http://variety.com/2014/film/news/batman-superman-titled-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-1201188157/ (http://variety.com/2014/film/news/batman-superman-titled-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-1201188157/)
(https://scontent-a-vie.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/v/t1.0-9/1969408_794602800552889_1871450693248238278_n.jpg?oh=2300c50d9fa24aa4c55e9364752da218&oe=53E82713)
I think it has a nice ring to it, obviously hinting at the Justice League as well as justice being a common theme for both Batman and Superman, What do you think?
Hideous. So...NOT World's Finest, the easier and infinitely catchier title. This movie is getting stranger by the second...
I know, I know, it has invoke the fact that this is NOT A Batman/Superman feature, it's a Justice League feature...except that it isn't JUSTICE LEAGUE, and Batman/Superman are the selling point
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Wed, 21 May 2014, 18:11
Hideous. So...NOT World's Finest, the easier and infinitely catchier title. This movie is getting stranger by the second...
I know, I know, it has invoke the fact that this is NOT A Batman/Superman feature, it's a Justice League feature...except that it isn't JUSTICE LEAGUE, and Batman/Superman are the selling point
My friend, you do not call a movie that is the first in history to feature Superman and Batman on screen "World's Finest". It's a title that makes sense only to a comic geek. And I wouldn't want either of my favourite two superheroes in their movie careers to be represented by such a bland title on their long lasting C.V's.
"Batman Vs Superman" may seem like a cliche and along the lines of an "Alien Vs Predator" type of deal. But it's an obvious choice really, tells an audience exactly what to expect and creates the buzz. Mission accomplished.
And hey we should all be delighted. Batman's name is FINALLY back in a motion picture title for the first time in 10 long years! And long may it remain there this time. Although technically not 100% a proper Batman movie just yet.
Yes, and we should be happy it wasn't named "The Dark Knight vs The Man of Steel" ;D
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 21 May 2014, 18:32
Yes, and we should be happy it wasn't named "The Dark Knight vs The Man of Steel" ;D
;D That would have been awful!
i like it a lot. yes worlds finest would have been better but this is good too. and obviously it isn't the justice league because this is the DAWN of justice. they'll be around in the afternoon. lol.
maybe this will be "the justice trilogy." :P
Quote from: Catwoman on Wed, 21 May 2014, 18:46
and obviously it isn't the justice league because this is the DAWN of justice. they'll be around in the afternoon. lol.
Made me LOL. :) Good one.
thank you. i'll be here all week. be sure to tip your waitress.
*curtsies, then backflips off stage right*
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Wed, 21 May 2014, 18:27
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Wed, 21 May 2014, 18:11
Hideous. So...NOT World's Finest, the easier and infinitely catchier title. This movie is getting stranger by the second...
I know, I know, it has invoke the fact that this is NOT A Batman/Superman feature, it's a Justice League feature...except that it isn't JUSTICE LEAGUE, and Batman/Superman are the selling point
I wouldn't call it bland, but I see your point, trying to be more marketable and recognizable and such. However, I maintain that this title is absolutely revolting. I maintain that World's Finest, even as a "Batman and Superman" subtitle trumps the Dawn of Justice moniker that isn't fit for a video game.
My friend, you do not call a movie that is the first in history to feature Superman and Batman on screen "World's Finest". It's a title that makes sense only to a comic geek. And I wouldn't want either of my favourite two superheroes in their movie careers to be represented by such a bland title on their long lasting C.V's.
"Batman Vs Superman" may seem like a cliche and along the lines of an "Alien Vs Predator" type of deal. But it's an obvious choice really, tells an audience exactly what to expect and creates the buzz. Mission accomplished.
everyone who knows the relationship between bats and supes should get the title. they both want justice, they just both have very different means about going after it (except they both won't kill anyone except the end of mos when supes had to kill zod - was there like a "SUPERMAN DOESN'T KILL" backlash from that? lol). so they are going to clash a while, then they will have to come together for a greater good (and i so hope that it is superman needing batman and not the other way around) and they will kick ass and ruin lex luthor's grand scheme and then go to clark's apartment and have a beer and watch a dvd of gigli.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 21 May 2014, 18:32
Yes, and we should be happy it wasn't named "The Dark Knight vs The Man of Steel" ;D
Thank goodness for brevity.
you know that will be in the trailers.
I like the title, I think it has a nice ring to it. Most people will be calling it BvS, so no need to get hung up on the subtitle, like I'm seeing most people on the internet. People normally call movies by the title or subtitle(if the movie has a subtitle). Nobody calls Empire Strikes Back "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back", or the reverse for the first Captain America by calling it "Captain America: The First Avenger".
But I can dig it. And I'm not going to lie, I've been liking everything we've seen for this movie, so far.
I like it. I'm glad they went for Batman vs Superman, not the other way around. That wouldn't have made much sense. Superman is the perceived threat after MoS. The second half is a bit wordy, but it's not terrible.
I won't lie - I think it's kind of a lame title for a movie. I understand Batman v Superman makes sense from a marketing point of view, especially since the subtitle refers to the next film that will be the Justice League. But still... :-[
Oh well, as long as the film is good, I'll be happy.
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Wed, 21 May 2014, 18:27My friend, you do not call a movie that is the first in history to feature Superman and Batman on screen "World's Finest". It's a title that makes sense only to a comic geek. And I wouldn't want either of my favourite two superheroes in their movie careers to be represented by such a bland title on their long lasting C.V's.
Surely the job of a marketing department
should be to sell the general public on a title that already has a cult following.
Between this and the released images of Batman and Batmobile, my reaction to all the news on this picture is: meh.
After seeing the treatment on Man of Steel, nothing Snyder does will surprise me much. He uses a very broad stroke with his creative brush to bring these characters to life. Simply put, he takes enormous liberties with the source material. Of course most movies do, so that's nothing new. But I felt like he really strayed from the traditional Superman on so many levels. Philosophically, he's not going to be too different from Batman, so it won't have that clash in principle the comic characters wrestle with. Tonality-wise this is already looking more like an Alien vs Predator play, than a story about two heroes finding common ground. My fear is it's going to look like a video game on steroids. But it's like anything. Impossible to truly gauge until I sit in the theater and watch the story unfold.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014, 12:54
Philosophically, he's not going to be too different from Batman, so it won't have that clash in principle the comic characters wrestle with. Tonality-wise this is already looking more like an Alien vs Predator play, than a story about two heroes finding common ground. My fear is it's going to look like a video game on steroids. But it's like anything. Impossible to truly gauge until I sit in the theater and watch the story unfold.
That's what I worry about the most too, especially the first part. But I am kind of exicted to see a new Batman on screen.
How much input is Nolan having here? You could tell MOS had Nolans fingerprints all over it.
Perhaps Snyder may do it more watchmen style without Nolan. I definitely agree he got the main characters wrong. Similar to how Nolan does his films, every character had to be a genius. I have a hard time picturing the flirty Lois Lane or the (acting) bumbling, awkward and overly polite Clark Kent.
I'm uneasy but still have faith; they're making a lot of comic fans dreams come true. I'm praying they don't alienate them for the pretentious types.
Quote from: riddler on Mon, 23 Jun 2014, 16:24
How much input is Nolan having here? You could tell MOS had Nolans fingerprints all over it.
MoS was a step in the right direction, but it's a frustrating watch from beginning to end.
The flashbacks suffocate any sense of flow. And the language use, like the Nolan, is so un-natural and repetitious. "In time you will help them accomplish wonders" - "you have to decide what man you're going to be" - "he sent you here for a reason" - "when the world finds out what you can do, it's going to change everything" - etc, etc. Just shut up already. Everybody is some deep philosopher who speaks poetry.
There's too much telling and not showing. We sit through the Krypton sequence at the beginning, only to hear Jor-El's consciousness tell Clark all over again - then we get Zod telling us his little story in the dream sequence, which was pretty much covered in the colonisation speech Jor-El gave Clark.
Clark's childhood in MoS was just too bleak for my liking. It's probably the most constantly miserable existence I can imagine. Being picked on, restraining himself and also made to feel guilty. It was an attempt to make Superman relateable, but this was overboard. I am optimistic for BvS, and have liked most of the things I have seen and heard. I just hope the movie delivers on the concept, which should be an engaging and
fun experience, regardless of how dark things get.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 24 Jun 2014, 03:57
The flashbacks suffocate any sense of flow. And the language use, like the Nolan, is so un-natural and repetitious. "In time you will help them accomplish wonders" - "you have to decide what man you're going to be" - "he sent you here for a reason" - "when the world finds out what you can do, it's going to change everything" - etc, etc. Just shut up already. Everybody is some deep philosopher who speaks poetry.
There's too much telling and not showing. We sit through the Krypton sequence at the beginning, only to hear Jor-El's consciousness tell Clark all over again - then we get Zod telling us his little story in the dream sequence, which was pretty much covered in the colonisation speech Jor-El gave Clark.
This has been a consistent flaw with every Nolan-scripted movie, especially his Batman trilogy. Begins has every character say the word fear every five minutes and Bruce keeps explaining how he wants to become a symbol for Gotham, even though we don't get to really see what impact he's having on the city other than the police. Dark Knight kept talking about "chaos this, chaos that", how Harvey Dent is the best thing to ever happen to Gotham and so on. Every character always come across as trying to sound more sophisticated than they actually are, and was another reason why I couldn't stand watching those movies. Each movie made me think "Enough already, we get it! Let's get on with the farken film!".
Although Man of Steel does share this flaw too, I didn't find as bothersome to be honest. I thought Kevin Costner's speech as Pa Kent was no more annoying than Pa Kent's in the 1978 film. Slightly repetitive, perhaps, but at least it doesn't go on and on and on like in Batman Begins. Then again, it could be a sign that Nolan's "tell, don't show" approach to storytelling is clouding my judgement. ;) :D
All joking aside, Clark Kent's fear of how the world might react to him is what made me forgive the expository dialogue, and I thought that it made character more relatable than Nolan's Bruce Wayne. Having said that, Nolan should really not be allowed to write scripts at all. But as long as he keeps getting away with this he'll continue to write clunky, expository dialogue.
Here's a first look of Henry Cavill as Superman. Now tell me, I can't be the only one who thinks the background looks like Gotham City? It looks the Gotham from the Arkham games. Let's hope that's how the city will look like in the film! 8)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foyster.ignimgs.com%2Fwordpress%2Fstg.ign.com%2F2014%2F07%2FSM_Debut-720x1078.jpg&hash=958f4b61bda3aae7bc440715693cacaba79f14cb)
Source: http://au.ign.com/articles/2014/07/03/first-official-image-from-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice (http://au.ign.com/articles/2014/07/03/first-official-image-from-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice)
Despite some concerns with the new additions to the cast of BvS, along with an abundance of cameos just to make that leap over to Justice League, Cavill as Superman, and Gotham (if that is Gotham, which it probably is as it's easy step for a visual director like Snyder to make apparent the contrast from Metropolis) appearing visually bleak do not fit that equation.
Looks awesome! My guess is that Batman is on the other side of the pic (which is probably the one Kevin Smith saw) but it could be a while until we see that.
It's downright criminal we have to wait until 2016 to see the film. I bet they could make the December 2015 schedule, but of course, WB wants to go the "traditional" route of having a big movie come out in the summer.
Gotham looks great.
Visually, it seems Snyder will deliver a hell hole - the best one since B89, BR.
Details regarding the plot of Ben Affleck's new version of Batman have been revealed, hinting at a storyline involving a long and dark history for the Caped Crusader.
Affleck is currently filming Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice in Detroit and, according to Badass Digest, his Bruce Wayne will be in his fifties and have been active as Batman for some three decades before the arrival of Superman on planet Earth and the events of 2013's reboot Man of Steel.
Their report states: "In this version Batman is still an urban legend, a creature of the night, and no one has ever taken his picture. But he's had plenty of adventures, and the Batcave includes a memorial centred around a tattered Robin costume."
In the Batman lore, the death of Robin – at the hands of The Joker no less, which could lead to a nod toward the iconic villain in Zack Snyder's movie – is important to the character of Batman and the loneliness he feels. That in turn could serve as an important plot point as he, Henry Cavill's Superman and Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman team up to create the earliest formation of the Justice League.
"I've heard more," the report says, "but I'm wary of crossing the line into spoilers. I do quite like this little tidbit, though, because it gives us a sense of a very different Batman than we've ever seen in the movies. This sets Affleck's version apart from Bale and the others easily - he's a quieter operator, not involved in blockbuster battles but in all sorts of badass vigilantism."
According to the report, Wonder Woman will also have been active for some time as the movie starts, working on a similarly low key level to Batman.
-----
Damn... I do like that Batman is more of an urban legend, it reminds me of the 1989 Batman.
Assuming it's true, I do quite like the sound of this. :) Like you state, it does recall the notion of Batman as a mysterious 'urban legend' from the 1989 Batman. I'm guessing however there won't be much room for Commissioner Gordon if Batman is a loner in this universe. :-\ Then again the TV show "Gotham" should give us a sufficient Gordon fix for now.
I wonder if the Joker will be holed up in Arkham, and if that means he might make an appearance later down the line. It will be interesting in view of the personal history, if your source is right about the Joker murdering Robin.
I love it; we've never seen Batman late in his career on film and showing that aspect of the character. So far all the shots of Affleck show him as gloomy and tortured and that might be why; it also adds to his unwillingess to trust other heroes when he probably blames himself for Robin's death.
The only down side is I did want to see Robin portrayed again on screen and it doesn't seem as though such is happening (although we could get a prequel I guess).
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.hngn.com%2Fdata%2Fimages%2Ffull%2F29367%2Fbatman-vs-superman-gal-gadot-as-wonder-woman.jpg%3Fw%3D600&hash=2d740b61b3e84d7d67e08438b70d2583a259ac51)
Thoughts: as with everything else concerning this flick, my reaction is "meh." I will say that I find this better than the costumes for Supes and Batsy.
On the other hand, if I wanted to be nitpicky, I'd say that the boots are too high and that the absence of colour is a big minus - the shapes on the armour are excellent, but it should have had this colour scheme (http://fanartexhibit.wordpress.com/2008/09/28/character-design-wonder-woman/).
Still, could have been a lot worse.
To me, it just makes no sense that he's still regarded as an urban legend, if he's this old into his career. His first year on the job I can understand, but not if he's in communication with Gordon, him using a Batmobile, Batwing, Bat-signal, and also fighting his rogues gallery.
It doesn't add up to me.
Quote from: Travesty on Wed, 6 Aug 2014, 16:21
To me, it just makes no sense that he's still regarded as an urban legend, if he's this old into his career. His first year on the job I can understand, but not if he's in communication with Gordon, him using a Batmobile, Batwing, Bat-signal, and also fighting his rogues gallery.
It doesn't add up to me.
Good point. If Batman killed his enemies it might make sense to a degree, but since we know Batman not to be a killer surely his various enemies would have corroborated his existence. Even if the police didn't believe one or two villains they'd surely have to believe a hundred or so (assuming Batman has taken down several bad guys during his 'x' number of years as a vigilante).
The films would have to go to great lengths to demonstrate how hard the police, and other authorities (including psychiatrists/prison guards etc), are working to cover up his existence assuming the films do decide to take the 'Batman as an urban myth' angle.
It is stupid if they're going that route; Batman late in his career even having Robin dead and still being an urban legend? What about his rogue gallery, do they not exist in this world? Did they all keep quiet about batman? Or is nobody believing them?
I don't think that's the case though, the trailer has clearly shown the bat signal so he can't be a complete urban legend. Presumably gordon or someone from the GCPD knows who he is and if the signal is flashing so would most of gotham.
Quote from: riddler on Thu, 7 Aug 2014, 20:30
It is stupid if they're going that route; Batman late in his career even having Robin dead and still being an urban legend? What about his rogue gallery, do they not exist in this world? Did they all keep quiet about batman? Or is nobody believing them?
I don't think that's the case though, the trailer has clearly shown the bat signal so he can't be a complete urban legend. Presumably gordon or someone from the GCPD knows who he is and if the signal is flashing so would most of gotham.
If this rumour is true, then the only logical explanation for the Batsignal is that Batman had invented it to get Superman's attention.
Here are some pictures of Affleck as Bruce Wayne on the set a few days ago.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUyqnvrp.png&hash=029c795414ad246801654deecf56da1c98afe820)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F14LvGwG.png&hash=0a5601243a271f719d93291e971e20be45830785)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3vjf24x.jpg&hash=1d87c9fcac51d01b0718b77f0c9f08fb743661c7)
As you can see, he has some grey hair. Perhaps the rumours that his character is in his 50s are true?
I'm not so impressed with the idea of Batman coming back from retirement again, assuming if the rumour is true. And if he is this urban legend, then it does beg the question surrounding whether or not his archenemies existed. And let's not forget about his relationship with Gordon, assuming if he has one. If they are going to do the retirement theme again, it's better that urban legend idea is scrapped.
Affleck looks very good. Stylish and imposing.
Well one question is what is Nolan's involvement in this series? I read around here that he still gets final say on all DC adaptations.
I don't mind batman coming out of retirement but I'm hoping it wont be a rehash of the dark knight rises where he spends half the film not being Batman. I can't imagine they will since there's other characters to develop. Hopefully it's a batman winding down and hoping to retire, perhaps going out less and being more selective as far as the battles he fights (ie only fighting true supervillains and not the common crooks).
As far as I know, Affleck isn't greying so that must be makeup.
It looks like Batman will be in his mid-40s according to Michael Uslan.
QuoteMichael Uslan served as an executive producer on Tim Burton's Batman and then each of the subsequent movies right through to Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy. Hhe will return in that role for 2016's Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, and spoke to app.com recently about the reaction to Ben Affleck being case as the Caped Crusader. "We've been through this I don't know how many times already. Every time a director makes a creative, out-of-the-box-thinking decision on casting, it tends to get this. I remember even the 'Iron Man' (2008) guys got it on Robert Downey Jr. initially. Of course, we got it intensely when another genius, Chris Nolan, chose Heath Ledger to play the Joker (in 2008's 'The Dark Knight'). And it was a huge outcry: 'How can a guy who just played a gay cowboy (in 2005's 'Brokeback Mountain') play the Joker? You're going to destroy the greatest villain ever, this is going to be a laugh.' "So, this has happened time and again, and it happened with Affleck. To go back to the original thought of Bruce Wayne in his mid-40s, I think he's going to be extraordinary."
This pretty much debunks those recent reports that Batman will be in his 50s, though many fans were already sceptical that the movie would portray Bruce Wayne at that age anyway (especially as Affleck doesn't look like a man of that age, grey templed be damned). Uslan makes a great point when it comes to the way the Argo star and director's casting was received, especially as those same people were likely just as doubtful about the other actors he mentions and more besides. What do you guys think? Be sure to share your thoughts on these comments below!
Read more at http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?
a=105768#FyF6ECeHsYxlmqGm.99 (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?%3Cbr%20/%3Ea=105768#FyF6ECeHsYxlmqGm.99)
That should surely debunk the 30 year crimefighting career at least.
Just as I feared...
According to Jennifer Garner, Affleck may be basing his Bat-voice on Bale's infamous growl.
In the latest issue of Empire Magazine (via Comic Book Movie), Mrs. Affleck spills the details on what Ben Affleck's Batman voice will sound like in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice:
"We were not privy to the Batman voice at home, but I've been on set enough to hear bits of it. It's spot on. Growly and decisive and sexy, if I do say so myself! Exactly what you would hope it to be!"
I'll have to hear it before believing the "growly" voice is the same approach as Bale's. "Growly and decisive and sexy" could also be used to describe Kevin Conroy's voice, in my opinion.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 28 Oct 2014, 16:47
I'll have to hear it before believing the "growly" voice is the same approach as Bale's. "Growly and decisive and sexy" could also be used to describe Kevin Conroy's voice, in my opinion.
;D
Well of course Garner is going to say Affleck's Batman voice is 'sexy'. She's married to him.
If I were Affleck, I'd watch some B:TAS episodes to learn from the best, Conroy ;)
I'm hoping he uses his Daredevil voice; he masked it enough to avoid it being recognizable but not the the extent of being irritating.
The new Batman theme by Junkie XL has been teased:
https://soundcloud.com/watertowermusic/menarestillgood_batman
It's taken a few listens, but personally, I'm liking it.
Like the Batmobile, it seems to be a Burton and Nolan hybrid. A more distinct, heroic melody underneath the drumming which bangs overhead. Giving it a darker vibe, and a melody I may be able to memorise in time.
Interesting approach. Feels a bit more like a villain theme to me, but it may be a deliberate way to play off of how criminals (and Superman) view Batman as this monster.
The title leads me to predict that this Bruce Wayne will start off broken and cynical (due to the loss of Robin and the people in the Wayne Enterprises building), but, through Superman, he will regain his faith in people. Basically, he'll start off in Frank Miller TDKR mode and mellow out into a Justice League/Justice League Unlimited type Batman.
I like it.
I think it's going to be better if there's one Batman theme again, ala the Burton and Schumacher days, and the composer does variations of it. Rather than several different themes ala the Zimmer days, with everyone arguing as to what the real theme was. The Junkie XL theme hits the right spot for me. It's dark, menacing and I dare say, evokes the Goldenthal theme in parts. Which isn't a bad thing.
I think it's a bit average. It's got nothing on the Elfman theme or the MOS theme, but at least it feels more operatic than Zimmer's unbelievably dull Batman theme.
Zimmer's Batman score was not memorable to me at all, unlike Elfman and Goldenthal. Elfman's was awesome, Goldenthal did a fair replacement while still sounding appropriate for the new direction.
I think the new theme sounds good.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 6 Feb 2016, 07:22
Zimmer's Batman score was not memorable to me at all, unlike Elfman and Goldenthal. Elfman's was awesome, Goldenthal did a fair replacement while still sounding appropriate for the new direction.
I think the new theme sounds good.
Agreed. Zimmers a fine composer but his dark knight theme was good for a regular movie but has nothing on other more memorable superhero scores such as the original Superman, Batman, and Spider-man themes. Another aspect of the Nolan films which make them good movies but not necissarily good super hero movies.
Quote from: riddler on Sun, 7 Feb 2016, 03:04
Agreed. Zimmers a fine composer but his dark knight theme was good for a regular movie but has nothing on other more memorable superhero scores such as the original Superman, Batman, and Spider-man themes. Another aspect of the Nolan films which make them good movies but not necissarily good super hero movies.
Don't take this as an attack, but I never understood when people say "this is a good movie, but not a good superhero movie". I've seen some people use this explanation to explain why they don't like Burton's films and even MOS, and it never made any sense to me. Personally, if I don't think a superhero movie is very good, then it's not a good movie at all. There's no logical way of sugar-coating it.
Sorry, but it's just a gripe of mine.
I'll have to hear it in context as well as what the rest of the track sounds like. For now, it feels less like a Batman theme to me than Elfman, Walker, and Zimmer's.
These Superbowl spots are fun. Nice to see a Gotham City with gargoyles again, along with an Ace Chemicals sign.
Also interesting to see two billionaires putting on a public persona here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpk8eSpRBnY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TReIozZ1b10
Affleck definitely has that imposing business charm spot on. Eisenberg wasn't too shabby here either.
I liked how the ads didn't have those saturated colors every time we saw Smallville and Metropolis in MOS. Hopefully the rest of the film will look like that.
It's a shame that the Daily Planet looks so generic for a landmark. I wish they added that iconic globe on top of the building again. Who cares if it was already done in Superman Returns?
I agree, especially about Batfleck and the building, TLF, and I do hope we'll get the Daily Bugle again in Spider-Man but that's another universe. :)
Gotham looks fine.
The Ace Chemicals logo is a nice touch. It's basically the exact same logo from the Arkham games. The gargoyle is also promising. I don't think Gotham will be radically different to Metropolis, given their close proximity to one another in this film universe. But nonetheless, I think expresionism will convey they're tonally different places.
I also like the batsignal being a more pure beam of light, ala the Burton/Schumacher films.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 9 Feb 2016, 09:17
It's a shame that the Daily Planet looks so generic for a landmark. I wish they added that iconic globe on top of the building again. Who cares if it was already done in Superman Returns?
Agreed. The Daily Planet in this universe looks completely generic, inside and out. Even in past adaptations that didn't have the globe on top, I felt there was at least something on the inside and/or outside that separated it from just another boring old office building. It's not a huge issue, but kind of a shame considering how comic accurate the costumes are looking. We'll see if they add anything new to The Planet in the movie, but I doubt it.
The LexCorp tower in the promo doesn't form in the big L, but it at least looks better.
Somebody had to reach pretty far back in the comics for the geographical placement of Metropolis across the bay from Gotham City. That's a pretty standard issue Bronze Age concept. Maybe Silver Age too but Bronze Age for sure.
If the writer's goal is to express a dichotomy between Superman and Batman through their characterization and the nature of their respective home cities, placing them close together is a pretty clever idea. It also offers narrative convenience of transporting characters between the two locations with relative ease.
Ace Chemicals, gargoyles again in Gotham and other things. Yes, I think it would be safe to say I rather appreciate where BvS looks to be going.
The general gist I'm getting overall (not just from the latest trailer) is that they are trying to embrace more of Batman's history with his portrayal/Gotham city, basically doing what we here were hoping and adding more of the fun in a manner which is not as grounded and boring as Nolan but not as goofy as Schumacher. Whereas with Superman/Metropolis, they are taking the Nolanesque approach and avoiding things which had already been done before on screen just for the sake of being different (ie flirty Lois Lane, globe on the daily planet, perhaps this is also why we're getting a younger and non-balding Lex Luthor?).
Bold prediction; even though the reverse has been true in almost every previous portrayal, I bet we get more laughs out of Batman/Gotham than we do out of Superman/Metropolis.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 9 Feb 2016, 22:43
Somebody had to reach pretty far back in the comics for the geographical placement of Metropolis across the bay from Gotham City. That's a pretty standard issue Bronze Age concept. Maybe Silver Age too but Bronze Age for sure.
If the writer's goal is to express a dichotomy between Superman and Batman through their characterization and the nature of their respective home cities, placing them close together is a pretty clever idea. It also offers narrative convenience of transporting characters between the two locations with relative ease.
Ace Chemicals, gargoyles again in Gotham and other things. Yes, I think it would be safe to say I rather appreciate where BvS looks to be going.
Agreed with all of the above. I think it makes sense for Gotham and Metropolis to be nearby, like say, New York City and New Jersey. As a kid, I quite liked the idea Metropolis was situated on the West Coast. Like a New York style city bathed in sunshine, instead of Los Angeles. But the two cities being close together is easier, I suppose. And also, could convey the idea that Metropolis is what Gotham wants to be. What it's striving to be - which is reflected in their heroes. Batman is low level grit, trying to take a city back on a grass roots level.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 10 Feb 2016, 01:48
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 9 Feb 2016, 22:43
Somebody had to reach pretty far back in the comics for the geographical placement of Metropolis across the bay from Gotham City. That's a pretty standard issue Bronze Age concept. Maybe Silver Age too but Bronze Age for sure.
If the writer's goal is to express a dichotomy between Superman and Batman through their characterization and the nature of their respective home cities, placing them close together is a pretty clever idea. It also offers narrative convenience of transporting characters between the two locations with relative ease.
Ace Chemicals, gargoyles again in Gotham and other things. Yes, I think it would be safe to say I rather appreciate where BvS looks to be going.
Agreed with all of the above. I think it makes sense for Gotham and Metropolis to be nearby, like say, New York City and New Jersey. As a kid, I quite liked the idea Metropolis was situated on the West Coast. Like a New York style city bathed in sunshine, instead of Los Angeles. But the two cities being close together is easier, I suppose. And also, could convey the idea that Metropolis is what Gotham wants to be. What it's striving to be - which is reflected in their heroes. Batman is low level grit, trying to take a city back on a grass roots level.
The tough part about DC having their heroes cities (Star city, coast city, central city, metropolis, gotham) close together is that every time they want to have a solo mission, the question will always be "where is the JLA?" I think the TV shows are handling it appropriately; they arent divulging specifics on the geography but are at least establishing Starling city and central city as being separated by a train ride. There's obviously a happy medium.
I think in an ongoing film universe it's almost essential to pinpoint where everything is.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sun, 7 Feb 2016, 22:19
I'll have to hear it in context as well as what the rest of the track sounds like. For now, it feels less like a Batman theme to me than Elfman, Walker, and Zimmer's.
These Superbowl spots are fun. Nice to see a Gotham City with gargoyles again, along with an Ace Chemicals sign.
Also interesting to see two billionaires putting on a public persona here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpk8eSpRBnY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TReIozZ1b10
Those were EPIC! Loved them! Ben looks great as Bruce and Jesse's bit on the plane was...I'm not going to say it was the "win Kitty over" moment like Ben's ferocious glare in the first trailer when he sees the defaced newspaper but he may have won Kitty over...crazy how a freaking airline ad might have done it, but still. lol.
Those ads were so good. Some one in Turkish Airlines' marketing department needs a big ass raise.
