|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 30, 2020 1:56:09 GMT
Where were the fathers of KGBeast, Harley Quinn, Leto's Joker, Black Mask, and Dr. Poison? BvS made it pretty clear that Lex’s father is supposed to be dead. Besides, none of those other characters you mentioned ever had their fathers suddenly show up out of nowhere. Implied at most. And the point is most supervillain aren't attached to the hip of their fathers, especially those mad at Dad for spanking them too much. The bind here is people love Lex Luther and hate Eisenberg. Lex Sr is the get out of jail free card short of rebooting the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on May 30, 2020 2:14:40 GMT
BvS made it pretty clear that Lex’s father is supposed to be dead. Besides, none of those other characters you mentioned ever had their fathers suddenly show up out of nowhere. Implied at most. And the point is most supervillain aren't attached to the hip of their fathers, especially those mad at Dad for spanking them too much. The bind here is people love Lex Luther and hate Eisenberg. Lex Sr is the get out of jail free card short of rebooting the whole thing. The extended cut pretty definitively says that his dad is dead. And again, how are they supposed to explain where Lex Sr. was the entire time? What, was he vacationing in the Bahamas or something?
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 30, 2020 2:21:44 GMT
Implied at most. And the point is most supervillain aren't attached to the hip of their fathers, especially those mad at Dad for spanking them too much. The bind here is people love Lex Luther and hate Eisenberg. Lex Sr is the get out of jail free card short of rebooting the whole thing. The extended cut pretty definitively says that his dad is dead. And again, how are they supposed to explain where Lex Sr. was the entire time? What, was he vacationing in the Bahamas or something? You know the funny thing about extended cuts? They don't mean shit. And it seems like you want to circle around where his father was until the sun turns red without telling me why a tech billionaire couldn't go roughly a week without hanging out with his dad.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on May 30, 2020 3:50:50 GMT
The extended cut pretty definitively says that his dad is dead. And again, how are they supposed to explain where Lex Sr. was the entire time? What, was he vacationing in the Bahamas or something? You know the funny thing about extended cuts? They don't mean shit. And it seems like you want to circle around where his father was until the sun turns red without telling me why a tech billionaire couldn't go roughly a week without hanging out with his dad. Why doesn’t it mean shit? That’s the version of the movie that tells the entire story. Important bits of information are left out if you don’t include that. Snyder even considers it to be the definitive version of the film. Roughly a week? Both versions of the movie made it extremely clear that Lex Luthor Jr. was the one in charge of LexCorp. He even referred to his father in the past tense. Also, I’m pretty sure the movie’s plot covers more than just a week. Face it, the movie left no ambiguity on the fact that Eisenberg’s Lex is the criminal mastermind who’s in charge of LexCorp. His father was merely part of his backstory.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 30, 2020 5:03:22 GMT
You know the funny thing about extended cuts? They don't mean shit. And it seems like you want to circle around where his father was until the sun turns red without telling me why a tech billionaire couldn't go roughly a week without hanging out with his dad. Why doesn’t it mean shit? That’s the version of the movie that tells the entire story. Important bits of information are left out if you don’t include that. Snyder even considers it to be the definitive version of the film. Roughly a week? Both versions of the movie made it extremely clear that Lex Luthor Jr. was the one in charge of LexCorp. He even referred to his father in the past tense. Also, I’m pretty sure the movie’s plot covers more than just a week. Face it, the movie left no ambiguity on the fact that Eisenberg’s Lex is the criminal mastermind who’s in charge of LexCorp. His father was merely part of his backstory. The extended cut of Alien shows the aliens reproduce by turning people into eggs, Aliens then completely disregards that by showing they have a Queen produce the eggs. Ridley Scott and his Final Cut of Blade Runner make it clear Deckard is a replicant. 2049 doesn't mention it. Extended Cuts are almost never the canon. Lex Jr bought out his dad. Lex Sr was forced to sell for illegal activity. Lex Sr just gave it to him. At this point I'm talking about hypothetical scenarios for a hypothetical scenario of a hypothetical scenario wondering what I'm doing with my life. I wouldn't think anyone would care if they brought in a superior Lex Luther to take over from the Eisenberg mess, even if it bent continuity a little bit, but I guess there is at least one person.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on May 30, 2020 5:43:18 GMT
Why doesn’t it mean shit? That’s the version of the movie that tells the entire story. Important bits of information are left out if you don’t include that. Snyder even considers it to be the definitive version of the film. Roughly a week? Both versions of the movie made it extremely clear that Lex Luthor Jr. was the one in charge of LexCorp. He even referred to his father in the past tense. Also, I’m pretty sure the movie’s plot covers more than just a week. Face it, the movie left no ambiguity on the fact that Eisenberg’s Lex is the criminal mastermind who’s in charge of LexCorp. His father was merely part of his backstory. The extended cut of Alien shows the aliens reproduce by turning people into eggs, Aliens then completely disregards that by showing they have a Queen produce the eggs. Ridley Scott and his Final Cut of Blade Runner make it clear Deckard is a replicant. 