http://www.cinemablend.com/new/How-Fans-Trying-Remove-Zack-Snyder-From-Justice-League-121197.html (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/How-Fans-Trying-Remove-Zack-Snyder-From-Justice-League-121197.html)
QuoteWe're not sure if you've heard, but Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a somewhat divisive film. While lots of fans liked the film, and a metric zebraload of them went to see the movie over the weekend, critics have panned the film hard and lots of fans are equally upset. However, regardless of the film's critical appeal, or even its overall box office success, the DC cinematic universe is a thing that's happening, and Zack Snyder is in charge of that show. That is apparently something that many fans feel is one step too far. There have been not simply one, but two petitions started on Change.org to request the removal of Zack Snyder from the franchise.
One petition is based in the United States and specifically requests that another director be found to handle the Justice League movie. This petition seems to be focused on the idea that regardless of your overall feeling toward Man of Steel or Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, that it would be better to have a director who does not divide the fans quite so divisively. It claims that the building blocks are there to make a great film, simply that Snyder is not the one to do it. This petition is close to hitting its 500 signature goal as of this writing.
The second petition is based out of India and actually requests that Zack Snyder be removed from the DCEU entirely by Warner Brothers. This petition makes a point to compliment Snyder's ability to create stunning visuals but does so as a counterpoint toward its view that he "cannot tell a story." This petition is currently sitting at just short of 230 signatures as of writing.
The most interesting about each of these petitions is that they were both started six days ago, meaning both began prior to the actual release of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Having said that, each appears to have received most of their support over the last couple of days, meaning that while the petition creators may have had an ax to grind, those signing it may be doing so due to an honest feeling after seeing the most recent movie. The other problem, of course, is that there's really no way Warner Brothers would pull Zack Snyder off of Justice League right now. Even if they were inclined to do so, the execs at WB are all currently swimming through cash Scrooge McDuck style thanks to one of the biggest opening weekends in history. In addition, Justice League: Part One is set to begin filming in just over a week. Pulling Snyder off now would bring that film to a crashing halt and force a rescheduling of the entire DCEU, which would kill whatever momentum Dawn of Justice actually has created for itself.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has done one thing remarkably well, without question. Whatever people thought of it, we're all still talking about and very invested in our feelings about it, as is made clear by those starting petitions about it. In the end, everybody seems to care about these movies, which is probably good news for their long-term success.
No doubt some posters here will consider me to be 'irresponsible' for reporting this item. ::) But as far as I know, this site has never been a Snyder fanzine, and if anything was originally intended to celebrate the Burton Batman films. Not to mention, some of the most prominent contributors to this site have reported what can only be described as a lukewarm response.
You would be the one too ignorant to understand what I meant by irresponsible in the other thread. I was talking about the Twitter account for the site posting negative stuff when it's meant to be a large community of voices but Paul corrected me by saying positive stuff and other reviews have been posted and I apologized accordingly. Nice try with the oh so subtle dig though. Not really.
Quote from: Catwoman on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 20:35
You would be the one too ignorant to understand what I meant by irresponsible in the other thread. I was talking about the Twitter account for the site posting negative stuff when it's meant to be a large community of voices but Paul corrected me by saying positive stuff and other reviews have been posted and I apologized accordingly. Nice try with the oh so subtle dig though. Not really.
Please stop trying to bait me. I didn't refer to you so there's no reason for you to make
assumptions and attack me.
Thank you. :)
Ray Charles in his current state could see that you were talking about/trying to bait me. Just like you've tried to bait TDK and Colors on "other" subjects. The only one you're fooling is yourself apparently, because you're delirious.
To bypass your regularly scheduled drama, allow me to say the fans whining and griping about Snyder's participation are mostly the same who did all in their power to assassinate the 2007-era Justice League movie. Piss off, I say.
They had petitions to get rid of Keaton, too. People can make petitions for anything. It doesn't make them valid.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 23:45They had petitions to get rid of Keaton, too. People can make petitions for anything. It doesn't make them valid.
It tends to raise the question of which WB should take more seriously:
A- A petition signed by a few thousand people.
B- Nearly half a billion dollars in just five days.
Tough choice, eh?
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 23:57
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 23:45They had petitions to get rid of Keaton, too. People can make petitions for anything. It doesn't make them valid.
It tends to raise the question of which WB should take more seriously:
A- A petition signed by a few thousand people.
B- Nearly half a billion dollars in just five days.
Tough choice, eh?
Checkmate. lol.
Yep - Money speaks all languages.
Got to give it to Snyder and WB/DC though. This film, while clearly divisive, was brave enough to do its own thing in contrast to the MCU. Totally different tone, atmosphere and themes. The reaction of the film basically reflects how Superman was treated in the film.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 23:57
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 23:45They had petitions to get rid of Keaton, too. People can make petitions for anything. It doesn't make them valid.
It tends to raise the question of which WB should take more seriously:
A- A petition signed by a few thousand people.
B- Nearly half a billion dollars in just five days.
Tough choice, eh?
And don't forget 28% of critics like it. :)
This reminds me of the pathetic attempt to get Ben Affleck fired from playing Batman as soon as the casting was announced three years ago. Where are those idiots now?
I think it's disgusting that people are so petty and worked up over a movie that they have to start a petition to demand someone getting fired, when they could've used all that energy working on a petition on things that actually matter in the world. I'm not the biggest Snyder fan out there, but if I had a choice, I'd rather advocate human and animal rights than demanding the JL movie to be directed by someone else.
These people need to get their priorities sorted out.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 12:18
This reminds me of the pathetic attempt to get Ben Affleck fired from playing Batman as soon as the casting was announced three years ago. Where are those idiots now?
I think I signed that one lol. I can't speak for the location of other idiots. Except one. But yeah you're totally right re: priorities
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 12:18
This reminds me of the pathetic attempt to get Ben Affleck fired from playing Batman as soon as the casting was announced three years ago. Where are those idiots now?
That was pathetic!
Affleck has now proven himself to be a great Batman, which is what I actually suspected from the start (glad I was right about that one too! :) )
How can you do a petition before one has even had a chance to see whether something can work is beyond me...at least the new petition is a response to what Snyder has already done with his JLA films, not that I'm saying it will work or is remotely worthwhile, but certainly far more logical and reasonable than the 'get Affleck off BvS' one.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 23:02
To bypass your regularly scheduled drama, allow me to say the fans whining and griping about Snyder's participation are mostly the same who did all in their power to assassinate the 2007-era Justice League movie. Piss off, I say.
No need to be hostile. :) I'm just reporting the facts.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 14:43Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 23:02To bypass your regularly scheduled drama, allow me to say the fans whining and griping about Snyder's participation are mostly the same who did all in their power to assassinate the 2007-era Justice League movie. Piss off, I say.
No need to be hostile. :) I'm just reporting the facts.
I said I was bypassing the drama. Makey sense?
And my jab was directed at people who derailed Justice League back in 2007. If you feel indicted by that comment somehow, well, a fair question for you to ask yourself is why that might be.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 18:16
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 14:43Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 23:02To bypass your regularly scheduled drama, allow me to say the fans whining and griping about Snyder's participation are mostly the same who did all in their power to assassinate the 2007-era Justice League movie. Piss off, I say.