Check this video out. Batman speeds back into the batcave via his secret tunnel entrance. I think it's after his initial encounter with Superman, where the front Batmobile canopy is ripped off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzCEC8X_DQk
Thought this was funny:
Quote'Batman Vs. Superman' is where you go when you admit to yourself that you've exhausted all possibilities. It's like 'Frankenstein meets Wolfman' or 'Freddy Vs. Jason.' It's somewhat of an admission that this franchise is on its last gasp.
- David Goyer, 2005, about 8 years before he writes Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/08/entertainment/ca-batman8/3
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abload.de%2Fimg%2F0510_pcs7z.gif&hash=f98c15b9f004c821fa81d80306d67bab38ad2bd2)
When the time comes, that quote's going smack at the top of the Batman v Superman comic analysis feature.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fprem0.hiboox.com%2Fimages%2F3314%2Ff26b7abacb8cd543f12e69c206129ed6.gif&hash=b47109e4ca7813aacf32b012f4e9e345b9e7cb3e)
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Fri, 26 Feb 2016, 21:05
Thought this was funny:
Quote'Batman Vs. Superman' is where you go when you admit to yourself that you've exhausted all possibilities. It's like 'Frankenstein meets Wolfman' or 'Freddy Vs. Jason.' It's somewhat of an admission that this franchise is on its last gasp.
- David Goyer, 2005, about 8 years before he writes Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/08/entertainment/ca-batman8/3
I don't really share that sentiment. I don't view TDK Trilogy as a high water mark the Snyderverse, or any Batman product, has to reach. And going for a shared universe of superpowered beings is the best way to differentiate from 'realism'. I see the new series being an improvement in a lot of areas.
I don't know what Goyer was thinking with a comment like that. Possibly it felt pretty safe since back in '05, such a project was clearly not on the horizon anytime soon, but stuff like that reminds me of other statements in the comic book world that end up being humorous in retrospect.
"It would be a really sleazy stunt to bring him back." - Denny O'Neil on Jason Todd
Also, previous Marvel Editor in Chief, Joe Quesada, stating back in 1998, when he starting turning out the Marvel Knights Imprint, that the Punisher was just a one dimensional character prior to the revamp/alteration of him being an Angelic guardian or whatever that was. Along with the comment about the Ultimate Universe crossing over with the 616 main MU would be the time the "House of Ideas" admitting that they were officially out of 'ideas'. :o
With Denny O'Neil, I don't believe he was over the Bat books at the time Jason Todd was *officially* resurrected, so he gets a pass. DC slapping that quote on the actual trade of "A Death in the Family" and then later doing just that is, just, .... ironic. With Joe Q, he was smoking something with that Punisher comment, and thankfully Garth Ennis turned the boat around. I'll give him some slack on Ultimate Universe crossover stuff, since I don't think (Atleast to my knowledge) that concept really got rolling until following his departure. With Goyer, and his current involvement with BvS, yeah, in retrospect that's one tactless and embarrassing comment! ;)
Yes. And IMO, bringing Todd back from the dead has been one of the best things to happen in the Batman universe. And this is coming from someone who is usually against such stunts.
Apparently the rumours about Affleck rewriting the script in his batsuit are untrue:
QuoteOn a lighter note, a reporter asked Affleck to comment on a rumor that he was rewriting the Batman v Superman script in his bat suit during production (never mind that Affleck has no writing credit for the picture).
"That is the dumbest rumor," said Affleck, who co-wrote the Oscar winner Good Will Hunting. "I just like how if I was gonna go write, I would put on this bat suit first because it's so comfortable to write in. I didn't rewrite anything in any outfit, my underwear or otherwise."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ben-affleck-alejandro-g-inarritu-876893
This is a relief. Major on-set rewrites usually indicate trouble, particularly if they occur so late in the day that the actors are standing around in costume waiting to film.
This site contains some Twitter responses to last night's premiere, and the overall feedback seems pretty positive (despite the mixed word that has surrounded the film up until now): http://www.slashfilm.com/batman-v-superman-reactions/ (http://www.slashfilm.com/batman-v-superman-reactions/)
I've only scanned them so I don't know if there are any spoilers, but you may want to check out the article which is spoiler-free and simply summarises the reaction.
I believe the embargo on reviews ends tonight. We should be seeing the early reviews pour in within the next few hours, which means we'll need to be extra vigilant of spoilers.
It ends tomorrow around 3pm. So tomorrow afternoon.
Y'all will see me on the news if this gets spoiled for me before I get to see it.
How are everyone's hype levels right now?
This bitch is PSYCHED!
I went to the fan preview screening tonight.
No spoilers, but my general thoughts-
Ben Affleck has unseated Michael Keaton as my favorite Bruce Wayne/Batman. I really wish that we had a Batman trilogy with him and Jeremy Irons before this, or at least, one film before this one, as he exemplifies so many aspects of the character and it would've worked even better if we had spent time with him before MoS. Loved his Wayne. Loved his Batman. There's only one aspect about this Batman that I know purists won't be crazy about and I'll save discussing that for the spoiler thread.
Gal Gadot is also a solid Wonder Woman. I look forward to seeing these two in their solo movies and the Justice League.
That said...all the Superman and other JL foreshadowing aspects of the film were a mess to me. Henry Cavill does what he can, but Snyder still has difficulty making me care and feel for his version of Clark/Superman and Lois, which was my criticism of MoS, too. This gradually improved in the second half of the film, but after all of MoS and half of BvS, it felt too little too late. The Knightmare sequence that's been teased in the trailer feels jarring and out of place. Eisenberg's Luthor is given a drastically different personality than what we're used to, but I couldn't help but feel he paled in comparison to the past Luthors.
I'll give Batman & Wonder Woman's part of the movie an A. Superman's? An improvement over Man of Steel, but still, I'd give his parts a C+.
I'm down for seeing Bats and Wondy again and I'll see Superman with them in the Justice League. But when it comes to solo Superman movies from Snyder? I'm just not interested anymore.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 22 Mar 2016, 08:35
Ben Affleck has unseated Michael Keaton as my favorite Bruce Wayne/Batman. I really wish that we had a Batman trilogy with him and Jeremy Irons before this, or at least, one film before this one, as he exemplifies so many aspects of the character and it would've worked even better if we had spent time with him before MoS. Loved his Wayne. Loved his Batman. There's only one aspect about this Batman that I know purists won't be crazy about and I'll save discussing that for the spoiler thread.
Really? He's THAT good? :o
Would you give the movie as a whole a B-?
It's a combination of the characterization in the script and Affleck being able to portray the many aspects of Bruce's personality. There's the drunk playboy/womanizer act, the businessman executive running a company, the detective, the fighter/the warrior, the paranoia around Superman, the cynicism and weariness...Not to mention that physically, he's more of a match for the comic book Bruce Wayne than any of the previous actors and he's wearing the most comic book accurate Batsuit to date in a WB film. Affleck absolutely proved the doubters wrong and I'm glad that he's gonna be the one in the cape and cowl for years to come.
B- is probably a good indicator of my feelings.
Very interesting BatmAngelus, thnks for the review! :)
This bitch is STILL psyched!
Sounds awesome to me. I suspect Affleck will be my favourite Batman as well.
This is the most excited I've probably ever been to see a movie. I still have three days to wait.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 22 Mar 2016, 08:35
I went to the fan preview screening tonight.
No spoilers, but my general thoughts-
Ben Affleck has unseated Michael Keaton as my favorite Bruce Wayne/Batman. I really wish that we had a Batman trilogy with him and Jeremy Irons before this, or at least, one film before this one, as he exemplifies so many aspects of the character and it would've worked even better if we had spent time with him before MoS. Loved his Wayne. Loved his Batman. There's only one aspect about this Batman that I know purists won't be crazy about and I'll save discussing that for the spoiler thread.
Gal Gadot is also a solid Wonder Woman. I look forward to seeing these two in their solo movies and the Justice League.
That said...all the Superman and other JL foreshadowing aspects of the film were a mess to me. Henry Cavill does what he can, but Snyder still has difficulty making me care and feel for his version of Clark/Superman and Lois, which was my criticism of MoS, too. This gradually improved in the second half of the film, but after all of MoS and half of BvS, it felt too little too late. The Knightmare sequence that's been teased in the trailer feels jarring and out of place. Eisenberg's Luthor is given a drastically different personality than what we're used to, but I couldn't help but feel he paled in comparison to the past Luthors.
I'll give Batman & Wonder Woman's part of the movie an A. Superman's? An improvement over Man of Steel, but still, I'd give his parts a C+.
I'm down for seeing Bats and Wondy again and I'll see Superman with them in the Justice League. But when it comes to solo Superman movies from Snyder? I'm just not interested anymore.
Damn! I figured Affleck's Batman and Gadot's Wonder Woman would work. They just seemed perfectly cast for their parts and everything I've seen in terms of trailer footage and the like has reconfirmed that feeling. But as expected, at least according to your review, Eisenberg is the weak link and Snyder has still not learned the lessons of MOS's underwhelming reception.
Of course, I'll have to check the film out for myself, but I'm now kind of wishing the whole DCEU could be rebooted but with Affleck and Gadot retained, and Snyder and Goyer being let nowhere near the franchise.
And just one final point, and it may be a controversial one in terms of creative integrity, but bearing in mind how often the internet community seem to be right when it comes to casting choices and potential creative decisions beforehand (i.e. the positive reception towards Bale and Affleck's casting as Batman on the one hand, and on the other hand the negative advance feeling towards last year's Fantastic Four and Eisenberg's casting as Lex) I do wonder if studios and filmmakers would be best advised to 'test out' creative decisions in future. After all, these films are for the audience and not some $250 million-plus fan-film indulgence for Snyder and Goyer.
Get ready for the Nolan crowd to try and pick BvS apart. But I'll be waiting for them - because boy, this isn't a mudhole. It's an operating table, and I'm the surgeon.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 22 Mar 2016, 14:42
Get ready for the Nolan crowd to try and pick BvS apart. But I'll be waiting for them - because boy, this isn't a mudhole. It's an operating table, and I'm the surgeon.
Have you seen the film yet TDK? And if not, how do you know you won't agree with them?
I'm not saying this as a hater. I haven't seen the film yet either so I'm keeping an open-mind and hoping the film will be great.
The first Rotten Tomatoes review is up: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/batman_v_superman_dawn_of_justice/
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.comicvine.com%2Fuploads%2Fsquare_medium%2F13%2F132327%2F4454748-post-39018-theoden-so-it-begins-gif-imgur-yb8r.gif&hash=f1f90e61d35789c0b3d4cc81d0a3eb09a7f808ed)
QuoteBut as expected, at least according to your review, Eisenberg is the weak link and Snyder has still not learned the lessons of MOS's underwhelming reception.
To be fair to Eisenberg, Snyder could've cast someone else and Lex still would've come across the way he did. (Adam Driver from Star Wars and Joaquin Phoenix were apparently offered http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-warner-bros-superman-batman-676891) Snyder clearly wanted his Lex to be a rambling manic psychopath with mood swings, as visible in the trailers.
I'm half convinced in the Internet theory that he based his Luthor more on known MoS critic Max Landis than on the actual character based on the character's over the top mannerisms, long hair, being in the shadow of a famous father, and the anecdote that Landis has done the whole "I love bringing people together" bit in real life (not to mention that previous choice Adam Driver has more of a resemblance to Landis too, which was noted during the Star Wars: The Force Awakens reception).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw_GlYve_Lg
http://www.mtv.com/news/2679820/lex-luthor-batman-v-superman/
If Snyder based his Lex Luthor off of a known critic of his last movie, that would be incredibly petty.
Regardless, the tradition of a film version of Lex Luthor being over the top and occasionally silly continues. Do not expect a DCAU-style Lex Luthor.
If what you say about Snyder's Lex is true, Snyder is a grade-A a-hole. He shouldn't be playing with some of the most iconic characters in 20th century fiction just to settle personal scores.
Does that mean we can expect a scene where Luthor's father is responsible for a terrible helicopter tragedy? :-X
And just for the record I think Adam Driver and Joaquin Phoenix would have been equally terrible choices for Luthor as Eisenberg (although it's clear Snyder was looking for a particular type). What happened to the 'Richard Branson meets Brad Pitt' version of Luthor Snyder originally talked about? That sounded perfect to me.
I'm starting to think that WB gave Snyder too much latitude with BvS. Now I know that some people say the same thing about Burton's Batman Returns, but the difference is Burton delivered a mega-hit with Batman '89 (and all his previous films had been box-office and critical successes), whereas MOS was regarded as something of a disappointment.
This is the first Batman film project in my life I have very little faith or desire in. I'm much more interested in Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book frankly after yesterday's stunning cast photographs with their respective characters. They said BvS is a "must see!"? Pfft. That movie is the real must see!! Even Paul Feig's Ghostbusters has begun to stir my sympathies and has developed some nostalgia at least for me to see it (yes, really! more on that revelation from me later...).
I've come to accept, in my personal tastes anyway, the Batman films are pretty much dead as an interesting concept for the upcoming future. I wouldn't even call this new one a Batman picture, nor even a Superman one. It's basically a disguised Justice League movie let's face it. Or is that a.....Avengers cash cow?! lol There doesn't appear that much difference with the Nolan pictures in the once magnificent design department of Anton Furst and Bo Welch. I've genuinely no idea what fans are excitingly screaming about. Not just Nolan buffs but the Burton loyalists too. C'mon guys look at this crap. Bland, militaristic "Bat"-vehicles yet again (how dare they call that....for lack of a better phrase, "Airfix model kit plane" a BATwing!) and a Batman once more sorely in need of a utility belt pouch containing cough syrup. Might wanna make that gadget a permanent fixture now Bruce, it's developed into one f*** of an irritating, embarrassing lasting problem.
Gone are the groundbreaking, unique films that truly stood out and were experimental like Batman Returns with a real talented filmmaker like Tim Burton. This is not just nostalgic talk either. I firmly believe we've lost something major and special from this franchise. Slap a Frank Miller armor on Affleck and every fanboy in the world oooh's and ahhh's and thinks it the pinnacle of what you can ever do with Batman entertainment on screen. Or more appropriately they use that bloody word "awesome" exclusively from the "American English Dictionary" in reviewing this already proclaimed "masterpiece". And every time I hear it I begin to "hmmmm", possibly just for the geeks looking for useless smack-down then this one?
I started getting in Gotham this year and watched season 2 sorely to pass the time until this dreaded movie was coming out. I have to say it hooked me so much that I stopped caring at once about the Affleck project and now think this show is the real Bat event of the next few years. Their doing some extraordinary, interesting, brave, controversial choices with the characters all helped by superb performances by a truly fantastic cast. A shadow of a returning "Tim Burton" design style help makes things more exciting too. I think it will save me from the next few years of blander Bat movies in which everybody goes to the cinema just to see boring old Wonder Woman drop in on Gotham City for no reason whatsoever.
To be fair I am looking forward to Suicide Squad and the first cinematic appearance of Harley Quinn. I also have fairly high hopes for Ben Affleck's Batman and Jared Leto's Joker, despite the tattoos, which is why I'm intrigued as to what Affleck can do with the solo Batman movies (Affleck is a genuinely talented director, as anyone who has seen Gone Baby Gone and Argo will hopefully appreciate).
But like you Cobblepot4Mayor, I feel more enthused by "Gotham", which may not be anywhere close to the 'definitive' take on The Dark Knight, but at least takes intriguing choices and an approach that favours wit and character development over pyrotechnics and endless action, than I do about Batman v Superman. I'll still see the latter, but my mixed-feelings towards Man of Steel as well as the way Snyder seems to be handling Lex Luthor, one of the most iconic comic-book characters of all time, as well as sadly one of the most poorly represented on-screen, has lowered my expectations.
I may end up feeling more positive about the solo Batman and Wonder Woman movies which will hopefully have little to do with David Goyer, Zack Snyder or even Frank Miller (the admittedly excellent Batman: Year One excepted).
At 0% so far, the critical response hasn't been great either, which doesn't surprise me.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/batman_v_superman_dawn_of_justice/
I just watched the last trailer and Batman still seems to be using that bloody awful fighting style known as the KFM on typical thugs. So yeah, a total Nolan love letter it seems. Give me a Dave Lea choreography any day. Sure it may be "dance-like" Ra's Al Ghul but you know something? It was bloody exciting stuff. Who can forget that absolutely vicious looking Batman Returns headbutt?
I don't get the sense anymore of Batman being built up in his mysterious, ghostly entrances that Burton AND Schumacher had a knack for. He seems to drop down faster than a cannon ball from above and start punching out KFM constantly. He moves that fast my own mother is frustrated by what she calls the "crap fighting she cannot see". So fast there seems no need for that bloody costume in the first place. Why not just a black ski mask? Would it really make a difference? What happened to the vampiric, operatic cape expressions he used to do? We haven't seen one in a while. Why not pause all the punching action to work a bit of that back in again for some variety.
Well, I have to say, while I'm still excited for the Batman side of things, my expectations are now in check on the whole.
I must say I am disappointed in what I've seen of this movie. Maybe I'll rent it. I can't say I'm surprised though because I didn't like Man of Steel.
And I really don't like the way Affleck looks in the Batsuit. I don't like the suit at all. And I don't like the new Joker either. Or the fight scenes. Where is the mystery and fright to Batman these days? :(
Quote from: JokerMeThis on Wed, 23 Mar 2016, 04:33
And I really don't like the way Affleck looks in the Batsuit. I don't like the suit at all.
Really?
What's not to like in that department?
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 22 Mar 2016, 17:15
Regardless, the tradition of a film version of Lex Luthor being over the top and occasionally silly continues. Do not expect a DCAU-style Lex Luthor.
*sigh*
Someday.
Oh well, looking forward to Cavill, Affleck, Gadot, Adams, Irons, ect.
Give the rights to Marvel! ;D
Seriously, since the MCU began in 2008 they have consistently turned out movies that are fun and engaging, rather than drenched in earnest portentousness.
At the moment BvS stands at 34% on Rotten Tomatoes. I honestly hope it will go higher because it's still reasonably early days, but it's just as likely that subsequent reviews maintain the current consensus. It's thus highly possible that this will be the second-lowest rated Batman film after Batman & Robin (yes, even lower than Batman Forever). :-\
Hopefully, Civil War can revive the comic-book movie genre's prospects, and I still have high, albeit guarded, hopes for Suicide Squad, but this was meant to be the BIG ONE, and if it does fail (not necessarily at the box-office where it is expected to still clean-up, on advance bookings alone), but in terms of audience reaction and enthusiasm, it could mean that Spielberg's words about comic-book movies being merely a fad are sadly closer than we thought.
I'm seeing a lot of angry reactions to the RT score, with people (who haven't seen the film yet) saying that the critics are biased towards Marvel, biased against Snyder, biased towards Donner's Superman, or wanted the film to fail from the beginning.
Sadly, very few reactions have considered the possibility that it's just not that great of a movie.
I predict that the film will definitely make money and Snyder will remain onboard for the Justice League, but the reception from fans and critics alike will be just as mixed as Man of Steel. I will be very interested to see Suicide Squad and check out a DC film without Snyder's involvement (or this version of Superman).
In the meantime, I'll be posting some more specific praises on this take on Batman in the spoiler thread. I won't give away major plot points, but I'll post for the curious and to lighten the mood that there are good things about this movie.
If the movie is controversial, it's going to make for lively debate. So in that regard, I can't wait for the differing opinions flying around.
But 34% on RT? Surely it can't be that bad?
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Tue, 22 Mar 2016, 22:31
I just watched the last trailer and Batman still seems to be using that bloody awful fighting style known as the KFM on typical thugs. So yeah, a total Nolan love letter it seems. Give me a Dave Lea choreography any day. Sure it may be "dance-like" Ra's Al Ghul but you know something? It was bloody exciting stuff. Who can forget that absolutely vicious looking Batman Returns headbutt?
While I can't say I've seen the film yet, I really don't see how those snippets of Batman fighting those crooks in that trailer resembled anything like Nolan's incoherent choreography.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 23 Mar 2016, 11:46
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Tue, 22 Mar 2016, 22:31
I just watched the last trailer and Batman still seems to be using that bloody awful fighting style known as the KFM on typical thugs. So yeah, a total Nolan love letter it seems. Give me a Dave Lea choreography any day. Sure it may be "dance-like" Ra's Al Ghul but you know something? It was bloody exciting stuff. Who can forget that absolutely vicious looking Batman Returns headbutt?
While I can't say I've seen the film yet, I really don't see how those snippets of Batman fighting those crooks in that trailer resembled anything like Nolan's incoherent choreography.
Neither. It's night and day, so I don't understand those comments at all.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 23 Mar 2016, 11:46While I can't say I've seen the film yet, I really don't see how those snippets of Batman fighting those crooks in that trailer resembled anything like Nolan's incoherent choreography.
Indeed. I agree with Cobblepot4Mayor on many things but on this instance I think that whatever other concerns one may have about BvS, based on the feedback so far, the fight scenes, at least judging by the trailers, are not one of them. The footage I saw was pretty damn fluid and coherent, and thankfully nothing like the overly-rapid, blurry fight scenes we got in TDK trilogy.
If BvS gets anything right, I suspect the fight scenes will be close to the top of the list.
I think the fighting style (based on the trailers and the choreographer) will be more Russian Sambo and Filipino Boxing.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Wed, 23 Mar 2016, 15:18
I think the fighting style (based on the trailers and the choreographer) will be more Russian Sambo and Filipino Boxing.
Pac Man! lol
Thats a ref to Filipino boxer Manny Pacquiao in case anyone's confuzzled. lol
Speaking of being confuzzled, I am by the disparity of the reviews. I've seen people love it, hate it, and everything in between. I did like Man of Steel though so hopefully I'm set up to enjoy it.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 23 Mar 2016, 11:52
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 23 Mar 2016, 11:46
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Tue, 22 Mar 2016, 22:31
I just watched the last trailer and Batman still seems to be using that bloody awful fighting style known as the KFM on typical thugs. So yeah, a total Nolan love letter it seems. Give me a Dave Lea choreography any day. Sure it may be "dance-like" Ra's Al Ghul but you know something? It was bloody exciting stuff. Who can forget that absolutely vicious looking Batman Returns headbutt?
While I can't say I've seen the film yet, I really don't see how those snippets of Batman fighting those crooks in that trailer resembled anything like Nolan's incoherent choreography.
Neither. It's night and day, so I don't understand those comments at all.
As someone who's actually seen the movie, 0% of the BvS Batman is a "Nolan love letter."
The fighting's more fluid and impressive than anything from the trilogy. The Batmobile and Batwing are more bat-like than the Tumbler and the Bat. Batman's voice is actually understandable and doesn't make people laugh or make you think he needs to gargle cough syrup.
Do I prefer elements from Burton's approach still? Sure, from Gotham to the vehicles to the music to Keaton's approach to the voice.
Just 'cause it's not how Burton did it doesn't mean it's bad.
If Snyder's Batman is guilty of being a love letter to anything, it's Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns comic, which was obvious before Affleck was even cast.
So the premiere had all sorts of raving reviews, which from the past, I've learned to take these initial reactions with a grain of salt. When it comes to any movie with this kind of hype, the natural reaction is the be wowed. But now that we're getting actual reviews... well, it's looking pretty bleak.
The consensus amongst critics is that it's too "gloomy", it's "confusing", and some even said "boring". I'll have to see it for myself to make the call. I really don't want to believe the critics (coming from someone who enjoyed Batman & Robin). Gloominess, while inappropriate when dealing with Superman is the right ingredient for Batman (did they choose to ignore Nolan's acclaimed trilogy?).
Sadly, this looks another nail in the coffin for DC's film universe. Man of Steel wasn't irredeemable, but this movie was supposed to be the one to get things back on track, which it didn't do (aside from the killing it'll make at the box office). We've got Suicide Squad and Justice League to look forward to, but if it doesn't work out, they can't force it.
When it comes to the critics, it's hard to believe that this might be the second "bad" Batman film (after B&R). I'll reserve judgment for when I see it, though.
Quote from: Slash Man on Wed, 23 Mar 2016, 18:41The consensus amongst critics is that it's too "gloomy", it's "confusing", and some even said "boring". I'll have to see it for myself to make the call. I really don't want to believe the critics (coming from someone who enjoyed Batman & Robin). Gloominess, while inappropriate when dealing with Superman is the right ingredient for Batman (did they choose to ignore Nolan's acclaimed trilogy?).
I can say that I didn't get the feeling the TDKT was gloomy. But BvS is a Superman movie too. Have a very great day!
God bless you! God bless everyone!
This may be the first Superman or Batman movie I end up skipping on the big-screen since 1997's Batman & Robin (my first big-screen Batman :-[ ). Even die-hard DC fans are offering only the mildest praise... :(
Don't let that get you down, johnny. We've anticipated this for far too long, even if it ends up being mediocre. I hope you complete the journey and see the film. You may like it. Everyone has differing opinions and viewpoints after all.
I'll admit I'm let down by the fact that critics are hating on it; and I'm critical of the critics but they usually like boring films, for instance they were in love with the Dark Knight rises.
The IMDB is tough to go by; it has over 28,000 votes and there's no way that many people have seen it. If you take away the 10's and 1's, the average rating is 7.1 (slightly better than batman returns which did get quite a few 1's from Nolan fans).
I'm going on Sunday. I think at this stage I'll probably go see any live action version of Batman. It's hard to skip out on a Bat film no matter what people say. The only Bat-film I've missed out on in theatres since I saw my first one in 1997 was Batman Begins.
It's reached 150 reviews on RT and is currently down to 32%. At this rate, it's going to end up in the twenties along with Superman III and Green Lantern. More dispiriting though is the response from fans. Even the most positive are simply saying it's ok. Many diehard fans – ones you'd expect to love it – are saying it's horrible.
While we've all been trying our hardest to remain optimistic, I think many of us here on this site have been apprehensive about this project since it was first announced. I know I was, and I'm pretty sure johnnygobbs and a few others were too. For my own part, I've had serious misgivings about the direction of the DCEU ever since Warner Bros announced Snyder, Nolan and Goyer were helming the Superman reboot back in 2010. I didn't think Man of Steel was a very good film and my heart sank when they revealed Snyder was returning for Batman v Superman. But I've tried to remain optimistic. I'm
still trying, even now. But the bad reviews and increasingly poor word-of-mouth I've been hearing only reaffirm what my instincts have been telling me for the past 6 years – that Warner Bros is every bit as clueless about how to adapt its DC properties in 2016 as it was in 2004, or 1997, or 1987, or 1983, etc.
We're presently living in the Golden Age of superhero adaptations. Marvel Studios has made it look easy. Nolan made it look easy. But the fact is it isn't easy. Not unless you've got the right vision and sufficient talent to make it a reality. Warner Bros and DC lack both. Since the late seventies, WB has released around 25 films based on DC properties (there have been almost twice as many Marvel films in the equivalent time span) and the vast majority ranged from mediocre to terrible. The only major exceptions were when visionaries like Donner, Burton and Nolan came along and found a way of reinterpreting familiar characters in a fresh way that resonated with both critics and fans. But once that visionary moves on, WB are right back where they started, floundering in a sea of mediocrity. Hopefully either Ayer or Jenkins will turn out to be such a visionary, offering us an interesting take on the comics that'll go some way towards redeeming the DCEU. They're both infinitely more talented filmmakers than Snyder, in my opinion. Unfortunately WB has appointed Snyder as the overseer of the entire DCEU; their answer to Kevin Feige, so to speak. We'll just have to pray his influence on SS and WW is minimal.
I'm still going to try and catch Batman v Superman while it's in theatres, though I probably won't see it this weekend on account of it being Easter and my having other commitments. And I'm going to try my hardest to keep an open mind and judge it for myself. But based on what I've been hearing, it sounds like all the flaws I disliked in Man of Steel are present in this film too. And if certain
other things I've been hearing are true, then Snyder's taken his bastardisation of the source material to whole new heights. But still, I'm trying to remain unprejudiced. It's hard to do so in the current climate of negativity, but I'm determined to give the film a chance and make up my own mind.
But if it is as bad as the early response indicates, then Snyder has to go. I don't care if they're prepping for Justice League. It wouldn't be the first time WB pulled the plug on a Justice League movie at the last second (and to think, we could have had a George Miller-helmed JLA film 5 or 6 years ago, but they went with Snyder instead :(). If BvS does indeed suck, then WB needs to:
• Sack Zack
• Suspend production on JL, delaying it to a tentative release window of 2018 or 2019 while they rethink their strategy
• Focus on getting Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman perfect, particularly if it means making editorial changes in postproduction in response to the BvS criticisms. They apparently ignored the criticisms of Man of Steel, now it's time to start learning from their mistakes
• I would say fast track the Batman solo film to compensate for delaying JL, since Affleck appears to be the one thing about this movie people actually like. But it appears he may be backing off from the idea, so this might not be an option anymore
• Wait and see how fans respond to SS and WW before rushing any more films into production. MoS, BvS, SS and WW can be lumped together as DCEU Phase 1. If the last two films fail to improve the franchise's prospects, then scrap the whole thing and focus on standalone reboots for individual characters.
