Based on what you've seen and read, what is your synopsis of this movie?

[Wayne49]

I'm curious what the expectation are from everyone going in to see this movie. Do you feel the trailers have given you a fairly accurate expectation of the film? Are you drawing your conclusions from what you've seen in the trailers alone or do you feel you have read enough reports to connect the dots on how the film will unfold?  What percentage of story do you feel is going to be about one character or perhaps one conflict as indicated by the title? And do you feel this is going to heavily showcase many heroes as opposed to the three you mainly see in the trailers?

For myself, it appears the studios want me to believe we'll be getting a soft origin reboot with Batman (seen through flashbacks) as he tries to digest and determine the threat level of Superman's arrival. We will see the evolution of society upon Superman based on how they try to rationalize his purpose and meaning for the world. I'm assuming the statue is more memorial than just pure celebration of Superman since there were likely hundreds, if not thousands, of people who lost their lives.

I'm not convinced there will be allot of time spent between Batman and Superman fighting. I'm a bit concerned we've seen the bulk of it from trailers. When I think about it, any fight between those two can not last all that long. Superman will most likely dispose of him quickly during their first meeting, while the second standoff becomes more of a face-off once he  acquires Kryptonite and equals the playing field. But where do they go from there?

My thinking is Lex enters the picture with his Doomsday creation from Zod's body (which begs how he got his hands on him to begin with). From there it becomes more a story of Doomsday besting Superman initially only to see both Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman team up to defeat him. Any other heroes, I believe, will be more quick or subtle cameos with little or no background on them. I'm not sure how Aquaman will fit into any of this.

But because the film will need so much time to resolve conflicts, I think the character development and overall story will suffer for that and come off a little thin. But I think the studio is expecting leniency from the audience to be familiar with these characters and desire more of a rumble in the concrete jungle spectacle.

With Snyder directing, I expect Batman to have less of a morality code and operate more out of pure vengeance which means he will likely not care whether criminals live or die...A borderline "Comedian-type" of enjoyment with inflicting pain. I think Superman will play on a lighter tone because of how dark Snyder goes with Batman and that will give you the rub. Wonder Woman I have no idea. I don't know what social message she will bring to the table, but I'm confident Snyder will make it a talking point. So from a tone perspective, I expect the portrayals to be edgy and therefore divisive. How it will all play together I think will depend on how invested Snyder gets the audience in Batman. I believe he will drive the story. I hope there is some pathos to him to make the audience cheer for him, despite his shortcomings. That's what I'm guessing from the trailers and reports. What do you see?

[Wayne49]

Didn't pick this circle stumped for an assessment.

[Wayne49]

Now we have the wonderful news that Snyder will release an R-rated version of this film to DVD. One has to wonder when they can come out of the Marvel shadow and create their own direction. Such a shameless Deadpool nod.

[The Laughing Fish]

Now we have the wonderful news that Snyder will release an R-rated version of this film to DVD. One has to wonder when they can come out of the Marvel shadow and create their own direction. Such a shameless Deadpool nod.

I don't think this is a reaction to Deadpool. They must have filmed the R-rated material during production. The final cut for the movie should be finished by now since the release date is only a month away.

[Wayne49]

I think the timing of it is a very suspect. No one talks about their post theatrical endeavors when a movie hasn't even hit theaters yet. That's nothing but pure piggyback marketing off the hoopla over Deadpool being a hit and coming in as a rated R film. Plus some much needed perspective is required here. Deadpool is a big hit because of it's budget to gross ratio. This movie was made for $58 million. If this was a $300 million production, they would still be outside the profit margin and people would likely think the rated R style was not a viable approach. So my hope is Warner Bros doesn't go all 'Watchmen" on their DC license. That would be an enormous mistake.

[The Laughing Fish]

Keep in mind though that the R-rated version is just a choice. If people don't like it, it will only affect DVD sales for that cut. I really doubt that it's going to affect home video sales for the theatrical cut.
I'm more concerned over why there were R-rated scenes filmed in the first place. As I said elsewhere, I don't think Batman v Superman needs graphic violence to be "edgy". 

I don't think Watchmen is being inspired here storywise. I thought that book focused how superheroes are a failed concept politically and emotionally. I doubt that the DC heroes on film will be anywhere near as incompetent.