No need to be hostile. :) I'm just reporting the facts.
I said I was bypassing the drama. Makey sense?
And my jab was directed at people who derailed Justice League back in 2007. If you feel indicted by that comment somehow, well, a fair question for you to ask yourself is why that might be.
Cool. :)
I wasn't 100% sure about the last comment. But you've now confirmed that it wasn't directed at me, which is initially what I suspected, hence why I wasn't rude either. :)
So, sorry for any offence and all is cool from my end. :)
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 18:16
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 14:43Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 23:02To bypass your regularly scheduled drama, allow me to say the fans whining and griping about Snyder's participation are mostly the same who did all in their power to assassinate the 2007-era Justice League movie. Piss off, I say.
No need to be hostile. :) I'm just reporting the facts.
I said I was bypassing the drama. Makey sense?
And my jab was directed at people who derailed Justice League back in 2007. If you feel indicted by that comment somehow, well, a fair question for you to ask yourself is why that might be.
Wasn't David Boreanz supposed to be Batman in that? I remember there was controversey but I can't remember what but I think he could have been good.
Armie Hammer, actually.
Who? lol
Quote from: Catwoman on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 20:26Who? lol
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=who+is+armie+hammer%3F
Yes, whatever else one says about BvS, one can be very thankful that Snyder and co cast Ben Affleck, a great choice, as Batman.
He's infinitely superior to all the other candidates associated with the films post-Bale.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 23:57It tends to raise the question of which WB should take more seriously:
A- A petition signed by a few thousand people.
B- Nearly half a billion dollars in just five days.
Tough choice, eh?
More than anything, they should take seriously whether or not the product is quality.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 00:04Yep - Money speaks all languages.
Got to give it to Snyder and WB/DC though. This film, while clearly divisive, was brave enough to do its own thing in contrast to the MCU. Totally different tone, atmosphere and themes. The reaction of the film basically reflects how Superman was treated in the film.
Atmosphere and tone are basically the same thing. The themes aren't much different than some MCU products. It's basically a nonsense film either way. Like AOU. Only that was dumb with insane things in it, while this was insane with dumb things in it. Have a very great day both of you!
God bless you both! God bless everyone!
Do you not like the MCU Dagenspear? And are you only a fan of the Christopher Nolan films?
Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 23:10
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 23:57It tends to raise the question of which WB should take more seriously:
A- A petition signed by a few thousand people.
B- Nearly half a billion dollars in just five days.
Tough choice, eh?
More than anything, they should take seriously whether or not the product is quality.
If it was made for fans and the fans are (more often than not) responding positively, I'd say it's quality.
The critic response doesn't matter. This was never going to be an Oscar winner, so I doubt they are worried about impressing the people who get paid to watch and critique movies (someone here used to have a siggy I loved that said something about critics being someone who criticized the work of others that they themselves couldn't create or something like that). They wanted to impress the people with Batman posters on the walls or Superman pajamas in the drawer and everyone else with emotional attachment to the characters. Not all, they were never going to appeal to all of them because the characters have too big of a scope, but they wanted to get the majority at least.
Mission accomplished from what I've seen. Just one girl's opinion, though. God bless you and have a great day and all of that too. :)
Quote from: Catwoman on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 23:20If it was made for fans and the fans are (more often than not) responding positively, I'd say it's quality.
The critic response doesn't matter. This was never going to be an Oscar winner, so I doubt they are worried about impressing the people who get paid to watch and critique movies (someone here used to have a siggy I loved that said something about critics being someone who criticized the work of others that they themselves couldn't create or something like that). They wanted to impress the people with Batman posters on the walls or Superman pajamas in the drawer and everyone else with emotional attachment to the characters. Not all, they were never going to appeal to all of them because the characters have too big of a scope, but they wanted to get the majority at least.
Mission accomplished from what I've seen. Just one girl's opinion, though. God bless you and have a great day and all of that too. :)
Fans liking something doesn't make it great. Have a very great day again!
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Well, whether something is great is surely subjective, isn't it?
It's a shame that many critics dislike BvS, and I'd hope that Snyder or whoever is in charge on the next movie, will address some of the criticisms, but tbf to posters like Catwoman and colors, the critics' opinions are no more valid than ordinary cinemagoers and fans' opinions.
I might happen to agree with the critics on most (although not all) occasions but what counts is whether BvS pleases large numbers of people, not whether it satisfies critics per se.
At the end of the day, the studios primary goal is not to appease the critics but maximize profits. Fan reception is strong, the cash is rolling in. In a way the critic backlash could be a positive thing as many people who hate critics and their bias are using this film as vehicle to rebel against the critics.
Quote from: riddler on Thu, 31 Mar 2016, 15:55
At the end of the day, the studios primary goal is not to appease the critics but maximize profits. Fan reception is strong, the cash is rolling in. In a way the critic backlash could be a positive thing as many people who hate critics and their bias are using this film as vehicle to rebel against the critics.
I hope not. Otherwise we can look forward to a rash of Transformers sequels and Adam Sandler 'comedies'. ::)
I know people like to trash the critics, but I do find that they're often right and put pressure on filmmakers to maintain a minimum standard.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 31 Mar 2016, 17:25
]I hope not. Otherwise we can look forward to a rash of Transformers sequels and Adam Sandler 'comedies'. ::)
BvS is nowhere near that level of quality. Don't be fooled by the Tomato Meter.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 1 Apr 2016, 03:17
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 31 Mar 2016, 17:25
]I hope not. Otherwise we can look forward to a rash of Transformers sequels and Adam Sandler 'comedies'. ::)
BvS is nowhere near that level of quality. Don't be fooled by the Tomato Meter.
Just to be clear, I wasn't attacking BvS here. I as referring to this worrying statement "In a way the critic backlash could be a positive thing as many people who hate critics and their bias are using this film as vehicle to rebel against the critics."
Even if BvS is in fact a good film, I just hope people aren't flocking to see to give critics the finger. Like I said before, the critics are often right IMHO.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 1 Apr 2016, 09:25
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 1 Apr 2016, 03:17
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 31 Mar 2016, 17:25
]I hope not. Otherwise we can look forward to a rash of Transformers sequels and Adam Sandler 'comedies'. ::)
BvS is nowhere near that level of quality. Don't be fooled by the Tomato Meter.
Just to be clear, I wasn't attacking BvS here. I as referring to this worrying statement "In a way the critic backlash could be a positive thing as many people who hate critics and their bias are using this film as vehicle to rebel against the critics."
Even if BvS is in fact a good film, I just hope people aren't flocking to see to give critics the finger. Like I said before, the critics are often right IMHO.
But not here. I'm at the front of the line, holding a banner saying 'F the critics'.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 1 Apr 2016, 09:52
But not here. I'm at the front of the line, holding a banner saying 'F the critics'.
Yes. I've often find myself disagreeing with critics, even if somebody liked the same movie I as I did because they give it a good review for the wrong reasons. Most of the time, they tend to write on things that aren't actually there instead reviewing the actual movie.