2049 doesn't mention it. Extended Cuts are almost never the canon. Lex Jr bought out his dad. Lex Sr was forced to sell for illegal activity. Lex Sr just gave it to him. At this point I'm talking about hypothetical scenarios for a hypothetical scenario of a hypothetical scenario wondering what I'm doing with my life. I wouldn't think anyone would care if they brought in a superior Lex Luther to take over from the Eisenberg mess, even if it bent continuity a little bit, but I guess there is at least one person. Actually, even with the Final Cut of Blade Runner, whether or not Deckard is a replicant was deliberately left vague, as was acknowledged by people like the film’s writer, and the sequel avoided giving an answer one way or the other. Also, again, Snyder has made it clear that he considers the extended cut of the movie to be the definitive version of it. There’s even an appearance by Steppenwolf in that cut. Furthermore, even if you want to argue that the theatrical cut is the only true canon (which is ridiculous), the theatrical cut still had him referencing his father in the past tense. Let’s assume for a moment that your explanation does end up getting used. How exactly would Lex Sr. have the resources to be a credible villain to Superman, if he was ousted by his son? Any explanation you try to give for it would just inevitably come across as forced and silly. They’d be better off doing one of the following. Either they ignore Lex Luthor completely, have Eisenberg play the character differently (maybe more like how he played him in that Turkish Airlines TV spot?) or straight up recast the character, and not call any attention to the fact that he looks different. Any one of those would be easier than trying to come up with an explanation for where Daddy Luthor was all this time.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 30, 2020 6:02:59 GMT
The extended cut of Alien shows the aliens reproduce by turning people into eggs, Aliens then completely disregards that by showing they have a Queen produce the eggs. Ridley Scott and his Final Cut of Blade Runner make it clear Deckard is a replicant. 2049 doesn't mention it. Extended Cuts are almost never the canon. Lex Jr bought out his dad. Lex Sr was forced to sell for illegal activity. Lex Sr just gave it to him. At this point I'm talking about hypothetical scenarios for a hypothetical scenario of a hypothetical scenario wondering what I'm doing with my life. I wouldn't think anyone would care if they brought in a superior Lex Luther to take over from the Eisenberg mess, even if it bent continuity a little bit, but I guess there is at least one person. Actually, even with the Final Cut of Blade Runner, whether or not Deckard is a replicant was deliberately left vague, as was acknowledged by people like Ridley Scott, and the sequel avoided giving an answer one way or the other. Also, again, Snyder has made it clear that he considers the extended cut of the movie to be the definitive version of it. There’s even an appearance by Steppenwolf in that cut. Furthermore, even if you want to argue that the theatrical cut is the only true canon (which is ridiculous), the theatrical cut still had him referencing his father in the past tense. Let’s assume for a moment that your explanation does end up getting used. How exactly would Lex Sr. have the resources to be a credible villain to Superman, if he was ousted by his son? Any explanation you try to give for it would just inevitably come across as forced and silly. They’d be better off doing one of the following. Either they ignore Lex Luthor completely, have Eisenberg play the character differently (maybe more like how he played him in that Turkish Airlines TV spot?) or straight up recast the character, and not call any attention to the fact that he looks different. Any one of those would be easier than trying to come up with an explanation for where Daddy Luthor was all this time. Mmmmm...no. Ridley Scott has said definitively he's a replicant, and the added unicorn scenes in the Final Cut leave little room for ambiguity, as Scott himself will attest. "Not giving an answer one way or another" is very much ignoring Ridley and the Final Cut. You may have shot yourself in the foot bringing up Steppenwolf, as they completely redesigned him in JL from his BvS Extended Cut appearance. Kinda proves my point. Lex is a criminal genius, he'll land on his feet. I can't think of anything more fanservicing than not only bringing in an older, more comic-friendly Luther, but to say Esenberg's was never the "real Luther" to begin with. Short of that, they'll just ignore him and try to work with other Superman villains, although obviously they're a little shy about using anyone besides Lex and Zod. I'm sure we can 100% rule out recasting him without full-on rebooting. If they wont even recast Leto's Joker for these Margot Robbie Harley Quinn movies, I don't think they'll do it with anyone else that major.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2020 9:22:46 GMT
I hope they cast Sophia Bush from "Chicago PD" as Lois. I don’t know her, but she sure looks the part in that picture. Lois is my favorite Superman character, and though I like Amy Adams I don’t think she did that great of a job with the role, so I hope the recasting is better. To be fair to Adams, the writing was very mediocre for her character. Although I wonder if she did much research for her role? Only watched the pilot of Lois and Clark but I thought Teri Hatcher was great as Lois. I like cartoon Lois too
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on May 30, 2020 16:01:55 GMT
