1/6 Hot Toys - BvS: Dawn of Justice - Batman

[ZombieRepublican]

Since hot toys made a prototype and won't release it, the is considered refrigerator act they spoke of

I always assumed they're waiting for "The Batman" to release before they bring it out. BvS had too many collectibles as it was. I'd still much prefer hot toys one. It looked superb with the wires, weathering and detail

 

[lordregnis]

Ordered 2 of them. Display one with my 89 and one with my Batman vs Superman. $53 USD not bad.

53 for 2? Im seeing 80 for 1

 

[WhoaItsJBot]

I always assumed they're waiting for "The Batman" to release before they bring it out. BvS had too many collectibles as it was. I'd still much prefer hot toys one. It looked superb with the wires, weathering and detail

That'd make more sense. The bat signal with Gordon again.

 

[Remy]

Ordered 2 of them. Display one with my 89 and one with my Batman vs Superman. $53 USD not bad.

Actually, that's $160 for two.
It's $20 for NRD.
Then $60 more when it's released.

53 for 2? Im seeing 80 for 1

Yup, he didn't read the statement below that says it's $20 for non refundable deposit and thought it's $20 each.

 

[lordregnis]

Actually, that's $160 for two.
It's $20 for NRD.
Then $60 more when it's released.



Yup, he didn't read the statement below that says it's $20 for non refundable deposit and thought it's $20 each.

Oh alright thanks

 

[Remy]

Sometimes I wonder if that site does that on purpose.
I almost bought something there before also thinking it was pretty cheap.

It should spell out that's PO right next to the price.

 

[irok84]

Finally got a chance to take a picture of these two side by side.

 

[Remy]

Nice pics irok, and great job on superman!

 

[Cicada17]

That Superman looks awesome, irock84!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jedijim3002]

 

[RED SHOES]

This looks SO cool. Please post photos of the completed figure when you are finished.

Just made a blue cape for client




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[abake]

I've watched the longer cut of BvS a few times now, and I think the movie the filmmakers were trying to create went over the heads of most movie-goers, especially since it can be argued that their ambition exceeded what they were able to pull off from a credible story-telling point of view.

The arc of the two characters is built around how they contrast one another. Superman is almost physically impervious to harm but emotionally sensitive, evident by how deeply he cares for the people in his life, which only burdens him as his exploits become more public and the world begins to look upon him as a savior. Batman, on the other hand, suffers a great emotional loss as a child, works towards making himself physically powerful while distancing himself from others, until his lifelong war on crime begins to corrupt him ("We're criminals, Alfred. We've always been criminals."), with few friends and little hope towards the future.

So, when our heroes are introduced to one another, they only catch a rather uncharacteristic glimpse of the other. Superman, in his blind rage battling Zod, brings wanton destruction with great collateral damage, leaving Batman with understandable concern that this may only be a sign of things to come. And Batman, with "a new kind of mean in him," is seen by Superman as someone who is allowed to pursue his enemies as he sees fit, unopposed by the police and the justice system.

Thus, when Superman sacrifices himself, Bruce Wayne begins to recognize his sins, decides to form alliances, and re-examines his brutal methods. In the course of the two films, we see Superman saving humanity in many instances from mortal danger, but here we see him saving Batman's soul. He has to be brought to the darkest depths so Superman can bring him into the light.

If the DC cinematic universe is to play the long game, it shouldn't begin by showing our heroes as audiences have come to expect them portrayed right out of the gate (that's just fan service, and there's plenty of that going around already!), but where they are as three-dimensional characters first. That way, it leaves us with more than just learning how they get their powers and why they wear the costumes they do.

Too bad most people don't really get such nuances.

 

[GaryPool]

Too bad most people don't really get such nuances.

I think it's a great post - I also don't think it was overly subtle, I think that there was enough dialogue and character development and world building to show this. I genuinely think most people just didn't care to acknowledge it because they didn't want that much depth to the characters or to see a deeper and more realistic portrayal. Instead they wanted the version of the characters they expect and for them to be a symbol of hope and justice right from the bat.

I applaud Snyder for bringing a twisted Batman to the screen, as was mentioned in the Dark Knight, you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain - in this world we have the Batman that lived long enough to become the villain. So much dialogue pointed towards this, so much background world building points towards this, such as with Robins' suit indicating his death and Batmans' potential breaking point. If you acknowledge this world building, then it's not really that difficult to see how from this Batman seeing Superman bring destruction and feeling "The fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men... cruel" is what motivated him to try to kill Superman. This is a point in Batmans long history in this universe where the pressures, the guilt of failing to save people he cares for, the years of being non violent to criminals (in this world the Joker kills Robin, you can understand how this would spur Batmans psyche to question if he was more relentless to the criminals how it could save people, and people he cares about) turns him into the Batman we see - both Alfred and Batman acknowledge this. Again, I think it was a great launching point to the character, see him old and affected by the years of his old ways of working not changing anything, hence he's become jaded and found new ways.