A week ago, some critic wrote this scathing headline that read "After watching Batman v Superman, you will hate Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, and the rest of the Justice League". I knew it was complete sensationalist bullsh*t before I saw the movie myself, and I certainly didn't see the characters doing anything to deserve such scorn. I'll admit that I found a lot of plot points involving Superman that left me scratching my head, but nothing too contemptible.
It's too bad because critics had been praising comic book movies with the Nolan trilogy, most of the MCU films and even deadpool (a film I was sure they'd hate). Maybe this was a manner of 'settling the score'.
Without wishing to offend anyone here, I am concerned about an increasing anti-elitist tendency among society at the moment. And I don't mean 'elitism' in terms of wealth and privilege, but the good type of 'elitism' (i.e. intellectualism and cultural understanding) Giving relatively high-brow critics the middle finger strikes me as part of this reactionary thinking. One doesn't have to agree with the critics, but perhaps instead of saying 'F you' to them, one could try to understand where some of them are coming from rather than simply dismissing their arguments out of hand.
Also, whilst we're on the subject of criticism, can anyone explain to me why Snyder seems so keen to kill off various main important DC characters only two films into what is presumably meant to be a long-running extended universe (thus spoiling things for any other filmmaker who wants to deal with those characters later on down the line)? Unless of course this Extended Universe is only intended to last a few films before another we see another reboot (i.e. one helmed by someone who actually has respect for characters like Jimmy Olsen, Mercy Graves and Robin)? :)
I see the backlash as people protesting the critics giving their reviews based on personal agendas instead of rating movies bases on their intended value- entertainment factor. It's been known for years that critics will typically praise boring movies while not praising good movies based on perception (ie dumb and dumber which some consider the funniest film of all time was trashed when it came out). This film happens to be an extreme of it.
So in a nutshell people who loved this film are flipping off critics for saying its terrible. There needs to be awareness drawn to avoid people trusting reviews; and it's happening some people were initially scared off by critical reviews.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 1 Apr 2016, 20:54
I see the backlash as people protesting the critics giving their reviews based on personal agendas instead of rating movies bases on their intended value- entertainment factor. It's been known for years that critics will typically praise boring movies while not praising good movies based on perception (ie dumb and dumber which some consider the funniest film of all time was trashed when it came out). This film happens to be an extreme of it.
So in a nutshell people who loved this film are flipping off critics for saying its terrible. There needs to be awareness drawn to avoid people trusting reviews; and it's happening some people were initially scared off by critical reviews.
I thought 'Dumb and Dumber' got good reviews when it came out. I remember 'Empire' which has always been my primary source for reviews (it gave 'BvS' 3/5 by the way, so an average/'fresh' review on balance), gave 'Dumb and Dumber' 4/5 stars. Personally, I think 'Dumb and Dumber' is overrated, speaking as a Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels fan. It seemed to be the film that unfortunately heralded the era of the gross-out movie when mainstream comedies had hitherto been smart and witty like 'Groundhog Day', 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels' and 'A Fish Called Wanda'. After 'Dumb and Dumber' we were inundated with a flood of 'Scary Movie', 'Nutty Professor: The Klumps' and 'Me, Myself and Irene' gross-out type trash, and with films like 'Grimsby' and the latest Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer crap, we're still lumbered with these nasty 'comedies'.
As far as I'm concerned, most critics don't have an agenda. They just prefer films that are life-affirming and positive rather than destructive and misanthropic. I commend the critics for championing films that aren't nihilistic and empty, but are either smart and profound or at least funny and warm.
Quote
They just prefer films that are life-affirming and positive rather than destructive and misanthropic.
If that's true, they would never have liked Christopher Nolan's Batman, or something like Full Metal Jacket, which I like a lot, but I definitely wouldn't say it's uplifting to watch. Hell, even Batman Returns is not something I'd describe as uplifting to watch either.
As I said before, I've never taken the critics into account because I've often disagreed with what they say when they review something. Especially if they write a description that's completely unwarranted as that critic did in that BvS review I mentioned earlier on. While I won't go far to say they have an agenda, I often wonder to myself if they actually watch the same movies as I did. So no, I don't find a lot of them to be thought-provoking.
Besides, nothing is universally appreciated and let's face it, all directors take liberties from the source material when it comes to adapting comics for film. For instance, I enjoyed Iron Man 3 and I loved the Mandarin twist, and lots of critics did so too. But I can understand if somebody else who might be a dedicated Iron Man comic fan has a problem with Tony Stark's arch nemesis being reduced to being a made up disguise to hide the real terror threat - and a funny one at that. So who are the critics, and who am I for that matter, to say that their opinion should be disregarded, because they don't agree with the majority?
I know where the critics are coming from, and I simply disagree with them. Strongly. For BvS to have a subterranean critic score because they don't like its tone deserves a big 'F you'. If they can only enjoy colourful, laugh out loud comedies then they should be sacked. BvS is positive and thought provoking. Just because it's not to their taste doesn't mean the toys come out of the pram. Things that can easily be explained become apparent plot holes to some critics, and to me, it just comes off as reasons to hate the film. I really don't think they get it. The comics explain a lot of BvS, and Man of Steel. It's like the critics didn't bother to use their brain and focus on the narrative. Like TLF, you walk out wondering if we even saw the same movie.
QuoteWithout wishing to offend anyone here, I am concerned about an increasing anti-elitist tendency among society at the moment. And I don't mean 'elitism' in terms of wealth and privilege, but the good type of 'elitism' (i.e. intellectualism and cultural understanding) Giving relatively high-brow critics the middle finger strikes me as part of this reactionary thinking. One doesn't have to agree with the critics, but perhaps instead of saying 'F you' to them, one could try to understand where some of them are coming from rather than simply dismissing their arguments out of hand.
Can't say that I've seen it happen on this forum, but I've seen this in many places- many times when I see a beloved film getting bashed online, the common Internet rebuttal brings up critical praise and Rotten Tomatoes. But when the critics post bad reviews on a film they like, the online community goes into rants about how critics don't matter.
So I suppose they only do matter when they agree with them...
QuoteAs far as I'm concerned, most critics don't have an agenda.
Agreed. Far as I've seen, it's a matter of them not having the same tastes. But there is no actual agenda getting pushed against this film, I see zero evidence of there being some conspiracy of critics trying to take a film down. Especially considering Entertainment Weekly gave one of the bad reviews and both EW and Rotten Tomatoes are owned...by Warner. I guess the corporation has an agenda against itself then ;D
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 1 Apr 2016, 23:37
I know where the critics are coming from, and I simply disagree with them. Strongly. For BvS to have a subterranean critic score because they don't like its tone deserves a big 'F you'. If they can only enjoy colourful, laugh out loud comedies then they should be sacked. BvS is positive and thought provoking. Just because it's not to their taste doesn't mean the toys come out of the pram. Things that can easily be explained become apparent plot holes to some critics, and to me, it just comes off as reasons to hate the film. I really don't think they get it. The comics explain a lot of BvS, and Man of Steel. It's like the critics didn't bother to use their brain and focus on the narrative. Like TLF, you walk out wondering if we even saw the same movie.