Actually, even with the Final Cut of Blade Runner, whether or not Deckard is a replicant was deliberately left vague, as was acknowledged by people like Ridley Scott, and the sequel avoided giving an answer one way or the other. Also, again, Snyder has made it clear that he considers the extended cut of the movie to be the definitive version of it. There’s even an appearance by Steppenwolf in that cut. Furthermore, even if you want to argue that the theatrical cut is the only true canon (which is ridiculous), the theatrical cut still had him referencing his father in the past tense. Let’s assume for a moment that your explanation does end up getting used. How exactly would Lex Sr. have the resources to be a credible villain to Superman, if he was ousted by his son? Any explanation you try to give for it would just inevitably come across as forced and silly. They’d be better off doing one of the following. Either they ignore Lex Luthor completely, have Eisenberg play the character differently (maybe more like how he played him in that Turkish Airlines TV spot?) or straight up recast the character, and not call any attention to the fact that he looks different. Any one of those would be easier than trying to come up with an explanation for where Daddy Luthor was all this time. Mmmmm...no. Ridley Scott has said definitively he's a replicant, and the added unicorn scenes in the Final Cut leave little room for ambiguity, as Scott himself will attest. "Not giving an answer one way or another" is very much ignoring Ridley and the Final Cut. You may have shot yourself in the foot bringing up Steppenwolf, as they completely redesigned him in JL from his BvS Extended Cut appearance. Kinda proves my point. Lex is a criminal genius, he'll land on his feet. I can't think of anything more fanservicing than not only bringing in an older, more comic-friendly Luther, but to say Esenberg's was never the "real Luther" to begin with. Short of that, they'll just ignore him and try to work with other Superman villains, although obviously they're a little shy about using anyone besides Lex and Zod. I'm sure we can 100% rule out recasting him without full-on rebooting. If they wont even recast Leto's Joker for these Margot Robbie Harley Quinn movies, I don't think they'll do it with anyone else that major. Mmmmm...no. Denis Villeneuve has said that they avoided giving an answer because they didn’t want to ruin the ambiguity of the original film. Ridley Scott prefers the idea that Deckard was a replicant, but the writer of the film has said he deliberately left it vague (I got them mixed up for a bit, but I edited my post to acknowledge that it was actually the film’s writer, not Ridley Scott, who said that it was open to interpretation). Also, how did I shoot myself in the foot? The reason Steppenwolf has a different design in JL is because WB panicked after the response to BvS, so they made Snyder change the design to make the character look less “scary.” The character still appeared in the Ultimate Edition, in a scene that was clearly meant to set up the next movie. Saying that the cut isn’t “canon” is purely your own head canon. Furthermore, even if you want to argue that the cut isn’t “canon”, the theatrical cut doesn’t leave much room for ambiguity either, and neither did Snyder’s own comments at the time. Fanservicing? It would be contrived as hell if they tried to pretend that there was a “real Lex Luthor” who wasn’t around in BvS, because...reasons. From what I’ve seen, fans don’t even care about that anymore, so who would they be “servicing”? It would be like if they revealed that Jared Leto was actually playing Jason Todd, and not the real Joker.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 30, 2020 22:31:18 GMT
Mmmmm...no. Ridley Scott has said definitively he's a replicant, and the added unicorn scenes in the Final Cut leave little room for ambiguity, as Scott himself will attest. "Not giving an answer one way or another" is very much ignoring Ridley and the Final Cut. You may have shot yourself in the foot bringing up Steppenwolf, as they completely redesigned him in JL from his BvS Extended Cut appearance. Kinda proves my point. Lex is a criminal genius, he'll land on his feet. I can't think of anything more fanservicing than not only bringing in an older, more comic-friendly Luther, but to say Esenberg's was never the "real Luther" to begin with. Short of that, they'll just ignore him and try to work with other Superman villains, although obviously they're a little shy about using anyone besides Lex and Zod. I'm sure we can 100% rule out recasting him without full-on rebooting. If they wont even recast Leto's Joker for these Margot Robbie Harley Quinn movies, I don't think they'll do it with anyone else that major. Mmmmm...no. Denis Villeneuve has said that they avoided giving an answer because they didn’t want to ruin the ambiguity of the original film. Ridley Scott prefers the idea that Deckard was a replicant, but the writer of the film has said he deliberately left it vague (I got them mixed up for a bit, but I edited my post to acknowledge that it was actually the film’s writer, not Ridley Scott, who said that it was open to interpretation). Also, how did I shoot myself in the foot? The reason Steppenwolf has a different design in JL is because WB panicked after the response to BvS, so they made Snyder change the design to make the character look less “scary.” The character still appeared in the Ultimate Edition, in a scene that was clearly meant to set up the next movie. Saying that the cut isn’t “canon” is purely your own head canon. Furthermore, even if you want to argue that the cut isn’t “canon”, the theatrical cut doesn’t leave much room for ambiguity either, and neither did Snyder’s own comments at the time. Fanservicing? It would be contrived as hell if they tried to pretend that there was a “real Lex Luthor” who wasn’t around in BvS, because...reasons. From what I’ve seen, fans don’t even care about that anymore, so who would they be “servicing”? It would be like if they revealed that Jared Leto was actually playing Jason Todd, and not the real Joker. So the director's vision doesn't matter when it's Ridley Scott and not Zack Snyder. I see. Who cares what their excuse is? Fact is, they had no problem completely redesigning him because he only showed up in the Extended Cut and not the actual theatricallly released movie. If fans don't care anymore then what are we even talking about? Reboot the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on May 31, 2020 0:07:52 GMT