But like I say, I'm trying to keep an open mind. My expectations are low anyway, so I won't be crushed if it is as bad as everyone's saying. But there are other fans, including some regulars on this site, who really believed in this movie and have supported it every step of the way. These guys deserve to have their loyalty rewarded. They deserve better. And if WB kicks them in the nuts, I'm going to be mad on their behalf. But maybe it'll surprise us. Maybe the critics are overreacting. Maybe it'll deliver. I'm going to see it for myself and formulate my own opinion. Must stay positive. Must stay positive. Must stay positive.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette2.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fglee%2Fimages%2Fa%2Fa9%2FImpatient.gif%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20120420154717&hash=dd5bc4c776c8308a5220b3cd37616d4db78ef294)
another great post SN
The Nolan films aren't for everyone and I'm one of them especially the dark knight rises; I've seen that film 3 times and honestly have no ambition to ever see it ever again. I found it dull, boring, humorless, pretentious, and depressing. Man of steel I had the same complaints. Even the critics are levying these same complaints at BvS which worries me because critics typically enjoy boring films.
I'll give it a shot but I'm very skeptical. It seems 1 billion dollars at the box office will be the determining factor of success or failure. A lot of people bought advanced tickets, let's see what kind of numbers it brings in week 2 or 3.
I'm reminded of the battle it had with Captain America Civil war; if you recall, Marvel set its release date first (when it was only announced as Captain America 3 and not yet the civil war), WB set the same day for BvS in an attempt to bully marvel but marvel didn't back down. A lot of people felt not only was WB acting childish, they weren't showing business saavy as Marvel could afford to have a film under perform at the box office while DC/WB had EVERYTHING riding on this film.
I wonder what will happen if Civil war outperforms this one at the box office?
Well said, SN.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 24 Mar 2016, 16:41
It wouldn't be the first time WB pulled the plug on a Justice League movie at the last second (and to think, we could have had a George Miller-helmed JLA film 5 or 6 years ago, but they went with Snyder instead :().
I read the script for that film. While it needed a dialogue polish and Miller's casting choices were odd, the script was much better than what we got for Dawn of Justice. Hell, I'd say it was better than the DC films in the last 7 years (Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel, DOJ).
I agree that Snyder absolutely has to go. Goyer's already out and, considering how the script for DoJ turned out, I'd boot Terrio off too.
Keep Snyder's visual designs (at least for Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman).
Make Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman as good as they can be. The positive response to Affleck's Batman and, potentially, warm reception to SS could get people excited about a new Batman film and if Affleck doesn't want to direct, perhaps David Ayer will, but I'll wait to judge Suicide Squad before championing him. I'm
hoping that film will earn back the good will that DoJ has squandered.
And I think it's about time we see the Batman family on film: Robin, Nightwing, Batgirl/Oracle. Let's explore "established Batman" territory that Burton, Schumacher, and Nolan didn't get to touch.
I'd put Justice League on hold until the films have earned enough interest and love from the audiences for them to want to see it. I've wanted to see a JLA movie for years and DOJ did nothing to excite me for a Zack Snyder JL movie.
Hold off on a new solo Superman film until you get a writer and director who are actually interested in exploring Superman as a character and not about exploring him as some kind of a messiah figure for other, more interesting characters to react to. Cavill is a solid choice for Clark Kent and it's time he gets a movie that he deserves. Today's jaded audience see Superman as boring and one note. Superman Returns, Man of Steel, and now Dawn of Justice have done nothing to change that and given us a Superman with a pretty lifeless personality and have failed to have him connect with audiences.
Give us a creative team who'll make us excited about Superman again. Give us new Superman villains. Give us more Silver Age or Post-Crisis elements that we haven't seen on film before. Flesh out Clark's life in the Daily Planet. Actually make me give a crap about him and Metropolis and why he loves that city. And recast/re-envision Lex Luthor while you're at it.
The DC Cinematic Universe already has solid casting and character designs for Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. It's what's going on behind the camera that's letting it down and needs to be fixed.
Spot on Silver Nemesis! :)
And shivering Jeremy Irons, or should that be 'young Alfred' is a nice touch. ;D
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu, 24 Mar 2016, 17:29The DC Cinematic Universe already has solid casting and character designs for Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. It's what's going on behind the camera that's letting it down and needs to be fixed.
Agreed BatmAngelus.
If anything potentially good comes out of this apparent farrago it's the casting for the three lead superheroes. Cavill already convinced me by providing the best live-action Superman performance since Christopher Reeve in MOS, whatever else I may have felt about that film (and to be honest my feelings are actually mixed rather than completely negative, although that's still not good enough for what is supposed to be the first film in an extended cinematic universe), and he, Affleck and Gadot certainly look the parts of their respective characters, and have the acting chops, or at least the right screen persona and charisma, to evoke their essence.
I truly hope that regardless of whatever happens with the long-term future of the DCEU, Warner Bros convince Cavill, Affleck and Gadot to stick with their parts, because it would be a massive shame to see them reboot/revise their plans, as many of us are rather hoping, whilst ending up having to cast around for actors who don't fit these characters so well.
Going to a late showing tonight at 10pm. My once high expectations are most definitely in check.
Going tomorrow at 7. I'm excited til I have reason not to be.
I just saw on the Batman-Online Twitter page that Paul (I assume?) decided not to take his kids because it's too violent and graphic.
Is that true Paul? I always thought Batman Returns was the most graphic in terms of violence in the franchise, but it sounds like this film has gone overboard.
It's a different kind of violence. A little sadistic. Plus there are some scenes that are top graphic in terms of imagery and what's implied, for young viewers, I feel. Obviously I don't want to go into them incase of spoilers...but they were needless.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Thu, 24 Mar 2016, 23:03
It's a different kind of violence. A little sadistic. Plus there are some scenes that are top graphic in terms of imagery and what's implied, for young viewers, I feel. Obviously I don't want to go into them incase of spoilers...but they were needless.
Without referring to specifically to BvS, and simply going back to The Laughing Fish's earlier post, would you say that Batman Returns' violence is more comic/absurd/fantastical, and thus less problematic for younger audiences?
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Thu, 24 Mar 2016, 23:03
It's a different kind of violence. A little sadistic. Plus there are some scenes that are top graphic in terms of imagery and what's implied, for young viewers, I feel. Obviously I don't want to go into them incase of spoilers...but they were needless.
Am I gonna barf my popcorn and Coke onto the person in front of me?
Haven't seen it yet, judging by some spoiler comments I read (spoilers don't take away the enjoyment IMO, and I don't have any patience with professional film critics who pay more attention to their writing than the movie they write about) it indeed has some weird choices that maybe justify this 30%.
Quote from: Nycteris on Fri, 25 Mar 2016, 01:37
Haven't seen it yet, judging by some spoiler comments I read (spoilers don't take away the enjoyment IMO, and I don't have any patience with professional film critics who pay more attention to their writing than the movie they write about) it indeed has some weird choices that maybe justify this 30%.
I have no time for critics and Tomato Meters.
This was right up my alley.
Dark Knight, are you still proceeding with your 'Batfleck' feature?
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 25 Mar 2016, 09:47
Dark Knight, are you still proceeding with your 'Batfleck' feature?
You better believe it buddy. I am fired up right now. My Batman passion has been rekindled by this movie, after a dark cloud of uncertainty the last few days. I am going to finish this analysis as soon as humanly possible, to get the praise out there that Affleck and the creative team deserve.
That was f***ing epic!!!
Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 26 Mar 2016, 02:33
That was f***ing epic!!!
Glad you liked it, and we're on the same page.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 26 Mar 2016, 09:25
Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 26 Mar 2016, 02:33
That was f***ing epic!!!
Glad you liked it, and we're on the same page.
Yea how often does THAT happen? lol
Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 26 Mar 2016, 09:42
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 26 Mar 2016, 09:25
Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 26 Mar 2016, 02:33
That was f***ing epic!!!
Glad you liked it, and we're on the same page.
Yea how often does THAT happen? lol
Heh. It's good when it happens though, right?
So Affleck is now your favourite Batman, too?
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 26 Mar 2016, 09:56
Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 26 Mar 2016, 09:42
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 26 Mar 2016, 09:25
Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 26 Mar 2016, 02:33
That was f***ing epic!!!
Glad you liked it, and we're on the same page.
Yea how often does THAT happen? lol
Heh. It's good when it happens though, right?
So Affleck is now your favourite Batman, too?
Yes. He brought everything to the table and then some. I still love Michael and Val but this version of Batman, the ruthless, no f***s given in his pursuit of justice badass just did it for me. It reminded me of the Bat in the Arkham games and how brutal he is sometimes with the thugs which is a lot of fun to be in control of lol. Plus that is one beautiful hunk of man, y'all.
Indeed. He just suits the character so perfectly that he took my top spot. He's as American as they come, from Boston - the birthplace of the nation y'all.
He swaps between Batman's various roles with ease. He's the biggest body out of the lot, even more so than Bale. So you believe he could smash someone down in a brawl. I loved that training sequence when he's doing the weights and dragging the tyres. You can also believe he's an eligible bachelor given his good looks. But he still seems like a respected owner of a big, important company and has the respect of his employees, and Gotham/Metropolis at large.
Totally. I won't get specific cause spoilers but he did it all at Lex's party, that was so good.
Wanna know who else I freaking love in his role? Laurence Fishburne! He is perfect as Perry White.
How about WB just scrap the new universe and spare all the moaners the apparent pain and misery they're going through. Those poor moaners. They must feel so let down. They are entitled to march on Zach Snyder's house, demand a refund for their ticket and have him lynched by noon tomorrow. BvS is a crime on humanity and every copy must be burned, and those who have seen it must be labotomised to erase their memories.
I love the film, but what a downer this is. Sometimes I just wonder why we all bother.
Shouldn't a great Batman/Superman film entertain/satisfy a large number of people/the majority, rather than just a handful? [giveup] I mean, that's okay for a fan-film but this movie cost about $450 million.
This whole thing left a sour taste in my mouth too (it rarely happens with movies). Still haven't seen it but I'm inclined to love it, even judging by the soundtrack (which I have been listening non-stop for the last few days) and reviews/opinions by fans who liked it. A handful of opinions by people who know their thing count more than a hundred negative reviews by critics off their mark who say things like its "depressing" and "pretentious". The alleged "plot holes" are more legitimate criticisms, but still don't justify this backlash, all movies have them (and especially the much cherished Nolan's TDK and TDKRises).
Still doubts about some of their choices which seem premature. Maybe they shouldn't have done that. (More in the spoilers thread)
Need to watch it soon, but I wait to catch a late night screening with few attendants.
Yeah, see the film yourself and you never know, you may enjoy yourself. Fingers crossed you do. Joker, Catwoman and myself all came out liking what we saw, and aren't ripping into it.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 26 Mar 2016, 11:41but this movie cost about $450 million.
Can you even math, bro?
Anyway, I dug the movie. That is more or less Batman as I've always seen him. This silly idea that he shouldn't kill people is just inane. I guess it made sense when the Comics Code was there keeping everybody dishonest but now that it's gone, it's simply illogical to continue using that stupid rule. It's good that Snyder recognized that and scrapped that rule entirely.
There's a lot of stuff to sort through with this movie, and God knows there will be time. But I really enjoyed it. It gave Batman and Superman plausible reasons to be at odds with each other and, ultimately, to beat the crap out of one another.
Very enjoyable and I'm looking forward to future DCEU films.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 26 Mar 2016, 22:50
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 26 Mar 2016, 11:41but this movie cost about $450 million.
Can you even math, bro?
Yes. I can do math.
I even know that 'math' isn't a verb, 'bro'. ;)
How many times are you guys thinking about seeing this? I'm gonna try to see it for my second time tomorrow. Overall, I think I'll try to see this 3-5 times.
I really liked this movie. And I can't wait for the extended cut on Blu Ray. That's gonna be a day-one purchase for me.
2-3 total for me in the theater, buying the DVD (poor bitches can't afford Blu-Ray lol) day one.
Just got back home from checking out BvS again with some of my bros from work.
Not sure I'll check it out again in a theater 3 times, but hey, it's possible.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 26 Mar 2016, 22:50
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 26 Mar 2016, 11:41but this movie cost about $450 million.
Can you even math, bro?
Anyway, I dug the movie. That is more or less Batman as I've always seen him. This silly idea that he shouldn't kill people is just inane. I guess it made sense when the Comics Code was there keeping everybody dishonest but now that it's gone, it's simply illogical to continue using that stupid rule. It's good that Snyder recognized that and scrapped that rule entirely.
There's a lot of stuff to sort through with this movie, and God knows there will be time. But I really enjoyed it. It gave Batman and Superman plausible reasons to be at odds with each other and, ultimately, to beat the crap out of one another.
Very enjoyable and I'm looking forward to future DCEU films.
Very pleased to hear you enjoyed it colors. I thought you would. I agree completely about the whole song and dance outrage about Batman killing. This is basically the Batman of B89, when he discovers the Joker killed his parents. But with increased athleticism and martial arts skills to back it up. This is the most dangerous Batman ever. Embrace that. The scene with the flamethrower dude was actually one of my favourite scenes in the movie. It exemplified who Batman is. He protects the innocent, makes difficult choices and is a dark guy.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 26 Mar 2016, 23:16I even know that 'math' isn't a verb, 'bro'. ;)
Since it apparently needs to be explained...
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F09%2FNGT-Do-You-Even-Science.png&hash=245586559b9f6a84ad123c11cd8a45f05a7b00f4)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0wyOeOuh92c/hqdefault.jpg)
And of course...
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.meme.am%2Finstances%2F56119042.jpg&hash=824bdf9bcf9d11f7fb5aead9eb7e55f48206652e)
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 27 Mar 2016, 06:58Very pleased to hear you enjoyed it colors. I thought you would. I agree completely about the whole song and dance outrage about Batman killing. This is basically the Batman of B89, when he discovers the Joker killed his parents. But with increased athleticism and martial arts skills to back it up. This is the most dangerous Batman ever. Embrace that. The scene with the flamethrower dude was actually one of my favourite scenes in the movie. It exemplified who Batman is. He protects the innocent, makes difficult choices and is a dark guy.
I haven't followed every single comment about BvS that people have posted around here but it looks like most of us don't have too much of a problem with Affleck's Batman.
As you say, it could be his similarities to Burton's Batman. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if Burton was directing Batman movies today, his Batman would do all or most of the same stuff Affleck did in BvS.
I have seen a fair amount of outrage (for lack of a better word) over how quickly Batman turned when Superman mentioned Martha. It was kind of a light switch change, according to the critics. But I walked into this movie expecting two things.
01- Batman and Superman would seek each other out for a fight.
02- Batman and Superman would become friends and team up against a common enemy.
If the whole "first we fight and then we team up" bit sounds like a 90's comic to anybody else, it's because that's probably about the era that Snyder was hardcore collecting comics (assuming he was a collector, that is). It's a trope because it's effective and dramatic.
Batman and Superman have to beat each other up. Then they have to stop beating each other up and realize they're on the same side. There are only so many ways to skin that cat. Snyder maybe could've handled the transition better but, hey, nothing is perfect in life.
Affleck's electronic Batman voice is something I've wanted for probably 10 years now. It adds an inhuman quality to his voice, it sounds a little creepy and it effectively disguises Bruce Wayne's voice. There's nothing wrong with the Kevin Conroy approach but everything else about Batman is all misdirection, theatricality and deception; why should his voice be any different? It's a completely valid artistic decision to make and one that's long over due.
In fact, at this point probably the only thing that's missing is making Batman's eyes all white comic book-style... and even there, Snyder did give us the white lenses during the big battle with Superman.
All around, everything about this looks very comic booky to me. It's a breath of fresh air after the Marvel Studios conveyor belt of Twinkies that are good junk food but don't really satisfy as a
FILM.
Great points about the voice.
And in terms of the fight itself, I liked it. It showed that a fully powered Superman would kick Batman's ass. And he did. A slight touch sent him flying backwards. Supes flew Batman through a building, and down against the bat signal. But when kryptonite comes into play, Batman's the winner. He has the martial arts skills, and strikes while the iron is hot. He's merciless. And again, as shown in the film, when Supes regains his powers, Batman just has to cop it on the chin. He's thrown through a wall, and if it wasn't for that second kryptonite grenade fired frantically while Supes was charging, Bats was a goner. But the grenade hit, and the rest is history.
I just felt this was a fantastic film. Very mature, commenting on society but also deeply rooted in the comics.
Just saw it today, finally.
First of all, this film is nowhere near the pile of sh*t that critics and some people out there are making it out to be. Not even close.
But I have to be honest, my first impressions of it are only okay. Not great. Just okay.
My biggest complaint is the pacing. I thought the first hour or so really dragged and drew closer to Nolan's films when it came to exposition. MOS got a lot of criticism for having "too much action", but I think the pacing in that movie overall was better there than it is here. But the final twenty minutes in BvS is a sight to behold, and the emotional ending was very effective. There were a couple of moments in the plot that made ask questions, but I'll leave that to the spoilers thread, which I'll post soon.
I'd like to say, this film is NOT that graphic. Unless I saw a heavily edited version in my theatre, I didn't see anything as intense compared to Batman Returns, which is still the most disturbing film in the franchise to date when it comes to violence, in my opinion. And I don't agree that it's sadistic either. Maybe the bathtub scene with Lois was provocative (not that I'm complaining ;)), but there was nothing in BvS that made me get shocked at some of the graphic moments the MCU films managed to squeeze in, e.g. Ultron ripping Ulyses Klaw's arm off in Age of Ultron, a Hydra soldier getting ripped apart into a cloud of blood when he fell into an aeroplane's tailspin in The First Avenger, or Loki annihilating a group of SHIELD guards by throwing daggers at their throats in the first Avengers.
Ben Affleck was indeed very good in this, and the best part of the movie by far. Definitely the best live-action Batman since Michael Keaton.
Jesse Eisenberg was fine. He's not the ideal Lex Luthor I wanted, but he's not terrible. The whole criticisms about how "silly" he is (and yes, I'll admit that I was guilty of judging him too in the trailers), isn't really justified. He's more psychotic than previous portrayals, and I took it as he naturally has a strong loathing for people.
In short: maybe I'll appreciate the film even more after repeat viewings, but I thought it was alright at best. Not crap, but not great either.
Quote from: Catwoman on Wed, 21 May 2014, 18:46
i like it a lot. yes worlds finest would have been better but this is good too. and obviously it isn't the justice league because this is the DAWN of justice. they'll be around in the afternoon. lol.
Clicked the first page by accident and found this cute, if I do say so myself, nugget from Kitty :)
;D
So far, the film has grossed the biggest box office opening in March ever, and has earned $424 million worldwide.
Source: http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/27/media/batman-v-superman-box-office-opening-weekend/
How long will this last?
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 04:54
So far, the film has grossed the biggest box office opening in March ever, and has earned $424 million worldwide.
Source: http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/27/media/batman-v-superman-box-office-opening-weekend/
How long will this last?
Good start. Hopefully it continues.
This is pretty cool - you can see inside the Batcave on Google Maps.
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/You-Can-Now-Explore-Batcave-Through-Google-Maps-120877.html/
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 04:54So far, the film has grossed the biggest box office opening in March ever, and has earned $424 million worldwide.
Source: http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/27/media/batman-v-superman-box-office-opening-weekend/
How long will this last?
Nobody is qualified to say... but BvS does have a pretty clear field for the next long while. It's pretty much unopposed and will remain so. It has plenty of time to stretch its legs, if it will have legs.
Whatever success or failure BvS experiences from here on in, it owns it. There can't be any excuses. If BvS succeeds, it's because people love it. It will be undeniable. If it fails, it's basically unopposed so nobody can blame competition from other films. This will also be undeniable.
Anecdotally I've seen very few negative fan reviews on Facebook. That means little or nothing. But it could be a very positive sign that civilians, the great unwashed, similarly love BvS. We shall see, I suppose.
I loved it, both my friends I went with loved it. This film more than any other I can recall may shed light on the obvious critic agendas; audiences mostly love it, critics mostly hate it. Aren't critics jobs to tell audiences whether they would enjoy a film?
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 13:06Whatever success or failure BvS experiences from here on in, it owns it. There can't be any excuses. If BvS succeeds, it's because people love it. It will be undeniable. If it fails, it's basically unopposed so nobody can blame competition from other films. This will also be undeniable.
This is very true.
It will have a month or so to stretch its legs before Civil War is released.
The next few weeks, and whether audiences continue to flock to see it based on word-of-mouth or second/third viewings will say a lot about how well regarded this movie is.
another thing this movie has going for it is its rather clever marketing plot with respect to the DVD/blu ray sales; statues of batman OR superman with each one so some people will buy both. I'd expect solid sales for that as it's already advertised as an expanded edition (something Nolan never did with his films)
I'm a big fan of Superman and love the mythos surrounding his world.
I can't wait to see these films to watch Clark working at The Daily Planet alongside his colleagues like Jimmy Olsen, Cat Grant, Steve Lombard and Ron Troupe! I also can't wait to see the suave, charismatic Lex Luthor hoodwinking the public and vying for the presidency somewhere down the line!
Hopefully this franchise has a long way to go yet with Clark Kent as a character! :) Right?
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 18:46
I can't wait to see these films to watch Clark working at The Daily Planet alongside his colleagues like Jimmy Olsen, Cat Grant, Steve Lombard and Ron Troupe! I also can't wait to see the suave, charismatic Lex Luthor hoodwinking the public and vying for the presidency somewhere down the line!
I've been wanting that for ages. I really hope Superman isn't turned into the "Hulk" of the DC Movieverse and actually gets a series of standalone films.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 18:46
I can't wait to see these films to watch Clark working at The Daily Planet alongside his colleagues like Jimmy Olsen, Cat Grant, Steve Lombard and Ron Troupe! I also can't wait to see the suave, charismatic Lex Luthor hoodwinking the public and vying for the presidency somewhere down the line!
Why have Jimmy, Cat, or Ron when you can have Jenny the intern and a nonathletic Steve Lombard (who hits on much younger interns) instead?! ;D
Batman V Superman had a big opening this weekend, but there was also a steep drop from Friday to Sunday and the overall number was below what WB hoped:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2016/03/28/batman-v-superman-sets-record-with-worst-friday-sunday-drop-for-superhero-pics/#6f7d9ab66d72
http://variety.com/2016/film/box-office/batman-v-superman-box-office-3-1201740145/
And before anyone says that these are some biased/paid off critics who are trying to skew data, Forbes and Variety were in the minority and published positive reviews on the film, with Variety writing a follow up article defending the film:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2016/03/22/review-batman-v-superman-triumphant/#4335bc983cbd
http://variety.com/2016/film/reviews/batman-v-superman-review-dawn-of-justice-1201735801/
http://variety.com/2016/film/news/batman-v-superman-why-not-to-hate-1201738799/
It's obvious that BvS was going to make money. Opening weekend box office is just an indicator of everyone who was interested in seeing it. After that, it's a mix of people who didn't get to see it that weekend along with people who want to see it again.
The drop over the weekend doesn't surprise me and I wouldn't be surprise if it drops further next weekend, simply because this is a divisive movie.
I think the idea of it being critics vs. fans is too simplistic. I know fans who loved it. I know fans who hated it and even some people who lost interest in seeing it. The debates over the film are just as heated as, say, The Dark Knight Rises and Man of Steel.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 19:46
Why have Jimmy, Cat, or Ron when you can have Jenny the intern and a nonathletic Steve Lombard (who hits on much younger interns) instead?! ;D
;D Is Steve in this one? I know he featured in Man of Steel, but I didn't see Michael Kelly's name credited for BvS at the IMDb.
To be fair, Lombard in MOS was vaguely like the comic-book Lombard. It was implied he was a bit of a jerk, albeit one who demonstrated a degree of courage during the Supes v Zod fight. Still not very athletic though.
I don't think I'm spoiling anything by saying Lombard's not.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 21:02
I don't think I'm spoiling anything by saying Lombard's not.
No, and I guess the same applies to Jimmy*, Ron and Cat.
* Actually I understand that Jimmy does briefly appear in the film. :(
I've still got to get out and see it. But the whole "critic's ratings" is intriguing. Now that it's widely known that there's a huge divide between the fans and critics, it seems that the tides have turned against those reviewers who gave it scathing reviews. The critics who judged it on account of "comic book fans" are now at odds with actual comic book fans.
I'm still trying to process how we even came to this train wreck. The Nolan films were pretty and well-made, and Oscar-baity enough to warrant positive critical reviews. No explanation needed there. Some critics tried to take down Burtons films (more so the original), but positive response from fans was too overwhelming (not to mention the incredible hype). This film almost had that, but not quite. The hype was still enough for it to make a killing at the box office.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 19:46It's obvious that BvS was going to make money. Opening weekend box office is just an indicator of everyone who was interested in seeing it. After that, it's a mix of people who didn't get to see it that weekend along with people who want to see it again.
What we're seeing is basically the movie fall $4 million short of the tracking. If you figure the average cost of a movie ticket is $9, roughly about 445,000 people were expected to see the movie on Sunday but didn't.
Gee, you'd almost think this past Sunday was a major religious holiday or something.
I was referring to how the movie will fare in future weekends, more than the drop during the opening weekend. We'll just have to see.
QuoteGee, you'd almost think this past Sunday was a major religious holiday or something.
This is addressed in the article:
QuoteYou might be thinking that Sunday was the Easter holiday, which could account for the big Sunday drop. But that still wouldn't explain the Friday-to-Saturday decline of 38%, which was the second worst opening Friday-to-Saturday drop in the annals of superhero releases, after a 40% dip for The Dark Knight Rises.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2016/03/28/batman-v-superman-sets-record-with-worst-friday-sunday-drop-for-superhero-pics/#2d22004a6d72
Quote from: Slash Man on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 03:57
I'm still trying to process how we even came to this train wreck.
BvS is only a trainwreck if you go by the critics, and some fans who are hung up certain details.
What's funny is after the 2nd time I checked out BvS, me and a friend went to a local Hastings store and spoke to some of the guys who are comic book readers that we often socialize with, and I asked if they had seen BvS. They did and loved it. Though one of the guys said he was getting annoyed at his showing due to some kid sitting behind him continually saying, "Batman doesn't use guns! Batman doesn't kill!", to which I responded by saying, "I suppose the poor boy never read those early Kane/Finger issues did he?" He responded with "Exactly!". We went on to talk about Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Flash, ect.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 04:33I was referring to how the movie will fare in future weekends, more than the drop during the opening weekend. We'll just have to see.
QuoteGee, you'd almost think this past Sunday was a major religious holiday or something.
This is addressed in the article:
QuoteYou might be thinking that Sunday was the Easter holiday, which could account for the big Sunday drop. But that still wouldn't explain the Friday-to-Saturday decline of 38%, which was the second worst opening Friday-to-Saturday drop in the annals of superhero releases, after a 40% dip for The Dark Knight Rises.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2016/03/28/batman-v-superman-sets-record-with-worst-friday-sunday-drop-for-superhero-pics/#2d22004a6d72
I was unclear. Forgive me. What I'm saying is I don't buy that. Maybe next week BvS's numbers will be absolutely in the toilet and it will turn out this article was spot on. But I simply find their analysis not believable. Luckily I or the writer will soon be proven right.
Hopefully that makes more sense than the brief post I dashed off before.
Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 04:46
What's funny is after the 2nd time I checked out BvS, me and a friend went to a local Hastings store and spoke to some of the guys who are comic book readers that we often socialize with, and I asked if they had seen BvS. They did and loved it. Though one of the guys said he was getting annoyed at his showing due to some kid sitting behind him continually saying, "Batman doesn't use guns! Batman doesn't kill!", to which I responded by saying, "I suppose the poor boy never read those early Kane/Finger issues did he?" He responded with "Exactly!". We went on to talk about Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Flash, ect.
Smart people. Affleckman's 20 year career fighting crime really does set everything into context. He's desensitised and there's no end in sight. Criminals are nothing but weeds to him. I think he says as much during the movie. Plus, we even get a line from Affleckman, spoken to Alfred, saying that he and Alfred have always been criminals - the exact sentiment expressed in TDK Returns. He knows he's a vigilante breaking the law every night. Offing a bunch of goons isn't going to alter that perception any more or less, when you really get down to it.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 12:24
Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 04:46
What's funny is after the 2nd time I checked out BvS, me and a friend went to a local Hastings store and spoke to some of the guys who are comic book readers that we often socialize with, and I asked if they had seen BvS. They did and loved it. Though one of the guys said he was getting annoyed at his showing due to some kid sitting behind him continually saying, "Batman doesn't use guns! Batman doesn't kill!", to which I responded by saying, "I suppose the poor boy never read those early Kane/Finger issues did he?" He responded with "Exactly!". We went on to talk about Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Flash, ect.
Smart people. Affleckman's 20 year career fighting crime really does set everything into context. He's desensitised and there's no end in sight. Criminals are nothing but weeds to him. I think he says as much during the movie. Plus, we even get a line from Affleckman, spoken to Alfred, saying that he and Alfred have always been criminals - the exact sentiment expressed in TDK Returns. He knows he's a vigilante breaking the law every night. Offing a bunch of goons isn't going to alter that perception any more or less, when you really get down to it.
Pull out a weed and another grows in its place. Unlike Baleman, Batfleck realizes he will never win the war on crime. I think this conversation is a good prelude to why Batman wants to form a justice league; he knows he's only one man and can't fight forever. He also knows that with meta humans and aliens present on earth, the stakes have been raised.