I like you TDK, but I am getting a little wary of this argument, one which I've seen across the web from various sources that says 'if you don't like BvS you don't get it'. Maybe people just have different tastes. Surely we can all accept that, can't we?
And the negative response to 'Dumb and Dumber' pointed out by riddler goes to show that the critics don't necessarily gravitate towards 'colourful laugh our loud comedies'.
It'd be much better if you saw the film, so you can credibly comment on things.
What gets my goat, is the notion BvS is a stinking trainwreck playing with Halle Berry's Catwoman.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Fri, 1 Apr 2016, 23:55Agreed. Far as I've seen, it's a matter of them not having the same tastes. But there is no actual agenda getting pushed against this film, I see zero evidence of there being some conspiracy of critics trying to take a film down. Especially considering Entertainment Weekly gave one of the bad reviews and both EW and Rotten Tomatoes are owned...by Warner. I guess the corporation has an agenda against itself then ;D
Yes, I trust that EW's reviews are sincere.
I even have an old copy of EW, I bought from Ebay, that gives my beloved 'Batman Returns' a bad review. :( Still, it's their opinion and they're entitled to it, and at least I know it's genuine because like you say, wouldn't a Time-Warner publication have more of an interest in saying positive things about Batman Returns and BvS, as opposed to dismissing it?
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 2 Apr 2016, 00:01
It'd be much better if you saw the film, so you can credibly comment on things.
What gets my goat, is the notion BvS is a stinking trainwreck playing with Halle Berry's Catwoman.
;D Well, I'm probably not the best person to make such a comparison to seeing as I'm one of the few people in the entire world who actually kind of likes the Catwoman movie (mainly because I like Halle Berry and was rooting for her in the role, even if I was mostly disappointed with the results).
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 1 Apr 2016, 21:37If that's true, they would never have liked Christopher Nolan's Batman, or something like Full Metal Jacket, which I like a lot, but I definitely wouldn't say it's uplifting to watch. Hell, even Batman Returns is not something I'd describe as uplifting to watch either.
As I said before, I've never taken the critics into account because I've often disagreed with what they say when they review something. Especially if they write a description that's completely unwarranted as that critic did in that BvS review I mentioned earlier on. While I won't go far to say they have an agenda, I often wonder to myself if they actually watch the same movies as I did. So no, I don't find a lot of them to be thought-provoking.
Besides, nothing is universally appreciated and let's face it, all directors take liberties from the source material when it comes to adapting comics for film. For instance, I enjoyed Iron Man 3 and I loved the Mandarin twist, and lots of critics did so too. But I can understand if somebody else who might be a dedicated Iron Man comic fan has a problem with Tony Stark's arch nemesis being reduced to being a made up disguise to hide the real terror threat - and a funny one at that. So who are the critics, and who am I for that matter, to say that their opinion should be disregarded, because they don't agree with the majority?
Well, although Batman Returns has a 80% 'fresh' rating on Rotten Tomatoes, some of the contemporary reviews were quite scathing. Maybe BvS will undergo a similar rehabilitation in years to come.
As for Iron Man 3, I personally love that twist too, mainly because it was so well hidden from the public beforehand (these days it's very difficult to come to a film, particularly a blockbuster/CBM without knowing every single plot development inside-out half a year before its release), I got a giddy shock from wondering WTF was going on when 'The Mandarin' casually came out of the bathroom and informed his lady friends to give it a wide berth for a while (I'm sure even
genuine super-villains leave just as bad a smell as the rest of us when they use the bathroom, but it's not something that is ever commented upon in films/TV shows), the twist was smart, funny, subversive and a great commentary on the terrorist bogeymen that keeps the industrial-military-complex going, and best of all it allowed the brilliant Sir Ben Kingsley a chance to play comedy (which he is excellent at, as anyone who's seen him as the terrifying yet hilarious 'Don Logan' in Sexy Beast would know). And it was an example of having one's cake and eating it by giving us the standard Mandarin during the first half of the film via the sinister terrorist broadcasts.
All that said, if you're going to subvert a popular comic-book character it's important to do something fresh and interesting with them. I am of the opinion this was definitely the case with The Mandarin, but it probably also helps that I was never a big Marvel/Avengers comic-book fan so I don't feel particularly precious about these characters. By contrast I do feel much more protective of characters like Superman, Lex Luthor and Batman, and in terms of Marvel, Spider-Man, the X-Men and The Fantastic Four.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 2 Apr 2016, 00:01
It'd be much better if you saw the film, so you can credibly comment on things.
Ding ding ding.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 2 Apr 2016, 00:05
I'm one of the few people in the entire world who actually kind of likes the Catwoman movie
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d3/eb/66/d3eb66862a4dd2c0d407203f4d838b13.jpg)
Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 2 Apr 2016, 00:42
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 2 Apr 2016, 00:01
It'd be much better if you saw the film, so you can credibly comment on things.
Ding ding ding.
No need to be rude. And I haven't commented on the film's quality. I've only reported the facts of what others are saying. I don't need to have seen the film to report that.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 2 Apr 2016, 01:43
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 2 Apr 2016, 00:05
I'm one of the few people in the entire world who actually kind of likes the Catwoman movie
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d3/eb/66/d3eb66862a4dd2c0d407203f4d838b13.jpg)
Hey, we're all entitled to our opinions aren't we? [giveup]
That's what this whole discussion is about. :)
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 2 Apr 2016, 02:06
Hey, we're all entitled to our opinions aren't we? [giveup]
Oh, I'm not judging you...
(https://media.giphy.com/media/DLdhlyk2RI8Kc/giphy.gif)
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 2 Apr 2016, 02:06That's what this whole discussion is about. :)
There are dark recesses of the human heart that should remain unilluminated, some shameful secrets which should never be shared
avec tout le monde. For example, I kind of like Sir Roger Moore best as James Bond, but I would never openly admit to something so shameful on a public message board like this. That's one dark secret I'll take to my grave, and none of you will ever learn of it.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 2 Apr 2016, 12:11
There are dark recesses of the human heart that should remain unilluminated, some shameful secrets which should never be shared avec tout le monde. For example, I kind of like Sir Roger Moore best as James Bond, but I would never openly admit to something so shameful on a public message board like this. That's one dark secret I'll take to my grave, and none of you will ever learn of it.
;D
Well, Timothy Dalton was my favourite pre-Daniel Craig. :-[
At the end of the day we all have to decide how we like these films and make peace with that fact. If the Batman franchise has taught fans anything it's that a new vision is not always in lockstep with the general public. And quite honestly when I look at movies that I personally like, they're all over the place in terms of a general crowd liking them with me or I myself feeling like the only person on the planet who enjoyed it. So I don't feel like I need validation from a crowd around me to like something. I trust my own instincts and let the outside world fall where it may.
So honestly the more I hear about conspiracies and broad-stroking "the critics" as one mass body of sheep out to "get" this film, I really have to shake my head at the insecurity of those statements. WHO CARES? If you like the film, LIKE IT. If you hold so little regard for these "critics" then why are you validating their scorn by obsessing over them? Because you must want their validation. It's a movie made by a divisive director. Well... guess what? He got a divisive reaction. In terms of box office, it's second weekend plunge is besting B&R and is just barely above that movie in terms of audience opinion. So this idea that the critics are out of lockstep is pretty outrageous given the evidence of it's collapse not only domestically but on a global scale.
