we see them straight up murdering pacifistic students in a much more brutal version of Kent State.



Sure they do. They all have personal motivations. Doesn't matter, those folks still got to not burn. And yeah, Rorschach is absolutely raging over the injustices done to him, and punching out those who do injustices to others.

But Batman literally does the same, and people accept Batman as heroic.

Why? Is it the money, the style, the nice words said? At the end of the day, both are punching crooks in the streets.

Rorschach killed a man who was just trying to get beat up. Regularly goes to places where people don't appear to be doing anything and breaks random people's fingers until someone talks. And was going to attack some random woman for lying about him until he felt pity about her kids.

Now Batman has both a boon and a problem in that he's been around so long that there are multiple versions of him. Some of which really are not heroic. Some are too cartoony to even place on a morality scale. But some are. Since like the 80s Bruce has been focused more on helping society, while still being a big bag of personal flaws. He's established soup kitchens, he's opened up numerous charities to lower crime in Gotham and created jobs for ex-cons so people can get themselves out of a life of crime. There's even been more emphasis on him dealing with the structural issues of the heads of companies forcing others to start a life of crime, or the elites of society keeping people oppressed. Usually this ends up devolving down to big action scenes against colorfully costumed baddies. It is still an action comic book.

It's really only when he's actively attempting to face off against super villains and those who are using deadly force that he really goes in ass kicking. And has talked down those villains he thinks he can. At least -as I said- in some versions of a character that's been around for 80 years.

But yeah, if you take a look at that span of time and take everything he's done that now seems pretty horrific. You could definitely make a case Batman isn't a hero. Times and morals change.

[Peelee]

As I recall, although movie #1 generally had rave reviews, a lot of the complaints about it were how much it deviated from the no guns/no killing rules.

"Any anyone who knows me knows i would never read a comic book!" - Tim Burton - Kevin Smith

I never got why that movie had rave reviews. It wasn't bad, but it wasnt great. At this point I figure it was one of the first superhero movies that wasn't a complete stinker.

But then I'm not a big fan of Burton in general.

[Imbalance]

At least in the comics, Bruce Wayne goes out of his way to try and give the generic henchmen, who are largely desperate and short on options rather than evil, legitimate jobs and wages to keep them out of crime. We just dont see much of it because the story of Steve the Accountant is not terribly exciting even if he is a former thief.

Rorschach killed a man who was just trying to get beat up. Regularly goes to places where people don't appear to be doing anything and breaks random people's fingers until someone talks. And was going to attack some random woman for lying about him until he felt pity about her kids.

Now Batman has both a boon and a problem in that he's been around so long that there are multiple versions of him. Some of which really are not heroic. Some are too cartoony to even place on a morality scale. But some are. Since like the 80s Bruce has been focused more on helping society, while still being a big bag of personal flaws. He's established soup kitchens, he's opened up numerous charities to lower crime in Gotham and created jobs for ex-cons so people can get themselves out of a life of crime. There's even been more emphasis on him dealing with the structural issues of the heads of companies forcing others to start a life of crime, or the elites of society keeping people oppressed. Usually this ends up devolving down to big action scenes against colorfully costumed baddies. It is still an action comic book.

It's really only when he's actively attempting to face off against super villains and those who are using deadly force that he really goes in ass kicking. And has talked down those villains he thinks he can. At least -as I said- in some versions of a character that's been around for 80 years.

But yeah, if you take a look at that span of time and take everything he's done that now seems pretty horrific. You could definitely make a case Batman isn't a hero. Times and morals change.

Right you are, because as the fan base came to understand that a better way to combat the "cowardly and superstitious lot" is through education and empowerment, so did Bruce Wayne, perhaps as a direct result of Moore's perspectives enlightening said readers and his contemporaries in the industry. But they still have to sell books. Batman's mythos is redemptive in large part because his story can be corrected in the current consciousness, whereas Rorschach's is finite and brief enough to wholly analyze yet remains open to interpretation and judgement. In that same timeframe, though, 100,000 Rorschachs would not have been as deadly as one Ozymandias.

"Any anyone who knows me knows i would never read a comic book!" - Tim Burton - Kevin Smith

I never got why that movie had rave reviews. It wasn't bad, but it wasnt great. At this point I figure it was one of the first superhero movies that wasn't a complete stinker.

But then I'm not a big fan of Burton in general.

I mostly love that movie for the car.