I wouldn't say there is a huge gap between fans and critics. Complaints and praises I've seen from both camps are not that far apart.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 14:45
I wouldn't say there is a huge gap between fans and critics. Complaints and praises I've seen from both camps are not that far apart.
Does this mean 71% of fans hate it too?
I wouldn't go that far. I'd say it's pretty 50/50 among fans, which matches the RT critic score since the average grade rating is 5/10 there. Hell, among my social circle alone, my friend (who saw it with me) and I felt mixed about it, two of my other friends really liked it, and two of my other friends hated it. Not saying we represent the whole world, but that's just an example of how divisive it is.
When are you planning to see it, Johnny?
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 29 Mar 2016, 04:33I was referring to how the movie will fare in future weekends, more than the drop during the opening weekend. We'll just have to see.
Apparently today was a record setting (for a Monday). $15 million. I still think it's possible that the Easter Hypothesis is valid. As you say, wait and see... but today is an encouraging sign.
It seems the critics aren't stopping this money train.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xThuWi3MvHjTYxIo4U/giphy.gif)
Had to right click save that one. haha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_z5Z8rqEtI
Hans Zimmer announces that he has "retired" from the superhero genre. Hopefully they'll still use his Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman themes for Justice League and their future appearances.
Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 01:26
Had to right click save that one. haha
More good news:
QuoteBatman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has taken the Tuesday record in March with $12.2M, beating The Hunger Games previous record of $10.3M. Total domestic cume now stands at $193.27M, and at this pace BvS will cross the two century mark today.
Just came back from seeing the film. And I loved it. :)
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 14:45
Just came back from seeing the film. And I loved it. :)
Even Lex? :-\
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 14:45
Just came back from seeing the film. And I loved it. :)
I'm seeing a good number of people now saying they enjoyed the film. Most bizarre for a film with a 29% Tomato Meter. You would think there would be hardly anything positive to say about a film with that kind of ranking. That score just can't be taken seriously. I can accept BvS is divisive, but a train wreck of a film it is not.
Eisenberg didn't play Lex the way I would've liked the character to be, but I think he did well with what he had.
The best part for me was Affleck, who plays an awesome Batman, I loved every second of him onscreen, the fight with Superman especially. And Jeremy Irons is a very good Alfred. I definitely want a solo Batman movie.
Henry Cavill and Gal Gadot were also very good at portraying Superman and Wonder Woman. You could say that the heroes didn't interact as much as the title suggests, but the scenes that they did share were great. And the film was altogether beautifully shot and it really drew me in from the start. It was a very pleasing experience.
I didn't feel that the story was confusing or that it dragged on as the critics seemed to say, in fact I don't think BvS wastes any of its running time. So I think they're dead wrong on this film. Everyone should make up his/her own mind.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 14:50
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 14:45
Just came back from seeing the film. And I loved it. :)
I'm seeing a good number of people now saying they enjoyed the film. Most bizarre for a film with a 29% Tomato Meter. You would think there would be hardly anything positive to say about a film with that kind of ranking. That score just can't be taken seriously. I can accept BvS is divisive, but a train wreck of a film it is not.
Perhaps a score closer to what MOS got (i.e. 56%) would be more fair/reflective then?
The thing with RT, is that it's clearly not a precise science. It measures the number of critics who liked and didn't like a film, but it doesn't measure the extent to which they liked or didn't like it. Thus a film with say a 50% 'rotten' rating might in fact be more divisive than one with say a 25% 'rotten' rating because the 50% of people who disliked the former film may be stronger in their distaste than the 75% of people who disliked the latter film.
Thus, it's entirely possible that the 71% who dislike BvS don't truly hate the film, but just simply didn't much like it/felt it fell short of its ambitions/potential.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 15:08
Eisenberg didn't play Lex the way I would've liked the character to be, but I think he did well with what he had.
The best part for me was Affleck, who plays an awesome Batman, I loved every second of him onscreen, the fight one with Superman especially. And Jeremy Irons is a very good Alfred. I definitely want a solo Batman movie.
Henry Cavill and Gal Gadot were also very good at portraying Superman and Wonder Woman. You could say that the heroes didn't interact as much as the title suggests, but the scenes that they did share were great. And the film was altogether beautifully shot and it really drew me in from the start. It was a very pleasing experience.
I didn't feel that the story was confusing or that it dragged on as the critics seemed to say, in fact I don't think BvS wastes any of its running time. So I think they're dead wrong on this film. Everyone should make up his/her own mind.
The problem is, Lex is such a massive sticking point for me, mostly because he has never been done right in live-action before. Superman has had Reeve and Cavill (with MOS), Batman has had West, Keaton and Bale (and Kilmer if you like) and even Wonder Woman has Linda Carter, but the best Lex we've had in terms of live-action is John Shea in the otherwise average "The Adventures of Lois and Clark".
From what I've read, Eisenberg's Lex is the exact opposite of the Lex I could have wished for, almost as if Snyder read my thoughts and said "I'm going to make a Lex that 'Johnny Gobbs' will totally hate". A weedy, whiny, effeminate spoiled rich kid who acts more like The Joker than a serious, cool, calm and ruthless businessman is as far from what I wanted for Lex as possible, and what's worse is that Zack Snyder originally told us that his Lex was going to be a 'cross between Richard Branson and Brad Pitt'. What happened to that, or did he choose, as another poster has pointed out, to base his Lex on Max Landis as a means of petty point-scoring against the guy who trashed MOS?
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 14:34More good news:
QuoteBatman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has taken the Tuesday record in March with $12.2M, beating The Hunger Games previous record of $10.3M. Total domestic cume now stands at $193.27M, and at this pace BvS will cross the two century mark today.
http://deadline.com/2016/03/batman-v-superman-tuesday-box-office-record-1201728459
It does make you wonder, doesn't it? Monday was a record breaker, Tuesday was awesome and so what does that suggest for the rest of the week? It could well be that the legs BvS has will include weekdays, which is pretty cool.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 14:45
Just came back from seeing the film. And I loved it. :)
See? lol.
I like your review. We're in pretty close agreement tbh. Lex wasn't my ideal version but it was an interesting new version that he did a great job with. I still prefer the Clancy Brown STAS version but EisenLex won me over from being like totally skeptical.
Totally agree about the heroes too. They were so damn good. I can not wait to see them and the rest of the Justce League.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 15:25
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 15:08
Eisenberg didn't play Lex the way I would've liked the character to be, but I think he did well with what he had.
The best part for me was Affleck, who plays an awesome Batman, I loved every second of him onscreen, the fight one with Superman especially. And Jeremy Irons is a very good Alfred. I definitely want a solo Batman movie.
Henry Cavill and Gal Gadot were also very good at portraying Superman and Wonder Woman. You could say that the heroes didn't interact as much as the title suggests, but the scenes that they did share were great. And the film was altogether beautifully shot and it really drew me in from the start. It was a very pleasing experience.
I didn't feel that the story was confusing or that it dragged on as the critics seemed to say, in fact I don't think BvS wastes any of its running time. So I think they're dead wrong on this film. Everyone should make up his/her own mind.
The problem is, Lex is such a massive sticking point for me, mostly because he has never been done right in live-action before. Superman has had Reeve and Cavill (with MOS), Batman has had West, Keaton and Bale (and Kilmer if you like) and even Wonder Woman has Linda Carter, but the best Lex we've had in terms of live-action is John Shea in the otherwise average "The Adventures of Lois and Clark".
From what I've read, Eisenberg's Lex is the exact opposite of the Lex I could have wished for, almost as if Snyder read my thoughts and said "I'm going to make a Lex that 'Johnny Gobbs' will totally hate". A weedy, whiny, effeminate spoiled rich kid who acts more like The Joker than a serious, cool, calm and ruthless businessman is as far from what I wanted for Lex as possible, and what's worse is that Zack Snyder originally told us that his Lex was going to be a 'cross between Richard Branson and Brad Pitt'. What happened to that, or did he choose, as another poster has pointed out, to base his Lex on Max Landis as a means of petty point-scoring against the guy who trashed MOS?
I'm going to be constructive towards you for 2 minutes (do not get used to it). You need to go see this and make up your own mind. Find the cheapest local showing and just go and watch it for yourself (with an open mind) instead of letting paid critics with no emotional attachment to the characters think for you. You have nothing to lose but a few bucks and 2:40 of time. Not that big of a cost to find out something for yourself that relates to something you're interested in.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 30 Mar 2016, 15:08
Eisenberg didn't play Lex the way I would've liked the character to be, but I think he did well with what he had.
I think Eisenberg's Lex is similar to an internet troll, mixed in with the mad scientist aspects of the character. While I thought he was okay in BvS, I do think his character will change in later films.
Highlight below:
Just as Batman seems like he'll change. He refuses to brand Lex at the end, and the Batmobile guns are taken off in Suicide Squad. Superman seems to have had an impact on him.
Although I really enjoyed BvS, I really could do without Eisenberg's Luthor in future installments. There has been some discussions I've read on the net, and have discussed with friends who have seen the movie and share my sentiments on Eisenberg, of the scenario of Lex Luthor Sr. re-appearing in Metropolis, after supposedly being dead, and re-taking control of Lexcorp, along with cleaning up the company's image following the Luthor/Zod/Doomsday debacle, while of course, doing some shady things like all Luthor's tend to do.
In some ways, it would be kinda similar to how readers in the '80's, and early 90's, had Harry Osborn as their Green Goblin, only to have his father, Norman Osborn, make his return and proclaim the reports of his death was greatly exaggerated. Lex faked his death in the books before .. could be the case again ...
I know it's just me having idle daydreams, but oh well. ;)
Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 31 Mar 2016, 01:20
Although I really enjoyed BvS, I really could do without Eisenberg's Luthor in future installments. There has been some discussions I've read on the net, and have discussed with friends who have seen the movie and share my sentiments on Eisenberg, of the scenario of Lex Luthor Sr. re-appearing in Metropolis, after supposedly being dead, and re-taking control of Lexcorp, along with cleaning up the company's image following the Luthor/Zod/Doomsday debacle, while of course, doing some shady things like all Luthor's tend to do.
In some ways, it would be kinda similar to how readers in the '80's, and early 90's, had Harry Osborn as their Green Goblin, only to have his father, Norman Osborn, make his return and proclaim the reports of his death was greatly exaggerated. Lex faked his death in the books before .. could be the case again ...
I know it's just me having idle daydreams, but oh well. ;)
That actually would be badass. Question though. Red beard and mane or chrome dome? lol
Quote from: Catwoman on Thu, 31 Mar 2016, 01:26
That actually would be badass. Question though. Red beard and mane or chrome dome? lol
I would go with chrome dome, and if there was a scene where Lex Senior confronts his son in prison, in order to berate him and tell him what a disappointment he is, which would lead credence to Eisenberg's Lex Junior's apparenr dislike of his father, I would have something of a line where Junior tells his father that ever since he's been incarcerated, every time he looks in the mirror, he sees his father staring back at him.
This would concern me as it would merely make Eisenberg's Lex come across as even more pathetic than he already is.
I said Eisenberg's Lex was a bad idea from the start, and it seems even the film's biggest fans agree with me. :-\ I now don't see how justifications can be made for this interpretation. It is what it is, as Snyder himself has said about the film.
If Snyder didn't want such a poor Lex he probably should have listened to people like me in the first place. If he wants to finally listen to people like me, as he should have done in the first place, I'd advise him not to introduce Lex Sr. as Eisenberg's father as it would make Eisenberg look even sillier, weaker, more spoiled and pathetic than he already does.
So, the film has officially crossed $500 million after five days.
Source: http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/671615-batman-v-superman-worldwide-box-office-passes-500-million
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 31 Mar 2016, 08:33
So, the film has officially crossed $500 million after five days.
Source: http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/671615-batman-v-superman-worldwide-box-office-passes-500-million
Henry Cavill puts it nicely here on his Facebook account. The fans are what matters, not the critics:
Thank you to you, the fans, for speaking so loudly. Hope lives on #BatmanvSupermanAnd Gal Gadot as well:
You are all that matters... Thank you for being so supportive of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Your love is not being taken for granted!🏻 and I'm already on my way to the Wonder Woman set 🙅🏻
You Europeans mostly don't get it but we Americans are rather easily charmed by a London accent. If someone speaks with a sufficiently English accent, we ascribe all manner or grace, class and intelligence. Cavill can just smile and say "Thank you", and most Americans hearts will melt. "Look at how DIGNIFIED he is!"
And yes, I'm as vulnerable to that as any other American.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 31 Mar 2016, 12:56
You Europeans mostly don't get it but we Americans are rather easily charmed by a London accent. If someone speaks with a sufficiently English accent, we ascribe all manner or grace, class and intelligence. Cavill can just smile and say "Thank you", and most Americans hearts will melt. "Look at how DIGNIFIED he is!"
And yes, I'm as vulnerable to that as any other American.
We've lucky to have Cavill. I consider him Reeve's true successor. Really eager to see his return in Justice League. And also, I think it's important to say this Superman isn't necessarily 'dark' or even 'emo', it's basically that he's a good person navigating a dark, cynical world. There's a big difference. And I dig it.
The main problem with Rotten tomatoes is that it's graded on a pass/fail basis and we all know that it's not that simple. Still I'm glad that there's the discrepancy between fan reaction and critics, critics need to be called out for their reviews, it's been well known for far too long that they rate movies based on agendas rather than entertainment factor.
Fan reaction is positive, the box office so far is successful, hopefully DVD/blu ray sales will boom as well so the critics can stick it.
If all goes according to plan, I should finally be seeing this tomorrow. Based on the wide range of reactions, I've no idea what to expect. I'm going in with an open mind and no concrete expectations.
I'm looking forward to it, but at the same time I'm apprehensive. I've been keeping a close eye on about half a dozen or so message boards since the film came out, and everyone everywhere seems to be upset about it. Either they're upset because they liked it and everyone else doesn't, or they're upset because they didn't like it and everyone else does.
Meanwhile I've been enjoying a sensation of neutrality from not having an opinion. This must be what it feels like to be Portugal. But tomorrow, all that will change. :-X
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 2 Apr 2016, 12:27
If all goes according to plan, I should finally be seeing this tomorrow. Based on the wide range of reactions, I've no idea what to expect. I'm going in with an open mind and no concrete expectations.
I'm looking forward to it, but at the same time I'm apprehensive. I've been keeping a close eye on about half a dozen or so message boards since the film came out, and everyone everywhere seems to be upset about it. Either they're upset because they liked it and everyone else doesn't, or they're upset because they didn't like it and everyone else does.
Meanwhile I've been enjoying a sensation of neutrality from not having an opinion. This must be what it feels like to be Portugal. But tomorrow, all that will change. :-X
I'm in a similar boat to you, but that's possibly down to me being half-Portuguese. [giveup] ;)
I will either be your strongest ally or your worst enemy, Silver. Hopefully you like the movie. :-\
The Hollywood Reporter:
Warner Bros. Mulls Releasing Fewer Films as 'Batman v. Superman' Stalls
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-bros-mulls-releasing-films-881265
Along similar lines:
http://www.ibtimes.com/batman-v-superman-tanks-china-box-office-dc-movies-lose-ground-marvel-2348128
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 6 Apr 2016, 15:42
The Hollywood Reporter:
Warner Bros. Mulls Releasing Fewer Films as 'Batman v. Superman' Stalls
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-bros-mulls-releasing-films-881265
Perhaps if they rebooted and made better/more popular films they could proceed with their initial release plans. It would of course mean ensuring that Snyder, Goyer and Eisenberg were never let near the franchise ever again.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 6 Apr 2016, 16:41
Along similar lines:
http://www.ibtimes.com/batman-v-superman-tanks-china-box-office-dc-movies-lose-ground-marvel-2348128
It could end up with a smaller Chinese gross than Ant-Man (2015), the film Snyder dismissed as a "flavour of the month". China is currently the biggest overseas market. It's the key territory if a film wants to join the $1 billion club. Unfortunately BvS just didn't resonate with their audiences. It opened strong, but experienced a sharp OW Sat-Sun drop and lost over 70% of its screens to local releases by the end of its first week. It's also seen dramatic drops here in the UK and in several other key markets.
Even with all my pre-release reservations about this film, I honestly thought $1 billion worldwide was a lock. I never dreamed it would underperform like this. I think Warner Bros was at least hoping for around $400-500 million domestic + $700-800 million overseas. That would've yielded a final WW cume of about $1.1 to 1.3 billion, which would've placed it in the Iron Man 3 (2013) range.
Instead it looks like it's going to crawl to about $800 million WW. Maybe $850 million. And that's with absolutely zero competition at the box office. It should just about break even, and with streaming revenues, merchandise and promotional tie-ins, they should make a profit. But it's not going to be anywhere near what they were hoping for.
I'm definitely expecting WB to announce some changes to their line-up of DC movies. I just can't see them pushing ahead with the Cyborg solo film if the combined appeal of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman can't bring in the big dollars. And by "big dollars" I mean the kind of money Furious 7, Jurassic World and The Avengers movies have been reaping.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 6 Apr 2016, 17:28It could end up with a smaller Chinese gross than Ant-Man (2015), the film Snyder dismissed as a "flavour of the month". China is currently the biggest overseas market. It's the key territory if a film wants to join the $1 billion club. Unfortunately BvS just didn't resonate with their audiences. It opened strong, but experienced a sharp OW Sat-Sun drop and lost over 70% of its screens to local releases by the end of its first week. It's also seen dramatic drops here in the UK and in several other key markets.
'Flavour of the month'? Wow! What a jerk...especially when Snyder's own film was barely flavour of the week. :-\
^ For the link and quote:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Zack-Snyder-Takes-Shot-Ant-Man-Here-What-He-Said-81867.html
QuoteBut I feel like Batman and Superman are transcendent of superhero movies in a way, because they're Batman and Superman. They're not just, like, the flavour of the week Ant-Man – not to be mean, but whatever it is. What is the next Blank-Man?
Quote from: riddler on Thu, 31 Mar 2016, 15:40
The main problem with Rotten tomatoes is that it's graded on a pass/fail basis and we all know that it's not that simple. Still I'm glad that there's the discrepancy between fan reaction and critics, critics need to be called out for their reviews, it's been well known for far too long that they rate movies based on agendas rather than entertainment factor.
Fan reaction is positive, the box office so far is successful, hopefully DVD/blu ray sales will boom as well so the critics can stick it.
Critics don't have agendas, fan reaction is not universally positive, word of mouth is mixed at best, and box office is dropping and not meeting expectations. We can debate the merits of the actual movie all day, but the view that "Only the critics hated it, everyone else loved it" just doesn't line up with the facts anymore when articles and analyses like what Silver Nemesis and I posted are getting published every day.
I don't buy into the critic-agenda theory for one second. Everyone's getting hung up on the 29% score on RT. But if you look below that, you'll see the average critic rating is actually 5/10, which is the median on a 1-10 scale. Meaning the reviews were average. Not good, not awful, just average. If you want to see a film that got really bad reviews, check out last year's Fantastic Four. That has an average rating of 3.4/10 with an overall score of 9%.
Similarly the Metascore for BvS is 44/100, which according to Metacritic's own parameters indicates
mixed or average reviews.
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice
Meanwhile word-of-mouth amongst fans is mixed at best. I've been monitoring the responses on about six different message boards since the film's release, and I can honestly say that Batman-Online boasts by far the most positive like/dislike ratio I've seen. Of course we can all present anecdotal evidence to support our perceptions of the response, but let's look at a few facts.
BvS received an audience CinemaScore of B, which is the same rating as Catwoman (2004) and Green Lantern (2011).
https://www.cinemascore.com/
The RT user score has dropped to 70% in less than a fortnight, and the IMDb rating has fallen to 7.3 during the same time span. And those scores include literally tens of thousands of pre-release perfect 10 votes from the fans. Both of those ratings also started out in the 90+% range and will likely drop further in the coming months. The IMDb 'top 1,000 voters' rating is currently 5.8/10.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/ratings
Social media reactions are also a good indicator of the public response. Pro.boxoffice.com monitors Twitter posts for all major releases and calculates a positive/negative ratio to illustrate how much people like or dislike the film. A good ratio is 9:1 or higher. For example, here are the latest Twitter ratios for Zootopia:
Quote
Date # Tweets Pos:Neg Ratio
Apr 06, 2016 7234 42:1
Apr 05, 2016 17317 37:1
Apr 04, 2016 20007 21:1
http://pro.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/untitled-disney-animation-film-1-2016
Now here are the latest Twitter ratios for Batman v Superman:
Quote
Date # Tweets Pos:Neg Ratio
Apr 06, 2016 24586 3:1
Apr 05, 2016 57603 5:1
Apr 04, 2016 75085 4:1
http://pro.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/man-of-steel-2-2015
But for the best indicator of audience reaction, simply look at the box office results. Hype and presales guaranteed a huge opening, but the drops we've been seeing ever since reflect the poor word-of-mouth. Audiences weren't put off by the reviews – they flocked in droves to see the movie when it first came out. The problem is not many of them wanted to see it a second time.
So it's not only the critics who have a problem with the film. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice might be the most divisive comic book movie ever made. As far as this hostile attitude towards critics goes – saying they need to be "called out" for giving their honest opinions – that's precisely the kind of mentality that prompted Batman fans to send abusive messages to reviewers back in 2012. I don't think any of us want a repeat of that embarrassing occurrence, and I like to think the users on this site are above that sort of behaviour anyway.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 6 Apr 2016, 18:21
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 6 Apr 2016, 17:28It could end up with a smaller Chinese gross than Ant-Man (2015), the film Snyder dismissed as a "flavour of the month". China is currently the biggest overseas market. It's the key territory if a film wants to join the $1 billion club. Unfortunately BvS just didn't resonate with their audiences. It opened strong, but experienced a sharp OW Sat-Sun drop and lost over 70% of its screens to local releases by the end of its first week. It's also seen dramatic drops here in the UK and in several other key markets.
'Flavour of the month'? Wow! What a jerk...especially when Snyder's own film was barely flavour of the week. :-\
You know I hate having to take sides in the DC vs Marvel debates but my god there's a lot of trashing going from the DC side; Goyer throws stones at the MCU films, Nolan's cinemetographer criticized the action shots in the Avengers, now Snyder is piling on? Compare that to Stan Lee and Joss Whedon who do nothing but praise DC. I haven't seen anyone from the marvel camp fire shots at Man of Steel or BvS despite avenues to do so.
If we have to make comparisons, Ant-man is currently sitting at 7.4 on the IMDB to BvS 7.3 with the latter's rating dropping daily (I still havent seen Ant Man so I can't compare). I liked BvS but supporters need to find something better than slamming Marvel to properly defend their film.
Quote from: riddler on Wed, 6 Apr 2016, 20:50You know I hate having to take sides in the DC vs Marvel debates but my god there's a lot of trashing going from the DC side; Goyer throws stones at the MCU films, Nolan's cinemetographer criticized the action shots in the Avengers, now Snyder is piling on? Compare that to Stan Lee and Joss Whedon who do nothing but praise DC. I haven't seen anyone from the marvel camp fire shots at Man of Steel or BvS despite avenues to do so.
If we have to make comparisons, Ant-man is currently sitting at 7.4 on the IMDB to BvS 7.3 with the latter's rating dropping daily (I still havent seen Ant Man so I can't compare). I liked BvS but supporters need to find something better than slamming Marvel to properly defend their film.
Conversely, I'm starting to feel bad for the fans of this film. I've been slamming the film and, I can't deny, feeling a sense of vindication with respect to the response, particularly the elements that I felt would hurt the film the most (i.e. the characterisation of Lex and the Randian/borderline nihilistic tone that runs throughout many of Snyder and Goyer's films, not to mention the rumoured 'no jokes' memo the Warner Bros execs apparently issues with respect to the DCEU), however, I also know a lot of people, including various posters here, feel very strongly about this film, and see this version of Batman/Superman as
their Batman/Superman, and I feel a little guilty for hating on the movie (even though I can't deny that I'd ideally like to see a reboot one day more in the vein of a live-action version of the 1990s animated series).
To go back to your point, I can sympathise with the frustration that the fans of these films must be feeling with respect to some of the adverse response, even though I do agree with BatmAngelus and Silver Nemesis, that the critics are being entirely genuine in their criticism (and as Silver Nemesis says, most of the reviews taken in isolation aren't terrible, just lukewarm).
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 6 Apr 2016, 18:27Critics don't have agendas,
All due respect but that's simply not true. If nothing else, it's an open secret that critics look down their noses at mainstream Hollywood summer stuff and all but have quite the spring in their step when heading into a low budget indie film. Snyder is not a director with a ton of admirers among the critic community.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 6 Apr 2016, 18:27box office is dropping and not meeting expectations.
Whose expectations? The film's worldwide numbers are above $700 million, which both outgrosses MOS and more than accounts for the higher production cost of the movie. If WB (or anybody) "expected" a billion dollars, they were dreaming.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 6 Apr 2016, 18:27We can debate the merits of the actual movie all day, but the view that "Only the critics hated it, everyone else loved it" just doesn't line up with the facts anymore when articles and analyses like what Silver Nemesis and I posted are getting published every day.
Yes, it would be safe to say that BvS will not be remembered as universally popular among moviegoers. But I simply find it hard to believe a movie reaches this sort of box office figure worldwide without a very positive reception among vast swathes of wide audiences.
Despite the drop in box office takings for BVS, WB has announced
two more untitled DC movies, while bumping up Wonder Woman's release date:
Quote
Suicide Squad — 5 August 2016
Wonder Woman – 2 June 2017
Justice League Part One – 17 November 2017
The Flash – 23 March 2018
Aquaman – 27 July 2018
Untitled DC Film — 5 October 2018
Shazam – 5 April 2019
Justice League Part Two – 14 June 2019
Untitled DC Film — 1 November 2019
Cyborg – 3 April 2020
Green Lantern Corps – 19 June 2020
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/batman-vs-superman-warner-bros-2-untitled-dc-films-suicide-squad-wonder-woman-a6972336.html
I don't understand what to make of this. Does this mean they're happy (if still underwhelmed) by the film's box office performance as of now?
***EDIT*** I didn't catch this closing paragraph in this article:
Quote
Meanwhile, Batman v Superman is failing to show it has legs at the box-office. Although it has passed $700 million globally, the second-weekend drop-off was at a substantial enough level for analysts to believe the overall gross could be $900 million, just short of the $925 million it needs to break even.
What's the worst case scenario if the film doesn't meet that break even point?
The budget was $250 million, it will end up with 3-4 times that amount once it leaves theatres. Say what you like about the film itself but it was a worthwhile business investment. The billion dollars was a best case scenario, it is still very profitable and WB would be best served fixing it's shortcomings going forward than rebooting and starting over AGAIN especially when there are some aspects which everyone agrees they did get ight (Affleck, Cavill, Irons).
Quote from: riddler on Thu, 7 Apr 2016, 13:50
The budget was $250 million, it will end up with 3-4 times that amount once it leaves theatres. Say what you like about the film itself but it was a worthwhile business investment. The billion dollars was a best case scenario, it is still very profitable and WB would be best served fixing it's shortcomings going forward than rebooting and starting over AGAIN especially when there are some aspects which everyone agrees they did get ight (Affleck, Cavill, Irons).
That doesn't take into account marketing costs, and some observers have speculated that $250 million is at the lowest end of its possible budget estimate, and that the real budget is closer to something like $400 million.
As for proceeding with a franchise that is riddled with shortcomings, it's a risky strategy because it means that whatever films are released from now on will be tarnished by association with BvS. Look at Spider-Man 3, the biggest domestic box-office hit of 2007...Sony didn't make a sequel and in fact rebooted the franchise a mere five years later (by the way, SM3 has a 63% 'fresh' rating at Rotten Tomatoes... :-X ).
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 7 Apr 2016, 11:47
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 6 Apr 2016, 18:27Critics don't have agendas,
All due respect but that's simply not true. If nothing else, it's an open secret that critics look down their noses at mainstream Hollywood summer stuff and all but have quite the spring in their step when heading into a low budget indie film. Snyder is not a director with a ton of admirers among the critic community.
Sure, critics rate indie films higher than Hollywood blockbusters. That bias doesn't translate to "agenda against BvS" to me when they've been more favorable to past superhero movies, Batman movies, Superman movies, and Snyder movies. Obviously, there are exceptions to each category, but my point is, I don't see how critics wrote bad reviews to target and "take down" this film (or 'cause they took bribes from Disney/Marvel ::) like I've read fans on other sites claim). They wrote them 'cause they didn't like the movie.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 7 Apr 2016, 11:47
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 6 Apr 2016, 18:27box office is dropping and not meeting expectations.
Whose expectations? The film's worldwide numbers are above $700 million, which both outgrosses MOS and more than accounts for the higher production cost of the movie. If WB (or anybody) "expected" a billion dollars, they were dreaming.
Is it really dreaming though? The last two Batman movies scored over a billion. Same with both Avengers & Iron Man 3, and if we're not counting superhero movies, franchise films like Jurassic World, Furious 7, and Star Wars: TFA all grossed that much last year. Surely a film with the three most iconic superheroes in the same movie, released without much competition, would be expected to make a killing. As Laughing Fish posted, they haven't broken even yet.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 7 Apr 2016, 11:47All due respect but that's simply not true. If nothing else, it's an open secret that critics look down their noses at mainstream Hollywood summer stuff and all but have quite the spring in their step when heading into a low budget indie film. Snyder is not a director with a ton of admirers among the critic community.
