[Movie] Batman and Superman movie for 2015

Yeah, I guess the original iron man is one but it's been awhile since I last saw it. If I was as critical to ant man, I'd probably give it a 6.

Then again ant man doesn't have the Nolan trilogy, as its own benchmark and (loosely based) legacy.

 

I never understood banes plot. He wants to avenge a guy who kicked him out of the league of shadows? Even the first what was Ra's al Ghul motivation? What was his end goal? Just have the city fight?

The only guy I really got was the joker. The Joker just wants to see chaos. The Dark Knight was really a great movie the other two were pretty mediocre.

 

MadMax is right about The Dark Night, but technically we have 2 out of 1000 since you need to count Catwoman.

 

Agree on Bane. As much as I loved him, the whole "let the city self-govern for X? weeks until the bomb finally blows up is just a massively stupid "evil plot" and only really serves to allow the hero to heal from a fractured back and slowly crawl back to save the day. LOL.

Also, why he needed to be AT wall street to hack data in broad daylight never made a lot of sense to me.

And on and on.

I think I liked Batman Begins more than most people. I loved that one, including the Scarecrow bad guy and his trippy effect on people. But that too was kind of a dumb way to "destroy" a city. Let's just make everyone afraid for a while! Yeah! That'll show 'em.

 

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but from I remember Ra's a Ghul's goal was to destroy Gotham city because it was so corrupt and full of crime. His group, the league of shadows, throughout history was the reason for several mass population "cleansings" like the black plague, etc. So his tool for this cleansing was to have everyone fight/kill each other with Scarecrows toxin.

That's why in the first movie one of Batman's lines to Ra's a Ghul was "this city can still be saved" or something like that.

 

Bane was all pumped up over talia. That was forced into the movie as a big twist/reveal but there want wasn't enough investment with chemistry between Bruce and talia (Nolan movies rarely do).

I remember ra's in the cartoon as an eco terrorist in the mold of Alexander the great or some other despotic figure re- imagining the world in his vision. Movie didn't go to much on that except the destroy Gotham to rebuild it but

 

I read somewhere that Jesse Eisenberg's Lex was supposed to be Lex Luthor Jr. Is that right?

If that's right, then they did a horrible job at conveying that.

 

Wut? Can't they just admit that the messed up royally in casting supergeek Eisenberg as Lex?

 

No I think it actually was Luthor Jr. I thought that after watching the film. There were references made by Eisenberg to his father building the company, things his father taught him, his father not being a nice man, having a rough childhood, etc.

 

Unless they flat out say he's the son of the infamous Lex Luthor in the movie, I won't believe it. Besides they made him bald and everything.

Now if he IS jr. then I expect the kid to die in the next movie and bring out the real Lex. Anyone is better than Eisenberg. Hell, the Rock could play Luthor better.

 

They did explicitly state it.

In the movie Eisenberg explicitly states that LexCorp was built by his father.

On twitter, in character, he explicitly states that he is the son of Lex Luthor.

As part of their marketing attempt, DC did a Fortune profile on the LexCorp in the movie. Eisenberg's character is listed as Alexander Luthor, Jr., son of Lex Luthor. He allegedly turned the company around after taking over and turned it into a modern company.

 

http://batman-news.com/2015/10/05/lex-luthor-fortune-batman-v-superman/

 

I must have missed that point. Makes sense now, but he's still a horrible decision. No idea why they would erase one of the most iconic villains for a non-threatening child.

 

I caught it in film, but I still think it was a mistake for them to go that route.

If you are going to go the "Junior" route you should be playing coy from the get go about whether he is bad. It should be clear that he is JR and that he is trying to be different from daddy with him ultimately revealing he is bad. Of course the audience will know he is bad all along because it's Luthor, but the point should be that we are waiting for that moment. It makes no sense to just have Jr replace Sr and him clearly be a bad guy all along just because you want to do a weird, psycho kid personality. Lame.

 

that would explain his millennialness

 

Lol...

 

Wow. I had no clue. I missed that completely. So...is the real Lex supposed to be dead or something? Why did they do this? Man, Eiesenberg was the worst part of the movie. Can they cast a real Lex in the future?

 

did they call him luthor JR at all in the movie? If not then it seems like they are trying to make up for their mistakes.

Lionel Luthor is Lex's father and that's who I thought he was referring to when he said his father built lexcorp. If no JR in the movie then they are just covering their tracks.

 

Does it matter though? The character sucked regardless of who it was.

 

LOL

Their marketing campaign was released prior to the release of the movie.

The intent was always to make him Lex Luthor Jr. He describes his father's origin story in the movie and it mirrors the Lex Luthor from the comics except they substitute Germany for Metropolis as his birth place.

If you google this you will find articles from October of last year about this reveal.

Honestly watching the movie it seemed obvious to me in the scene where he talks about his father.