It isn't until the end that he realises that he's not alone, and there's other people that share his ideals which he long since lost. I think that's why the film still included his parents death, to coincide with the rest of his losses with his life - and this is why I can't understand how people did not connect with this. Surely everyone understands trying to fight for something for so long with good morals and intentions, and nothing changes so you become jaded and change your ways, anyone with a **** job should know this.

I'm happy we didn't get a **** gone by era film of Superman and Batman where everything is happy and nothing bad happens, it's boring and old and not with the times. I'm just disappointed that Snyder gets so much **** for trying to bring something new to the characters, which, regardless of editing, all the world building and character development is right there shoved in everyone's faces... but again, the majority want the spandex superman who rescues cats from trees and the Batman who punches with pow flying across the screen, shallow versions that cling to the 'BATMAN IS GOOD' 'BATMAN AND SUPERMAN DON'T KILL'. I prefer the what if Batman has been doing this all his life, he tried to cling to good morals and intentions, and in the end things that he could have prevented got his friends killed, his enemies are still on the streets killing and destroying Gotham, I think it's more powerful to see Batman then come back out of this and redeem himself.

 

[Lee in MI]

If I may add a bit, all this sounds a little flippant and snooty. I don't think the "nuances" you guys are so celebratory about are lost on most critics of the movie. I, for one, saw what he was trying to do. Problem is, he didn't do it! Sure you can write a dissertation about what it was about by filling in A LOT of holes but in the end, it was just too much story to be told in one movie...therefore, it was unsuccessful at telling the story you are describing as "going over people's heads".

Take the Nolan films. They are not "gone by era" version of Batman. They are actually quite violent. He actually kills in those, arguably. The difference is he built a world and an evolving story. Whereas, Snyder just stuffed 10 lbs of sh|_|t in a 5 lb bag. Someone suggested he should have broken this into two films. And I agree, his story would have worked tons better had he told it with more time. Dare I say the nuances needed more nuance

That's still not taking into account that Luthor's characterization was terrible just a villain period, imo.

Not trying to start an argument but while your points are very valid and are great explanations of what the film was trying to do. It's also very valid points being made that he simply didn't tell that story.

I venture to bet BvS would be a great comic book story told over 6-12 issues or a great graphic novel.

 

[sj2106]

If I may add a bit, all this sounds a little flippant and snooty. I don't think the "nuances" you guys are so celebratory about are lost on most critics of the movie. I, for one, saw what he was trying to do. Problem is, he didn't do it! Sure you can write a dissertation about what it was about by filling in A LOT of holes but in the end, it was just too much story to be told in one movie...therefore, it was unsuccessful at telling the story you are describing as "going over people's heads".

Take the Nolan films. They are not "gone by era" version of Batman. They are actually quite violent. He actually kills in those, arguably. The difference is he built a world and an evolving story. Whereas, Snyder just stuffed 10 lbs of sh|_|t in a 5 lb bag. Someone suggested he should have broken this into two films. And I agree, his story would have worked tons better had he told it with more time. Dare I say the nuances needed more nuance

That's still not taking into account that Luthor's characterization was terrible just a villain period, imo.

Not trying to start an argument but while your points are very valid and are great explanations of what the film was trying to do. It's also very valid points being made that he simply didn't tell that story.

I venture to bet BvS would be a great comic book story told over 6-12 issues or a great graphic novel.

Yup I've always thought it should have been a couple of two hour movies. Batman vs Superman and a few months later Dawn of Justice. More structured coherent plots for the big screen without having to cut big chunks of plot out.

BvS, especially the ultimate cut, manages to be both too long and somehow still feel rushed.
They could have used the Doomsday plot as the reason for an alliance during a more natural and slower reduction in hostilities between them. Instead of 'I'm gonna kill you' to 'I'm a friend of your sons' 10 minutes later. The whole Doomsday and death of Superman story needed to be properly fleshed out, not crammed into the last 30 minutes of a Batman v Superman movie.

That said I do still love watching the movie we got in spite of the flaws. Ben is easily my favourite live action Batman. Visually Snyder borders on genius and I do love many of his ideas but its undeniable that he isn't a great story teller. It shouldn't take an extended cut to make a movie coherent, as director he has to take responsibility for that.

 

[Lee in MI]

Yup I've always thought it should have been a couple of two hour movies. Batman vs Superman and a few months later Dawn of Justice. More structured coherent plots for the big screen without having to cut big chunks of plot out.

BvS, especially the ultimate cut, manages to be both too long and somehow still feel rushed.
They could have used the Doomsday plot as the reason for an alliance during a more natural and slower reduction in hostilities between them. Instead of 'I'm gonna kill you' to 'I'm a friend of your sons' 10 minutes later. The whole Doomsday and death of Superman story needed to be properly fleshed out, not crammed into the last 30 minutes of a Batman v Superman movie.