[Wayne49]

Hmmmm. I think Watchmen really explored how fallible people are, even those we place on a mantle. I thought that movie did a tremendous job of showing you the folly of placing too much power in the will of others. It really demonstrated that no matter what the intended purpose of a role model is, if we continue to hold them to an unreachable standard, they will eventually become corruptible under the weight and hypocrisy of that expectation. It's like Harvey Dent said in Dark Knight - 'You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain." I think there's allot of truth to that. And that is also why out of all of the characters in Watchmen, I liked the Comedian the best. It's not that I liked the vile acts he was committing, but he wore the guilt of that because he knew he could have or do just about anything he wanted because HE didn't have to answer to anyone in his personal life. The standard was something invented by society and he role played it. So in real life his moral compass ran amok because he knew it was all just a big lie. That's why he said this whole concept of a hero was just one big joke. He understood how corruptible everyone could be and that the only difference between the heroes and the villains was the costume.

And if you look at Snyder's movies his characters tend to be incredibly flawed individuals. Not to say that aspect of story telling is not engaging, because for something like the Watchmen it very much was. But I think when he went there with Man of Steel, he created a very divisive movie because, once again, we're talking about that mantle we place heroes on. Allot of people felt he didn't convey Superman in a "proper" profile. Allot of people felt he was too egotistical, too uncaring, and too self consumed.

I think those are the themes that are prevalent in Snyder's movies. They tend to be about people who inside resent the person they have to be on the outside. So it's going to be very interesting to see how that gets played in a  film like this where you have a unlimited degree of expectation from the ticket buyer. That was the original reason why I opened this thread, because I wanted to collect a general idea of what people honestly thought they would get from this movie. I think the no-show speaks for itself. Allot of people do not know for sure.

I went with my older brother to see Deadpool last night. He's 57, I'm 51. He's not a big fan of the hero genre but I convinced him this movie would be different. He loved it. We got something to eat after the movie and while we were talking, he asked me, "What is that Batman vs Superman movie about? I don't really understand what to think about that film. Why would those two be fighting?"  That right there told me plenty. The marketing catered only to that base who read comics or graphic novels that were aware of this history between the two heroes. To a laymen this doesn't play on that level, so this movie has an identity issue. Mix in Snyder's style of story telling along with Warner Bros saying there will be a R-rated version has people lost on the treatment. The other reason why that R-rated announcement was foolish? Because we all know how information can be dissimulated as it gets passed around. Some parents may get this information and believe the theatrical version is R-rated. You've just lost people at the ticket booth.

I think the marketing of this film has been a colossal failure regardless of how good it may or may not be. You can't be all things to all people. And the studio has been trying to do just that. First they showed the face off between Batman and Superman. Then they show society worshipping Superman while he whips Batman. Then they show Doomsday and a cameo by Wonder Woman. Then they leak news other superheroes will be in this film. Then the budget gets leaked and concerns with the execs. Then they say they're starting production on the Justice League spin off in a little over a month. Then Deadpool comes out as a unexpected hit as a rated R endeavor and Warner bros stands up and says, " By the way... we have a Rated R version coming to DVD too." What a mess. I wish this film would open tomorrow just so I don't have to listen to Warner Bros anymore!

We still have 29 freaking days until this movie is released yet this movie has been so top heavy on speculation, the movie feels almost like it's been out for a month. It's getting old. I love the Batman character, but I have to tell you, I'll be glad when this is over. Warner Bros has made too much pre-release news about this project and I don't believe it has benefitted them at all. Let the movie speak for itself. If it's done really well, it will make bank. If it's a mixed bag of ideas that work part of the time then we'll have a new discussion about how and why this film was marketed like this.

[The Dark Knight]

I think the title basically tells us what to expect. I'm expecting the first third to be Batman v Superman, with the Dawn of Justice coming at the end with the Doomsday battle. The film is two and a half hours long, so the promotional materials haven't shown us everything. Far from it. There's bound to be a lot of goodness left for us to discover come release day. I also expect that while there will be nice action, the film will also be more philosophical and meaningful than some are expecting. Affleck apparently had a say in the scripting, and I really respect him in that regard.

[The Laughing Fish]

And if you look at Snyder's movies his characters tend to be incredibly flawed individuals. Not to say that aspect of story telling is not engaging, because for something like the Watchmen it very much was. But I think when he went there with Man of Steel, he created a very divisive movie because, once again, we're talking about that mantle we place heroes on. Allot of people felt he didn't convey Superman in a "proper" profile. Allot of people felt he was too egotistical, too uncaring, and too self consumed.