But none of that really means a thing if you like the movie. Enjoy this film if that's your pleasure. We all have our personal best list and I'm sure many of those films are not critical darlings. This is not a new experience. Like others have said, maybe this film will find it's audience years later like other Batman films have. But right now, in terms of the studio looking forward, they have to consider the huge drop in business and what that means for their future projects. Whether we agree with their direction or not will not impact anything we personally do, least of all our checking account. They're in this to make money, so any indicators that suggest that could be a problem are on the table for review.
BTW, the Suicide Squad is now having new scenes filmed to lighten the tone of that picture. So the impact of this film is being felt far and wide on the WB lot. But no matter how this plays out, I'm a big believer that you have to have enough faith in how you see these films to be satisfied at that level. Opinions evolve over time and perhaps one day this film will find mass consensus, but for now it's hit a few bumps in the road. So what? Enjoy it while it's in theaters and look forward to the endless variations I'm sure they will put out on Blu Ray and DVD to recoup their investment in the aftermarket.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 4 Apr 2016, 09:39
the Suicide Squad is now having new scenes filmed to lighten the tone of that picture.
No, that's not the reason for the reshoots.
Indeed. It's a myth that is being perpetuated, mainly to prove BvS has been a failure and WB are reactionary.
I'm hoping Eisenberg does appear in SS. That would really get the connective tissue going with the new universe.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Mon, 4 Apr 2016, 11:40
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 4 Apr 2016, 09:39
the Suicide Squad is now having new scenes filmed to lighten the tone of that picture.
No, that's not the reason for the reshoots.
Here's the article.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwja0trM-fTLAhVFVyYKHVroAhoQqQIIHDAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nydailynews.com%2Fentertainment%2Fsuicide-squad-reshooting-scenes-add-humor-article-1.2587155&usg=AFQjCNE5Md_zIFa3XPPvpOz3Gt5cHKAJ8w
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 4 Apr 2016, 11:43I'm hoping Eisenberg does appear in SS. That would really get the connective tissue going with the new universe.
In that case I suppose I'll have to miss SS too. :-\ Which would be a shame because it looks good, otherwise.
The fact is Eisenberg's performance has been universally savaged throughout the web and people are already talking about Razzie nominations. I'm genuinely pleased for you and others if you managed to get something from his bastardisation of Lex, but I'm afraid to say, by all accounts you're in the minority, and with a massive 80% second weekend drop or so (so much for the critics being the ones who damaged BvS's BO chances...), WB simply cannot afford to keep putting out divisive DCEU movies. Eisenberg's performance/characterisation being one of the most divisive elements of BvS (with even many fans of the film, including various posters here, saying he was by far the weakest element), it would be utter insanity on WB's part to bring him back. It's now time they started listening to the criticisms (not the
critics...but the criticisms, from genuine DC fans and regular audience-members).
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Mon, 4 Apr 2016, 11:40
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 4 Apr 2016, 09:39
the Suicide Squad is now having new scenes filmed to lighten the tone of that picture.
No, that's not the reason for the reshoots.
Hey Paul, I read that you said there might have been reshoots booked to accomodate actors' schedules, but I can't see the link to that anywhere. Do you know where you got that information from?
Quote
So honestly the more I hear about conspiracies and broad-stroking "the critics" as one mass body of sheep out to "get" this film, I really have to shake my head at the insecurity of those statements. WHO CARES? If you like the film, LIKE IT. If you hold so little regard for these "critics" then why are you validating their scorn by obsessing over them? Because you must want their validation. It's a movie made by a divisive director. Well... guess what? He got a divisive reaction.
As someone who thought that the film is merely okay and normally not too bothered by what critics say, I do sympathise with some of the fans who are getting frustrated over the negative reaction. I think it's extremely rich for people - whether it's critics or movie goers - to complain about the tone of BvS, but then praise nihilistic crap like The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. That, and some of the negative reviews that I noticed are unnecessarily vitriolic and sensational beyond belief. I can understand if anybody thought the film felt short of the mark because they thought the plot wasn't up to scratch, the pacing was sloppy, or even if they thought characters were underused or whatever. But as I already said, there have been some bad reviews that went overboard. BvS, in my opinion, definitely could've and should've been better, but it's nowhere near this disaster that it's being made out to be.
Quote
The fact is Eisenberg's performance has been universally savaged throughout the web and people are already talking about Razzie nominations.
If that is true, well, that's absolutely ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. And this is coming from somebody who wasn't even the biggest fan of that characterization. He wasn't my ideal of Lex either, but he did well for what he had, and he's not more of a bastardisation or deviation to the source material than TDK Joker (I don't care how critically acclaimed that take was), TDKR Bane or even BR's Penguin.
And no, I'm
NOT saying Eisenberg's Lex is better than DeVito's Penguin (and for that matter, and I'm not even saying he's better or worse than the other two aforementioned villains either). I just think this criticism against him is getting blown way out of proportion.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 4 Apr 2016, 12:58
If that is true, well, that's absolutely ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. And this is coming from somebody who wasn't even the biggest fan of that characterization. He wasn't my ideal of Lex either, but he did well for what he had, and he's not more of a bastardisation or deviation to the source material than TDK Joker (I don't care how critically acclaimed that take was), TDKR Bane or even BR's Penguin.
And no, I'm NOT saying Eisenberg's Lex is better than DeVito's Penguin (and for that matter, and I'm not even saying he's better or worse than the other two aforementioned villains either). I just think this criticism against him is getting blown way out of proportion.
Yep. I find it incredibly childish and pathetic to boycott a film and cite negative stories surrounding the DCU, parroting critic sentiment - when said person hasn't even seen the movie for themselves. And has no plan on ever seeing the movie. It's annoying to say the least. I actually saw the movie and EisenLex is far from a bastardisation. The ingredients are there. People may not like the characterisation, and that's entirely fine, but to call it a bastardisation is not worthy of reply. There are many interpretations of characters out there.
For all the criticisms levelled at this film, if it wasn't for Eisenberg's Lex Luthor (and from everything I've read and heard, surely he's more 'deserving' of a Razzie nomination that Danny DeVito ever was as The Penguin) I'd be much more willing to embrace the film for what it is. But turning Lex into a weedy, whiny, effeminate, insane kid with daddy issues, well not only is it a complete desecration of the character, but unlike the examples you give Laughing Fish, it's an utterly undignified characterisation that the rest of this Extended Universe is going to be unable to shift. At least as pathetic as DeVito's Penguin was, Burton, thanks to his affinity with life's outsiders and oddballs, gave him a few moments of pathos instead of simply turning him into an easy hate-figure for the alpha males and popular kids to rag on.
