Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

He really is Superman haha.

If only we could have gotten Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman to do it all in costume.

Nice! Kudos to Henry Cavill for doing like...five buckets. lol, he's a really nice dude.

I've been trolling the internet reading articles about Wonder Woman's casting just for the lolz.

The comments made on those articles seriously depress me. I mean come on, she's not busty enough so she can't be Wonder Woman?

Zack Snyder had a point when he made Sucker Punch.

edited 26th Aug '14 9:34:25 PM by Mr.Didact

Er, most of the discussion I have come across do say she is to small, but the usually they are talking about her muscles and body type. lol

Just asking if they were actually talking about her tits or did you misread the situation.

edited 26th Aug '14 10:14:03 PM by offensivehandle

Having seen Gadot in costume, I have no problem with her playing Wonder Woman; initially, though, I thought she was too slender and delicate-looking. Wonder Woman, thought I, is an Amazon, and should thus be Amazonian. Doesn't necessarily need to be busty, but should look powerful and statuesque. Having seen her in character, I think Gadot'll do nicely.

A lot of it is about body type and muscles sure, but there's really no problem with that since Wonder Woman isn't muscle-bound anyway and Gal Gadot should easily tone up for the role. And yeah in costume she looks the part.

But I literally did read comments that argued that Wonder Woman was supposed to be curvy, with a big bust, posterior, and long legs because thats how it was in the comics and that Gal Gadot wasn't that. They even make the argument that its to be faithful to the comic-books and that Henry Cavil is a real life muscle bound vision of Superman so obviously any woman who plays Wonder Woman has to have unrealistic comic book curves in order to be authentic *shakes head*

And plus I see comments about her ethnicity not being true to Wonder Woman but honestly Wonder Woman being a pale white skinned woman with blue eyes doesn't make a lick of sense.

edited 26th Aug '14 10:46:52 PM by Mr.Didact

So... This is either a made-up "GRIMDARK" story to keep pushing the DC/Marvel dichotomy, or WB has learned absolutely nothing from Guardians of the Galaxy.

"No jokes" doesn't mean "No humor," it never has. I think the article is misrepresenting and misunderstanding what is meant by that. Man of Steel had some humorous moments, but it was understated and the tone was consistent. They made some winks and gave us some humorous moments, from the origin of the S symbol to the trucker trying to pick a fight with Clark to Martha Kent saying "Nice suit, son." That is the exact same kind of humor that is present in Indiana Jones. Him shooting the swordsman is not a joke. It's a brilliant moment of levity that makes us laugh, but the character is not trying to be funny or thinks he is funny for doing so.

The only thing they should take away from Guardians of the Galaxy and the Marvel movies in general is that they are aiming for an appealing movie, a movie people want to see. I don't want every movie to devolve into whether or not the hero and/or other characters are cracking jokes, and I've mentioned many times that it feels like a lot of characters in the Marvel movies are playing to the camera instead of actually being characters in a story (Dancing Groot is hysterical, but one of the biggest examples of playing to the camera).

I liked Green Lantern, but the article had some good points about why it failed even though it was trying to imitate the flippant humor of the Marvel movies. Ignoring personal taste, the design of Parallax and the mutated Hector was gross and deliberately unappealing, and the artistry of Oa was top notch but also hard to fully grasp and comprehend the different structures. They also tried to implement some genuinely solemn, serious moments and stumbled to keep the tone consistent (post filming rewrites and pick-ups are also blamed for that).

The problem with Green Lantern wasn't that it had "humour", it was that none of it was funny, that Hal was a flat stereotype of a character, that the special effects were laughable....the issue isn't with trying to make a less "dark and realistic" movie, it was with making a movie that was, across the board, just plain crappy.

Green Lantern tried to rely way too much on Ryan Reynolds playing his typical snarky jackass persona instead of making Hal an actual character. That and like you said, none of the jokes were funny and the CGI looked liked Play-Do.

And they spent unnecessary dollars on CG'ing his costume.

They did have a thoughtful reason for it. The suit is supposed to be made by the ring, so it should look sorta like the other constructs the ring makes rather than some earthly fabric.

I liked the suit and the script was stupid. Also the domino mask.

That just sounds like the screenwriters covering the asses of other lazy filmmakers. "It was supposed to look that bad"

They went out of their way to do it, though. They Just Didn't Care response would have been a simple green plastic suit and call it a day. Making the entire suit CG had to have a good reason.

That reasoning actually does make perfect sense. Its just that the suit looked like shit.

I thought the process was almost seamless, it was the texture, density and design choices of the suit that felt off. Offhand, it was almost identical to the comics, but fading from green to black took away from the features that should make it pop. I actually liked Sinestro's suit design better because it had a stronger look.

It's actually the exact same process used for the in-action Iron Man armor, Robert Downey Jr wore a similar mo-cap suit and they had practical suits for stuff like at the diner in Iron Man 2, but being suits of armor they were able to hide the seams better than trying for a form fitting body suit. Not to mention even though the armor wouldn't justify surviving a crash at MACH 2 it still felt more protective than what looks like a guy in a bodysuit.

Rumor: Scoot McNairy is playing Jimmy Olsen. It isn't confirmed but this is what an extra is saying.

Wasn't Jimmy a girl in the last one?

Not really. At best she was just an extra who happened to have a similar first name (Jenny) and a last name that didn't correspond at all (Jurwich). Nothing she did indicated she was supposed to be a female incarnation of Jimmy. Not enough being turned into a gorilla, or a giant evil lizard-skinned guy.

No, she was not Jimmy Olsen. That character's name was Jenny Jurwich.

edited 28th Aug '14 9:29:24 AM by higherbrainpattern

Oop, take two shots everyone!

Was Jenny the one that looked like Alison Brie?

EDIT: Ok, she doesn't look as much like Alison Brie as i remember, but first time i watched i thought it was her. http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Jenny_Jurwich_(Man_of_Steel)

edited 28th Aug '14 11:04:49 AM by TheLastEveryMan

So, is Jenny just another employee at the Daily Planet? At least that establishes more than four workers!

He seems a little old to be Jimmy Olsen, doesn't he? Isn't Jimmy supposed to be, y'know, a boy?