Indie filmmakers don't have the financial resources or marketing outlets necessary to promote themselves, so they rely on critics to spread positive word-of-mouth on their behalf. There are thousands of indie films that get released each year, but we never hear about most of them because the critics don't bring them to our attention. We only hear about the good ones. It's the same with foreign language cinema. Usually only the good ones get decent distribution in English-speaking territories. This can create the false impression that all foreign language cinema is good, when in fact the bad films vastly outweigh the good. We just don't hear about the stinkers.
By contrast, we hear about every major popcorn flick churned out by the big studios. The marketing machine makes certain of that. So when the critics dismiss one of those films, the movie's failure is far more visible. This creates the perception that critics are prejudiced towards popcorn flicks, when in reality they're no more selective about blockbusters than they are about indie films. It's just that critics have more incentive to be passionate about indie films because they know their opinion can make or break them. And when they're not passionate about an indie film, we don't usually hear about it.
Here are some big budget popcorn flicks the critics championed in 2015:
Furious 7 – RT 81%
Jurassic World – RT 72%
Star Wars: The Force Awakens – RT 92%
Avengers: Age of Ultron – RT 75%
Ant-Man - RT 80%
If there was truly an agenda amongst critics, I doubt they would have supported these pictures.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 7 Apr 2016, 11:47Whose expectations? The film's worldwide numbers are above $700 million, which both outgrosses MOS and more than accounts for the higher production cost of the movie. If WB (or anybody) "expected" a billion dollars, they were dreaming.
I didn't see a single professional analyst lowball BvS with a -$1 billion estimate. People like Kevin Smith, who predicted a $2 billion cume, were dreaming. The rest, who predicted a haul in excess of $1 billion, were simply making educated estimates based on the hype factor and comparative box office precedents. Just look how many films made over a billion last year alone:
• Star Wars: The Force Awakens - $2.063 billion
• Jurassic World - $1.670 billion
• Avengers: Age of Ultron - $1.405 billion
• Furious 7 - $1.516 billion
• Minions - $1.159 billion
And as BatmAngelus points out, the previous two Batman films both made over a billion. And they did it without the revenue boost from 3D ticket sales. BvS Superman had every advantage in its favour.
• It had a simultaneous global release that gave the studio a head start on pirates.
• It had the two most iconic superheroes of all time.
• It had Wonder Woman making her big screen debut, plus Lex Luthor, Doomsday, the Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg to attract fans.
• It had a review embargo that prevented the critics from impacting presales.
• It had an Easter release date when lots of kids were off school.
• It opened on a massive number of screens, including IMAX and 3D showings (which cost more than regular tickets).
• It had a clear field at the box office, with absolutely zero competition whatsoever.
They couldn't have stacked the deck more in its favour. This movie should have breezed past a billion no problem. WB will try and put a positive spin on things in their press releases, but I guarantee they're racking their brains right now trying to figure out what went wrong.
Quote from: riddler on Thu, 7 Apr 2016, 13:50The budget was $250 million, it will end up with 3-4 times that amount once it leaves theatres. Say what you like about the film itself but it was a worthwhile business investment. The billion dollars was a best case scenario, it is still very profitable
Unfortunately it's not that simple. Theatres keep their cut of the box office. Only part of it goes back to the studio. In North America, the studio cut can be as much as 55 cents on the dollar; though it decreases the longer the film's been in theatres (which is why studios favour frontloaded releases). Overseas revenue can return as little as 20 cents on the dollar. This is where the generalisation comes from that the studio keeps only 50% of the WW box office. WB spent around $400 million on BvS: $250 million production budget + $150 million print & advertising costs (both foreign and domestic). Which means it needs to make $800 million just to break even. According to the 50% rule, at least.
However this system of analysis is not terribly accurate. Another way of looking at it is that the studio gets about half of domestic revenue and about 1/3 of overseas. Which means BvS would have to make $400 million domestic and $600 million foreign to break even. This is why many analysts are saying it needs to gross a billion to get out of the red. But at the end of the day, this system is also imprecise. We armchair analysts will never truly know how much the studio makes.
What we do know is that Warner Bros is notoriously bad at accounting. The most famous example of this is Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, a film which grossed $939 million on a production budget of $150 million. And Warner Bros still ended up losing $167 million on the picture: http://deadline.com/2010/07/studio-shame-even-harry-potter-pic-loses-money-because-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting-51886/
Man of Steel is another film that didn't perform too well. Jeff Robinov famously predicted it would gross $1.3 billion prior to its release. It ended up making a little over half that amount. It's final WW box office sum brought in a negative return on investment, but luckily WB had already made over $160 million in pre-release promotional tie-ins. So what was Man of Steel's net profit at the end of the day?
$42.7 million: http://deadline.com/2014/03/iron-man-3-gravity-man-of-steel-profit-most-profitable-movies-2013-701662/
To put that into perspective, Age of Ultron returned Marvel/Disney a net profit of
$382 million: http://deadline.com/2016/03/avengers-age-of-ultron-profit-2015-box-office-marvel-universe-1201725562/
Even Ant-Man, a film which grossed $519 million WW on a budget of $130 million, yielded a net profit for Marvel/Disney of
$103 million: http://deadline.com/2016/03/ant-man-profit-box-office-2015-marvel-paul-rudd-1201723544/
When a D-lister like Ant-Man makes over twice as much profit for the studio as an A-lister like Superman, then you know something has gone very, very wrong.
Ultimately box office success is determined by numbers, and numbers don't lie. Man of Steel underperformed and now Batman v Superman is underperforming too. Don't get me wrong, the kind of money they're bringing in would be excellent if we were talking about a lesser known character like Cyborg or Hawkman. But for Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman, and taking into account just how much WB has invested in this, the outlook isn't looking too good.
Quote
Is it really dreaming though? The last two Batman movies scored over a billion.
Undeservedly so, unfortunately. ;) But that's beside the point.
I don't understand either why it would be unrealistic to expect a billion dollars from BvS, if a lot of other pop culture film could do it.
I confess that my knowledge when it comes to box office numbers is nearly non-existant, but this is what I don't get about the movie needing to earn $925 million to break even. I thought if it had a budget of $250 million, it would need to double the gross at the box office, i.e. around $500 million (assuming that my maths is even correct, which it likely isn't :-[). At the time of writing, Box Office Mojo says it has earned more than $720 million after thirteen days, so you think it would be a little safe by now.
But if it still isn't enough, is it because a large portion of the budget was spent on marketing expenses? I heard a rumour that the marketing department for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 had spent too much on merchandise, and that spending contributed to Sony feeling dissatisfied with the final box office revenue. Could it be a similar dilemma for BvS?
It's often been observed that if Superman were to catch someone falling at high speed – as he's done many times in previous films and TV shows – he'd actually end up killing the person he's trying to save. I like the fact that when he catches Lois in BvS, he initially matches her rate of descent, then gradually slows to safely break her fall. It's the first time I've seen Superman catch someone like that in a movie or TV show.
Simon & Garfunkel's 'Sound of Silence' has soared to 6th place on the Billboard Rock Top 10 chart thanks to the 'Sad Affleck' video going viral: http://www.cnet.com/news/sad-affleck-vid-sends-1966-simon-garfunkel-song-to-top-of-charts/
Here's a link to the Billboard chart: http://www.billboard.com/charts/rock-songs
When I posted the 'Sad Affleck' video a couple of weeks back, it'd only had around a thousand views. Now it's up to 22 million!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwXfv25xJUw
Whatever gets more peeps listening to Simon and Garfunkel is Kitty-approved.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcstrips.bitstrips.com%2FMKQLV_LKMHC.png&hash=75a6c815afb096081f101876b20d95663fd8fcd2)
Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 9 Apr 2016, 14:34
Whatever gets more peeps listening to Simon and Garfunkel is Kitty-approved.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Forig00.deviantart.net%2F3b3e%2Ff%2F2012%2F064%2Fa%2F1%2Fpeeps_like_music_too_by_theanneelise-d4rvam1.jpg&hash=7dd667dc13edb20e2084d617dea6767c6c94b406)
"I am a rock, I am an iiiiiiiiiiisland...."
Yes I know I'm not right in the head
It seems Batman v Superman has been toppled from the number 1 spot at the US box office by The Boss. That's right, an R-rated Melissa McCarthy comedy produced on a budget of $29 million, with a Rotten Tomatoes score of 18% and a CinemaScore of C+, has overthrown Batman, Superman and Wonder on their third weekend. We all knew Jungle Book would dethrone BvS in its fourth week, but for this to happen on its third weekend is just embarrassing.
Now I wish the Ghostbusters remake was opening opposite Suicide Squad so SS could bury it at the box office.
On the subject of Batman v Superman's box office performance, it actually made less money on its third Friday than Tim Burton's Batman did back in 1989. And that's not adjusted for inflation. :-[
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 10 Apr 2016, 17:22
It seems Batman v Superman has been toppled from the number 1 spot at the US box office by The Boss. That's right, an R-rated Melissa McCarthy comedy produced on a budget of $29 million, with a Rotten Tomatoes score of 18% and a CinemaScore of C+, has overthrown Batman, Superman and Wonder on their third weekend.
So the critics aren't to blame.
QuoteOn the subject of Batman v Superman's box office performance, it actually made less money on its third Friday than Tim Burton's Batman did back in 1989. And that's not adjusted for inflation. :-[
Clearly that film had 'legs' (presumably because of great word-of-mouth and repeat business). Bear in mind Batman was released in the middle of a summer that featured hits such as Honey I Shrunk the Kids (which opened on the same weekend), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Ghostbusters 2, Lethal Weapon 2, The Abyss, When Harry Met Sally, Parenthood, Dead Poets Society, Uncle Buck and Do the Right Thing (as well as films that were expected to do well, but ultimately failed, like Star Trek V and The Karate Kid III).
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 7 Apr 2016, 12:00
Quote
Meanwhile, Batman v Superman is failing to show it has legs at the box-office. Although it has passed $700 million globally, the second-weekend drop-off was at a substantial enough level for analysts to believe the overall gross could be $900 million, just short of the $925 million it needs to break even.
What's the worst case scenario if the film doesn't meet that break even point?
I'm coming back to this. I found another article published a day before the film was released that claimed it needs gross $800 million to break even. But at the same time, it claims there the budget spent an additional cost of $150 million on marketing.
Source: http://www.newsy.com/videos/batman-v-superman-needs-800m-to-break-even-but-reviews-are-rotten/
I'm finding this really confusing. Which break even estimate is the correct figure - $925 million or $800 million?
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 8 Apr 2016, 18:10
It's often been observed that if Superman were to catch someone falling at high speed – as he's done many times in previous films and TV shows – he'd actually end up killing the person he's trying to save. I like the fact that when he catches Lois in BvS, he initially matches her rate of descent, then gradually slows to safely break her fall. It's the first time I've seen Superman catch someone like that in a movie or TV show.
Got to admit, I feel like doing a Superman feature, even though this is a Batman site. I'm not a Superman genius, like colors, but perhaps the angle of 'a Batman fan analyses Superman' could work. I really dig Cavill's version, even though Reeve and Cain are my childhood Supermen, especially Cain.
Im really getting erked by reading nothing but hate for this film. It's ok if you don't like it but "OMG Martha" is becoming another "They but Bat Nipples on the suit" I watched it a second time and I liked it more than the fist (I whole heartily admit this has editing/story issues) so knowing whats going on makes watching it a bit easier to comprehend.
Do you think once it's been out for a few years people will warm up to it? Do you think part of the problem is (on the Batman side) that this was too close to the Dark Knight series?
Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Wed, 13 Apr 2016, 01:56
Im really getting erked by reading nothing but hate for this film. It's ok if you don't like it but "OMG Martha" is becoming another "They but Bat Nipples on the suit" I watched it a second time and I liked it more than the fist (I whole heartily admit this has editing/story issues) so knowing whats going on makes watching it a bit easier to comprehend.
Do you think once it's been out for a few years people will warm up to it? Do you think part of the problem is (on the Batman side) that this was too close to the Dark Knight series?
Internet memes are so stupid, it's the death of humor - though the other one about "what was Batman doing during the Doomsday battle" is kind of funny, because it's true.
I don't want to come off as the world's biggest BvS 'apologist', but I didn't find the Martha sequence cringe worthy like others. Batman's very being is tied up in his parent's murder. It's one of the few things to stop him in his tracks. Tower of Babel for example, has Ras using his dead parents as a lure to distract Batman. And it works. He basically puts everything on hold to fight for their memory. Deep down, he's still that little boy looking to avenge an injustice.
I do think the Martha moment could've been handled better. My issue with the scene is Superman didn't try to mention her again after he was interrupted when trying to reason with Batman. It took until Batman was ready to put him down for Superman to say something. It might've deprived us from having the fight between the two, but still, the setting leading up to that moment does feel awkward to me.
That being said, I had no issues with Batman being caught off guard by the Martha line. As TDK said, it's his mother's name, and listening to Superman pleading "save Martha" makes Batman realise somebody else is in danger, and puts it together that he had been manipulated by Lex all along. In Batman's mind, he knows he was powerless to help his mother, but now he can do something to stop scumbags from taking another parent away from somebody else. The name was a sentimental link to get him and Superman to join forces.
Critics will try to argue Batman was "schizophrenic" and "gullible". I disagree. Batman let his paranoia over what if Superman could go rogue got the better of him. His planning to undermine Superman in case that even would happen was a part of his personality trait, (and his constant planning for the worst case scenario extends in the comics too) and it's that character flaw that made him blindsided by Luthor.
Besides, it's easy to make fun of things and put them into an internet meme. Someone should make a meme of how Two-Face began his killing spree in TDK, and see how the fanboys like them apples!
Quote
AARON ECKHART
You asshole, why did you kill my girlfriend?
HEATH LEDGER
I'm an agent of chaos. I just do things.
AARON ECKHART
Wow, that's some sophisticated characterization there. As soon as I get out of these surprisingly strong bandages, I'm going to kill you!
HEATH LEDGER
Look, you don't want to kill me for murdering her. You want to kill everyone else for failing to stop me from murdering her!
AARON ECKHART
That doesn't make any sense at all.
HEATH LEDGER
And yet, it's going to be your main character motivation for the rest of the movie. Now make with the murder, Sir Skins-A-Lot.
http://www.the-editing-room.com/thedarkknight.html
So according to Box Office Mojo, the film has grossed $800 million. This either means the film has broken even...or it still needs another $125 million to achieve it. I have no idea. :-\
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman2015.htm
Meanwhile, I gotta give a shout out to TDK's new analysis of Superman's struggle in the film, and how it relates to the common man getting unnoticed and unappreciated for their efforts in real life. Nice write-up mate, well done!
http://www.batman-online.com/features/2016/4/14/superman-one-of-us#sthash.iKSrogML.dpbs
You know, I had such mixed reactions after I walked out of BvS. Not because I disliked the film - I loved it and still do. But I felt hollow at the same time that this product was getting ripped apart and parodied. I felt so bad for the creative team who put their blood, sweat and tears into it. It deserves so much better, and they'll come out thinking they failed. It hurts more because these are my characters. The Marvel films are good - okay, so don't go there. But Batman and Superman are my childhood. They're my homeboys, and this means a lot. This means more to me. Basically, the second half of the Day of the Dead BvS soundtrack is how I felt. That the product is apparently close to death before it even started, and the rest of the films are at risk - from my point of view needlessly so. I wish people could see the film and the world like I do. But that's life.
I totally get what you're saying. I share a similar opinion regarding Marvel and DC. I may love what Marvel's done to date, but I've always been more dedicated to DC. I wouldn't be worried about the DCEU being scrapped altogether. If they wanted to scrap their plans, WB/DC would've done so by now. Instead, they have confirmed Batfleck will star and direct the solo movie, they even added two more movies to their plans, WW and JL filming is underway, Suicide Squad will be out soon. I don't see the sky falling at all.
I may have had my share of misgivings with BvS's plot at times, but it still leaves me looking for what's more to come. Unlike some "critically acclaimed" films out there that had brutally underwhelming endings, this one left me feeling good and hopeful.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 16 Apr 2016, 05:34
I wouldn't be worried about the DCEU being scrapped altogether. If they wanted to scrap their plans, WB/DC would've done so by now. Instead, they have confirmed Batfleck will star and direct the solo movie, they even added two more movies to their plans, WW and JL filming is underway, Suicide Squad will be out soon. I don't see the sky falling at all.
I know, but it's more about the perception.
Make no mistake, the people who say they really, really hoped BvS was 'better' are relishing this. It's very much personal and competitive. Otherwise you wouldn't see outright mocking and laughter. They're a bunch of c**** and internet friendships will be, and I'd say have been, altered because of this. I'm not joking either. People's true colours have been shown.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 17 Apr 2016, 03:26
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 16 Apr 2016, 05:34
I wouldn't be worried about the DCEU being scrapped altogether. If they wanted to scrap their plans, WB/DC would've done so by now. Instead, they have confirmed Batfleck will star and direct the solo movie, they even added two more movies to their plans, WW and JL filming is underway, Suicide Squad will be out soon. I don't see the sky falling at all.
I know, but it's more about the perception.
Make no mistake, the people who say they really, really hoped BvS was 'better' are relishing this. It's very much personal and competitive. Otherwise you wouldn't see outright mocking and laughter. They're a bunch of c**** and internet friendships will be, and I'd say have been, altered because of this. I'm not joking either. People's true colours have been shown.
It's bordering on childish, neener neener neener sh*t. Actually in a lot of cases it's gone there.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 17 Apr 2016, 03:26I know, but it's more about the perception.
Make no mistake, the people who say they really, really hoped BvS was 'better' are relishing this. It's very much personal and competitive. Otherwise you wouldn't see outright mocking and laughter. They're a bunch of c**** and internet friendships will be, and I'd say have been, altered because of this. I'm not joking either. People's true colours have been shown.
I don't think anyone 'relishes' a bad movie. And I don't think it's wrong to hope for something better when a movie fails to meet a certain desired standard.
I do think there is an element of 'we told you so' in some instances. But it's a feeling of regret rather than a smug, satisfied one. Some of us wish Snyder had listened to the criticisms that were directed towards MOS and in terms of some of the creative decisions he was making on BvS. Now that it appears those fears have been realised, I don't see why the naysayers should be subjected to name-calling and blacklisting.
It seems that the critics can't win. If they'd been wrong, they would have inevitably been made to look foolish for expressing any doubts in the first place. Yet, now it appears they have been proven right, and BvS's BO has suffered as a consequence of general audience dissatisfaction with Snyder's approach to the characters, they are still subject to abuse including name-calling and the threat of friendships being withdrawn.
You're a reasonable guy TDK. I'm sure you must be able to see that you're possibly being a tad unfair here.
That said if anyone is outright mocking and laughing at fans of BvS or the potential collapse of the DCEU, they're clearly jerks. But I hope no one is confusing mere criticism and despair at Snyder and co's approach for mockery and malice.
I'm glad IMDb's quotes page is finally updated, there were a few lines that I had a hard time understanding what was said the first go round. Not many of them were anything major but this one, the part in bold, I thought he said something like this but I wasn't sure.
QuoteLex Luthor: See, what we call God depends upon our tribe, Clark Joe, 'cause God is tribal; God takes sides! No man in the sky intervened when I was a boy to deliver me from daddy's fist and abominations. I figured out way back if God is all-powerful, He cannot be all good. And if He is all good, then He cannot be all-powerful. And neither can you be.
That gives me a little bit more of a sympathy or understanding for the character even though I still wish Batman had caved his face in at the end lol.
This was another one, I got the "you've never been too hot at lying to me" part but it was hard to grasp what Jeremy was saying before that. For one, it wasn't an analogy I would have ever come up with in like two million years lol but second, as sexy as his voice is sometimes the words are a little muddled. Not that I'm complaining or anything.....ok Kitty focus, The line, damnit, the line.
Quote
Alfred: Master Wayne, since the age of seven you've been into the art of deception like Mozart to the harpsichord, but you've never been too hot at lying to me.
I actually missed that line by Lex. It really defines his cynical view on Superman and life in general, and manifests into something more monstrous.
Batman may have been stuck in a dark place throughout this movie, but you could feel Alfred's agitation over Bruce's attitude. I'd go far to suggest he seemed very bitter too.
Baleman had his mouth open most of the time, looking dumbfounded. He had that embarrassing throat cancer voice. He had that busy, aesthetically unpleasing puzzle suit. But if Affleck's Batman kills some goons, like the other Batmen, everybody loses their minds. And Baleman becomes better by default.
Hey TDK, I'd like to go back to your review and appreciation of Cavill's Superman in this movie, and ask if your thoughts on MOS has changed for the best, if they weren't already that good before? One of the things I liked about this movie is it explores the foreboding dialogue delivered by Pa Kent on how the world would change, and how Superman's presence has his supporters and detractors.
I have my share of issues with how Superman was used for the remainder of the plot, but the last twenty minutes did make up for that. The most frustrating thing is in those twenty odd minutes, Superman's attempts to try to take the fight with Doomsday away from the city, and even saving Lex moments earlier should've won the detractors over...but it didn't.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 25 Apr 2016, 07:04The most frustrating thing is in those twenty odd minutes, Superman's attempts to try to take the fight with Doomsday away from the city, and even saving Lex moments earlier should've won the detractors over...but it didn't.
I keep reading the defenders of this version of Lex say 'well at least he's a super-genius'.
If that is the case than why did he need to be saved? Why would a 'super-genius' put himself in a position where he was going to get himself killed?
It also really angers me that they made this Lex so irredeemable and hateful yet he gets rescued whilst so many other characters in various Batman and Superman films over the years have been left to die. >:( If Lex is such a nasty POS he should have been left to perish; it's not as if Batman, for instance, hasn't let/seen relatively innocent people die in front of his eyes before.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 25 Apr 2016, 07:04
Hey TDK, I'd like to go back to your review and appreciation of Cavill's Superman in this movie, and ask if your thoughts on MOS has changed for the best, if they weren't already that good before?
I liked MoS before, but I now like it more. I think it's because BvS takes a lot of that material - references it and builds on it. Supes not just takes Doomsday into space, but willingly keeps pushing himself and his foe further upwards. This is a man embracing a nuclear strike in the hope it will destroy the threat. And if he dies as a result, so be it.
But hey, Superman in this series isn't meant to care about humanity apparently.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 26 Apr 2016, 11:49
But hey, Superman in this series isn't meant to care about humanity apparently.
Yeah, the detractor's can be pretty funny in their assumptions. Superman saved
plenty of people throughout MOS, not to mention by the end, oh yeah, the ENTIRE PLANET!
I remember defending MOS quite a bit on the internet following it's release, but quickly realized that arguing the same points over and over again with it's detractor's was a complete waste of time and effort. They had already made up their minds.
The weird thing is, I think these Snyder haters make the uber-Nolan fans look a bit sane. At least you could engage in some kind of discussion with them. It's a bit crazy what some of the stuff I'm seeing these guys pull off. It's gone way beyond the movie now, as they're going for old quotes that Snyder made about 8-9 years ago, to then finding a random pic of a sick kid in a hospital, and a guy dressed like Superman is hugging him, and they're somehow shoehorning their hatred in, by saying that's how Snyder dropped the ball, and he's an idiot for not realizing. They're using sick kids to bolster up their hatred. If the movie is as bad as they claim, I would imagine that would be evidence enough, but it's gone wayyyyy past that, now.
Quote from: Travesty on Tue, 26 Apr 2016, 23:10
The weird thing is, I think these Snyder haters make the uber-Nolan fans look a bit sane. At least you could engage in some kind of discussion with them. It's a bit crazy what some of the stuff I'm seeing these guys pull off. It's gone way beyond the movie now, as they're going for old quotes that Snyder made about 8-9 years ago, to then finding a random pic of a sick kid in a hospital, and a guy dressed like Superman is hugging him, and they're somehow shoehorning their hatred in, by saying that's how Snyder dropped the ball, and he's an idiot for not realizing. They're using sick kids to bolster up their hatred. If the movie is as bad as they claim, I would imagine that would be evidence enough, but it's gone wayyyyy past that, now.
At the risk of being called 'insane' myself, I guess that makes 72% of critics 'insane'. :-\
Let's be honest here, this film has received almost universal hatred. I'm not celebrating that; it's a shame. But to quote Snyder 'it is what it is'. Let's not pretend that it's a minority of hard-core crazies who are attacking this film.
I think you missed the point completely. It's fine to have an opinion or be critical, but to go beyond the movie, and start using outside quotes or pics that aren't associated with the movie, is a bit much. Not everybody who dislikes the movie is a "Snyder hater". I wouldn't classify anyone here as one(at least, not that I've seen).
And you can flip those ratings around for the Nolan movies. They're all highly praised, but I wouldn't call the majority of critics or people who enjoyed them a "Nolanite". So yes, I do think it's a certain minority of hardcore crazies that are taking it to the extreme, just like what happened with TDKT.
Quote from: Travesty on Wed, 27 Apr 2016, 00:22
I think you missed the point completely. It's fine to have an opinion or be critical, but to go beyond the movie, and start using outside quotes or pics that aren't associated with the movie, is a bit much. Not everybody who dislikes the movie is a "Snyder hater". I wouldn't classify anyone here as one(at least, not that I've seen).
And you can flip those ratings around for the Nolan movies. They're all highly praised, but I wouldn't call the majority of critics or people who enjoyed them a "Nolanite". So yes, I do think it's a certain minority of hardcore crazies that are taking it to the extreme, just like what happened with TDKT.
Okay, fair enough. I guess I just haven't really encountered any of these Snyder haters.
I have encountered a few people online who are taking rather too much delight in the failure of BvS. Now, I as much as anyone would love to see the franchise rebooted and done in a way that is more to my liking (and yes, I realise that may sound selfish, but bear in mind that this is what I'd
ideally like, not what I think
should happen...big difference) however, I still wanted to be proven wrong prior to the release of the movie. Like I've said elsewhere, no one should want a bad superhero movie. That said, it seems some people were practically praying for BvS to fail, and were relishing its poor critical reception. I can't relate to those people, even if I
can relate to the ones who are now peeved off that their worst fears were sadly realised.
Quote from: Travesty on Wed, 27 Apr 2016, 00:22
I think you missed the point completely. It's fine to have an opinion or be critical, but to go beyond the movie, and start using outside quotes or pics that aren't associated with the movie, is a bit much. Not everybody who dislikes the movie is a "Snyder hater". I wouldn't classify anyone here as one(at least, not that I've seen).
And you can flip those ratings around for the Nolan movies. They're all highly praised, but I wouldn't call the majority of critics or people who enjoyed them a "Nolanite". So yes, I do think it's a certain minority of hardcore crazies that are taking it to the extreme, just like what happened with TDKT.
Forget trying to talk to johnnygobbs about BvS, Travesty. He hasn't even watched the damn film yet, and doesn't intend to, but still takes the time to criticise it. Disappointing.
Quote
The weird thing is, I think these Snyder haters make the uber-Nolan fans look a bit sane.
It can't be that bad, can it? I honestly didn't realise there was much difference between the two.
Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 26 Apr 2016, 17:48
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 26 Apr 2016, 11:49
But hey, Superman in this series isn't meant to care about humanity apparently.
Yeah, the detractor's can be pretty funny in their assumptions. Superman saved plenty of people throughout MOS, not to mention by the end, oh yeah, the ENTIRE PLANET!
I remember defending MOS quite a bit on the internet following it's release, but quickly realized that arguing the same points over and over again with it's detractor's was a complete waste of time and effort. They had already made up their minds.
I seriously think Snyder missed a glorious opportunity by not making Superman trying to lift the Fortress of Solitude away from Metropolis and send it to the bay as soon as he sabotaged it during the "Krypton had its chance!" scene in MOS. It might've calmed down the complaints about "Superman destroying Metropolis" a bit (what amuses me so much is I hardly see anyone complaining about Superman crashing Zod into a power plant and gas station in Smallville, where he was directly responsible for starting the fight around civilians, unlike Metropolis). Instead, Superman goes strangely missing when the ship crashed into the city.
I do think MOS and BvS have legitimate criticisms against them, but I can definitely recognise the good things about them too. I find it frustrating a lot of people don't understand - or care - that BvS in particular was a redemption story for both heroes; Superman proves his worth and selflessness to protect the planet from danger and Batman comes out of the darkness as he's inspired by Superman's sacrifice.
Quote from: Travesty on Wed, 27 Apr 2016, 00:22
I think you missed the point completely. It's fine to have an opinion or be critical, but to go beyond the movie, and start using outside quotes or pics that aren't associated with the movie, is a bit much. Not everybody who dislikes the movie is a "Snyder hater". I wouldn't classify anyone here as one(at least, not that I've seen).
And you can flip those ratings around for the Nolan movies. They're all highly praised, but I wouldn't call the majority of critics or people who enjoyed them a "Nolanite". So yes, I do think it's a certain minority of hardcore crazies that are taking it to the extreme, just like what happened with TDKT.