Mmmmm...no. Denis Villeneuve has said that they avoided giving an answer because they didn’t want to ruin the ambiguity of the original film. Ridley Scott prefers the idea that Deckard was a replicant, but the writer of the film has said he deliberately left it vague (I got them mixed up for a bit, but I edited my post to acknowledge that it was actually the film’s writer, not Ridley Scott, who said that it was open to interpretation). Also, how did I shoot myself in the foot? The reason Steppenwolf has a different design in JL is because WB panicked after the response to BvS, so they made Snyder change the design to make the character look less “scary.” The character still appeared in the Ultimate Edition, in a scene that was clearly meant to set up the next movie. Saying that the cut isn’t “canon” is purely your own head canon. Furthermore, even if you want to argue that the cut isn’t “canon”, the theatrical cut doesn’t leave much room for ambiguity either, and neither did Snyder’s own comments at the time. Fanservicing? It would be contrived as hell if they tried to pretend that there was a “real Lex Luthor” who wasn’t around in BvS, because...reasons. From what I’ve seen, fans don’t even care about that anymore, so who would they be “servicing”? It would be like if they revealed that Jared Leto was actually playing Jason Todd, and not the real Joker. So the director's vision doesn't matter when it's Ridley Scott and not Zack Snyder. I see. Who cares what their excuse is? Fact is, they had no problem completely redesigning him because he only showed up in the Extended Cut and not the actual theatricallly released movie. If fans don't care anymore then what are we even talking about? Reboot the whole thing. Never said that. I’m just saying that your argument that BR2049 ignored the Final Cut isn’t actually true. Villeneuve specifically said that they avoided addressing which of the cuts was “canon.” You are aware that after the OW of BvS, WB actually posted that scene in BvS with Steppenwolf on their YouTube channel, right? I think that should be a pretty good indication that they consider that scene to be canon, especially since it sets up JL. I don’t have any thoughts on whether or not they should reboot at this point. WB seems to have made it clear that they’re going to pick and choose what elements of the Snyderverse they’re keeping moving forward. All I’m saying is that bringing in Daddy Luthor as the “true” Lex would be dumb. Not only would it be contrived, but it would mean that they’d be calling attention to the backlash to a movie that came out back in 2016. People have stopped talking about Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor at this point, so why even bother retroactively pretending that he wasn’t the “real” Lex Luthor? Edit: On the subject of Blade Runner, I will just add that when Villeneuve was asked which version of the movie that people should watch before watching his movie, he actually said that people should watch the Final Cut, rather than the theatrical one, so make of that what you will.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on May 31, 2020 0:36:43 GMT
Keep everybody.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 31, 2020 2:12:45 GMT
So the director's vision doesn't matter when it's Ridley Scott and not Zack Snyder. I see. Who cares what their excuse is? Fact is, they had no problem completely redesigning him because he only showed up in the Extended Cut and not the actual theatricallly released movie. If fans don't care anymore then what are we even talking about? Reboot the whole thing. Never said that. I’m just saying that your argument that BR2049 ignored the Final Cut isn’t actually true. Villeneuve specifically said that they avoided addressing which of the cuts was “canon.” You are aware that after the OW of BvS, WB actually posted that scene in BvS with Steppenwolf on their YouTube channel, right? I think that should be a pretty good indication that they consider that scene to be canon, especially since it sets up JL. I don’t have any thoughts on whether or not they should reboot at this point. WB seems to have made it clear that they’re going to pick and choose what elements of the Snyderverse they’re keeping moving forward. All I’m saying is that bringing in Daddy Luthor as the “true” Lex would be dumb. Not only would it be contrived, but it would mean that they’d be calling attention to the backlash to a movie that came out back in 2016. People have stopped talking about Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor at this point, so why even bother retroactively pretending that he wasn’t the “real” Lex Luthor? Edit: On the subject of Blade Runner, I will just add that when Villeneuve was asked which version of the movie that people should watch before watching his movie, he actually said that people should watch the Final Cut, rather than the theatrical one, so make of that what you will. Which means they avoided addressing the director's version as canon. The other cuts are the only ambiguous ones. If Extended Cuts aren't canon enough, surely YouTube videos are! You're really banking on my brain exploding from the fact that they used a villain from the EC for a movie already in production. If you really can't see how the fact that they completely changed his look from the EC murders your argument, burns it, and buries the remains, I don't know what more I can tell you. No one cares about Eisenberg's Luther anymore because the Superman franchise is currently dead. If they resurrect it, Superman's arch nemesis is going to be kind of an elephant in the room.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on May 31, 2020 2:49:03 GMT