How was Superman in MOS egotistical? He had spent his whole life fearing how the rest of the world could react to his existence and living with uncertainty over his place in life; yet he still helped people whenever he could. And in the end, he stood up to Zod and saved the world from definite genocide. To me, that doesn't scream egotism or uncaring.

Now, I won't argue the complaints over Superman's recklessness in MOS. I won't defend moments like how he went mysteriously missing when the Fortress of Solitude crashed into Metropolis, and for that matter, I'm not fond over the decision to kill off Pa Kent. I thought it was a tragedy that Clark didn't need since he was already a tragic character enough as he was.

But if we're basing Superman's recklessness as uncaring then the same thing can be said about Batman in the Nolan movies. How many times in the first two films did Batman having no regard for human whenever he drove the Tumbler and Bat-Pod? Hell, you could even call Batman egotistical for trying to prove he had a no-kill rule when he encountered Joker, because not only did he kill Ra's al Ghul, he also justified doing so to save lives to his daughter Talia in TDKR. So I guess putting people's lives in danger during TDK because he had a "no-kill" rule didn't really mean much after all. I don't know about your views about Superman killing Zod in MOS, but honestly I regard people who criticize that scene, while turning a blind eye to Batman's constant rule breaking in the trilogy at the same time, as absolute hypocrites.

I went with my older brother to see Deadpool last night. He's 57, I'm 51. He's not a big fan of the hero genre but I convinced him this movie would be different. He loved it. We got something to eat after the movie and while we were talking, he asked me, "What is that Batman vs Superman movie about? I don't really understand what to think about that film. Why would those two be fighting?"  That right there told me plenty. The marketing catered only to that base who read comics or graphic novels that were aware of this history between the two heroes.

I don't agree with that. The movie is a sequel to MOS, and we're going to see Bruce Wayne's perspective of the Metropolis chaos and get further insight into his thoughts of Superman. It's right there in the trailer, and I don't think it requires intense knowledge in comics to understand it, when the film will be introducing the heroes to each other for the first time.

Just curious, what are your thoughts about Captain America: Civil War? That's another movie where heroes (or in this case - Avengers!) are going to fight each other. I love the MCU and the Cap movies in particular, but I do think that's another movie that could risk being overcrowded.

The other reason why that R-rated announcement was foolish? Because we all know how information can be dissimulated as it gets passed around. Some parents may get this information and believe the theatrical version is R-rated. You've just lost people at the ticket booth.

Frankly, if those people mistakenly believed that the theatrical cut is going to be rated R, then they're fools. It doesn't take that much of an effort to check on a movie's classification, either by reading the news properly or looking the film's classification up online. But if they think that the PG-13 movie in question is still too violent for their kids to watch, then fair enough.

Affleck apparently had a say in the scripting, and I really respect him in that regard.

I read a rumour today that claimed he was still rewriting the script before filming his scenes...while in the Batsuit.

Whether the film will live up to being philosophical and meaningful or end up being Nolan-styled pretentious nonsense remains to be seen.

[Wayne49]

How was Superman in MOS egotistical? He had spent his whole life fearing how the rest of the world could react to his existence and living with uncertainty over his place in life; yet he still helped people whenever he could. And in the end, he stood up to Zod and saved the world from definite genocide. To me, that doesn't scream egotism or uncaring.

Now, I won't argue the complaints over Superman's recklessness in MOS. I won't defend moments like how he went mysteriously missing when the Fortress of Solitude crashed into Metropolis, and for that matter, I'm not fond over the decision to kill off Pa Kent. I thought it was a tragedy that Clark didn't need since he was already a tragic character enough as he was.

Not all of that is my personal view but from what I had gathered by reading the many who did not like the portrayal, it was one of my takeaways. I understand it though. Superman took a fairly selfish position in deciding how he wanted to involve himself, especially at the end of the film when he said he would do things HIS way. Now while we can take that statement and draw a correlation between that and his years living under another standard, I'm not sure imposing his own standard on a planet is not doing anything other than reinforcing how Pa Kent did it with him. So the greater message of what Snyder was trying to sell regarding Superman finding himself is muddled in the fact he's impacting the will of others to facilitate his own angst against a value system he didn't agree with growing up. Well there's certainly a pretentious and egotistical position born in that motivation because he imposes that on others.

I don't agree with that. The movie is a sequel to MOS, and we're going to see Bruce Wayne's perspective of the Metropolis chaos and get further insight into his thoughts of Superman. It's right there in the trailer, and I don't think it requires intense knowledge in comics to understand it, when the film will be introducing the heroes to each other for the first time.