Yep. The people against this film are reaching beyond belief now. The anti-Snyder crew are just as rabid as the Nolan crowd. And that's no exaggeration. It's because they both feel entitled in their views by citing the Tomato Meter and critic reviews. It's their 'proof'.
I don't think everyone who enjoys the Nolan films is a Nolanite but there are quite a few characteristics of a Nolanite which justifies the hate towards their group
-the ridiculous voting pattern on the IMDB. Plenty of them rated interstellar a 10 prior to it being released to the public
-the voting down of any film which rivals Nolan. A perfect example; The dark knight rises currently sits at #62 on the IMDB, #61 is an Asian film titled 'grave of the fireflies' and no surprise plenty of Nolanites are voting that film 1
-the rooting against BvS. Nolanites claim themselves to be Batman fans instead of Nolan fans and that they possess an excellent knowledge of the character. Yet no true Batman fan would be rooting for a Batman film to fail (especially his first crossover for superman) and it's obvious many of them are.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 27 Apr 2016, 10:01
Forget trying to talk to johnnygobbs about BvS, Travesty. He hasn't even watched the damn film yet, and doesn't intend to, but still takes the time to criticise it. Disappointing.
I'm a little disappointed in you The Laughing Fish.
I've always respected you and appreciated the respect you've shown back, so why you've now decided to be personal towards me I don't know. :-\
Is it so bizarre that I should choose to skip a film at the cinema if practically all the reviews confirm my exact fears about it prior to release? I've always maintained the following: that if I have high anticipation for a film that personally appeals to me, I'll go see it, despite lukewarm reviews, or conversely, if I have low expectations for a particular film but the reviews turn out to be universally positive, I'll probably give it a chance. However, in this instance, I had very low expectations for BvS and the reviews ultimately supported those concerns. So why on Earth would I pay the equivalent of fifteen dollars to see a movie I can almost guarantee I'll dislike? Where's the sense in that?
Even worse, I've constantly asked the few fans of this movie particular questions regarding its content, often with respect to Lex, and none of them have been able to address my fears and reassure me that I am wrong. Clearly we have different tastes and the fans of this film are completely fine with a whiny, nerdy, jittery, irredeemable spoiled brat and borderline-autistic Lex. Good for them. I don't begrudge their tastes; they're entitled to them. But unless they can convince me that I'm wrong about this interpretation of Lex, why should I go and see a film that features such a character I know I'll hate?
Like I say, it's one thing for the haters to turn me off from seeing BvS, but it really is a big red flag when the film's
fans are also saying things that convince me I'll be better off waiting to see it when it shows up on TV.
I am not a hypocrite and I refuse to give money to filmmakers who are making the type of films I detest (which is precisely why I don't pay to see Transformers or the next Adam Sandler or Madea 'comedy' at the cinema). I don't want to encourage the studios to keep making them, and whilst I don't remotely begrudge the handful of fans of this film, I can't deny that I am rather satisfied that this film has fallen way short of expectations box-office-wise (and to be clear, prior to the film's release and all the bad word-of-mouth I really did want to be proven wrong and for the film to consequently succeed). Maybe it will now encourage Warner Bros to have a rethink and eventually reboot the franchise sooner than expected or at the very
least jettison Hack Snyder as soon as the first Justice League movie is complete.
After all, when a Deadpool movie ends up with a bigger box-office gross than a film that features Batman, Superman
and Wonder Woman, that's clearly a sign things have not worked out the way they were planned.
Bring on the three hour R rated cut is all I say.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 03:32
Bring on the three hour R rated cut is all I say.
I can't wait! Day one buy, for me.
Quote from: Travesty on Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 07:14
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 03:32
Bring on the three hour R rated cut is all I say.
I can't wait! Day one buy, for me.
Put that enthusiasm away. The critics hated this movie, man. And you should too.
The film has apparently outgrossed the first two Iron Man films in its first month out at the theatre.
Source: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Batman-V-Superman-Just-Passed-Major-MCU-Movie-Box-Office-126827.html
At the moment, it's now grossed more than $854 million worldwide (note: not adjusted to inflation).
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman2015.htm
I won't deny that BvS underwhelmed financially compared to recent blockbuster movies grossing much more money e.g. Stars Wars, Jurassic World, Age of Ultron, but I think it would be incredibly foolish to claim it flopped at the box office.
All I know is it got over $80 from me and my friends that went the first Friday and we all loved it. It may have gotten more from them, idk, I haven't been out of the house or talked to anyone much at all for about a month now so I'd have to ask but it was unanimous on the ride home that we thought it was great. So as far as I go, it succeeded. It entertained me and my friends I went with (all but one who are big Bat fans too and the other guy may have been converted). If other fans didn't like it or liked some of it but didn't like other parts or whatever, ok. Their opinion, their right, everyone likes different things. Critics, no thanks. I couldn't care less what a paid "expert" thinks unless that paid "expert" is a fan of the characters or the genre. Then I'll take their opinion seriously. Otherwise, what they think doesn't apply to me.
I wonder if this movie had been released before the rise of the internet and social media and everything and everyone fancying themselves as a bonafide Roger Ebert because they have an outlet to put their opinion even if nobody gives a sh*t so they take it upon themselves to nitpick every little thing like "Oh I wouldn't have done that" or "Oh they should have gone this direction with this character" or "Oh but in this comic from 60 f***ing years ago so and so would have done THIS, not that" instead of sitting there and taking in the movie for what it is, how it would have done. I think it would be doing a lot better than it is.
I don't really care either way, honestly. It did it's job as far as I'm concerned, it entertained me. If it didn't entertain others, ok. I'm not going to apologize for liking it or accept any implication that I'm wrong (not that I'm saying those who saw it and didn't are wrong) and I'll be buying the DVD when it comes out. I'm just one fan, just one little insignificant speck of dust on a rock, but that's how I feel so yeah. Whatever.
Without being as abrasive as some of the other people are, I can understand their frustration as it's hard for them to properly formulate their arguments without breaking the spoiler rules as you haven't seen the film. It's completely up to you whether you choose to see it in theatres, home video, online, television, or ever but you can't possibly know whether a film is good or not without seeing it yourself. It's one thing if the critics are in concert one way or another but it's been mixed-to-negative meaning there are some who enjoyed it. It seems to be settling at 7.2 on the IMDB which is slightly better than Batman Returns.
On the subject of Deadpool, that's a rather unfair comparison; Batman and superman have combined for 14 feature films, this was the first one with deadpool and more importantly one of the first R rated films. Perhaps a PG rated Deadpool grosses less than BvS or an R rated BvS outgrosses deadpool. I have a feeling we'll see strong DVD/blu ray sales.
I have no problems at all with this movie and can't wait to see the director's cut. A great movie. Don't get all the online hate.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffree0.hiboox.com%2Fimages%2F1716%2Ffca193cedacd2e9b1173cb72d2ed9e40.jpg&hash=d46c9c774f099f412f2b543335f4d87b854aa3b9)
Quote from: The Joker on Sat, 30 Apr 2016, 02:22
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffree0.hiboox.com%2Fimages%2F1716%2Ffca193cedacd2e9b1173cb72d2ed9e40.jpg&hash=d46c9c774f099f412f2b543335f4d87b854aa3b9)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freplygif.net%2Fi%2F1082.gif&hash=f82a571c6a75e7141c173abbe92b6ca1ae090391)
American Psycho author Bret Easton Ellis, who memorably incurred fanboy wrath when he dissed The Dark Knight Rises back in 2012, has named BvS one of the best movies of 2016:
QuoteBest 2016 films so far: TALE OF TALES Garrone; GREEN ROOM Saulnier; THE INVITATION Kusama; BATMAN V SUPERMAN Snyder.
https://twitter.com/BretEastonEllis/status/727399215098269697?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
I saw Green Room at a preview screening on Sunday, and to be honest, it was watchable enough but rather disappointing, so I don't put much stock in BEE's opinion, not least because he is the guy who described "Glee" as a 'puddle of AIDS' (I'm not a fan of AIDS, but this comment was still homophobic provocation, irrespective of BEE's bisexuality).
High-Rise, Eye in the Sky and Hail Caesar, the other 2016 releases I have so far seen, are all brilliant and much superior to Green Room. But I'm looking forward to seeing Captain America: Civil War this weekend, my first blockbuster of the year, although it's a shame that its RT score has now dropped to 92% thanks to a handful of negative reviews. :( I was hoping it would be the highest-rated MCU film yet (but it's now dropped below the first Iron Man).
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 4 May 2016, 17:48
I was hoping it would be the highest-rated MCU film yet (but it's now dropped below the first Iron Man).
Chacun à son goût. For what it's worth I think Civil War is better than Iron Man, I think it
is the best MCU film so far, and I think you're going to have a fantastic time when you see it at the weekend. ;)
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 4 May 2016, 16:44
American Psycho author Bret Easton Ellis, who memorably incurred fanboy wrath when he dissed The Dark Knight Rises back in 2012, has named BvS one of the best movies of 2016:
That's cool I guess. Off-topic, but I remember reading something about BEE having an idea about a actual follow-up to American Psycho awhile back. He's had Bateman make appearances in several subsequent books following AP, but never a sequel. Would be interesting to see how age would have affected Patrick Bateman, and if Christian Bale would be interested in reprising the role of Bateman one last time.
Haven't heard jack squat about the once-proposed FX series in a long time. Might be for the best too.
Here is a YouTube video from a disgruntled fan talking about the over-exaggeration of the film critics hating on the film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2eOx4fhYD4
It doesn't really say anything different to what most people on this forum here who have discussed its merits and defended it from the exaggerated backlash, but it's still nice to see someone calling out some of the ridiculous statements against this movie. For example, comparing the special effects in a Lego Batman movie favourably than this one, and even calling it more realistic. Or a film critic whose opening headline for her negative review of BvS is only "Really?". And some people wonder why I have no time for critics.
For anyone who still needs to use critical consensus to defend or even criticise a film: if you can't watch something for yourself without somebody else's influence, don't be upset if nobody takes you seriously. The guy who made the video admitted that he found things about BvS that bothered him a lot, despite he loved it as a whole. That's the point of being objective, isn't it?
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 21 May 2016, 03:06
Here is a YouTube video from a disgruntled fan talking about the over-exaggeration of the film critics hating on the film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2eOx4fhYD4
It doesn't really say anything different to what most people on this forum here who have discussed its merits and defended it from the exaggerated backlash, but it's still nice to see someone calling out some of the ridiculous statements against this movie. For example, comparing the special effects in a Lego Batman movie favourably than this one, and even calling it more realistic. Or a film critic whose opening headline for her negative review of BvS is only "Really?". And some people wonder why I have no time for critics.
For anyone who still needs to use critical consensus to defend or even criticise a film: if you can't watch something for yourself without somebody else's influence, don't be upset if nobody takes you seriously. The guy who made the video admitted that he found things about BvS that bothered him a lot, despite he loved it as a whole. That's the point of being objective, isn't it?
Worst of all are the so called fans who don't even see films based on their favourite characters because of critic feedback. What a bunch of gutless wonders. I have zero respect for those people, especially when they make statements as to how disappointing said product was....and they've seen nothing but trailers. Infuriating to say the least. They are best ignored.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 21 May 2016, 10:18
Worst of all are the so called fans who don't even see films based on their favourite characters because of critic feedback. What a bunch of gutless wonders. I have zero respect for those people, especially when they make statements as to how disappointing said product was....and they've seen nothing but trailers. Infuriating to say the least. They are best ignored.
I believe
wankers is a more appropriate word. ;)
I guess I can kind of relate; I usually try and see every superhero film outside of the x-men (no offense to fans, I just haven't ever had interest in the xmen). Because of how bad the reception was I still haven't seen last years Fantastic Four film despite it now being on Netflix. That being said the ratings have been horrendous for that film, had they been mixed the way they are for Batman vs Superman, there's no doubt I'd have seen it by now, I did see the first two fantastic fours on TV as well as both Ghostrider films in theatres (although I actually regret seeing spirit of vengeance). Though being such a big fan of Batman, I can't imagine ever skipping out on a Batman film, even Batman and Robin I've probably seen 6 or 7 times.
Quote from: riddler on Tue, 24 May 2016, 14:10
I can't imagine ever skipping out on a Batman film, even Batman and Robin I've probably seen 6 or 7 times.
At the time, I really liked B&R, even though I thought it wasn't as good as BF. These days, B89, BR and BvS are my trinity, but I still have time for BF and B&R. In their own weird way, they both feel timeless. And they sure are re-watchable.
I like the movie but it does have problems.
First of all the movie is trying to do too much. It took Marvel five movies to build up to the Avengers. DC is trying to do what Marvel did in less movies.
My biggest problem with the movie is Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. He was seriously miscasted. He reminded me more of Jim Carrey's Riddler then Lex.
I also really wised that they had left out the whole metahuman subplot.
Ben Affleck is the best thing about the movie. I'm looking forward to seeing more of his Batman in future movies.
All in all it's an ok movie, but it has some serious problems that prevent it from being a great superhero movie.
Quote from: Vampfox on Sat, 28 May 2016, 04:16
First of all the movie is trying to do too much. It took Marvel five movies to build up to the Avengers. DC is trying to do what Marvel did in less movies.
I also really wised that they had left out the whole metahuman subplot.
One of my biggest concerns going into this movie were the rumoured appearances of the other JL members because I feared they'd make the film overcrowded. But I didn't mind how they appeared in cameos at all. They didn't take up the whole story like most people were saying.
Does this mean I prefer to take this approach? Admittedly, no. If this were a perfect world, WB/DC would've started their movie universe six years ago, and wouldn't have to play catch up with Marvel.
But putting that aside, the movie had to establish the discovery of more metahumans elsewhere for the next movie coming up. In terms of the narrative, it allows Batman and Wonder Woman to share a goal in honouring Superman's memory, by finding these mysterious and powerful people in the hopes of starting a team to protect the globe. In that sense, I thought it was quite effective.
I'd like to make a point by going off the topic a bit by saying for all the complaints about Wonder Woman didn't need to be in this movie, I thought the same can be said about Spider-Man in Captain America: Civil War.
Quote from: Vampfox on Sat, 28 May 2016, 04:16
My biggest problem with the movie is Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. He was seriously miscasted. He reminded me more of Jim Carrey's Riddler then Lex.
He's not my ideal Lex either, but I thought he was alright for what they were going for. I don't think he's any more goofy than Tom Hardy's Bane.
Quote from: Vampfox on Sat, 28 May 2016, 04:16
First of all the movie is trying to do too much. It took Marvel five movies to build up to the Avengers. DC is trying to do what Marvel did in less movies.
Justice League is the epic superhero team-up movie. But Justice League hasn't been released yet. So we have Man of Steel, BvS, Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman. That's four movies. How many movies do you need?
Quoteit has some serious problems that prevent it from being a great superhero movie.
I disagree. It is a great superhero movie. Probably one of the best. And that's without seeing the extended cut.
Don't understand these "serious problems" that people are talking about. Seems like people just read what others have said and keep repeating it.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 28 May 2016, 10:50
Quote from: Vampfox on Sat, 28 May 2016, 04:16
My biggest problem with the movie is Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. He was seriously miscasted. He reminded me more of Jim Carrey's Riddler then Lex.
He's not my ideal Lex either, but I thought he was alright for what they were going for. I don't think he's any more goofy than Tom Hardy's Bane.
Unfortunately, it seems he is coming back for Justice League, and worse, Suicide Squad (there goes my hope for/interest in that movie :( ):
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/justice_league/justice-league-news-a142116 (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/justice_league/justice-league-news-a142116)
QuoteAsked about returning in Justice League earlier this year, Jesse Eisenberg admitted to being uncertain about whether or not he would be asked to return as Lex Luthor. However, during an appearance at the MCM London Comic Con today, the actor confirmed to those in attendance that he will reprise his Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice role. However, just how significant a part will be play?
"I'm kind of in wait," he revealed. "They just started filming Justice League, so I'm kind of like waiting for my crack at it. I don't know what I'm allowed to say, because I feel like there's probably some drone following me from DC, and if I say anything wrong I get, you know, picked off. But yeah I think so, and I love it, and I love everybody who's in it. You know, it's a really talented group of people."
It's hard to say just how much screentime Lex is going to have based on these comments, but it wouldn't be too surprising if it's little more than an cameo, especially if shooting is already underway and he hasn't been asked to start his work on the movie just yet. Regardless, it makes sense that the villain is going to appear, especially if rumours about Steppenwolf being the big bad are accurate.
Eisenberg is also rumoured to appear in Suicide Squad later this year, so it's clear that Luthor's role in the DC Films Universe moving forward will be a big one. Are you excited to see him return?
Can Eisenberg and WB really be that clueless about how much Eisenberg's Lex is reviled (even by the, few, fans of this movie, if the comments on this site are anything to go by)? So much for WB's attempts to rehabilitate the franchise and respond to criticisms.
The reboot/next year's Razzie Awards (where Eisenberg is sure to be nominated for 'Worst Supporting Actor', assuming the nominating board has not taken a collective leave of its senses), which ever comes first, couldn't come fast enough.
I liked Eisenberg's Luthor so I'm glad he's coming back. Would be a bad move to recast it.
Quote from: OutRiddled on Sun, 29 May 2016, 23:43
I liked Eisenberg's Luthor so I'm glad he's coming back. Would be a bad move to recast it.
Agreed. And I'm sure the character is evolving as the films go on. Just like Batman.
Quote from: OutRiddled on Sun, 29 May 2016, 23:43
I liked Eisenberg's Luthor so I'm glad he's coming back. Would be a bad move to recast it.
Well, the majority hated his performance, and I see that even many of his critics are changing their tune, out of cognitive dissonant loyalty to the DCEU.
I was really willing to give future instalments in the DCEU a chance, but if Eisenberg is going to appear in Suicide Squad (which I hitherto was looking forward to) and Justice League, I will not be paying to see any of these films, and going by the universal revulsion for BvS an Eisenberg's performance in particular, across the web, which was clearly reflected in the film's massively disappointing box-office, I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels the same way.
WB keep saying they are making changes to rectify the failures of the previous DCEU films, and yet the changes they're making such as bringing in Geoff Johns and pledging to make Justice League 'lighter' (which makes no sense because stakes should increase as a franchise progresses not decreasing) demonstrates that they still aren't listening or have a clue.
Like I keep saying again and again and again, I want to give the DCEU a chance, I really do. But as long as Eisenberg's wretched version of Lex Luthor remains, I will not give WB a single cent of my money. >:(
But since you like Eisenberg's Lex, please answer me this question (one I keep asking again and again and again, until I'm blue in the frigging face): why is this a good version of Lex Luthor? And for a person who desires complexity, pathos and shades of grey in fictional villains, what is there to recommend this performance/characterisation?
I don't know, johnnygobbs, about exactly "why". I liked that it was different. It's all subjective, though. To even say that the "majority hated it"... on the surface, maybe.
I felt that Eisenberg didn't start out as the traditional Luthor but he transitioned into the Lex we all know and loathe.
I don't think this film can be compared to the avengers or any other superhero film out there. It's about the forming of the justice league but we've yet to see the JLA in battle.
I'd compare wonder woman to spidey in Civil War; neither character was overly critical to the plot but the sense is that it was to launch future films for each character.
http://moviepilot.com/posts/3941988?utm_source=fb-channel-superheroes&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=jeremy-irons-batman-v-superman-muddled-and-overstuffed-vows-jla-will-be-better
I respect his opinion (and just about everything else about him, as I've said many times before) but I don't understand everyone saying it was overstuffed or too much was going on as reasons it wasn't good. If *I* can keep it straight, anyone should be able to. Would it have been better if it was spread out to another movie and and more focused? Sure. But I didn't have any problems keeping up and I have the attention span of a five-year-old in a room full of shiny stuff. It was meant to be an epic. Epics have a lot going on.
As for EisenLex, redub him with Clancy Brown and I'm satisfied. The portrayal based off what they're doing is fine, and like others said he'll evolve (hopefully). That voice though, that just does not strike any terror into me yet.
Quote from: Catwoman on Tue, 31 May 2016, 07:01
I respect his opinion (and just about everything else about him, as I've said many times before) but I don't understand everyone saying it was overstuffed or too much was going on as reasons it wasn't good. If *I* can keep it straight, anyone should be able to. Would it have been better if it was spread out to another movie and and more focused? Sure. But I didn't have any problems keeping up and I have the attention span of a five-year-old in a room full of shiny stuff. It was meant to be an epic. Epics have a lot going on.
As disappointing it is to read Jeremy Irons' comments, let's keep in mind that it's not uncommon for actors to have distaste for the films they star in. We all know about Alec Guinness and Harrison Ford hating Star Wars, but does that make the fans appreciate the films less? I'd say no, for the majority at least.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87Ba9yb83JY
HaHaHa!!
Quote from: riddler on Mon, 30 May 2016, 17:05
I don't think this film can be compared to the avengers or any other superhero film out there. It's about the forming of the justice league but we've yet to see the JLA in battle.
Exactly. Batman was introduced into the mix. Superman was already established. Wonder Woman had a cameo, and Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman had very brief cameos. I honestly don't get the overstuffed comments. As you rightly say, BvS is not comparable to the Avengers in terms of narrative. That will be Justice League. DC
have staggered their universe. Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman are yet to be released, and then we have Justice League Part One. To me, BvS just isn't overstuffed as the detractors keep on saying. The core is the struggle between two characters - Batman and Superman.
I don't get all the negative comments, either. The only problem with the movie is that 30 minutes are missing, but that may not detract from it all. The movie is fine as it is.
From what I gather, a lot of those 30 minutes will focus on Clark and Lois. Which should strengthen them further. To say I'm eager to see the Ultimate Cut is an understatement.
If you consider most films to be three acts; a beginning, a middle and an end, than this is the first act of the JLA trilogy.
The Avengers was different as they had SHIELD and the trio of Nick Fury, Natasha Romanoff, and Phil Coulson to bring the team together. While they didn't overly like each other at first, they seemed to trust SHIELD to an extent and thus trust each other. Batman and Superman have no SHIELD, they had to investigate each other and the rest of the JLA on their own. It's on them to decide who is a hero and who is a villain.
It's not the civil war either, that film had heroes who knew each other fighting, BvS was fighting the threat of the unknown.
And this is not to say DC is better or worse than Marvel. Marvel did it their way; throw the heroes together and have them all team up, DC is doing it in a more staggered approach; start with two, add Wonder Woman, then likely add Cyborg and Flash later on. Perhaps this film will be comparable to Thor 3 as it seems that film will feature Thor and the Hulk but again those two characters know each other, BvS featured the two meeting for the first time.
One big difference between the JLA and avengers (and again I'm not saying one is better than the other) is that the Avengers are there to avenge and typically have more fighting. The JLA are more detectives and use their day jobs (journalist, billionaire industrialist, crime scene investigator etc.) to help with their night crusades. The DC characters tend to fit the "normal person by day/masked vigilante by night" mold than the Marvel Characters with one notable exception on each side (Superman who does fight frequently during the day and daredevil who typically only goes out at night). I thought BvS did a good job setting up all of Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, and Diana Prince as skilled detectives. It's something Nolan talked about doing with Bale but never did. One scene which I felt really affirmed how great Affleck was, is the scene at lex luthors house. He did what Nolan/Bale often did and pretended to be a flake to avoid tipping people off but in a less obvious manner. I kind of feel if Bale were playing that scene (Bruce Wayne pretending to be drunk) he'd have been more obvious with it and staggering and bumbling around while Affleck reeled it in and was acting a bit tipsy and lost.
I look forward to STAR labs
This is for anyone who didn't like the Bat branding sex offenders and sending them off to their certain doom in prison. I wish he had brought Supes around to his way of thinking in BvS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmjVSEFjmsE
Yes I know that it was a clone of Superman that did this, not the genuine article, but still, it makes for a very cool image. As for the reason I haven't seen the movie yet so all I know is that a four-year-old girl was killed by Toyman but I don't know what the circumstances were but either way, he got what he deserved. I propose this as a new form of capital punishment for those dogs.
On another note I need to see this soon. Love me some Adam Baldwin.
If Superman was going to kill, I'd rather if it's only a last resort against genocidal maniacs i.e. Zod in MOS and the Anti-Monitor in Crisis on Infinite Earths.
Besides, let Batman take care of sex offenders. ;)
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 3 Jun 2016, 14:05
If Superman was going to kill, I'd rather if it's only a last resort against genocidal maniacs i.e. Zod in MOS and the Anti-Monitor in Crisis on Infinite Earths.
Besides, let Batman take care of sex offenders. ;)
I agree. There has to be a differentiation from Batman's methods when it comes to Superman.
It was a joke, people.
You know, the detractors of BvS say they 'get it', but they really don't. I don't have any time for their nonsense.
TDK Returns is an influence in terms of aesthetic, age and gruff attitude. But BvS is nonetheless its own beast, tackling the character from another viewpoint. Batman becoming ruthless to compensate for the arrival of Superman.
But hey...it all sucks yo. Any praise this film receives is false and overblown.
Quote from: riddler on Thu, 2 Jun 2016, 14:14
If you consider most films to be three acts; a beginning, a middle and an end, than this is the first act of the JLA trilogy.
The Avengers was different as they had SHIELD and the trio of Nick Fury, Natasha Romanoff, and Phil Coulson to bring the team together. While they didn't overly like each other at first, they seemed to trust SHIELD to an extent and thus trust each other. Batman and Superman have no SHIELD, they had to investigate each other and the rest of the JLA on their own. It's on them to decide who is a hero and who is a villain.
It's not the civil war either, that film had heroes who knew each other fighting, BvS was fighting the threat of the unknown.
True. Clark and Bruce's being at odds with each other and what they believed they stood for was definitely something Lex took advantage of. I gather Lex wasn't merely satisfied with only destroying Superman, but he wanted him to be completely discredited (i.e. the Senate bombing) and chose Batman as his champion to annihilate him.
Quote from: riddler on Thu, 2 Jun 2016, 14:14
One big difference between the JLA and avengers (and again I'm not saying one is better than the other) is that the Avengers are there to avenge and typically have more fighting. The JLA are more detectives and use their day jobs (journalist, billionaire industrialist, crime scene investigator etc.) to help with their night crusades. The DC characters tend to fit the "normal person by day/masked vigilante by night" mold than the Marvel Characters with one notable exception on each side (Superman who does fight frequently during the day and daredevil who typically only goes out at night). I thought BvS did a good job setting up all of Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, and Diana Prince as skilled detectives.
The Winter Soldier, if I remember, did have Nick Fury investigate into Project Insight and learned SHIELD had been corrupted. And let's not forget that Cap and Black Widow found the bunker where they learned HYDRA had been operated under the guise of SHIELD all along.
But nonetheless, yes, the DC heroes commit into some for of detective work.
Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 4 Jun 2016, 05:40
It was a joke, people.
I knew that. :)
Okay, I'm lying. I thought you were serious. :-[
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 4 Jun 2016, 05:50
You know, the detractors of BvS say they 'get it', but they really don't. I don't have any time for their nonsense.
The worst misconception is people insisting Batman spared Superman's life because "their mothers share the same name". Not because Batman realised that he was being manipulated by Lex into thinking Superman is a dangerous threat and nearly became the very thing he fought against by becoming a murderer, it's because Clark's mother was named Martha too. I could accept if people had problems with how the fight is set up (hell, I have some issues too), but you seriously have to be dense if you thought the conflict ended that simply.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 4 Jun 2016, 05:50You know, the detractors of BvS say they 'get it', but they really don't. I don't have any time for their nonsense.
Then you don't have an argument it seems, when what you do is make an assumption, provide no argument to back it up and then make outright false statements.
QuoteTDK Returns is an influence in terms of aesthetic, age and gruff attitude. But BvS is nonetheless its own beast, tackling the character from another viewpoint. Batman becoming ruthless to compensate for the arrival of Superman.
But hey...it all sucks yo. Any praise this film receives is false and overblown.
That's a false impression of people who dislike the movie. Most of those that dislike the movie pretty much agree that Ben Affleck was good and like other aspects. Please stop pretending that they all hate everything about it to justify your us vs them attitude. Have a very great day you and everyone!
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 4 Jun 2016, 07:21
Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 4 Jun 2016, 05:40
It was a joke, people.
I knew that. :)
Okay, I'm lying. I thought you were serious. :-[
It's okay. With some of the stuff I have said recently on the subject as far as Bats goes, it's a natural assumption. But where I feel like Batman can get away with lethal force on that kind of scum Supes HAS to have the whole "I under no circumstances will go that far" to have the trust of the people because of the amount of power he has.
The backlash on that is inexplicable to me, but I guess if I had a child i had to explain it to I'd feel differently about it being portrayed. It makes me want to write a fanfic, not really tied to any single Bativerse, about a female avenger character taking out the trash and going head to head with Batman and forcing him and the people (and the one or two people who might read it) to look inside themselves.
A simple search on other message boards shows you BvS gets hit hard in pretty much all the key areas. The haters DO basically hate everything and anything associated with BvS. Brain dead fools have their heads in the sand to argue otherwise. The consensus has been set as 'the film sucked, it was a disappointment' and thus any praise is the minority, and if you like BvS you are a lover of bad movies. Because BvS is a bad movie.
