Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[Harpospoke]

5 minutes ago, aabattery said:

 

I really think this is your own bias talking here. There's definitely people complaining about all those things you said. You just pick up on the stuff that picks on DCEU since you obviously care a lot about it. Its not like the internet is one big, homogeneous ball that universally agrees with each other.

 

Agreed.   Sony definitely took some abuse for running Spider-man into a ditch.

[Clyde Donovan]

13 minutes ago, aabattery said:

 

I really think this is your own bias talking here. There's definitely people complaining about all those things you said. You just pick up on the stuff that picks on DCEU since you obviously care a lot about it. Its not like the internet is one big, homogeneous ball that universally agrees with each other.

 

You're really trying to argue that Keaton Batman gets as much flak for killing as Batfleck? That's not me being biased, it's true. Batfleck is constantly called a murderer and "not muh Batman!" because he killed people while Keaton gets a pass for gleefully murdering.  And you just no if JL underperformed or flat out bombs people will happily mock it.

[aabattery]

Just now, Clyde Donovan said:

 

You're really trying to argue that Keaton Batman gets as much flak for killing as Batfleck? That's not me being biased, it's true. Batfleck is constantly called a murderer and "not muh Batman!" because he killed people while Keaton gets a pass for gleefully murdering.  And you just no if JL underperformed or flat out bombs people will happily mock it.

 

It probably would have gotten as much flak if it was released in 2016. But the internet wasn't really around in 1989, nor was public interest in Batman.

 

And people mock all kinds of movies. This isn't an exclusive thing to DCEU stuff. They might get mocked more, but that's mainly because a lot people don't like them.

[Clyde Donovan]

38 minutes ago, aabattery said:

 

It probably would have gotten as much flak if it was released in 2016. But the internet wasn't really around in 1989, nor was public interest in Batman.

 

And people mock all kinds of movies. This isn't an exclusive thing to DCEU stuff. They might get mocked more, but that's mainly because a lot people don't like them.

 

I don't think it not being released in 2016 has anything to do with it, when you bring it up today people always ignore that Keaton Batman killed, and there was plenty of public interest in Batman in 1989. The movie wouldn't have made the money it did if there wasn't. And not being released in the internet age hasn't stopped people from calling Superman IV, Supergirl, Howard the Duck etc. bad movies, it's not like people have short memories or no longer discuss older mivies. They just choose to not talk about the fact that Keaton Batman killed people while crucifying Batfleck for doing the same thing.

 

[aabattery]

9 minutes ago, Clyde Donovan said:

 

I don't think it not being released in 2016 has anything to do with it, when you bring it up today people always ignore that Keaton Batman killed, and there was plenty of public interest in Batman in 1989. The movie wouldn't have made the money it did if there wasn't. And not being released in the internet age hasn't stopped people from calling Superman IV, Supergirl, Howard the Duck etc. bad movies, it's not like people have short memories or no longer discuss older mivies. They just choose to not talk about the fact that Keaton Batman killed people while crucifying Batfleck for doing the same thing.

 

 

Well, most people aren't going to be directly comparing it to the 1989 Batman. They'll compare it to Nolan's trilogy, which did have the "no killing rule" to a certain degree. On top of that, people are generally more forgiving of movies they like. 1989 Batman was loved by both critics and general audiences, while BvS was mixed to say the least. I think most peoples issues with BvS are much greater than just Batman killing.

[Clyde Donovan]

3 minutes ago, aabattery said:

 

Well, most people aren't going to be directly comparing it to the 1989 Batman. They'll compare it to Nolan's trilogy, which did have the "no killing rule" to a certain degree. On top of that, people are generally more forgiving of movies they like. 1989 Batman was loved by both critics and general audiences, while BvS was mixed to say the least. I think most peoples issues with BvS are much greater than just Batman killing.

 

Eh, Bale's Batman might not have killed but he did stuff comic book Batman would never do like when he left Ra's on that train to die. Comic Batman goes out of his way to save lives no matter who it is even if it's at the risk to himself, for anyone civillian, hero or villain. He's even gone out of his way to save the Joker, so Baleman isn't the best judge of how a movie Batman should behave imo.

 

You're right that people are easier on movies they like but I guess I'll never be able to get behind they way of thinking, it just doesn't make sense to me. If Batman killing is so horrible and OOC to some people then they need to stand behind that argument no matter what whether the Batman that's killing is in a good movie or not.

[Napoleon]

11 hours ago, chrisman0606 said:

This guy sure went too far:

 

 

 

That's funny considering Lego Batman made only 1/3 of the money BVS made at the box office even though the market is hot for animations.

 

It's getting harder for haters to make a case for WB to let Snyder go.

[YM!]

5 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

That's funny considering Lego Batman made only 1/3 of the money BVS made at the box office even though the market is hot for animations.