Never said that. I’m just saying that your argument that BR2049 ignored the Final Cut isn’t actually true. Villeneuve specifically said that they avoided addressing which of the cuts was “canon.” You are aware that after the OW of BvS, WB actually posted that scene in BvS with Steppenwolf on their YouTube channel, right? I think that should be a pretty good indication that they consider that scene to be canon, especially since it sets up JL. I don’t have any thoughts on whether or not they should reboot at this point. WB seems to have made it clear that they’re going to pick and choose what elements of the Snyderverse they’re keeping moving forward. All I’m saying is that bringing in Daddy Luthor as the “true” Lex would be dumb. Not only would it be contrived, but it would mean that they’d be calling attention to the backlash to a movie that came out back in 2016. People have stopped talking about Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor at this point, so why even bother retroactively pretending that he wasn’t the “real” Lex Luthor? Edit: On the subject of Blade Runner, I will just add that when Villeneuve was asked which version of the movie that people should watch before watching his movie, he actually said that people should watch the Final Cut, rather than the theatrical one, so make of that what you will. Which means they avoided addressing the director's version as canon. The other cuts are the only ambiguous ones. If Extended Cuts aren't canon enough, surely YouTube videos are! You're really banking on my brain exploding from the fact that they used a villain from the EC for a movie already in production. If you really can't see how the fact that they completely changed his look from the EC murders your argument, burns it, and buries the remains, I don't know what more I can tell you. No one cares about Eisenberg's Luther anymore because the Superman franchise is currently dead. If they resurrect it, Superman's arch nemesis is going to be kind of an elephant in the room. I really don’t understand your argument. Ridley Scott and the film’s writer don’t even agree on whether or not Deckard is a replicant, and fans are also divided on the subject, which is the most likely reason why the sequel avoids clarifying this. It has nothing to do with them choosing to disregard the Final Cut, and everything to do with them choosing to avoid making a polarizing decision. How does his look changing “murder” my argument? His design didn’t change because WB thought “Oh well, since this one scene apparently wasn’t canon, I guess we have to change the design now!” Your argument makes no sense. Hell, Thanos’ design changed between movies in the MCU. His design in the mid credit scene for the first Avengers movie in particular looked completely different from how it would look in IW and EG, and he wasn’t even played by Josh Brolin. Does that mean that scene wasn’t canon? You know what would be a bigger elephant in the room? Acknowledging BvS in a capacity that’s essentially equivalent to what The Rise of Skywalker did with The Last Jedi. Assuming Henry Cavill does get to headline another Superman movie, they’d be better off either sticking with Eisenberg, or just ignoring him altogether. Lex Luthor has been in enough Superman movies as it is anyway. He doesn’t need to be in another one. Superman has other enemies.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 31, 2020 3:08:35 GMT
Which means they avoided addressing the director's version as canon. The other cuts are the only ambiguous ones. If Extended Cuts aren't canon enough, surely YouTube videos are! You're really banking on my brain exploding from the fact that they used a villain from the EC for a movie already in production. If you really can't see how the fact that they completely changed his look from the EC murders your argument, burns it, and buries the remains, I don't know what more I can tell you. No one cares about Eisenberg's Luther anymore because the Superman franchise is currently dead. If they resurrect it, Superman's arch nemesis is going to be kind of an elephant in the room. I really don’t understand your argument. Ridley Scott and the film’s writer don’t even agree on whether or not Deckard is a replicant, and fans are also divided on the subject, which is the most likely reason why the sequel avoids clarifying this. It has nothing to do with them choosing to disregard the Final Cut, and everything to do with them choosing to avoid making a polarizing decision. How does his look changing “murder” my argument? His design didn’t change because WB thought “Oh well, since this one scene apparently wasn’t canon, I guess we have to change the design now!” Your argument makes no sense. Hell, Thanos’ design changed between movies in the MCU. His design in the mid credit scene for the first Avengers movie in particular looked completely different from how it would look in IW and EG, and he wasn’t even played by Josh Brolin. Does that mean that scene wasn’t canon? You know what would be a bigger elephant in the room? Acknowledging BvS in a capacity that’s essentially equivalent to what The Rise of Skywalker did with The Last Jedi. Assuming Henry Cavill does get to headline another Superman movie, they’d be better off either sticking with Eisenberg, or just ignoring him altogether. Lex Luthor has been in enough Superman movies as it is anyway. He doesn’t need to be in another one. Superman has other enemies. To understand my argument is to understand your own argument. You said the Extended Cut is canon because the director said so. I used a counterexample where a director said a specific cut was canon and was pretty much ignored, or had it left "ambiguous". Ya dig? I didn't say they redesigned him BECAUSE he was in the Extended Cut, I said they redesigned him IN SPITE OF the Extended Cut. If the Extended Cut was gospel, he'd look the same. Like I said, they're clearly shy about using villains besides Lex and Zod. Hell, they even reappropriated Doomsday into Zod. Not to mention cutting a Darkseid setup in JL in favor of...more Lex Luther. I know Lex Sr was a popular idea when BvS came out - I'm far from the first person to propose it - so I threw it on the table. This is the DCEU and stupid is as stupid does, so I don't think the universe will combust if they did it. But honestly I think full reboot is the best option, especially if they're already rebooting Batman.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on May 31, 2020 3:31:03 GMT
