Batman-Online.com

It's now an awards winner: http://www.superherohype.com/news/391641-batman-v-superman-takes-home-four-razzie-awards#/slide/1 (http://www.superherohype.com/news/391641-batman-v-superman-takes-home-four-razzie-awards#/slide/1)

All this Razzie BS just goes to show how much biased hate exists for the movie - just like the ridiculously unbelievable 27% on RT.

Ben Affleck and Cavill getting a Razzie just highlights how logic goes out the window when blind hate is involved. It's just silly. They try and tear down the film's biggest strength (Affleck) and make it a weakness. I don't like the characterisation of Batman or Superman so the film sucks! That's just like the boneheaded decision to give Danny DeVito's Penguin a Razzie. That was dumb then and it's still dumb now.

The Razzie a-holes just highlight how out of touch and left leaning they are by giving 'Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party' the worst film of 2016. Girlbusters is nowhere on their list either. Heaven forbid they put that SJW piece of garbage on there.

I wear these awards as a badge of honor. As Director Dinesh said: "Being dissed by you guys, this is absolutely fantastic. My audience loves the fact that you hate me. The reason you are giving it to me is because you're very upset Trump won. You've never got over it, you probably never will."

These 'awards' exist to make haters feel good about themselves, and to once again try and make their opinion undisputed fact. This especially caters to the pricks who didn't even see the movie. I call them so called fans. That's all they are. Fact is, BvS is becoming a cult classic. People who were ambivalent about the theatrical cut are enjoying the ultimate edition. But don't talk about that.

But whatever makes these pricks sleep well at night.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 26 Feb  2017, 09:56

Ben Affleck and Cavill getting a Razzie just highlights how logic goes out the window when blind hate is involved. It's just silly. They try and tear down the film's biggest strength (Affleck) and make it a weakness. I don't like the characterisation of Batman or Superman so the film sucks! That's just like the boneheaded decision to give Danny DeVito's Penguin a Razzie. That was dumb then and it's still dumb now.

word

Quote from: Azrael on Sun, 26 Feb  2017, 10:16

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 26 Feb  2017, 09:56

Ben Affleck and Cavill getting a Razzie just highlights how logic goes out the window when blind hate is involved. It's just silly. They try and tear down the film's biggest strength (Affleck) and make it a weakness. I don't like the characterisation of Batman or Superman so the film sucks! That's just like the boneheaded decision to give Danny DeVito's Penguin a Razzie. That was dumb then and it's still dumb now.

word

Agreed. I didn't even know that DeVito actually 'won' a Razzie for his role as the Penguin. I thought he was only nominated.

Well, in that case, we might as well believe in the rhetoric that suggests DeVito's Penguin "was a perverted, pathetic creep with mummy and daddy issues" and curse Burton for not giving us "the classic Penguin from the comics". After all, if critics say so, it must be true, right?

Wrong. I have a mind of my own, thank you very much. So to hell with the critics. Maybe Affleck should've copied Bale's shtick by speaking like an asthmatic trying to roar his way to victory. That's people's idea of great acting, apparently.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 26 Feb  2017, 11:06
Agreed. I didn't even know that DeVito actually 'won' a Razzie for his role as the Penguin. I thought he was only nominated.

I've checked, and DeVito was only nominated. The point stands though - they considered this amazing performance abysmal and worthy of derision. So thanks for the Razzies for BvS. I definitely know the movie is great now.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 26 Feb  2017, 11:25

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 26 Feb  2017, 11:06
Agreed. I didn't even know that DeVito actually 'won' a Razzie for his role as the Penguin. I thought he was only nominated.

I've checked, and DeVito was only nominated. The point stands though - they considered this amazing performance abysmal and worthy of derision. So thanks for the Razzies for BvS. I definitely know the movie is great now.

Ah, okay. Well, here is a list of undeserved Razzie nominations including DeVito.
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/razzies/28958/10-mystifying-razzie-nominations

Seriously, Stanley Kubrick and Shelly Duvall were respectively nominated for Razzies as Worst Director and Worst Actress for The Shining? Get the f*** out of here.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 26 Feb  2017, 09:56
These 'awards' exist to make haters feel good about themselves, and to once again try and make their opinion undisputed fact. This especially caters to the pricks who didn't even see the movie. I call them so called fans.

Describing people who jumped on the hate bandwagon without bothering to see the movie as 'so called fans' is too generous. I'd prefer to call them sheep.  ;)

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 26 Feb  2017, 11:36
Ah, okay. Well, here is a list of undeserved Razzie nominations including DeVito.
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/razzies/28958/10-mystifying-razzie-nominations

Seriously, Stanley Kubrick and Shelly Duvall were respectively nominated for Razzies as Worst Director and Worst Actress for The Shining? Get the f*** out of here.