And for what it's worth, I do think some of the criticism being aimed at the overall film is possibly unfair, but I cannot accept this version of Lex (it makes it even worse that my hunch about him was right from the very moment he was cast) and at the very very least, I hope he will not be allowed to tarnish further DCEU films, so I can enjoy those...otherwise, I guess I'll just keep hoping for a swift reboot, which judging from the general negative audience reaction for this movie, and the 80% second weekend drop, may be sooner than I thought. :-X
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 4 Apr 2016, 13:41
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 4 Apr 2016, 12:58
If that is true, well, that's absolutely ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. And this is coming from somebody who wasn't even the biggest fan of that characterization. He wasn't my ideal of Lex either, but he did well for what he had, and he's not more of a bastardisation or deviation to the source material than TDK Joker (I don't care how critically acclaimed that take was), TDKR Bane or even BR's Penguin.
And no, I'm NOT saying Eisenberg's Lex is better than DeVito's Penguin (and for that matter, and I'm not even saying he's better or worse than the other two aforementioned villains either). I just think this criticism against him is getting blown way out of proportion.
Yep. I find it incredibly childish and pathetic to boycott a film and cite negative stories surrounding the DCU, parroting critic sentiment - when said person hasn't even seen the movie for themselves. And has no plan on ever seeing the movie. It's annoying to say the least. I actually saw the movie and EisenLex is far from a bastardisation. The ingredients are there. People may not like the characterisation, and that's entirely fine, but to call it a bastardisation is not worthy of reply. There are many interpretations of characters out there.
I'll ignore the nasty attacks on my character. :) And I'll simply say this, I don't see why I should have to see a film I know I'll most likely dislike because of its interpretation of a character I feel very strongly about...forcing someone to see this film would be
almost as absurd as forcing someone to eat Jolly Ranchers. ;)
And there are many interpretations of Lex out there but most, in fact all, of them have been superior to this. Everything I have so far read confirmed what I thought from the start, so I think it's unfair that I should have to see it for myself to have an opinion. That would simply be rubbing more salt into the wound after having been confirmed right. >:(
If this franchise is to continue and if I am to root for these films, as I'd like to, I only ask one thing: no more EisenLex. If it was a purely personal thing and there wasn't such universal vitriol towards his performance on practically every other site apart from perhaps this one, my personal feelings would, I confess, be entirely selfish...but the fact is, I am in the majority when it comes to EisenLex, and the very few supporters of the performance/characterisation (most of whom seem to have big reservations) are in the overwhelming minority...and Hollywood being a business should surely be catering to what sells. [giveup]
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 4 Apr 2016, 12:58
Quote
So honestly the more I hear about conspiracies and broad-stroking "the critics" as one mass body of sheep out to "get" this film, I really have to shake my head at the insecurity of those statements. WHO CARES? If you like the film, LIKE IT. If you hold so little regard for these "critics" then why are you validating their scorn by obsessing over them? Because you must want their validation. It's a movie made by a divisive director. Well... guess what? He got a divisive reaction.
As someone who thought that the film is merely okay and normally not too bothered by what critics say, I do sympathise with some of the fans who are getting frustrated over the negative reaction. I think it's extremely rich for people - whether it's critics or movie goers - to complain about the tone of BvS, but then praise nihilistic crap like The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. That, and some of the negative reviews that I noticed are unnecessarily vitriolic and sensational beyond belief. I can understand if anybody thought the film felt short of the mark because they thought the plot wasn't up to scratch, the pacing was sloppy, or even if they thought characters were underused or whatever. But as I already said, there have been some bad reviews that went overboard. BvS, in my opinion, definitely could've and should've been better, but it's nowhere near this disaster that it's being made out to be.
For me, I don't think it's so much about not sympathizing with fans who really liked the film, as much as measuring what they are reacting to. First, I think the Rotten Tomato system is incredibly flawed and I feel like fans of any film take these to heart way more than they should. Okay so it has a "rotten score" of 29%. But if you look at the OTHER rating system they have (where critics grade it 1-10), the film is averaging 5 out of 10 while the audience score has a 1 to 5 scale. So the site uses multiple grading systems which can contrast against one anther. Why give the audience 1 to 5 but critics get 1 to 10? And if you look at past films, their opening scores are not preserved so there is no historical context to apply to any film once it has a decade or more under it. Batman Forever was a hugely popular film but the site allows time and changing opinions to warp that number just as they take once unpopular films and make them "classics" today. So if there's no historical preservation then why even reference the site? It's just reflecting current attitudes controlled by parties inside that organization.
So when fans of a film get upset with these scores, I think that drives them to obsess over the really negative ones they find so there is some kind of "blame" to assign. I think that is a waste of time. For every over-the-top bad review, I find some really ridiculous good reviews that show a bias the other way. Should those get a pass just because it caters to the fans or should we be fair and throw out the high and low critiques and just look at the average? Allot of what I'm reading, good and bad, show plenty of reserves for the plot structure and the general motivation of the characters. Having finally seen it this past weekend, I can see all sides to this equation. I didn't dislike the film, but I was not overly fond of its pacing and moments of self-importance. I thought Wayne/Batman was more schizophrenic than heroic so his judgement was pretty diluted. And the "Martha" sequence that snapped Batman out of his deeply entrenched prejudices was fairly weak when weighed against his troubled psyche that was built over years of suffering in the role. But I liked the look of the movie, so I'll most likely end up enjoying this more in the aftermarket (especially with a director's cut that may fill in the blanks). I think the visuals are really what is selling it right now.
But, at the end of the day, it's the general public that anoints these films popular or not. Profitable? That's never even a question in the Batman franchise. The merchandising leg alone would most likely pay for this film along with the vendors who pay big money upfront for exclusive rights. Add in the DVD sales and this is why studios fight for licensing rights to these characters. So why anyone thinks there's a campaign to make this movie "look" unsuccessful is, to me, jumping to conclusions and making knee-jerk reactions without really seeing the bigger picture. WB will have their day in the financial sun. But moving forward they have to keep an audience to make other films because, without it, they lose those upfront deals with vendors and support dries up. So yes, changes will most likely have to happen to keep those financial backers on board for more films.
The business of BVS is acting very much like a front-loaded film where fans and the curious pile in opening weekend, but do not sustain the film after that initial viewing. And unlike some films that get one kind of reaction here at home but seem immune overseas, this film is dropping worldwide, so that is not something you ignore. There is clearly a problem with audiences and not just critics out to get revenge on the genre. Personally I think critics go pretty easy on films in this genre because they bring in such big business. So these movies have to really push some buttons to knock critics out of that cycle of passing the buck and saying nice things. Snyder is the kind of director that seems to relish that confrontation. Not necessarily the kind of guy you want building a new theatrical universe of classic licensed heroes.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 4 Apr 2016, 12:58As someone who thought that the film is merely okay and normally not too bothered by what critics say, I do sympathise with some of the fans who are getting frustrated over the negative reaction. I think it's extremely rich for people - whether it's critics or movie goers - to complain about the tone of BvS, but then praise nihilistic crap like The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. That, and some of the negative reviews that I noticed are unnecessarily vitriolic and sensational beyond belief. I can understand if anybody thought the film felt short of the mark because they thought the plot wasn't up to scratch, the pacing was sloppy, or even if they thought characters were underused or whatever. But as I already said, there have been some bad reviews that went overboard. BvS, in my opinion, definitely could've and should've been better, but it's nowhere near this disaster that it's being made out to be.