I really don’t understand your argument. Ridley Scott and the film’s writer don’t even agree on whether or not Deckard is a replicant, and fans are also divided on the subject, which is the most likely reason why the sequel avoids clarifying this. It has nothing to do with them choosing to disregard the Final Cut, and everything to do with them choosing to avoid making a polarizing decision. How does his look changing “murder” my argument? His design didn’t change because WB thought “Oh well, since this one scene apparently wasn’t canon, I guess we have to change the design now!” Your argument makes no sense. Hell, Thanos’ design changed between movies in the MCU. His design in the mid credit scene for the first Avengers movie in particular looked completely different from how it would look in IW and EG, and he wasn’t even played by Josh Brolin. Does that mean that scene wasn’t canon? You know what would be a bigger elephant in the room? Acknowledging BvS in a capacity that’s essentially equivalent to what The Rise of Skywalker did with The Last Jedi. Assuming Henry Cavill does get to headline another Superman movie, they’d be better off either sticking with Eisenberg, or just ignoring him altogether. Lex Luthor has been in enough Superman movies as it is anyway. He doesn’t need to be in another one. Superman has other enemies. To understand my argument is to understand your own argument. You said the Extended Cut is canon because the director said so. I used a counterexample where a director said a specific cut was canon and was pretty much ignored, or had it left "ambiguous". Ya dig? I didn't say they redesigned him BECAUSE he was in the Extended Cut, I said they redesigned him IN SPITE OF the Extended Cut. If the Extended Cut was gospel, he'd look the same. Like I said, they're clearly shy about using villains besides Lex and Zod. Hell, they even reappropriated Doomsday into Zod. Not to mention cutting a Darkseid setup in JL in favor of...more Lex Luther. I know Lex Sr was a popular idea when BvS came out - I'm far from the first person to propose it - so I threw it on the table. This is the DCEU and stupid is as stupid does, so I don't think the universe will combust if they did it. But honestly I think full reboot is the best option, especially if they're already rebooting Batman. I said that considering the Ultimate Edition to be non canon just because it’s an extended cut is ridiculous. I brought up Snyder’s preference towards that cut to help reinforce my point about why counting it as non canon “just because” is nonsensical. Furthermore, as we already established, your argument about BR2049 doesn’t work, because the movie didn’t ignore the Final Cut in favor of the theatrical one. You just like to think that it did. Once again, by your own logic, the mid credit scene in the first Avengers movie isn’t canon, because Thanos had a completely different design in that. Seriously, who gives a shit that Steppenwolf looks different? Hell, he was always supposed to look different in JL, because his design wasn’t finalized when he appeared in BvS. That’s also why he wasn’t played by Ciaran Hinds. His design in the theatrical version of JL ultimately ended up looking even more different than what it was originally intended to be, but that’s because WB was nervous about going with Snyder’s planned design, where the character looked like this.
Also, just for the record, I’m not even saying that they’d be required to rigidly stick by the continuity that Snyder established. They’re obviously free to do whatever they want. Hell, JL contradicted aspects of BvS. I’m simply saying that it would be contrived and dumb if they went out of their way to try and retcon Lex Luthor’s identity. So, because past movies haven’t branched out with Superman’s rogue’s gallery, that means that future movies have to follow that same pattern? Furthermore, Darkseid isn’t a Superman villain. He was conceived as part of the New Gods series, and he’s more or less served as a villain to the entire DCU. Just because the DCAU introduced him as a Superman villain, doesn’t mean that’s how he was in the comics. Besides, they didn’t cut Darkseid’s scenes from the finished movie because they were scared about branching out with Superman’s enemies. They did it because the scenes with Darkseid were a leftover from Snyder’s plans for future movies, and WB was moving away from Snyder’s plans at that point.
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on May 31, 2020 5:03:54 GMT
They should keep everyone buy recast Eisenberg who was agree to be awful even by some people who liked BvS
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 31, 2020 5:05:13 GMT
To understand my argument is to understand your own argument. You said the Extended Cut is canon because the director said so. I used a counterexample where a director said a specific cut was canon and was pretty much ignored, or had it left "ambiguous". Ya dig? I didn't say they redesigned him BECAUSE he was in the Extended Cut, I said they redesigned him IN SPITE OF the Extended Cut. If the Extended Cut was gospel, he'd look the same. Like I said, they're clearly shy about using villains besides Lex and Zod. Hell, they even reappropriated Doomsday into Zod. Not to mention cutting a Darkseid setup in JL in favor of...more Lex Luther. I know Lex Sr was a popular idea when BvS came out - I'm far from the first person to propose it - so I threw it on the table. This is the DCEU and stupid is as stupid does, so I don't think the universe will combust if they did it. But honestly I think full reboot is the best option, especially if they're already rebooting Batman. I said that considering the Ultimate Edition to be non canon just because it’s an extended cut is ridiculous. I brought up Snyder’s preference towards that cut to help reinforce my point about why counting it as non canon “just because” is nonsensical. Furthermore, as we already established, your argument about BR2049 doesn’t work, because the movie didn’t ignore the Final Cut in favor of the theatrical one. You just like to think that it did. Once again, by your own logic, the mid credit scene in the first Avengers movie isn’t canon, because Thanos had a completely different design in that. Seriously, who gives a shit that Steppenwolf looks different? Hell, he was always supposed to look different in JL, because his design wasn’t finalized when he appeared in BvS. That’s also why he wasn’t played by Ciaran Hinds. His design in the theatrical version of JL ultimately ended up looking even more different than what it was originally intended to be, but that’s because WB was nervous about going with Snyder’s planned design, where the character looked like this.