But the Razzies are infallible! They were nominated for Razzies and the Razzies are never wrong! The Shining sucks!

I'm just amazed Ghostbusters and Suicide Squad didn't win any. Ghostbusters singlehandedly euthanized one of the most beloved franchises of all time. It did far more damage to the Ghostbusters brand than BvS did for Batman. Surely that's more deserving of the worst remake award.

As far as Batman's history with the Razzies goes, both Batman Returns and Batman Begins got one nomination each, and they're now regarded as classics. Batman Forever also got one nomination. Batman & Robin was the first Batman film to actually win a Razzie (worst supporting actress for Silverstone). BvS holds the record for the most number of Razzie wins (tied with Halle Berry's Catwoman), but B&R retains the record for the most number of nominations overall (11 noms, but only 1 win).

Regarding the credibility of the Golden Raspberries (or lack thereof), it's worth remembering that they also nominated Ennio Morricone for worst original score for John Carpenter's The Thing (1982), Brian De Palma as worst director for Scarface (1983), and Heather Donahue as worst actress for The Blair Witch Project (1999). So BvS is in good company.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 26 Feb  2017, 15:29
I'm just amazed Ghostbusters and Suicide Squad didn't win any. Ghostbusters singlehandedly euthanized one of the most beloved franchises of all time. It did far more damage to the Ghostbusters brand than BvS did for Batman. Surely that's more deserving of the worst remake award.

As far as Batman's history with the Razzies goes, both Batman Returns and Batman Begins got one nomination each, and they're now regarded as classics. Batman Forever also got one nomination. Batman & Robin was the first Batman film to actually win a Razzie (worst supporting actress for Silverstone). BvS holds the record for the most number of Razzie wins (tied with Halle Berry's Catwoman), but B&R retains the record for the most number of nominations overall (11 noms, but only 1 win).

Regarding the credibility of the Golden Raspberries (or lack thereof), it's worth remembering that they also nominated Ennio Morricone for worst original score for John Carpenter's The Thing (1982), Brian De Palma as worst director for Scarface (1983), and Heather Donahue as worst actress for The Blair Witch Project (1999). So BvS is in good company.

I'm not sure I agree with you about Ghostbusters, but your third paragraph is spot-on.

Any remote credibility the Razzies might claim is immediately countered by nominations for The Shining and Scarface, both of which are rightly regarded as modern classics, not to mention Batman Returns and The Thing.

Well, you should be even more amazed, Silver Nemesis. SS just won an Oscar, lol.

Quote from: Travesty on Mon, 27 Feb  2017, 02:05
Well, you should be even more amazed, Silver Nemesis. SS just won an Oscar, lol.

Maybe they should do a check, just to make sure the presenter didn't announce the wrong film. ;)

No, seriously, I think this award is very well-deserved.  Killer Croc's makeup is particularly impressive.

Here's a blogger's stance on SS winning some Oscar:

Source: http://www.theflitecast.com/blogdc/2017/2/27/what-suicide-squad-winning-an-oscar-really-means

On a separate note: Viola Davis aka Amanda Waller apparently made a pretentious quote at the ceremony today.

Quote"I became an artist because we are the only profession that celebrates what it means to live a life."

f***ing hell. I wonder what do doctors, firefighters and even councillors have to say about that?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 27 Feb  2017, 11:05

Quote"I became an artist because we are the only profession that celebrates what it means to live a life."

f***ing hell. I wonder what do doctors, firefighters and even councillors have to say about that?

I'm getting fed up with the pomposity and self-regard of the Hollywood community.  It's clearly turning a lot of people off, myself included.

Still, Viola's quote is not as annoying and narcissistic as Kerry Washington's similar quote about acting, from a few months back: "Actors are activists because we embody the humanity and worth of all people." [eye roll]

Seriously, you'd think these performers were saving lives, rather than getting paid vast millions to prance about in front of cameras playing dress-up, like overgrown children.

In all seriousness, fair deuce to Suicide Squad. The makeup was good. But I still find it laughable SS got an Oscar and Silence didn't. I'm not naive enough to think these awards are dispensed on a meritocratic basis – particularly with all the racial factors that have come into play in recent years – but I thought Silence was easily one of the best films of the year. And it offered a perfect opportunity for the Academy to dispel the rumours of racial bias. Shinya Tsukamoto and Issey Ogata were both deserving of best supporting actor nominations IMO. But there you have it. Last year it was Stallone that got shafted. This year it was Scorsese (and not for the first time).