 

It's getting harder for haters to make a case for WB to let Snyder go.

So by that standards, you admit CW is better than BVS.

[YM!]

Lego Batman was very good though, probably the third best theatrical Batman movie behind (BB and TDK). It had a heart, fun and some good writing. I think the main reason why it didn't do as good as expected here, they're literally a lot of Lego Batman movies/games out for the public including in a way, The Lego Movie. Animated spinoffs unless you're the Minions don't do too well at the box office.

[aabattery]

Just now, YourMother said:

Lego Batman was very good though, probably the third best theatrical Batman movie behind (BB and TDK). It had a heart, fun and some good writing. I think the main reason why it didn't do as good as expected here, they're literally a lot of Lego Batman movies/games out for the public including in a way, The Lego Movie. Animated spinoffs unless you're the Minions don't do too well at the box office.

 

I'd probably slap it at like 6th. The Nolan ones and Burton ones were better IMO.

[Napoleon]

3 minutes ago, YourMother said:

So by that standards, you admit CW is better than BVS.

No, all I'm saying is WB is doing better with Snyder than without him.

 

Civil War made more money but, being an Avengers movie it was a sizable decline from Ultron, so I guess is debatable whether it was more successful than BVS or not... Both could be considered disappointments at the box office in my opinion (even though both still made a lot of money)...

[YM!]

8 minutes ago, aabattery said:

 

I'd probably slap it at like 6th. The Nolan ones and Burton ones were better IMO.

Batman is a close fourth, TDKR and Returns are tied for fifth.

 

5 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

No, all I'm saying is WB is doing better with Snyder than without him.

 

Civil War made more money but, being an Avengers movie it was a sizable decline from Ultron, so I guess is debatable whether it was more successful than BVS or not... Both could be considered disappointments at the box office in my opinion (even though both still made a lot of money)...

In hindsight, need to know like 5-7 films for CW might have turned of some of the GA off, not to mention exchange rates. Still surprised CW did less than IM3, and BVS did less than $1B WW. However both did well at the box office and on home video. Both making good profits.

As for the DCEU, their next text is WW and JL despite my faith in both of them, if both have bad legs despite big OW, it could spell out a future problem. However with directors like Gibson, Wan, Whedon, McKay (LB director), there's still hope. Not to mention an $300M/$700M average is good consider the mixed reactions to their films.

[robertman2]

13 minutes ago, aabattery said:

 

I'd probably slap it at like 6th. The Nolan ones and Burton ones were better IMO.

Wrong.

[RandomCat]

7 hours ago, Clyde Donovan said:

 

Funny how the people who have a problem with Batfleck killing have no issues with Keaton's Batman SMILING as he puts a bomb in a guys pants and later blew up ACE chemical plant with people in it. So Batfleck killing is bad but Keaton Batman SMILING while attempting murder is ok, sure no DCEU bias there.

 

There's a lot of petty bias against the DCEU, whenever a MCU movie gets more trailer views or does better at the b.o. we never hear the end of it. Thor: Ragnarok got more trailer views than JL, and people mocked JL. Ragnarok also got more views than Spider-Man: Homecoming and GOTG Vol. 2 but I don't hear any "LOL Thor beat Spider-Man!" comments. How about when GOTG made more than Man of Steel? It was "look Marvel made a movie about a talking tree and raccoon and it made more money than Superman!" Well GOTG also made more than TASM and TASM 2, there were no comments about talking trees and raccoon's beating Spider-Man. That conveniently wasn't worth mentioning for the internet.

 

I get complaints about a character like Superman not working in a dark tone but it goes both ways. Why does no one care about Dr. Strange, historically a serious character being turned into a snark Tony Stark Jr. character? It seems people only care when lighter characters are turned dark but not when more serious characters are made lighter or more comical.

 

Ok. Thor is getting compared to JL a lot is because the two are being released right next to each other, your bias is showing. And people shit on ASM 1/2 all the time, trust me as a Spidey fan I fucking see it, alot. I also never seen GOTG compared to MoS. Though I did see a shit ton of Deadpool made more than BvS. But that isn't MCU. 

 

I honestly never seen Keaton Batman all the way through and I know that movie has mixed feelings with Batfans. But even what you describe isn't the same as gatling guns mounted headlight mowing down cars. And it's also surprising how people will forgive these things if the movie is good. Your also forgetting most fans feel this way about Batman because of the Animated Series, so perhaps bitching about Burton isn't the way to go.

 

As for Doctor Strange, how is being snarky not being serious? Add in the fact that I've read plenty of Doctor Strange, he has plenty of snark in him. He's an arrogant conceted prick. The movie did a perfectly good job adapting his character. Intact your lame excuse to try to divert from Superman would have worked much better by going to Drax, a character completely unrecognizable from screen to page.