Also, just for the record, I’m not even saying that they’d be required to rigidly stick by the continuity that Snyder established. They’re obviously free to do whatever they want. Hell, JL contradicted aspects of BvS. I’m simply saying that it would be contrived and dumb if they went out of their way to try and retcon Lex Luthor’s identity. So, because past movies haven’t branched out with Superman’s rogue’s gallery, that means that future movies have to follow that same pattern? Furthermore, Darkseid isn’t a Superman villain. He was conceived as part of the New Gods series, and he’s more or less served as a villain to the entire DCU. Just because the DCAU introduced him as a Superman villain, doesn’t mean that’s how he was in the comics. Besides, they didn’t cut Darkseid’s scenes from the finished movie because they were scared about branching out with Superman’s enemies. They did it because the scenes with Darkseid were a leftover from Snyder’s plans for future movies, and WB was moving away from Snyder’s plans at that point. If Scott had his way, the character would unambiguously be a replicant. Period. Not treating any specific cut as the true canon one is the same as treating none of them as the true canon one, including the director's preferred cut. Thus the director's preferred cut = not definitive. I'm done jerking off over Blade Runner, so how about you provide me an example of a sequel that treats an alternate cut as more canon than the theatrical? Because the best and only example you've argued is one that just doesn't choose. So if they just slapped together an unfinished design for the Extended Cut/youtube promotion that was never gonna be the final design, that pretty much proves they didn't take it very seriously. Just keeping digging that Steppenwolf hole, my friend. A pattern is a pattern, that's why they call it a pattern. Darkseid first appeared in a Superman comic, and even wikipedia refers him as a "staple Superman villain". So get out of here with that comic nerd pretension.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on May 31, 2020 5:23:10 GMT
I said that considering the Ultimate Edition to be non canon just because it’s an extended cut is ridiculous. I brought up Snyder’s preference towards that cut to help reinforce my point about why counting it as non canon “just because” is nonsensical. Furthermore, as we already established, your argument about BR2049 doesn’t work, because the movie didn’t ignore the Final Cut in favor of the theatrical one. You just like to think that it did. Once again, by your own logic, the mid credit scene in the first Avengers movie isn’t canon, because Thanos had a completely different design in that. Seriously, who gives a shit that Steppenwolf looks different? Hell, he was always supposed to look different in JL, because his design wasn’t finalized when he appeared in BvS. That’s also why he wasn’t played by Ciaran Hinds. His design in the theatrical version of JL ultimately ended up looking even more different than what it was originally intended to be, but that’s because WB was nervous about going with Snyder’s planned design, where the character looked like this.
Also, just for the record, I’m not even saying that they’d be required to rigidly stick by the continuity that Snyder established. They’re obviously free to do whatever they want. Hell, JL contradicted aspects of BvS. I’m simply saying that it would be contrived and dumb if they went out of their way to try and retcon Lex Luthor’s identity. So, because past movies haven’t branched out with Superman’s rogue’s gallery, that means that future movies have to follow that same pattern? Furthermore, Darkseid isn’t a Superman villain. He was conceived as part of the New Gods series, and he’s more or less served as a villain to the entire DCU. Just because the DCAU introduced him as a Superman villain, doesn’t mean that’s how he was in the comics. Besides, they didn’t cut Darkseid’s scenes from the finished movie because they were scared about branching out with Superman’s enemies. They did it because the scenes with Darkseid were a leftover from Snyder’s plans for future movies, and WB was moving away from Snyder’s plans at that point. If Scott had his way, the character would unambiguously be a replicant. Period. Not treating any specific cut as the true canon one is the same as treating none of them as the true canon one, including the director's preferred cut. Thus the director's preferred cut = not definitive. I'm done jerking off over Blade Runner, so how about you provide me an example of a sequel that treats an alternate cut as more canon than the theatrical? Because the best and only example you've argued is one that just doesn't choose. So if they just slapped together an unfinished design for the Extended Cut/youtube promotion that was never gonna be the final design, that pretty much proves they didn't take it very seriously. Just keeping digging that Steppenwolf hole, my friend. A pattern is a pattern, that's why they call it a pattern. Darkseid first appeared in a Superman comic, and even wikipedia refers him as a "staple Superman villain". So get out of here with that comic nerd pretension. What? You’re the one who brought up Blade Runner, and now you’re claiming that I’m the one arguing for it? Also, if you’re really going to insist on grilling me on this idiotic question of yours, then fine. Ever heard of the Star Wars? You know how George Lucas famously kept altering the original trilogy over the years? Well, his altered versions of those movies are currently regarded as the “official” versions of them. Once again, stuff like that isn’t uncommon. That’s exactly what Marvel did with Thanos. This what Thanos looked like in The Avengers. If you’re seriously trying to argue that Zack Snyder chose that scene with Steppenwolf in BvS as a silly little non canon moment, then you have no clue what you’re talking about. That scene was there specifically to set up JL. Snyder just didn’t have the final design in place yet. And no, it wasn’t slapped together for the extended cut. It was supposed to be part of the movie, before WB made Snyder cut the movie down so that it wouldn’t be three hours long. You think the scenes from the extended cut were stuff they slapped together after they already finished the theatrical cut?