That said I do still love watching the movie we got in spite of the flaws. Ben is easily my favourite live action Batman. Visually Snyder borders on genius and I do love many of his ideas but its undeniable that he isn't a great story teller. It shouldn't take an extended cut to make a movie coherent, as director he has to take responsibility for that.

This! The movie is simply incoherent in a lot of ways.

Snyder is A-MAZING at visual story telling. From 300 to Sucker Punch he is the master. His ability to convey the content that leads from one visual portrait to another is where he lacks. He's had some successes like 300. I think he did an awesome job telling FM's story.

BvS was exactly what I feared it would be...a bloated movie that kinda gets in its own way simply because it tries to do too much. It simultaneously tried to introduce:

Batman
Wonder Woman
Luthor
Steppenwolf
Flash
Cyborg
Aquaman
Alfred
Doomsday
a possible apocalyptic future
the most epic battle in comic book history
the most epic death in comic book history
the scheme to pit BvS
the plot to make them friends
etc, etc...

I still watch it when it's on. It's not like Phantom Menace bad...not even close. It just had the potential to be so much better had they just tried to roll the universe out in a much more controlled burn type of way. Instead, they went nuclear!

WB: "Toss it all in there!!!"
Snyder: "Right now?"
WB: "He|| yeah! We gotta catch up with Disney/Marvel!"
Snyder: "In one movie?"
WB: "He|| Yeah!!!

 

[Azrael23]

They could have used the Doomsday plot as the reason for an alliance during a more natural and slower reduction in hostilities between them. Instead of 'I'm gonna kill you' to 'I'm a friend of your sons' 10 minutes later. The whole Doomsday and death of Superman story needed to be properly fleshed out, not crammed into the last 30 minutes of a Batman v Superman movie.

That said I do still love watching the movie we got in spite of the flaws. Ben is easily my favourite live action Batman. Visually Snyder borders on genius and I do love many of his ideas but its undeniable that he isn't a great story teller. It shouldn't take an extended cut to make a movie coherent, as director he has to take responsibility for that.

I believe the remark "I'm a friend of your son" was more or less designed to put Martha at
ease given the context of the situation she was in. A woman being held hostage by armed human traffickers
By simply stating that he was a "friend of her son" he's merely driving home the point that he's there to help her.
This line gets far more scrutiny than it truly should.

 

[Azrael23]

BvS was exactly what I feared it would be...a bloated movie that kinda gets in its own way simply because it tries to do too much. It simultaneously tried to introduce:

Batman
Wonder Woman
Luthor
Steppenwolf
Flash
Cyborg
Aquaman
Alfred
Doomsday
a possible apocalyptic future
the most epic battle in comic book history
the most epic death in comic book history
the scheme to pit BvS
the plot to make them friends
etc, etc...

Except it really wasn't trying to accomplish all of that. Most of those were simply fan service cameos.
Granted I feel that there could have been far more organic ways to visually convey the existence of meta-humans,
but the cameos doesn't anchor the film in any way. The only characters that required any real introduction was
Batman and through him we come to know Alfred. Luthor would be next and to an even lesser extent WW. Those
are the key players. Justice League is designed to officially introduce those contained on your list.

 

[CollectionObsession]

Yeah, if Hot toys can make a blue China porcelain Stormtrooper why can they make a blue variant Batman?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[SilverStar17]

I believe the remark "I'm a friend of your son" was more or less designed to put Martha at
ease given the context of the situation she was in. A woman being held hostage by armed human traffickers
By simply stating that he was a "friend of her son" he's merely driving home the point that he's there to help her.
This line gets far more scrutiny than it truly should.

Except it really wasn't trying to accomplish all of that. Most of those were simply fan service cameos.
Granted I feel that there could have been far more organic ways to visually convey the existence of meta-humans,
but the cameos doesn't anchor the film in any way. The only characters that required any real introduction was
Batman and through him we come to know Alfred. Luthor would be next and to an even lesser extent WW. Those
are the key players. Justice League is designed to officially introduce those contained on your list.

My sentiments as well.

Out of that list, I feel there were only four characters that were actually formally introduced: Batman, Lex Luthor, Alfred and Doomsday, with Doomsday being very loosely on there since he merely came and went. Although Doomsday is a quick character because the only purpose he serves in the canon is to kill Superman, and he did exactly that. There doesn't need to be some grand buildup with him, in my opinion.

Wonder Woman appeared in it, but I consider it more to be a glorified cameo because the background on the character wasn't really established; that's what the solo WW film is for. There were subtle hints to this in the film, such as her telling Bruce, "I don't think you've ever known a woman like me," or the email with him asking her, "Who are you, where have you been?"