 

And I notice no refutation to shooting Olsen in the head.

 

Look, maybe you shouldn't treat "the internet" as a single person. And maybe you shouldn't laser focus on the critiques or mocking that hurts the thing you like. Cause you can find plenty of people mocking anything, it isn't like DC is some special thing here. 

Edited April 19, 2017 by RandomJC

[RandomCat]

1 hour ago, aabattery said:

 

I'd probably slap it at like 6th. The Nolan ones and Burton ones were better IMO.

 

I have to kind of put it in a different place than Burton or Nolan. Like the Adam West Batman. I like them, but I can't compare them to Burton or Nolan. Too different.

[Arlborn]

The complaints about Batman killing in BVS have always struck me as silly nitpicking anyway as it's actually very consistent with what the movie presented i.e. a worn out and beaten down Batman who's seen too many of his friends go down to be too worried about killing criminals in a messed up word. Plus Alfred does call him out on it as much as he can if I remember correctly.

 

People like to complain about in-universe inconsistencies but then they go ahead and complain about something like this and I just can't understand that logic. Complain all you want about Snyder getting this universe wrong in your own opinion but Batman killing the way he does is consistent with what was presented to us by the movie.

 

 

14 hours ago, Harpospoke said:

Interesting read about how trolls pollute ratings for movies in various places (IMDB/Netlix).    Fairly relevant to the fan wars since you know there are agenda votes galore there:

 

Hollywood Is Losing the Battle Against Online Trolls

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hollywood-is-losing-battle-online-trolls-992582

 

Interesting article.

 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Arlborn

[RandomCat]

23 minutes ago, Arlborn said:

The complaints about Batman killing in BVS have always struck me as silly nitpicking anyway as it's actually very consistent with what the movie presented i.e. a worn out and beaten down Batman who's seen too many of his friends go down to be too worried about killing criminals in a messed up word. Plus Alfred does call him out on it as much as he can if I remember correctly.

 

People like to complain about in-universe inconsistencies but then they go ahead and complain about something like this and I just can't understand that logic. Complain all you want about Snyder getting this universe wrong in your own opinion but Batman killing the way he does is consistent with what was presented to us by the movie.

 

 

 

Which is an argument to Snyder not understand the character. People aren't complaining about the internal consistency of the movie when they complain about Batman killing (Like me complaining). I'm complaining because it isn't Batman.

 

But if you want to keep it in-universe, it's also inconsistent. He kills all those thugs, why did he not kill Deadshot at the very least? Or Harley? Or the Joker by now? BvS shows a Batman who is just worn out he's wiling to kill. in Suicide Squad, a movie that takes place at roughly the same time, Batman doesn't kill a known assassin, and two crazy killers. But he's willing to kill thugs for thieving and kidnapping.

Edited April 19, 2017 by RandomJC

[Arlborn]

4 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

Which is an argument to Snyder not understand the character. People aren't complaining about the internal consistency of the movie when they complain about Batman killing (Like me complaining). I'm complaining because it isn't Batman.

 

But if you want to keep it in-universe, it's also inconsistent. He kills all those thugs, why did he not kill Deadshot at the very least? Or Harley? Or the Joker by now? BvS shows a Batman who is just worn out he's wiling to kill. in Suicide Squad, a movie that takes place at roughly the same time, Batman doesn't kill a known assassin, and two crazy killers. But he's willing to kill thugs for thieving and kidnapping.

Eh, please correct me if I'm mistaken but the Harley situation and the Deadshot situation were vastly different from the situations where he kills on BVS. I still imagine he's reluctant to kill, he's just not as careful about it as before. I sure as hell doubt he'd willingly kill a person in front of their small daughter no matter what.

 

But sure, I understand you disliking his take on this universe even if I like it myself.

 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Arlborn

[RandomCat]

1 minute ago, Arlborn said:

Eh, please correct me if I'm mistaken but the Harley situation and the Deadshot situation were vastly different from the situations where he kills on BVS. I still imagine he's reluctant to kill, he's just not as careful about it as before. I sure as hell doubt he'd willingly kill a person in front of their small daughter no matter what.

 

But sure, I understand you disliking his take on this universe even if I like it myself.

 

 

Him gunning down cars in a chase scene isn't reluctance to kill.

 

For Deadshot, he'd just wait for the daughter to be dropped off and not there. He's still a known assassin who killed people.

 

Harley is a psychotic killer, who he actively saves from dying. 

 

Again, just look at their crimes. Killers get captured, thieves and kidnappers get neck snaps and run down by machine gun fire. 

 

And Batman is so reluctant to kill, he is trying to kill a man because "He may go bad" that isn't reluctance, that isn't even caution. 

[RandomCat]

Not even the Punisher tries to kill people because they may go bad. Batman is just a sociopathic killer looking for justification in his dreams to kill Superman.