It's not about understanding what has been said in the trailer. It's this notion that two heroes would fight over what Wayne calls a "one percent chance." You have to admit that premise is pretty absurd. How many times have you felt 99% confident in something and walked away with inspired doubts? As you said, Superman saved the city and quite possibly the planet. If there is a person who needs to be clued in, I don't think it's my brother, it's Batman. And with Batman being older, it seems a little odd that he would render that kind of judgment based on the results that clearly show Superman saved lives but, like any hero who has to engage in a public battle, there are residual impacts that were unavoidable in order to obtain the greater goal of wide spread preservation. Shouldn't he know this from personal experience? So yes, the public marketing is really pretty soft on the argument here. The conflict between Batman and Superman looks like it's more personal than philosophy based.

Just curious, what are your thoughts about Captain America: Civil War? That's another movie where heroes (or in this case - Avengers!) are going to fight each other. I love the MCU and the Cap movies in particular, but I do think that's another movie that could risk being overcrowded.

Since I read the registration act story arc in the comics, I have allot of problems with how this film will play out. To suggest it will be a loose interpretation is likely not saying enough. One of the key story vehicles missing in most Marvel films, is this desire to maintain a secret identity, which is what drove a big part of the Registration act in the comics. There doesn't really appear to be any mystery to the public as to who Cap, Iron man, or the Falcon are. With Thor they never cover a Donald Blake alter identity so his role is moot. Hulk may be a bit of a mystery but not to the military. So registering them seems like little more than paperwork in the movie reality. In the comics, they wanted all of them to unmask and reveal to everyone who they are so the government has a working knowledge of who is working with them. Spider-man is the first to fold which, forgive me for saying, is the dumbest plot point I think I ever read in comics. Why Spider-man would surrender his identity since the very reason for having it was to protect his loved ones was just pure lunacy.

Now supposedly Spider-man will play that role to some degree in this new film. Alas it really feels pretty meaningless for me, since we're getting a new actor and this reveal will come across ineffective since there is no history with him playing the part. I thought it would have be grand to bring back Tobey Macquire and J K Simmons for this movie. Can you imagine the send up that be to see J K Simmons react to Tobey being Spider-man?!! What a missed moment.

Then you have the whole story of Cap being killed, temporarily anyway, and the Winter soldier assuming his identity. So there are TONS of issues with how any of this will play and if, at the end, any of it looks remotely like the story in the comics. I agree with you that it could just come off looking like more heroes arguing and I don't necessarily think that always translates well for audiences. 

Frankly, if those people mistakenly believed that the theatrical cut is going to be rated R, then they're fools. It doesn't take that much of an effort to check on a movie's classification, either by reading the news properly or looking the film's classification up online. But if they think that the PG-13 movie in question is still too violent for their kids to watch, then fair enough.

I would never question your assessment on the IQ's of some parents here. But I have two movies where that low IQ was brightly profiled - Watchmen and Deadpool. Both clearly not for young kids and both very much marketed as such. Some parents got the message, others brought their seven year olds. Saw it myself. Now at this point you say, "Well you just argued against what you just said." Not exactly. Yes, parents can be quite clueless on the ratings system, but there have been a number of nimrods who have complained about Deadpool being inappropriate which means the antennas are up right now for violence and R ratings in this genre. It's in the conversation. How many times have we seen movies buried under the negativity by the public or critics for being too violent or inappropriate for the audience it 'should have been made for'? This is "Batman VS Superman". Doesn't get anymore "Saturday morning, Superfriends" sounding than that. If this movie gets mixed reviews and is described as too edgy and violent, the same nimrods who mistakenly took their kids to Watchmen or Deadpool will likely hear that, coupled with the DVD R rated news, and think their kids need to stay back. Fools? Absolutely. But then again that should come as no surprise here. All I'm saying is Warner Bros should keep the branding focused and not try to be all things to all people. You lose the message when you do that.

Affleck apparently had a say in the scripting, and I really respect him in that regard.

I read a rumour today that claimed he was still rewriting the script before filming his scenes...while in the Batsuit.

Whether the film will live up to being philosophical and meaningful or end up being Nolan-styled pretentious nonsense remains to be seen.

See that kind of news bothers me because too often when you're rewriting in the moment for movies, you lose the train of seeing how it plays in terms of tone and story telling for the whole picture. There should be a very defined story arc here and it seems like they've taken left turns at every corner. We'll see. I hope this turns out much better than the marketing is suggesting. It just feels like a mixed bag of ideas with no one leading the way with a strong vision.