I've come to realise there are three basic functions of the Academy Awards:

1)   They improve the value of a filmmaker's currency within the industry and increase the likelihood of them getting more work.

2)   They're useful in overseas marketing. Audiences in foreign language territories are unlikely to be familiar with Leonard Maltin, Richard Roeper or Mark Kermode, so critical endorsements won't mean much to them. But they will recognise the Oscar symbol on a poster. In that sense, the Oscars can be a powerful marketing tool.

3)   They're a decadent bourgeois circlejerk for the industry to pat itself on the back and virtue signal; with self-deluding entertainers labouring under the misapprehension they hold some kind of moral authority over the rest of us, or that they possess some unique insight into the human condition that simply must be expressed. That way they can feel good about themselves as they drive home to their 5,000 sq ft mansions in their stretch limousines with their $208.5k goodie bags.

In light of that last point, I think the following clip is more relevant than ever.


For the record, I don't begrudge anyone exercising the right to express their political views. But these people need to get some perspective. They're entertainers. Yes, they're artists too. But that doesn't make them any better informed on political subjects than anyone else. And to those actors who think they're changing the world by regurgitating platitudes to an echo chamber filled with people who they already know agree with them – get real.

Apparently Michael Keaton was talking to Al Pacino and John Travolta in a restaurant earlier this year when he was overhead to say "Enough with the Hollywood B.S." At this point, I think 99% of the public agree with that sentiment.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 27 Feb  2017, 02:18

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzNsIu5a.gif&hash=81e99a104e8a7677e32bf860723997b4902372ed)

You really love Bill Murray.  :D

And good posts in here about the out of touch Hollyweird crowd. Spot on.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 27 Feb  2017, 12:56
In all seriousness, fair deuce to Suicide Squad. The makeup was good. But I still find it laughable SS got an Oscar and Silence didn't. I'm not naive enough to think these awards are dispensed on a meritocratic basis – particularly with all the racial factors that have come into play in recent years – but I thought Silence was easily one of the best films of the year. And it offered a perfect opportunity for the Academy to dispel the rumours of racial bias. Shinya Tsukamoto and Issey Ogata were both deserving of best supporting actor nominations IMO. But there you have it. Last year it was Stallone that got shafted. This year it was Scorsese (and not for the first time).

As much as I really love Moonlight and La La Land, I've also got to say that of all the 2016 theatrical releases I've so far seen, Silence is currently my #1 favourite (of course, it was barely nominated for any Academy Awards, certainly not in any of the major categories, possibly because of the religious subject matter, possibly because it isn't an easy film but an occasionally gruelling one, albeit not as gruelling as some critics have suggested, with various scenes of torture).

Still, I spoke to many people on the IMDb about Silence, before the boards were shut down, and there appears to be a lot of love among genuine film aficionados for it, even above the various films nominated for Best Picture this year.  I have the feeling that in years to come Silence will be regarded as a classic piece of cinema, irrespective of its lack of awards recognition.

And with respect to the Hollywood bubble, you're 100% spot-on Silver Nemesis.

The smug, self-righteousness by Hollywood can also be said of the majority of film critics. Spare us your sanctimonious and condescending preaching, you hypocritical deadbeats.

Finally, considering that the Oscars and Razzies have made lots of questionable decisions in the past (i.e. giving that awful Juno an award for Best Screenplay, and nominating Kubrick for Worst Director for The Shining as I mentioned earlier), there is a good reason why a lot of people don't hold stock in what these awards say. Another example: The Departed may have been Scorsese's only film to win Best Picture, but it's nowhere near his best compared to Goodfellas, Taxi Driver or even Casino.

Screw 'em, I say. They're not a true measure when it comes to artistic quality.

By the way, I saw some Marvel fanboys whining over Suicide Squad getting an Oscar for makeup, even claiming there is a conspiracy against the MCU for getting accolades. First: What utter fools, and second: who cares?!

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 28 Feb  2017, 09:36
The smug, self-righteousness by Hollywood can also be said of the majority of film critics. Spare us your sanctimonious and condescending preaching, you hypocritical deadbeats.

Finally, considering that the Oscars and Razzies have made lots of questionable decisions in the past (i.e. giving that awful Juno an award for Best Screenplay, and nominating Kubrick for Worst Director for The Shining as I mentioned earlier), there is a good reason why a lot of people don't hold stock in what these awards say. Another example: The Departed may have been Scorsese's only film to win Best Picture, but it's nowhere near his best compared to Goodfellas, Taxi Driver or even Casino.

Screw 'em, I say. They're not a true measure when it comes to artistic quality.

By the way, I saw some Marvel fanboys whining over Suicide Squad getting an Oscar for makeup, even claiming there is a conspiracy against the MCU for getting accolades. First: What utter fools, and second: who cares?!