Comic book nerd pretension? I’m not being a comic book nerd. I’m pointing out that Darkseid was not written as an antagonist to Superman. The New Gods were conceived as a stand-alone comic book series that wasn’t even meant to be part of the main DCU. I wasn’t trying to prove how “knowledgable” I am about comic books. I’m the first person to admit that I’m not the biggest expert on the planet when it comes to comic book lore. I was simply pointing out that your argument about Superman villains getting neglected doesn’t technically apply to Darkseid, unless you want to argue that Steppenwolf is also a Superman villain... Also, you are aware that the Superman comic you’re referring to only had the character in a cameo, and that he didn’t fight Superman in that comic, right? That comic book you’re referring to was part of the Jimmy Olsen comic book series. Those comics were not about Superman. They were silly little side stories about the adventures of Jimmy Olsen, and Darkseid’s cameo wasn’t even important. Seriously, this argument has gone completely off the rails. All I was ever trying to get at was that retconning Lex Sr. into a hypothetical new Superman film would be a dumb idea. They should either stick with the hole they dug, or they should just ignore everything altogether, but they shouldn’t have it both ways, which is what your Lex Sr. suggestion would amount to. By the way, Thanos debuted in an Iron Man comic, so by your logic, I guess that makes him an Iron Man villain. And no, I’m not saying that as part of my “comic book nerd pretension”, because I’m not even super well versed in Thanos, and I had to use Wikipedia for that one.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 31, 2020 6:31:13 GMT
If Scott had his way, the character would unambiguously be a replicant. Period. Not treating any specific cut as the true canon one is the same as treating none of them as the true canon one, including the director's preferred cut. Thus the director's preferred cut = not definitive. I'm done jerking off over Blade Runner, so how about you provide me an example of a sequel that treats an alternate cut as more canon than the theatrical? Because the best and only example you've argued is one that just doesn't choose. So if they just slapped together an unfinished design for the Extended Cut/youtube promotion that was never gonna be the final design, that pretty much proves they didn't take it very seriously. Just keeping digging that Steppenwolf hole, my friend. A pattern is a pattern, that's why they call it a pattern. Darkseid first appeared in a Superman comic, and even wikipedia refers him as a "staple Superman villain". So get out of here with that comic nerd pretension. What? You’re the one who brought up Blade Runner, and now you’re claiming that I’m the one arguing for it? Also, if you’re really going to insist on grilling me on this idiotic question of yours, then fine. Ever heard of the Star Wars? You know how George Lucas famously kept altering the original trilogy over the years? Well, his altered versions of those movies are currently regarded as the “official” versions of them. Once again, stuff like that isn’t uncommon. That’s exactly what Marvel did with Thanos. This what Thanos looked like in The Avengers. If you’re seriously trying to argue that Zack Snyder chose that scene with Steppenwolf in BvS as a silly little non canon moment, then you have no clue what you’re talking about. That scene was there specifically to set up JL. Snyder just didn’t have the final design in place yet. And no, it wasn’t slapped together for the extended cut. It was supposed to be part of the movie, before WB made Snyder cut the movie down so that it wouldn’t be three hours long. You think the scenes from the extended cut were stuff they slapped together after they already finished the theatrical cut?
Comic book nerd pretension? I’m not being a comic book nerd. I’m pointing out that Darkseid was not written as an antagonist to Superman. The New Gods were conceived as a stand-alone comic book series that wasn’t even meant to be part of the main DCU. I wasn’t trying to prove how “knowledgable” I am about comic books. I’m the first person to admit that I’m not the biggest expert on the planet when it comes to comic book lore. I was simply pointing out that your argument about Superman villains getting neglected doesn’t technically apply to Darkseid, unless you want to argue that Steppenwolf is also a Superman villain... Also, you are aware that the Superman comic you’re referring to only had the character in a cameo, and that he didn’t fight Superman in that comic, right? That comic book you’re referring to was part of the Jimmy Olsen comic book series. Those comics were not about Superman. They were silly little side stories about the adventures of Jimmy Olsen, and Darkseid’s cameo wasn’t even important. Seriously, this argument has gone completely off the rails. All I was ever trying to get at was that retconning Lex Sr. into a hypothetical new Superman film would be a dumb idea. They should either stick with the hole they dug, or they should just ignore everything altogether, but they shouldn’t have it both ways, which is what your Lex Sr. suggestion would amount to. By the way, Thanos debuted in an Iron Man comic, so by your logic, I guess that makes him an Iron Man villain. And no, I’m not saying that as part of my “comic book nerd pretension”, because I’m not even super well versed in Thanos, and I had to use Wikipedia for that one. I didn't say you brought up Blade Runner. I said it's the only thing you've argued. Somehow, I ended up being the only one using examples when you're the one who definitively said Lex Sr can't appear because the Extended Cut says so. I say Extended Cuts aren't always definitive. This argument went off the rails the second you tried to dispute that simple fact. What in the Star Wars sequel trilogy works exclusively as a reference to the Special Editions? In fact, it seemed like they went out of their way not to show Hayden Christensen when Anakin's force ghost has every reason to appear. And before you mention his short voice cameo in TRoS, because trying to nitpick every little detail of my argument to distract from the overarching point is the only trick up your sleeve, they also used Ewan McGreger for Obi-Wan. Re: Steppenwolf - It's a deleted scene reinserted for a home release they know less people are going to see than the theatrical version with an unfinished design. If you want to treat that as canon, that's your prerogative. TIL Jimmy Olson isn't a Superman character. And you're saying Thanos first appeared in the comic of the guy who ends up defeating him in the movies? What a knockout argument, well done. As long as you're checking out wikipedia, read the second paragraph of Darkseid's page.
|
|