Even Affleck, an obvious strength, gets critiqued due to the 'poor characterisation', and because they hate the film and Affleck expressed enthusiasm for it beforehand, he apparently cannot be trusted in terms of future quality either. The film doesn't get a fair go. Plain and simple. It's my opinion the detractors don't get it, and I'm not changing my opinion to suit anyone else's. The Tomato Meter is all the proof the haters need to rip the film to shreds.
And they're having a jolly old time. They can do so....and I can also rip them and their opinions to shreds.
For what should have been a fun time debating the film has become bogged down in infuriating discussions like these.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 4 Jun 2016, 16:07
A simple search on other message boards shows you BvS gets hit hard in pretty much all the key areas. The haters DO basically hate everything and anything associated with BvS. Brain dead fools have their heads in the sand to argue otherwise. The consensus has been set as 'the film sucked, it was a disappointment' and thus any praise is the minority, and if you like BvS you are a lover of bad movies. Because BvS is a bad movie.
Even Affleck, an obvious strength, gets critiqued due to the 'poor characterisation', and because they hate the film and Affleck expressed enthusiasm for it beforehand, he apparently cannot be trusted in terms of future quality either. The film doesn't get a fair go. Plain and simple. It's my opinion the detractors don't get it, and I'm not changing my opinion to suit anyone else's. The Tomato Meter is all the proof the haters need to rip the film to shreds.
And they're having a jolly old time. They can do so....and I can also rip them and their opinions to shreds.
For what should have been a fun time debating the film has become bogged down in infuriating discussions like these.
That's still a false representation. There are people that feel this way, but not everyone does, like you implied with your statement. But the proof of what I said that you don't have an argument is right there in you insulting people based on people's thoughts on a movie. Please don't pretend like any of us have a high ground. We don't. I'm very sorry for my harshness. Have a very great day you and everyone!
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Thanks for your opinion.
I've heard some criticisms about Bruce's nightmares, as some people claim they're inconsequential to the plot.
I'd have to disagree. Both sequences reflect how troubled and haunted Bruce's state of mind is. The blood pouring out from his mother's tomb, to me, shows how that violent and tragic night of his parents' deaths still consumes him to this day. Yes, it maybe retreading material to what B89 and BF had covered, but I still appreciate it for its imagery. The hideous bat popping out of the tomb signifies how Bruce chose this symbol to disguise himself has turned him into this beast that grows even more vicious as time and experience passes by.
While I can understand some complaints about the post-apocalyptic Knightmare scene to a degree in terms of pacing, I disagree with those who say this scene is pointless. This dream explored Bruce's fear of Superman fulfilling that "1% chance" of turning against the world, as we saw his hunt for Kryptonite ended in betrayal, and he's taken prisoner to face off a tyrannical and vengeful Superman. As broken and paranoid Bruce is, this scene establishes his fear of Superman is an alien who has the power to take down the entire planet. Given he had explained to Alfred that good could never be sustainable during his twenty year experience as Batman, Bruce - like it or not - believes it's only a matter of time before Superman could pose as a risk to humanity.
If I have one gripe about this sequence, it would have to be the gun battle between Batman and the stormtroopers. Point blank range, and none of them could shoot Batman. It was the only action scene in this movie that felt just as awkward and poorly staged as the penthouse and rooftop fight scenes in TDK and TDKR, as goons stood by and got beaten up despite having all the time in the world to shoot Batman.
Another thing I wondered about the Knightmare scene was Superman accused Batman of letting "her" die and how she meant the world to him. I'm aware of the theory that this entire scene could've been set on a parallel timeline, until the Flash had reset it. If that's true, could it be possible that Lex's plan worked in this timeline: Batman killed Superman and Martha died as a result? If so, it would make sense why the Flash cameo was important.
No, I don't think so. I believe that possible future takes place well after BvS. The Flash says "Lois is the key". I think it's likely that Batman's behaviour led to Lois' death in some way, which made Superman snap. Because we hear Superman say Lois IS his world. His anchor of sanity. With her gone, Superman is in full despair mode.
And The Flash says he's "too soon" in Bruce's timeline, meaning the incident he's warning about still has a while to eventuate. At the time of having the vision/dream, Bruce doesn't know specifics. He just has the vibe that if left unchecked, Superman could be a threat. And he must act now.
But anyway, I believe this will all be averted. It ends with Batman getting his chest impaled. It's likely the fruition of Darkseid's grand scheme. A scorched Earth where he rules the inhabitants with another powerful God at his side.
As for the other nightmares, I'm a big fan. It gets into the psyche of the character, and visually, it's stunning. Snyder knows how to create poetry in motion.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 5 Jun 2016, 00:09Thanks for your opinion.
It's not an opinion. No one, especially those that insult people have a high ground. It's unnecessary and hurtful to them. That's not justified. Have a very great day you and everyone!
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 5 Jun 2016, 14:59
No, I don't think so. I believe that possible future takes place well after BvS. The Flash says "Lois is the key". I think it's likely that Batman's behaviour led to Lois' death in some way, which made Superman snap. Because we hear Superman say Lois IS his world. His anchor of sanity. With her gone, Superman is in full despair mode.
You're right. I forgot Flash mentioning Lois.
Come to think of it, Lois Lane's death triggering Superman to become a deadly tyrant must have been influenced by the Injustice: Gods Among Us video game. Will this scene be further explored in the Justice League movies I wonder?
I think so. If Bruce realises it was a legitimate vision and not a nightmare, I'm sure he'll still keep it to himself. Which would be awesome, much like his secretive ways in Tower of Babel.
I've found complaints over how dark the movie is to be quite rich given previous Batman films - and even Superman films - have lots of moments of dark subject matter too.
I'll admit that I got my eyebrows raised when Clark watched the news reporting Batman's branding of sexual predators, but is it really pushing the envelope too far?
B89 had Joker electrocuting somebody to death with a hand-buzzer, and mocks the victim's corpse. BR, which is in my opinion still the darkest Batman movie of the entire franchise, depicted a deformed Penguin as an outcast with perverted tendencies and having the intention to murder babies, and a psychologically unstable Catwoman hellbent on revenge. Even BF, for all its "camp" and lighter tone, still had a homicidal Two-Face and stalker-obsessed Riddler.
TDK had Joker commit crimes in gruesome fashion and Two-Face threatened to murder a child. TDKR had Gotham City tearing itself up as people are executed during the siege. Not to mention that film showed Talia's backstory, where she narrowly avoided the same fate as her mother as Bane helped her escape from the Pit from murderous inmates. If they got their hands on her, who the hell knows what those deviants would've done to her? And remember, she was a child when she escaped, which makes that backstory even more disturbing.
If people do have a problem with the mere mention of child predators in BvS, then they should condemn BR, TDK and TDKR for showing an attempt on children's lives.
As I said elsewhere, the Christopher Reeve films may be brighter in tone, but they too have moments of darkness i.e. Krypton's destruction, Lex killing a cop, Zod and his henchmen killing astronauts on the moon and raiding the White House, and the junkyard fight in SIII. Reeve's terrifying evil Superman in that junkyard fight made me sh*t my pants as a kid, as did Krypton's demise in S78. Hell, there was a deleted scene where Non murdered a young boy in SII, which is thankfully rare to find.
I get that some people felt uncomfortable over Batman's ruthlessness in BvS, but the film did establish why he became this way. In fact, the dialogue spelled it out for you in many instances.
And let's face it, apart from Clooney in B&R, Batman on screen always had serious mental issues. Keaton's Batman was not that sane and used crime-fighting to fill the void in his life, Kilmer's Batman (who was supposed to be a continuation of Keaton) had severe memory issues before recovering and getting over his guilt for good. Bale...well, he was definitely a mess, but thanks to shoddy writing rather than well developed characterisation.
So yeah. One may wish to criticise the plot, but its dark tone is nothing drastically new compared to what I've seen before.
A perfectly sane Batman wouldn't be as enjoyable. I prefer batman as mentally unstable but in a manner beneficial to good people.
I think people are mixing up "dark" with "intense". I don't think Batfleck is the darkest, but I do think he's the most intense.
Quote from: Travesty on Wed, 8 Jun 2016, 16:21
I think people are mixing up "dark" with "intense". I don't think Batfleck is the darkest, but I do think he's the most intense.
Intense is the right word. In fact, I think it's the term I used upon leaving the cinema.
Quote from: Travesty on Wed, 8 Jun 2016, 16:21
I think people are mixing up "dark" with "intense". I don't think Batfleck is the darkest, but I do think he's the most intense.
Do you still believe Keaton is darkest, Travesty?
In my opinion, Affleck's Batman was the darkest because of how badly disillusioned and brutal he became following his experience in Metropolis and how his painful experience as a crimefighter for twenty years took a toll. As everyone else who discriminated Superman, Affleck's Batman fell into the dark side of human nature by fearing something he didn't understand, and only saw him as a threat because of the power he possessed. Always preoccupied by the idea he would turn against the human race.
Having said all that, you may argue Affleck regained a new sense of purpose thanks to Superman's own "humanity" and sacrifice by the end of the film. Whereas Keaton is still lost and lonely, making every triumph of his bittersweet.
That's it. Affleck's Batman is ruthless in BvS. But he has an arc. He'll still be a dark, detached kind of guy who has secrets in the remaining films. But he will be part of a team with faith that "men are still good." Whereas Keaton's Batman tries to reach out to Selina but is rebuffed and remains alone. Affleck's Batman used lethal methods like Keaton, but by all accounts Affleck's incarnation puts that behind him. Keaton's didn't.
Affleck is my new favourite, but Keaton is still fantastic and to be praised.
Keaton is still the darkest, and I'm not saying Batfleck isn't dark, but I think his character is much more intense than dark, whereas with Keaton, he's more dark than intense.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 8 Jun 2016, 12:49If people do have a problem with the mere mention of child predators in BvS, then they should condemn BR, TDK and TDKR for showing an attempt on children's lives.
I don't think child predators being mentioned is something many people have a real problem with.
QuoteI get that some people felt uncomfortable over Batman's ruthlessness in BvS, but the film did establish why he became this way. In fact, the dialogue spelled it out for you in many instances.
It being explained doesn't mean that people think that the explanation is true to the character or makes real sense.
QuoteAnd let's face it, apart from Clooney in B&R, Batman on screen always had serious mental issues. Keaton's Batman was not that sane and used crime-fighting to fill the void in his life, Kilmer's Batman (who was supposed to be a continuation of Keaton) had severe memory issues before recovering and getting over his guilt for good. Bale...well, he was definitely a mess, but thanks to shoddy writing rather than well developed characterisation.
Bruce in B&R had a crippling fear of loss that made him controlling. His arc is about learning to accept that he can't really accomplish things without relinquishing control. Clooney's is a continuation of Keaton and Kilmer's. With Bale, your pretending that things in TDKT are badly written when those things aren't again. Have a very great day you and everyone!
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 9 Jun 2016, 19:40
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 8 Jun 2016, 12:49If people do have a problem with the mere mention of child predators in BvS, then they should condemn BR, TDK and TDKR for showing an attempt on children's lives.
I don't think child predators being mentioned is something many people have a real problem with.QuoteI get that some people felt uncomfortable over Batman's ruthlessness in BvS, but the film did establish why he became this way. In fact, the dialogue spelled it out for you in many instances.
It being explained doesn't mean that people think that the explanation is true to the character or makes real sense.QuoteAnd let's face it, apart from Clooney in B&R, Batman on screen always had serious mental issues. Keaton's Batman was not that sane and used crime-fighting to fill the void in his life, Kilmer's Batman (who was supposed to be a continuation of Keaton) had severe memory issues before recovering and getting over his guilt for good. Bale...well, he was definitely a mess, but thanks to shoddy writing rather than well developed characterisation.
Bruce in B&R had a crippling fear of loss that made him controlling. His arc is about learning to accept that he can't really accomplish things without relinquishing control. Clooney's is a continuation of Keaton and Kilmer's. With Bale, your pretending that things in TDKT are badly written when those things aren't again. Have a very great day you and everyone!
God bless you! God bless everyone!
While Bruce needed therapy in Batman and Robin and certainly had his own issues he wasn't bordering on insanity like the others. His issues were more along the lines of trust issues.
Bale's character was extremely inconsistent and hypocritical. BB he wanted to be a symbol for good to stand up to evil, TDK he attempted to stop anyone else from doing it. TDKR he continued to trust Selina Kyle for no reason despite all the criminal acts and times she betrayed him. That is bad writing.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 10 Jun 2016, 13:55While Bruce needed therapy in Batman and Robin and certainly had his own issues he wasn't bordering on insanity like the others. His issues were more along the lines of trust issues.
I wasn't necessarily talking about insanity perse, just trauma based issues.
QuoteBale's character was extremely inconsistent and hypocritical. BB he wanted to be a symbol for good to stand up to evil, TDK he attempted to stop anyone else from doing it. TDKR he continued to trust Selina Kyle for no reason despite all the criminal acts and times she betrayed him. That is bad writing.
It's not an inconsistency. Even Bruce himself states in TDK that people dressing up like him isn't what he meant and he says straight to the guys that they're not equipped to help. There's a big difference between trusting Selina because he literally has no other choice and it's the only way to accomplish his goal to stop the nuking of a city and a severe threat and allowing a lot of guys in hockey pads to help him with street crime. It's not comparable and can't be judged as similar. It's not. The abridged scripts aren't a very good point of a reference for real many strong flaws. Have a very great day you and everyone!
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 10 Jun 2016, 13:55
While Bruce needed therapy in Batman and Robin and certainly had his own issues he wasn't bordering on insanity like the others. His issues were more along the lines of trust issues.
As a sequel to BF, B&R shows Bruce has made massive progress compared to the past. You may refer his relaxed attitude with the one-liners while on duty is an example. The only real obstacle, other than losing Alfred, is he and Robin struggle to work together as a team. It's quite natural for Bruce since he has never worked in a partnership before, and Robin's immaturity didn't help matters either. But they learned to put any pettiness aside to save the day - and Alfred - in the end.
Even if we judge each Burton and Schumacher as separate movies unrelated to each other, there's no doubt Clooney was certainly more stable than Keaton, Kilmer. Same when comparing him to Bale and Affleck.
There's room for all types of interpretations, but a stable Batman isn't one which excites me all that much.
It seems the film is succeeding in home video sales at the moment..
Quote
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was just released on Blu-ray, DVD and digital download. Following the continued onslaught of critical panning long after the movie's theatrical debut, the film's new release on disc must have been impacted, right? Well, according to sales charts assembled by industry monitor NPD VideoScan First Alert, Batman v Superman sailed to the top of the disc charts in its first week of availability last week.
The market research firm said that 70% of BvS disc sales were the pricier Blu-ray as opposed to DVD, which makes sense considering the special three-hour extended cut of the movie is only available on disc in the "Ultimate Edition" Blu-ray for the time being (though it's also available as a digital download).
Here's NPD's top-20 for last week:
1. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (New)
2. Allegiant
3. Miracles From Heaven
4. Zootopia
5. Kung Fu Panda 3
6. Deadpool
7. Ghostbusters
8. Star Wars: Episode VII — The Force Awakens
9. The Perfect Match (New)
10. Kill Zone 2 (New)
11. The Bourne Classified Collection
12. 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi
13. My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2
14. London Has Fallen
15. Gods of Egypt
16. Lego DC Comics Super Heroes: Justice League — Gotham City Breakout
17. Now You See Me
18. Ghostbusters 2
19. Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
20. The Goonies
Source: http://bgr.com/2016/07/29/batman-v-superman-blu-ray-dvd-sales/
Good news. Man of Steel had a strong showing on DVD/Blu-Ray as well.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 11 Jun 2016, 07:37There's room for all types of interpretations, but a stable Batman isn't one which excites me all that much.
Pretty much. Adam West and George Clooney are great as novelties but I'm not sure I want that as the norm.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 30 Jul 2016, 11:45
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 11 Jun 2016, 07:37There's room for all types of interpretations, but a stable Batman isn't one which excites me all that much.
Pretty much. Adam West and George Clooney are great as novelties but I'm not sure I want that as the norm.
An artist's work is much more interesting and deep when they're in a state of emotional turmoil. It's not good for them, but it's good for us. It's just the way it seems to be.
Here is a parody of CinemaSins pointing about what's so good about BvS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5S7rjUbC14
The narrator makes a good point when he compares Batfleck's role leading up the Superman fight with TDK's line "You either die a hero, or live long enough to become the villain". But I think that theme is much better explored in BvS than it was in that film.
It's just a top quality movie. I actually have a newfound appreciation for it if anything.
Here is what Margot Kidder had to say about Lois Lane in the DCEU movies.
Quote
They took one of the best American actresses' around, Amy Adams, and didn't give her anything to do! I mean, how stupid is that? They made her what used to be the girlfriend, which kind of ended in the 60s with women's rights.
Source: http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1551579/the-problem-margot-kidder-has-with-lois-lane-in-the-new-superman-movies
I don't understand what Kidder is talking about. In MOS, Lois is integral to the plot and is the main person to build Clark's trust in humanity. She even played her part in defeating Zod. Although I initially thought her presence in the theatrical version of BvS was unnecessary, the Ultimate Edition gives Lois an actual purpose thanks to the improved (and originally intended) version of the Africa scene, and investigating the Senate bombing.
If anything, an argument can be made that Lois has even less to do in the Christopher Reeve movies.
Not sure if it's sour grapes on her part, but I strongly disagree with her statement. Lois is far from wasted in the Snyder movies. She's integral to the plot, and is described as "the key" by The Flash.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 4 Sep 2016, 06:16If anything, an argument can be made that Lois has even less to do in the Christopher Reeve movies.
In STM, Lois is there to be wooed and rescued.
In Superman II, she's there to tempt Superman into making stupid decisions that almost get the entire world destroyed.
In Superman III, she's there only to explain why she won't be there at all.
In Superman IV, she's a non-girlfriend.
Yes, tell me more, Ms. Kidder, about how bad Lois is in the new movies.
(https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/w/TS560x560?url=http%3A%2F%2Fall-len-all.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F05%2Fsour-grapes.jpg&signature=%2FNgB2PMGede9yr2lqZDlxN%2BCC7k%3D)
I don't mind her, but truth is, she hasn't even seen the movies.
Margot always was a Kidder.
Mel Gibson had apparently called BvS a piece of sh*t in an interview.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m7nky4jO441r4gei2o1_400.gif&hash=8653c34a9f918b9c212e3b3d929ea843540a5984)
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 7 Sep 2016, 02:40
Mel Gibson had apparently called BvS a piece of sh*t in an interview.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m7nky4jO441r4gei2o1_400.gif&hash=8653c34a9f918b9c212e3b3d929ea843540a5984)
Mel has no credibility. He described himself and not the film.
If Mel thinks BvS is crap, fine. Whatever. But he doesn't come across as someone who understands that there's additional income that studios make due to merchandising with a film like BvS that can't be simply ignored. Which can be quite substantial, as Master schwartzman Yogurt can attest. Yes, the movie budgets are expensive. Yes, recouping the costs require mega profits. However, WB's BvS merchandising/licensing plays a major factor as well, and I don't see that considered in his argument at all. Just a old fashioned movie cost/profit model that's not the same as MCU/DCEU, and damn sure Star Wars.
The merch profits alone from The Force Awakens would probably blow his sugar titty mind!
The sad thing is Gibson said that in passing. It wasn't really the entire point of his statement.
Once again news media exist to provoke and to outrage rather than just share the freaking facts.
Don't buy into it, guys.
That is absolutely true. The media has been reduced to cherry picking comments and generating click bait. The outrage industry is booming. But if you get too close to the truth, it's dismissed as a 'conspiracy theory'. More than ever we have to think for ourselves. Double standards are at play.
True. True.
If the Jared Leto quote being used as click-bait taught us anything ....
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 7 Sep 2016, 03:00Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 7 Sep 2016, 02:40Mel Gibson had apparently called BvS a piece of sh*t in an interview.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m7nky4jO441r4gei2o1_400.gif&hash=8653c34a9f918b9c212e3b3d929ea843540a5984)
Mel has no credibility. He described himself and not the film.
Again, real life people are being insulted because they comment on a silly movie. It's not necessary.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 5 Sep 2016, 20:32In STM, Lois is there to be wooed and rescued.
In Superman II, she's there to tempt Superman into making stupid decisions that almost get the entire world destroyed.
In Superman III, she's there only to explain why she won't be there at all.
In Superman IV, she's a non-girlfriend.
Yes, tell me more, Ms. Kidder, about how bad Lois is in the new movies.
None of that is worse than a plot device, which is basically all DCCU Lois is. It's sad to say that the DC fandom has fallen for the same trick that the Marvel fandom fell for, that the love interest effecting the plot more makes her a better character. It doesn't. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 9 Sep 2016, 04:44
True. True.
If the Jared Leto quote being used as click-bait taught us anything ....
Indeed. Are you excited for my top 10 reasons why click bait fools people time and time again? Are you ready to discover the shocking consequences of clicking bait? If so, like and share this post. It'll blow your mind!!!
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 9 Sep 2016, 08:06
Indeed. Are you excited for my top 10 reasons why click bait fools people time and time again? Are you ready to discover the shocking consequences of clicking bait? If so, like and share this post. It'll blow your mind!!!
Attention K-Mart shoppers!(https://67.media.tumblr.com/57c482e3178b2f26d10afc7f0d913036/tumblr_n6zifpUVLa1t0t9gto1_500.gif)
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 9 Sep 2016, 07:17None of that is worse than a plot device, which is basically all DCCU Lois is.
Whaaa? In MOS, Lois is Clark's gateway into humanity. He was taught his entire life that the world most likely won't trust or welcome him. Lois is the first to prove that wrong. This is demonstrated when she chooses to cover up her story about the true identity of her "mysterious rescuer". But it's also conceptually illustrated when the AI Jor-El shows Lois Lane's escape pod plummeting back to Earth and equates saving her microscopically as "saving them all" macroscopically.
In BVS, she's without question Superman's strongest advocate and defends him when nobody else will. She even saves his life when Batman has him on the ropes.
There's just no arguing that Kidder's Lois is somehow better or more important to the story of those movies than Amy's Lois has been so far in the DCEU.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 9 Sep 2016, 07:17It's sad to say that the DC fandom has fallen for the same trick that the Marvel fandom fell for, that the love interest effecting the plot more makes her a better character. It doesn't. Have a very great day!
I never said that was the criterion I used. Kidder introduced the concept of Lois somehow not being used in an effectual way in the DCEU films so far. (A) Kidder has no room to talk and (B) it's not even true anyway. So please don't put words in my mouth.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 11 Sep 2016, 22:02Whaaa? In MOS, Lois is Clark's gateway into humanity. He was taught his entire life that the world most likely won't trust or welcome him. Lois is the first to prove that wrong. This is demonstrated when she chooses to cover up her story about the true identity of her "mysterious rescuer". But it's also conceptually illustrated when the AI Jor-El shows Lois Lane's escape pod plummeting back to Earth and equates saving her microscopically as "saving them all" macroscopically.
In BVS, she's without question Superman's strongest advocate and defends him when nobody else will. She even saves his life when Batman has him on the ropes.
There's just no arguing that Kidder's Lois is somehow better or more important to the story of those movies than Amy's Lois has been so far in the DCEU.
None of that is about her character, which basically proves my point.
QuoteI never said that was the criterion I used. Kidder introduced the concept of Lois somehow not being used in an effectual way in the DCEU films so far. (A) Kidder has no room to talk and (B) it's not even true anyway. So please don't put words in my mouth.
The way she talks, it sounds like she means as a character, not as a story or plot device. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
Some fans on Twitter have accused the website, ComicBook.com, of cancelling a poll for the best superhero film of 2016, because BvS was leading above Civil War and Deadpool. The link below contains a screenshot of the votes per each film.
Source: https://twitter.com/ArcherRelly/status/820822865574400000
Interesting... :-\
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 17 Jan 2017, 05:34
Some fans on Twitter have accused the website, ComicBook.com, of cancelling a poll for the best superhero film of 2016, because BvS was leading above Civil War and Deadpool. The link below contains a screenshot of the votes per each film.
Source: https://twitter.com/ArcherRelly/status/820822865574400000
Interesting... :-\
It didn't fit their narrative, so they intervened. Typical. Fake news strikes once again.
From a consolation point of view, ComicBook.com acknowledged Ben Affleck as the best actor out of all the comic-based films of the year for his performance in BvS, as well as giving Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL a nod for best score.
But shutting down the poll for best movie because BvS was winning is extremely petty.
I dunno, shutting down the poll was a bit sh*tty, but at the same time, I really don't care about little online polls. They mean nothing. So it really doesn't matter either way, but again, it is kinda scummy to delete it cause you don't like the results.
It may seem minor, but I think it all counts and adds up to something bigger. Because it's about cherrypicking and controlling the narrative.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 17 Jan 2017, 23:37
It may seem minor, but I think it all counts and adds up to something bigger. Because it's about cherrypicking and controlling the narrative.
I hate to say it, but you may be right. This very same website wrote this backhanded compliment about BvS being smarter than people give it credit for, but still insists it's not worth watching.
Quote
Why Batman v Superman Is Smarter Than You Think
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is one film that may never stop being debated. Director Zack Snyder presented us with an event that many had long waited to see (Batman on the movie screen alongside Superman) but he did so according to his own unique vision - for better or worse. Seemingly the latter though, because since Batman v Superman hit theaters, it's suffered massive criticism for what is supposedly a convoluted and overly grandiose storyline.
Now the Batman v Superman: The Ultimate Edition is out, and debate has raged all over again. While the Ultimate Edition may not fix all of the problems with Batman v Superman's story, it does present a much bigger - and yet, more precise - thematic arc that arguably takes a gimmicky superhero team-up, and elevates into a soicio-political metaphor not only fit for the times, but eerily predictive of where things would soon be headed.
Here's Why Batman v Superman Is Smarter Than You Think.
True Edition
For the purposes of this discussion, we need to be clear: as far as I'm concerned, Batman v Superman: The Ultimate Edition is the only version of the movie worth discussing. Sure, people often try to argue that a "special edition" or "director's cut" of a film doesn't constitute the "real" version of the movie; that only the theatrical cut is considered canon. That may be a fair point, but I'm not here to argue canon. In evaluating Batman v Superman's merit as a smart cinematic work, I need the whole of Snyder and Co.'s vision, and not (as will be discussed later) what Warner Bros. cut together to sell in theaters.
So, from here on out, this discussion will be in reference to Batman v Superman: The Ultimate Edition. If you have not seen that version of the film, and find the theatrical cut to be so unforgivably bad that you can't give the film a second look, then there's nothing for us to discuss: you simply dislike this movie.
For those who have seen both versions, or are at least open to another interpretation of the film they saw, let's break this down.
The American Now
The first thing to realize about Batman v Superman is that it's not just a comic book movie. This is not just a parable about how Batman and Superman came to respect another after having clashing ideas of what heroism is; that's certainly part of the story, but it's not the major thematic subtext which drives it. To understand the thematic narrative of Batman v Superman, one must first look back at Man of Steel.
Zack Snyder's Superman reboot was met with just as much controversy as Batman v Superman - particularly for its final act, in which the city of Metropolis is decimated in a battle between Superman and the Kryptonian militants led by General Zod. That "Battle of Metropolis" rattled and angered many viewers, who felt that Superman allowing such an excessive level of destruction in Metropolis was both uncharacteristic of his character, and in a larger sense, was a cinematic exploitation of Americans' post-9/11 fears. It was no surprise, then, to learn early on in Batman v Superman's development that the film would use the controversy over The Battle of Metropolis as the catalyst for its Batman vs. Superman conflict.
Batman v Superman Man of Steel Battle of Metropolis
Many fans are able to discern Snyder's answer to his critics in BvS's story, but writer Chris Terrio's script is woefully underappreciated for how it takes the Battle of Metropolis 9/11 comparisons and extends them into a full-fledged socio-political commentary, as embodied by two of the biggest icons in Americana mythology. It plays like this:
Batman is the right-wing hawk reaction to 9/11. He represents an America that prefers security over civil liberties; the Bush-era mentality of stopping threats pro-actively before they can threaten close to home; He believes in severe (i.e., morally dubious) punishment of criminals; uses military grade hardware to casually annihilate enemy combatants; and the movie is none to shy about pointing out that Bruce Wayne belongs to the wealthy elite, while The Batman preys on the poor and destitute of Gotham. In short: Batman is the darker and more militant version of America, as scarred by the tragedy of 9/11. He is, as Alfred clearly states, the cruel end result of unchecked rage and feelings of powerlessness (like many felt after 9/11). Batman's actions - inspired by those feelings - end up starting as misguided a war as... well, you get it.
Batman v Superman American Politics post 9:11
Superman, on the other hand, isn't so much a character in the story as he is a symbol - and that symbol is of the more left-wing, liberal, American ideal. Superman represents the classic American ideas of hope, justice and morality for all people; he believes it is his job to police the world and protect the defenseless, no matter their nationality; and in his Clark Kent guise, he spends most of the film trying to defend the civil liberties of the criminal branded by The Batman - a person who, to Clark, represents the poverty and desperation behind Gotham's criminals, empathy that he faults Batman for not showing to those he punishes so harshly. Clark is also none to shy about pontificating about the role of media and the civil responsibilities of journalists - a far cry from the "bumbling geek" persona of Christopher Reeve, but a clear metaphor.