How is TDK/TDKRises nihilistic, when the hero ends up finding and having a strong meaning in life, to the point where he fulfills the hope of his father-figure and maintaining to the end that there should be people who do the right thing? Have a very great day!
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Hello Dagenspear.
I like your posts and I mostly agree with you about the Nolan films. I thought the end of TDKR, the film in the trilogy that I think gets the most undue hate, was particularly affecting. Perhaps the idea of Bruce quitting as Batman is understandably controversial to some, but I don't see how anyone can say his decision to have a normal life, free from the pain, bitterness and anger that clouded him for years, much to his surrogate father, Alfred's, joy is 'nihilistic'.
Likewise, with TDK, the ferry passengers' decision to 'disappoint' the Joker, and chose to preserve their humanity by refusing to detonate the other ferry, is one of the most life-affirming moments in comic-book movies. I figuratively cheered when the big scary-looking convict, played by Tiny Lister, threw the detonator out of the convicts' ferry.
But can I ask Dagenspear, what are your thoughts on the Burton Batman films? Do you only like TDK trilogy?
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 4 Apr 2016, 17:23Hello Dagenspear.
I like your posts and I mostly agree with you about the Nolan films. I thought the end of TDKR, the film in the trilogy that I think gets the most undue hate, was particularly affecting. Perhaps the idea of Bruce quitting as Batman is understandably controversial to some, but I don't see how anyone can say his decision to have a normal life, free from the pain, bitterness and anger that clouded him for years, much to his surrogate father, Alfred's, joy is 'nihilistic'.
Likewise, with TDK, the ferry passengers' decision to 'disappoint' the Joker, and chose to preserve their humanity by refusing to detonate the other ferry, is one of the most life-affirming moments in comic-book movies. I figuratively cheered when the big scary-looking convict, played by Tiny Lister, threw the detonator out of the convicts' ferry.
But can I ask Dagenspear, what are your thoughts on the Burton Batman films? Do you only like TDK trilogy?
Not at all. The Burton movies are some of the first Batman media I consumed. I'm even told that as a child, before I could read I could pick out the Batman 89 tape and want to watch it. I actually thank and praise God that I'm so well adjusted having watched Batman 89 and Batman Returns at such a young age, because honestly those movies can get a little freaky. That and the animated series definitely was what shaped Batman for me. TDKT just more refined Batman, specified him as an adaption for me. You'll rarely see me talk about the Burton films, because I'm usually reactive in discussion, not always, but quite a bit. It's why you see me mostly defend the Nolan films. And here, the Burton movies don't need much defending. I like the Schumacher movies and animated series too, as shocking as that may seem. Have a very great day!
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 4 Apr 2016, 23:10Not at all. The Burton movies are some of the first Batman media I consumed. I'm even told that as a child, before I could read I could pick out the Batman 89 tape and want to watch it. I actually thank and praise God that I'm so well adjusted having watched Batman 89 and Batman Returns at such a young age, because honestly those movies can get a little freaky. That and the animated series definitely was what shaped Batman for me. TDKT just more refined Batman, specified him as an adaption for me. You'll rarely see me talk about the Burton films, because I'm usually reactive in discussion, not always, but quite a bit. It's why you see me mostly defend the Nolan films. And here, the Burton movies don't need much defending. I like the Schumacher movies and animated series too, as shocking as that may seem. Have a very great day!
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Thank you for your answer.
I wasn't about to hate on you if you'd said you disliked the Burton films, although I might not want to be your friend. ;) But I'm still pleased you like them. :)
And like you, I tend to be quite reactive, which is why on the IMDb boards I used to feel compelled to defend the Burton films all the time, and why here, I probably feel more inclined now to speak up for the Nolan films, because I know that the Burton and Schumacher films are generally well liked among the members of this site.
No. To me, it's not about Batman quitting that's nihilistic. It's the fake, contradictory messages that's the problem.
It would be one thing if Nolan wanted to convey the message that people are inherently good - like Sam Raimi did in his Spider-Man movies. But don't show me moments of ugly human behavior i.e. people caving into Joker's demands by trying to kill Reese, and then expect me to believe a completely unrealistic and impossibly idealistic scenario where citizens AND convicts refuse to kill each other when their lives are in danger...AND then tell me that I should accept Batman making a decision that goes against everything he stood for.
If you ask me, I think it's quite rather rich of Batman to champion his belief in criminals doing the right thing, since he goes out of his way to fight them on a nightly basis because he knows they can't do the right thing! But having said that, I'd would've tolerated everything what was wrong about that boat scene if TDK's ending didn't have Batman framing himself for everything that Two-Face did. Him taking the blame for Two-Face not only betrays his intention to become an "incorruptible symbol" as he said in the first film, but it also undermines everything he said to the Joker about "people are ready to believe in good". If he truly believed that, he would've let the truth come out and give people the chance to prove yet again - the Joker was wrong. If that was the ending, I could've put up with the unrealistic and contradictory stuff that happened before, because Batman stayed true to what he believed in and Gotham repaid his faith one more time. THAT would've been inspirational and life-affirming. After all, if you're going to show that people - good and bad - have the strength to not kill each other as a sign of solidarity, then for God's sake, you must stay true to that message. If they can do that, then they can cope with the news that a lawyer became a murderer.
Instead, Batman and Gordon lie to everyone to protect a murderer because they were afraid that city would lose hope (despite the fact they were supposedly stronger than Joker gave them credit for at the end of that boat scene) and it enabled a legislation to give the entire town a false sense of security for eight years... which eventually backfired horribly when the truth came out, and leaves innocent people in grave danger. Not exactly very life-affirming, is it? I guess the Joker's bleak perspective about human nature was right after all?
Had Batman and Gordon told the truth, they definitely wouldn't have to carry a burden that could tear the city apart for eight years. Sure, Bane and Talia still would've taken over Gotham City, but at least Batman and Gordon wouldn't be responsible for making the situation worse. And if you argue the whole meaning of TDKR was saying that the cover-up was the wrong thing to do, then how the hell can you say TDK's ending was heroic and inspiring? To me, it was a hypocritical message that didn't ring true at all, and the director wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
Another thing, if the director wanted to convey the story that being Batman enabled Gotham City to clean itself up as a functional society, don't have John Blake or whoever take up the mantle from Bruce. Otherwise, it's like TDK's ending - you'll defeat the whole purpose. All that tells me is as long as a Batman is needed, Gotham will never be safe.
For all the things I could list down what disappointed me about BvS, the ending where ***SPOILER*** Superman sacrifices his own life to stop Doomsday is inspirational as he not only saves the planet, but he allows Batman and Wonder Woman to come out of their shell and carry on his legacy. That's far more uplifting than any Nolan ending could ever offer, to me.
Besides, in case if somebody accuses me or anybody else others of being negative or wanting to hate a movie, the same thing can be said about the accusers for not liking something either. It's not very nice, is it?
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 5 Apr 2016, 10:20
No. To me, it's not about Batman quitting that's nihilistic. It's the fake, contradictory messages that's the problem.