Batman v Superman Clark Kent Liberal Politics
As the film demonstrates, none of the ideas Batman and Superman represent are infallible. Batman's rage and need for retribution have him start the wrong kind of war, allowing greater threats to foster. Superman's actions, though noble in intent, cause political turmoil on a global level; his (excessive?) empathy and concern with maintaining moral high ground in the eyes of the American public, media and government prevent him from stopping a horrific terrorist attack; and his obsession with judging the other side of the aisle (Batman) stops both him and his political opponent from seeing the true threat facing them both. By the time both parties finally become aware, the situation has grown into a (literal) monster, and it costs the sacrifice of Superman in order to slay that monster.
In the aftermath, we see a world and a former political rival all transformed by the loss of the noble ideal (Superman), inspired to do better, so that the ideal is not truly lost forever. It's almost eerie how resoundingly accurate a theme it is for the present moment, and that accuracy extends to the much-hated villain in this thematic opera.
Lex Luthor
Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor was one of the most universally criticized parts of Batman v Superman. But while the character is eccentric and downright weird, his role in the thematic narrative is actually pin-point on the mark.
If Batman and Superman represent to the two clashing political ideologies of a post-9/11 America, Lex Luthor is (clearly) the embodiment of the insidious opportunists who exploited (and still exploit) the turmoil of a post-9/11, war-torn, world for personal gain. His criminal empire and machinations may seem vague and confusing narratively, but thematically, Lex's schemes actually invoke references to so many ugly things that have thrived in the post-9/11 world: arms dealing, human trafficking, an unchecked military industrial complex, political lobbying, bio-weapons development, corporate corruption - the list goes on.
Lex Luthor - Lexicorp Donald Trump
The real point is: Lex is the businessman opportunist shark looking for personal gain by pitting two political ideologies against one another. Reading that back, Terrio and Snyder deserve a crystal ball and a gig as fortune tellers, more so than ridicule, given where American politics has steered us today (I'll just leave it there...).
On a more personal level, Lex confesses to a childhood of abuse at the hands of his father, an East German man who felt powerless from having to submit to the will of tyrants. For Lex, Superman is a threatening new socio-political paradigm, in which he, Lex (the top 1%), will experience a profound loss of power and control - something that Lex cannot accept. While criticized for its convolution, there is a sort of intelligent real-world parallel to how this bombastic tycoon manipulates events in foreign nations, in the prison system, politics, and stokes the fears of the public.
Sure, Eisenberg arguably may kill a lot of the smart metaphor to his character with an overly eccentric performance, but that that doesn't change the fact that it's an interesting framework the filmmakers have set up - and one that's deeper than most people give the film credit for. Batman v Superman is in many ways the story of how America has become violently divided in a post-9/11 world, and (at least on paper) Lex Luthor serving as the unseen hand nurturing that division makes sense both thematically and characteristically. As does the turn that unravels Luthor's carefully guided plan...
The Martha Moment
Given the thematic framework we've identified, let's talk about Batman v Superman's much-hated, much-debated, climatic turn:
When the violent fight erupts between Batman and Superman (those two halves of American political ideology) all sense of reason and communication has been lost. These two men, heroes, each see "the other" as the symbol of something that must be fought: Batman hates the uncontrollable threat that is Superman, while the Ultimate Edition makes it much clearer that Batman is the intolerant bully that Clark/Superman knows all too well (remember Man of Steel?) - a bully that must be stopped by "a fist." Batman v Superman tried to add an ambitious level of thematic grandeur to its titular battle, and therefore, a great deal hinges on the resolution of that battle.
Everyone who has seen the film knows "The Martha Moment" by now: Batman is about to impale Superman to death with a Kryptonite spear, but is stopped when Superman utters the phrase "You're letting him kill Martha!" When Lois Lane elaborates that Martha is Superman's mother's name, Batman remembers his own mother, Martha Wayne, and he and Superman become insta-pals.
Batman v Superman - Martha Moment Explained
Here's the thing: The Martha Moment isn't a bad idea within the thematic framework of the story (it's even kind of clever, since a lot of comic book fans probably never connected the thread between Marthas Kent and Wayne). But even though it's smart in concept, the moment is executed quite poorly, and the whole thematic payoff nearly collapses as a result of that mishandling.
It's a problem of dialogue, really: Superman saying lines like "You're letting him kill Martha," or "Save... Martha..." are so clunky and false, since no son that I know ever refers to his mother in times of desperation by her first name. There's enough built into the character of Batman (and his thematic symbolism) that a line like "You're letting him kill my mother," would have just as much impact, and, more importantly, thematic resonance (Lois Lane could've easily supplied the "Martha Kent" name that sealed the connection).
The whole idea of "The Martha Moment" is that there is common ground these two heroes (i.e., warring political ideologies) find, and it's something personal, not ideological. That's the entire thematic payoff of the story - the larger takeaway that we, the audience, are supposed to incorporate into our real lives. Yet, because it's handled in such a clunky manner - with inauthentic dialogue, and Ben Affleck forced into overly-dramatic gravitas ("Why did you say that name!") - the most important thematic turn in the film falls painfully flat, no matter which version you are watching.
When it comes to writing and dialogue, the devil is truly in the details. With a slight revision, Batman v Superman may have stuck its thematic landing.
Comic Book Roots
Let's not forget where this all sprung from: right from the start of BvS' production, director Zack Snyder let it be known that Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns storyline (in which an older Batman comes out of retirement for a more brutal campaign against crime) would be direct inspiration for Batman v Superman. What is once again underestimated is how much of a socio-political commentary Dark Knight Returns was for its time - and just how well Snyder emulates that in his film.
Dark Knight Returns was written in the Cold War mid-80s era of Reganomics, the War on Drugs, and fear of nuclear winter; Miller used constant "cut scenes" of media news segments (the rise of the 24-hour news cycle), as well as personal anecdotes from third-party citizens, which all help to flesh out the character and phenomenon of The Batman.
Obviously Batman v Superman exists in a much different world than the one Dark Knight Returns was written for, but the Ultimate Edition makes it clear that Snyder attempted to honor the spirit of Miller's story, with the multiple asides to other characters, anecdotal stories, and media broadcasts - all of which frame the question of who Superman is in today's world. Miller's story was also unapologetically political, and Snyder clearly sets up from the beginning of the Ultimate Edition (in a much longer segment of the Lois Lane incident in Africa) that politics are a definite part of his film, as well (hence the aforementioned political metapohors).
This is all to say: Not only is Batman v Superman a generally smarter film than many give it credit for being; it's also a pretty smart adaptation of one of the most respected Batman stories out there.
Does BvS Deserve Another Chance?
No.
Yeah, it might seem strange that after 2000 words of arguing otherwise, I would arrive at this conclusion. But here we are.
The bottom line is that I do believe Batman v Superman is a much better movie than people are giving it credit for being - but only in terms of its depth and ambition. As I already said, execution of those ideas wasn't the strongest, resulting in major issues like The Martha Moment, or the confusing nature of Lex's plot. And in all this analysis, there still is the glaringly simple fact that the theatrical version of Batman v Superman takes all this depth and ambitious storytelling described above and mangles to high hell until it's something unrecognizable.
More to the point: it seems as though Warner Bros. trimmed away the very subplots and characters that helped to convey the more politicized thematic message of the film; purposeful reduction, so that audiences wouldn't have to sit through(or think beyond) anything more than a basic superhero team-up story. And for those viewers who won't even invest in watching the Batman v Superman: Ultimate Edition, the film will likely leave a much more negative impression than it would if they engaged with the full version.
Should you Rewatch Batman v Superman
Still, for those few of you on the fence (see what metaphor I'm working here?) maybe this will help tip the scales toward getting to watch (or re-watch) Batman v Superman with a new subtext in mind - one that hopefully improves the viewing experience.
Source: http://comicbook.com/dc/2016/07/31/why-batman-v-superman-is-smarter-than-you-think-/
And despite all of this, this guy insists the Martha moment was a misfire. I'll say it again, it's rich to complain about the unauthentic dialogue in that scene, while excusing that idiotic Agent of Chaos hospital scene in TDK, which Two-Face's character turn was MUCH worse than Batman is BvS. Both in idea and execution. Ugh. Sorry, I had to get that off my chest yet again.
What an odd analysis, as the author confessed. He concludes it by saying it's not worth giving BvS another chance if you hated it the first time...but then he still encourages people to give it another chance if they're undecided.
^By the way, I just found out that the guy who wrote the above article, Kofi Outlaw, seems to have changed his mind about the film, because he pinned a tweet saying "SCREW the haters. #BatmanvSuperman just gets better with time and rewatch. Retweet/Like if you feel me!".
:-\
It appears there is a lot of conflict and changing opinions on ComicBook.com. Still doesn't excuse shutting down that poll.
Sometimes comic book movies need time to bake. Schumacher's Batman movies have enjoyed a surprising renaissance in the last several years.
I wasn't expecting BVS to ever be embraced after a change of heart. I certainly wasn't expecting the change of heart to occur less than a year after the movie's theatrical release.
And yet, here we are.
One thing I enjoy about BVS is what a Wagnerian opera it is. The score plays a major role in that. There are so many sequences with no dialogue; just visuals and music. It's so grand and operatic in scope. I don't know if I want all comic book movies done this way but I'd love a few more just like BVS.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 18 Jan 2017, 01:50
^By the way, I just found out that the guy who wrote the above article, Kofi Outlaw, seems to have changed his mind about the film, because he pinned a tweet saying "SCREW the haters. #BatmanvSuperman just gets better with time and rewatch. Retweet/Like if you feel me!".
:-\
It appears there is a lot of conflict and changing opinions on ComicBook.com. Still doesn't excuse shutting down that poll.
Here's the thing. Being a BvS fan isn't easy. Honestly, it seems some people don't want to come out and support the film TOO MUCH because they know what's coming their way. I've seen people elsewhere talk positively about the film, only to quickly do a complete backflip and join the status quo hater brigade. That would be the easy thing to do. But I love the film a lot, and would never sell out myself like that.
I think the Ultimate Edition has been a revelation for people who were on the fence. They can see more clearly what Snyder was going for. Surprise surprise, the haters doubled down and said the Ultimate Edition didn't offer any form of improvement. That's where I really see them for the close minded sods they are. What I like about BvS, and the current world climate as it stands, is that people are now very out in the open. We all know where we stand. It's literally two opposing camps facing off, and thus the debate is more heated than ever. Like Jett and his hate for BR - we apparently were wrong for liking the film and had to be re-educated. Sorry, it is in fact YOU who needs to be re-educated.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 18 Jan 2017, 04:03
Sometimes comic book movies need time to bake. Schumacher's Batman movies have enjoyed a surprising renaissance in the last several years.
I wasn't expecting BVS to ever be embraced after a change of heart. I certainly wasn't expecting the change of heart to occur less than a year after the movie's theatrical release.
And yet, here we are.
One thing I enjoy about BVS is what a Wagnerian opera it is. The score plays a major role in that. There are so many sequences with no dialogue; just visuals and music. It's so grand and operatic in scope. I don't know if I want all comic book movies done this way but I'd love a few more just like BVS.
It still has a fair bit to go to overcome the initial critical stigma, but the hysteria seems to cool down as more fans and even some critics are beginning to re-evaluate the film. Screen Rant, for instance, had three people proudly listing BvS as one of their top 5 films of the year. I'd say the best description comes from this excerpt:
Quote
If my 'favorite' films are the ones I wouldn't want to have gone through 2016 without, there's no question that Zack Snyder's extended Batman V Superman tops my list. The film wasn't for everyone, but as a lifelong comic fan who embraces creativity, even– no, especially when it's applied to iconic characters, I was among those for whom the movie was made. A slow-burn, three-hour-long dose of fan-service, visual storytelling that demanded repeat viewings, a Batman torn right from the comics, and a Wonder Woman who stole the show still seems hard to believe.
Source: http://screenrant.com/top-5-best-movies-2016-list/?view=all
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 18 Jan 2017, 04:55
Here's the thing. Being a BvS fan isn't easy. Honestly, it seems some people don't want to come out and support the film TOO MUCH because they know what's coming their way. I've seen people elsewhere talk positively about the film, only to quickly do a complete backflip and join the status quo hater brigade. That would be the easy thing to do. But I love the film a lot, and would never sell out myself like that.
I think the Ultimate Edition has been a revelation for people who were on the fence. They can see more clearly what Snyder was going for. Surprise surprise, the haters doubled down and said the Ultimate Edition didn't offer any form of improvement. That's where I really see them for the close minded sods they are. What I like about BvS, and the current world climate as it stands, is that people are now very out in the open. We all know where we stand. It's literally two opposing camps facing off, and thus the debate is more heated than ever. Like Jett and his hate for BR - we apparently were wrong for liking the film and had to be re-educated. Sorry, it is in fact YOU who needs to be re-educated.
While I do believe everyone is entitled to genuinely dislike a film, I feel sorry for anyone who backs down from their appreciation of art because of critical and peer pressure. I have to laugh at TDK fanboys like Jett who blindly adore an abomination of a film where Batman betrays everything he stands for, but tells people why it's wrong to like BR. But what do you expect? He once proudly described himself as a "Chris Nolan butt kisser" on his Twitter page. How pitiful.
Speaking as a Batman fan, I'm going to talk about 'being a Batman fan'.
The love for Batman is so great, that I, and I'm sure other diehard Batman fans, almost see interest in other heroes as 'cheating' on our man. That's the honest truth. Honestly, that built in feeling is almost impossible for me to shake at times, and I admit to it. But it has loosened considerably in recent times.
Superman doesn't need Batman showing up in his comics all the time. He's a strong enough character to sustain himself. The mindset of Batman as the infallible top dog has seeped a little too deep into the material/fan base for my liking. If there's one character that needs to be equally assertive and strong in the DC universe, it's Superman.
I think we need more of the below. Less of a one way street. Batman isn't a lesser character because of it either.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/89/41/04/894104a356500160ecf8225b7e7cc3ed.jpg)
I liked what we received in BvS. But I'm now ready for Superman to assert himself. Not just the guy who Batman talks down to, and beats up whenever he pleases. You feel me?
I like the idea of Batman being sovereign in his books while Superman is sovereign in his own. So I don't mind Batman talking down to Superman in a book that Batman's logo on the cover. But if Superman's logo is on the cover, Superman better do the talking down (if there even must be talking down).
I really don't understand the mentality of wanting to diminish other characters so as to build up one's own favorite character. The fact that I am a Superman guy shouldn't mean that every other character sucks. So why Batman writers have to write Batman as the most macho guy in the room sometimes has the effect of making him look insecure.
And that leads into a character arc Batman could someday go through, where he legitimately DOES feel insecure about his place with the Justice League of America and perhaps part of the reason for him being written like a pompous prick is because he's aware of the fact that of The Big Three, he's the only one with no claim whatsoever to being a "god". Thus he pushes himself to borderline psychotic extremes to justify his preeminence to others. The best defense is a good offense, after all.
Frankly, something like that could give Batman to some much-needed feet of clay while still maintaining his prominence with the team and in the DCU. It doesn't make him less than he's ever been; it just gives him a rational (and, honestly, a believable) reason for being who he is.
What I don't like seeing is any of these characters played as petulant, but sometimes that's how these comics are written. Batman and Superman don't need some idiotic "feud" with each other. It made sense in the 80's. It makes no sense now, especially with the lighter direction Batman seems to be heading in lately.
I probably like Batman the most when he's down and out. Getting his back broken by Bane. Getting mentally trashed by Deacon Blackfire. Running the labyrinth for days in Court of Owls. Getting addicted to venom in...Venom. It shows Batman is a highly trained human, but he's a human nonetheless. Only through setbacks can we witness Batman's courage and determination. I really dig it. Batman can and will overcome the impossible, but the failures define him just as much. If not more. We must not lose sight of that.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 19 Jan 2017, 16:12
What I don't like seeing is any of these characters played as petulant, but sometimes that's how these comics are written. Batman and Superman don't need some idiotic "feud" with each other. It made sense in the 80's. It makes no sense no, especially with the lighter direction Batman seems to be heading in lately.
Back to BvS, I think they'll strike the right cord with their relationship. "I can forgive but I will never forget". They move on for the greater good but tension is still lingering in the background. That works for me.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 20 Jan 2017, 02:33Back to BvS, I think they'll strike the right cord with their relationship. "I can forgive but I will never forget". They move on for the greater good but tension is still lingering in the background. That works for me.
I like that idea. It gives lasting consequences to BVS. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the approach they take.
Here are some points made by a blogger who explains why BvS is a better film than Captain America: Civil War.
Source: https://cynicscapeblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/acts-of-terrorism-top-5-reasons-batman-v-superman-is-better-than-civil-war/
Quote
The V
I love the 8-minute fight between Batman and Superman. That fight sequence, in my opinion, was worth the price of admission on its own. True, the cinematography, VFX and fight choreography were phenomenal, but those, in my opinion, are the parts that mattered least. What made this fight great were the stakes, the mindset of the characters and how (yes, I know one guy is a super powered alien and the other is a guy dressed in a batsuit dressed in an armored metal batsuit) real it felt.
The Stakes and Mindset:
For Batman: This fight is his legacy. He'll kill this alien and finally do something that matters after 20 years of fighting criminals that just keep cropping up. There is no taking in this alien, or any chance of them reaching a compromise: the only way this ends is with him dead or the alien dead. Batman is out to f***ing murder this guy.
For Superman: Batman is a vigilante that's terrorized the poor people in Gotham. He's extremist in the way he operates and threatened to kill him when they last met. Superman knows he isn't a killer, but if he doesn't find a way to convince Batman to help him, his mother's dead. He isn't fighting to stop Batman, or to preserve his own life. He's fighting to save his mother's, and that "fight" is in convincing Batman to not be adversarial.
So if Batman wins, he's validated. All the time and loss he's endured fighting in Gotham will mean something. If Superman wins, he'll save his mother's life and come to a compromise with the bat vigilante.
What makes this great is just like in The Dark Knight Returns, Batman is the aggressor while Superman DOESN'T want to fight him. Batman here wants to murder a man we all know is innocent, while Superman just wants to talk to him. This makes the fight uncomfortable and disconcerting. We're literally watching someone we're conditioned to think of as a good guy trying to murder another good guy.
This fight felt real because you could see the actual wear and tear on the combatants in the first few minutes. Superman picking up Batman and throwing him into the search light mattered. You could see and hear Batman panting. Superman getting hit with the Kryptonite gas mattered: it made him weak enough to get the first real beating of his life. You see it on his face while Batman is wailing on him. By the end of the 5 minutes of brawling, you see Batman's lost a significant part of his helmet and you see how ragged Superman looks.
This is how fights go. You don't come out of it looking pristine like nothing happened. Fights don't end with grand gestures of manliness or whatever. Fights tend to end with a whimper after both parties have exhausted themselves. It's the difference between professional wrestling and UFC. In Pro Wrestling, the finisher is often flashy and that wins the match, but in UFC most fights end in a pretty mundane manner.
While this guy is correct that BvS doesn't shy away how the fight takes a physical toll on the two characters, I think he's forgetting that the fight between Iron Man and Cap towards the end of CW wasn't pretty either. Both Avengers were broken and came close to killing each other. The biggest criticism I have with this though is the fallout following the fight seemed to already have healed with Cap's stupid letter in the end. I was hoping that Cap and Iron Man would make amends in Infinity War, when tragedy brings them and the rest of the Avengers together.
Which brings to this guy's next point:
Quote
The Action was crucial
For a lot of movies, it's poor communication driving the action. A misunderstanding between parties that can be settled with both sitting and having a civilized conversation. That was not true in Batman v Superman. A lot of people say Superman should've just shouted to Batman that his mother was in danger, but that wouldn't have stopped the fight. Batman was going to kill him regardless of "Martha." He didn't back away because Superman said that name. He stood there with the spear over him still ready to deliver the final blow. He wasn't ready to listen until Lois came in and pleaded with him to not kill the man could no longer defend himself. That's when he realized Superman was a man. No amount of yelling at Bruce would've made him come around until Superman's "super" was out of the equation.
Zack Snyder did a phenomenal job with this scuffle. There were no quips, there were no jokes, no one-liners: there was just two guys with their own agendas going at it. There was no other way this could have been resolved BUT in a violent brawl; there was no talking this out; there was no "But couldn't X just do Y?". That made the fight integral to the plot, and that made it MATTER. It felt uncomfortable, all too real and those are the things that made it feel awesome.
Conversely, Civil War could've been solved with just Tony and Steve sitting down to talk. Recall, before this film Batman and Superman had never met before. Superman didn't even know Batman existed. In Civil War, Tony and Steve have known each other for four films, which rounds out to about 4 or 5 years. In that time, they've fought aliens, robots and countless human soldiers. Their bond is battle-tested. People say this makes the fight feel more personal than BvS, fine. But it also makes it much more stupid since them not simply sitting and talking things out is far more unbelievable. You'd think they'd trust each other.
I think it's a really good point. Again, what annoyed me about the Iron Man v Cap fight was that forgiveness was already in motion as soon as Tony read that letter and letting Cap save the jailed Avengers by ignoring Ross over the phone. Doesn't that undermine Zemo's plan?
I think it was really unfortunate that Clark visiting Gotham PD was cut out of the theatrical version because it established why Superman didn't take a more direct approach towards Batman, because it communicated that Batman couldn't be reasoned with. It was an important piece of detail, and if that was scene was kept, I think the questions over why Superman didn't do this or that would've calmed down a bit.
Quote
Earnestness in Portrayal
In the MCU, we're told Tony is an alcoholic playboy, but we never actually see him doing any alcoholic playboying. Similarly, in Civil War, Tony is never as angry as the narrative wants us to think (and why would he be, Steve is his friend and it's not like they wouldn't just sit and talk all this out, right?). He's not as driven in practice, in front of our eyes, as the movie tells us he is and wants us to think he is.
(https://cynicscapeblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/gm1loi9.gif?w=630&h=353)
Compare that to Batman in Batman v Superman. We're told Bruce Wayne is losing himself. We're told he's down and out, and in the above gif, you can see that. He's waking up next to a woman he doesn't even remember bringing home (the look of incredulity on his face when he turns to her), and then the first thing he does is take a hand full of pills and downs it with booze. That's the down-and-out starter kit right there.
Further, we're told Batman has become brutal, and we see that many, many times in the film. From him not trying to save the criminals in his way, to him pressing his foot against Superman's neck as he's ready to kill him, to stabbing a criminal that stabbed him previously. The movie doesn't shy away from showing the unflattering portrayals that it claims is part of the narrative, and that just strengthens the film. We see what it wants us to see in grisly detail, unlike in Civil War which still wants its heroes to look heroic, regardless of context.
This is why I find it so baffling that people get so caught up on Batman not being heroic. He wasn't supposed to be, and his character development is him becoming heroic once more. This movie isn't interested in offering instant gratification.
Couldn't said it better myself. Too bad it appears that a lot of people have missed the point that Batman's arc in BvS was a redemption story.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 4 Feb 2017, 04:24Too bad it appears that a lot of people have missed the point that Batman's arc in BvS was a redemption story.
Yup. But even there, it's not a completely clean deal. Bruce still carries the responsibility of having failed Superman in life. It's arguably Batman's fault that Superman ever died in the first place. Yeah, Bruce was redeemed. But he and the world have paid and will pay major prices for that.
BvS is a case of be careful what you wish for.
And there's something else that I think has gone over people's heads.
When Batman realises Superman is not the enemy, he pledges to rescue Martha. That's all Batman pledges to do. He has not changed his methods. Batman machine gunning goons via the batwing does not represent a regression. He's the same aggressive man who fought Superman, but now he's fighting FOR Superman.
It is only AFTER Superman dies does Batman reflect on himself. He becomes inspired by Superman's selfless sacrifice, and this is demonstrated by his refusal to brand Lex.
And now that I think about it, Bruce says "This may be the only thing I ever do that matters".
From a practical standpoint... well, he's right. Crime continues in Gotham City. But Superman is still dead and Batman is partially to blame for that. His success in carrying out his mission may mean big trouble for Earth. Batman will have made a difference alright... but maybe not the difference that he planned on.
If Superman was another Zod, then sure, Batman absolutely had the right idea to kill him. However he wasn't, so now Earth is unprotected. Batman now needs to form an army just to equal one Superman. Sure, Lex still would've created Doomsday, and the final act would've played out exactly the same. But it's all about intention. Batman wanted Superman dead, and even though he had no final part in his demise, his original desire still became a reality. He'd feel guilty about that. The origins of their relationship were built on distrust. Batman forming the League is now both a necessity and a tribute.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 4 Feb 2017, 07:44
If Superman was another Zod, then sure, Batman absolutely had the right idea to kill him. However he wasn't, so now Earth is unprotected. Batman now needs to form an army just to equal one Superman. Sure, Lex still would've created Doomsday, and the final act would've played out exactly the same. But it's all about intention. Batman wanted Superman dead, and even though he had no final part in his demise, his original desire still became a reality. He'd feel guilty about that. The origins of their relationship were built on distrust. Batman forming the League is now both a necessity and a tribute.
It kind of reminds me of Lois telling Clark during the bathtub scene how there is always a cost when you do something.
What interests me about Batman creating the Kryptonite spear is while it did cause Superman's demise, it was also the weapon that ended Doomsday. If Batman had realised Lex was manipulating him all along, he wouldn't have created the spear. Without the spear, it's unlikely the Trinity could've beaten Doomsday.
Superman using the spear against Doomsday, despite knowing one hundred per cent it was suicidal, was an act of bravery that inspired guilt and gratitude to Batman, and realises there are people out there who aren't cynical and can inspire in spite of adversity. Which is why he wants to continue to redeem himself by gathering these metahumans together for a team.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 5 Feb 2017, 03:21
It kind of reminds me of Lois telling Clark during the bathtub scene how there is always a cost when you do something.
What interests me about Batman creating the Kryptonite spear is while it did cause Superman's demise, it was also the weapon that ended Doomsday. If Batman had realised Lex was manipulating him all along, he wouldn't have created the spear. Without the spear, it's unlikely the Trinity could've beaten Doomsday.
Superman using the spear against Doomsday, despite knowing one hundred per cent it was suicidal, was an act of bravery that inspired guilt and gratitude to Batman, and realises there are people out there who aren't cynical and can inspire in spite of adversity. Which is why he wants to continue to redeem himself by gathering these metahumans together for a team.
All true.
I'm very interested in how they address Superman's resurrection though. That Doomsday spike went right through his chest and out his back, meaning his internal organs surely would've been totally smashed.
I think Superman's resurrection is going to be visually spectacular. How it will happen is something I feel will bet met with overblown "controversy".
I can't believe nearly all of the best DCEU performances were given Razzie nominations. From Ben Affleck and Will Smith to Margot Robbie?! I don't usually take these things seriously, but denigrating their performances is absolutely pathetic and unjust. Maybe Affleck should've used Bale's idiotic gravel voice throughout the film, because apparently that sounds intimidating to a lot of people. Again, I'm not a fan of Suicide Squad, but Smith and Robbie were the best parts in that movie and gave it some life and humanity.
I understand there are people who genuinely didn't like MOS and BvS without any bias, but it's seriously boggling my mind how much backlash that the DCEU is getting. Especially considering when there have been a lot of overrated rubbish that got critical acclaim and keeps getting a free pass over the years. The sad thing is, this will perpetuate the idea that the DCEU is worthless, because too many people in the comic book movie going audience can't think for themselves and use critical thinking to back up their arguments.
Zack Snyder shared these portraits taken by Clay Enos on VERO, in preparation for the Snyderverse charity event this weekend.
(https://i.imgur.com/Hnz292k.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/M5MacsZ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Sma0Aav.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/FqRMWTW.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/BPLcBu0.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ncujEku.jpg)
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 27 Apr 2023, 13:03Zack Snyder shared these portraits taken by Clay Enos on VERO, in preparation for the Snyderverse charity event this weekend.
(https://i.imgur.com/Hnz292k.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/M5MacsZ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Sma0Aav.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/FqRMWTW.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/BPLcBu0.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ncujEku.jpg)
These woulda made some nice collectable cards
I sort of miss trading cards. They're a little obsolete in today's world. But they were a lot of fun back in the old days.
I saw this post by a concept artist who worked on BvS.
Quote from: Jared PurringtonI have so much film work no one's ever seen.
Here are my first pass storyboards for the birth of Doomsday sequence for Batman V. Superman.
Initially, the fight took them to a bridge and had a bald Lex Luthor. Fun to compare/contrast with the final film.
Also, my Doomsday was CHONK.
(Video embedded in the post)
https://twitter.com/JaredPurrington/status/1776316757822841172
I really like the details in this compilation video. The fear shown in Lex's face as his Doomsday creation immediately turned on him made him vulnerable, a mad scientist who realised who got too overconfident after playing God. I don't necessarily mind how Eisenberg reacted in the scene, but I would've liked to see him cower before Superman saved him.
It's too bad that the bit with Superman saving the pilots whose helicopter got destroyed and the bridge sequence never got filmed. My guess is those stupid execs got too sensitive over the overblown backlash to collateral damage in MOS.