It would be one thing if Nolan wanted to convey the message that people are inherently good - like Sam Raimi did in his Spider-Man movies. But don't show me moments of ugly human behavior i.e. people caving into Joker's demands by trying to kill Reese, and then expect me to believe a completely unrealistic and impossibly idealistic scenario where citizens AND convicts refuse to kill each other when their lives are in danger...AND then tell me that I should accept Batman making a decision that goes against everything he stood for.
People aren't inherently good and people aren't inherently bad. The movie provides two examples of society. That's not a contradiction. It's just a fact. Batman stood for trying to rid the city of corruption. What he does doesn't go against that. If anything, he found himself to be a corruptive force, which he says in the movie. But even if it had, that isn't nihilism.
QuoteIf you ask me, I think it's quite rather rich of Batman to champion his belief in criminals doing the right thing, since he goes out of his way to fight them on a nightly basis because he knows they can't do the right thing! But having said that, I'd would've tolerated everything what was wrong about that boat scene if TDK's ending didn't have Batman framing himself for everything that Two-Face did. Him taking the blame for Two-Face not only betrays his intention to become an "incorruptible symbol" as he said in the first film, but it also undermines everything he said to the Joker about "people are ready to believe in good". If he truly believed that, he would've let the truth come out and give people the chance to prove yet again - the Joker was wrong. If that was the ending, I could've put up with the unrealistic and contradictory stuff that happened before, because Batman stayed true to what he believed in and Gotham repaid his faith one more time. THAT would've been inspirational and life-affirming. After all, if you're going to show that people - good and bad - have the strength to not kill each other as a sign of solidarity, then for God's sake, you must stay true to that message. If they can do that, then they can cope with the news that a lawyer became a murderer.
You say this every time, and I always reply with the fact that Batman says very specifically that people are ready to believe in good. Not that they are good or that they already believe in it, but that they're ready to. And Bruce saw Harvey Dent as the catalyst for that belief. He was wrong of course. But that's apart of his character arc in the movie, his belief that Batman is a negative thing.
QuoteInstead, Batman and Gordon lie to everyone to protect a murderer because they were afraid that city would lose hope (despite the fact they were supposedly stronger than Joker gave them credit for at the end of that boat scene) and it enabled a legislation to give the entire town a false sense of security for eight years... which eventually backfired horribly when the truth came out, and leaves innocent people in grave danger. Not exactly very life-affirming, is it? I guess the Joker's bleak perspective about human nature was right after all?
That's not something that could have been predicted. The Joker's bleak false outlook was never proven right. When Bane took over the city, only the criminals and already bad people did bad things. The people who weren't them hid from it and/or did their best to help.
QuoteHad Batman and Gordon told the truth, they definitely wouldn't have to carry a burden that could tear the city apart for eight years. Sure, Bane and Talia still would've taken over Gotham City, but at least Batman and Gordon wouldn't be responsible for making the situation worse. And if you argue the whole meaning of TDKR was saying that the cover-up was the wrong thing to do, then how the hell can you say TDK's ending was heroic and inspiring? To me, it was a hypocritical message that didn't ring true at all, and the director wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
It being heroic isn't taken away because it ends up being realized as something that ultimately didn't work out. That's like saying you might as well not fight crime, because crime in this human life will always exist. What's the point if there will be more to come? The action of stopping a crime is no less good just because more will come.
QuoteAnother thing, if the director wanted to convey the story that being Batman enabled Gotham City to clean itself up as a functional society, don't have John Blake or whoever take up the mantle from Bruce. Otherwise, it's like TDK's ending - you'll defeat the whole purpose. All that tells me is as long as a Batman is needed, Gotham will never be safe.
No place in this human life will every be safe. People willing to help will always be needed. It would be a lie to say otherwise.
QuoteFor all the things I could list down what disappointed me about BvS, the ending where ***SPOILER*** Superman sacrifices his own life to stop Doomsday is inspirational as he not only saves the planet, but he allows Batman and Wonder Woman to come out of their shell and carry on his legacy. That's far more uplifting than any Nolan ending could ever offer, to me.
Besides, in case if somebody accuses me or anybody else others of being negative or wanting to hate a movie, the same thing can be said about the accusers for not liking something either. It's not very nice, is it?
The same could be said of your reactions to things as well. That sacrifice is just as heroic as Batman taking the fall for Dent or Batman willing to potentially die to save the city. But I would say people find more nihilism in that Superman has to die to bring those characters out of their shells. But that may just be my personal opinion. Have a very great day!
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Fri, 1 Apr 2016, 23:55
Far as I've seen, it's a matter of them not having the same tastes. But there is no actual agenda getting pushed against this film, I see zero evidence of there being some conspiracy of critics trying to take a film down.
Considering these critics have increased their hypocrisy and vitriol against Snyder over time, even after he stood down from post-production from Justice League because of family issues, I'm afraid this statement hasn't aged very well at all.
A lot has changed ever since this petty little petition came out. Justice League was thrown into disarray because of malicious studio politics, and yet, we saw a passionate fandom made their voices heard to ensure the true version of the movie to come out, which it finally did this year. As soon as general consensus agreed that Snyder's vision was considered to be far superior than Josstice L, we saw a record breaking 1.5M tweets for the #RestoreTheSnyderVerse hashtag a week after the cut came out - beating Avengers Endgame. Such a scenario would've been unthinkable back in 2016.
On top of that, I mentioned elsewhere that Eternals directer Chloe Zhao cited MOS as an inspiration. So naturally, the Snyder faithful reacts by trending with the tweet "Zack Snyder is the blueprint" all day.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDizobpWUAIOuHX?format=jpg)
As I said elsewhere, it's ironic that Warner Butchers are envious of the Marvel formula and still resist doing anything else with Snyder, yet we have an MCU film by his work.
I don't think history will recall the level of influence Snyder exerted over the MCU. Civil War was basically a preemptive response to BVS. The character dynamics of Civil War colored Cap and Iron Man's relationship for the remainder of their time in the MCU.
But it is true that when people talk about and analyze the Comic Book Era Of Cinema from 1998 to 2019, Snyder has a pretty gigantic role to play. Watchmen, the DCEU, the DCEU's influence, etc. His fingerprints are on cinema's comic book era at least as much as Bryan Singer, Sam Raimi, Chris Nolan and so forth.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 7 Nov 2021, 05:35
I don't think history will recall the level of influence Snyder exerted over the MCU. Civil War was basically a preemptive response to BVS. The character dynamics of Civil War colored Cap and Iron Man's relationship for the remainder of their time in the MCU.
If you've read all the storyboard plans for the Justice League sequels, you will notice the original story arc for the remainder of the Snyderverse was very similar to what happened in Avengers Infinity War and Endgame. Come to think of it, I remember the Avengers sequels were initially subtitled Parts One and Two, and Justice League was originally subtitled Part One.
All I can say is none of that is a coincidence. There was blatant copycatting going on here.
FWIW, I heard Snyder came up with revised plans for the sequels should he ever get the greenlight to make them. At this point, all we can do is see how the Discovery merger turns out and hope for the best. The only hope fans have is if WarnerMedia international has recognised ZSJL as a global phenomenon then people outside of the US branch are aware of the potential.