Maybe one can understand people who work in the business - awards are seen as an achievement, they open doors etc. What I can't understand is the fans. As a Game of Thrones fan I often browse related sites and communities - most of them, at least those more active in the comments, make such a big deal of the Emmys. It's as if being a fan of something that won awards makes you better. The Wire never won an Emmy.

Quote from: Azrael on Tue, 28 Feb  2017, 16:25Maybe one can understand people who work in the business - awards are seen as an achievement, they open doors etc.

I don't buy this.  As far as I can tell, most of the people in the business got there through having the right connections.  Look at the likes of Joss Whedon and George Clooney and Angelina Jolie.  Their families were all in show-business and/or the media.

Sure, they might occasionally throw a bone or two now and again to say a black actor/actress from relative obscurity, in order to present the façade that their industry is all about diversity and fairness, but it's BS, and most people with two eyes and a brain can see that.

Awards don't open doors, because one has to have got through a few doors in order to be in contention for these awards in the very first place.

Quote from: Azrael on Tue, 28 Feb  2017, 16:25
Maybe one can understand people who work in the business - awards are seen as an achievement, they open doors etc. What I can't understand is the fans. As a Game of Thrones fan I often browse related sites and communities - most of them, at least those more active in the comments, make such a big deal of the Emmys. It's as if being a fan of something that won awards makes you better. The Wire never won an Emmy.

I hate to say it, but a lot of comic book movie/fantasy fans are extremely similar to glory hunting sports fans. I suspect a lot of these people are subconsciously more influenced by the hype surrounding a particular piece of art, rather than having a real appreciation for it. They're the same type of people who make a big deal out of Rotten Tomatoes scores and box office earnings, instead of backing up any real subjective thoughts why they enjoy (or don't enjoy) something. It's sad.

The only possible exception why a fan might be concerned with box office results is if it affects any chances for sequels. But that's it.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 27 Feb  2017, 12:56I've come to realise there are three basic functions of the Academy Awards:

1)   They improve the value of a filmmaker's currency within the industry and increase the likelihood of them getting more work.

2)   They're useful in overseas marketing. Audiences in foreign language territories are unlikely to be familiar with Leonard Maltin, Richard Roeper or Mark Kermode, so critical endorsements won't mean much to them. But they will recognise the Oscar symbol on a poster. In that sense, the Oscars can be a powerful marketing tool.

3)   They're a decadent bourgeois circlejerk for the industry to pat itself on the back and virtue signal; with self-deluding entertainers labouring under the misapprehension they hold some kind of moral authority over the rest of us, or that they possess some unique insight into the human condition that simply must be expressed. That way they can feel good about themselves as they drive home to their 5,000 sq ft mansions in their stretch limousines with their $208.5k goodie bags.

Related to #3, there are some in instances when the Oscars serve as a useful encouragement and vote of confidence.

Prosecution's Exhibit A: Superman Returns was nominated for an Oscar for VFX. Does ANYBODY think that was genuinely merited? No, of course not. But it was never about merit. The reality is that Sony Pictures Imageworks and Rhythm & Hues have done phenomenal work... but you wouldn't necessarily know that judging by Superman Returns. The reason for that is because Bryan Singer was in rehab for a good chunk of post-production on that turd so he couldn't approve shots. The VFX crews had to work double-time to keep up once Singer was out of rehab. In the end, there was no choice but for Singer to approve shots which were half-finished at best. Some were even less than that.

In the end, Superman Returns was nominated for a visual effects Oscar for which it was imminently unqualified as a show of good faith on the part of the Hollywood community. It was never going to win. And that was never the point. The point is that Hollywood collectively told Rhythm & Hues and Sony Pictures Imageworks "Hey, the movie had crap effects but we know that wasn't your fault. We'll keep hiring you guys to make our movies." Only that and nothing more.

As you say, there's nothing meritocratic about the Oscars. Hell, there's very little meritocratic about Hollywood point blank. If Hollywood was a meritocracy, Superman Returns would've been the last movie Bryan Singer ever made (because his movie bombed) and the VFX companies wouldn't have gotten a nomination for anything (because they didn't deserve it, no matter who's at fault for that).

Oh, one other thing. Since we're unloading on Hollywood here, I really hope people understand that the backlash has been building for a long time. Admittedly, anecdotal testimony doesn't mean much. But considering that I live almost right in the center of flyover country, I hope I have credibility in saying I don't remember a time when Hollywood and celebrities were ever well-liked.

Most people I know always thought of celebrities as one step away from politicians as far as credibility. I don't think any of them mind celebrities, per se. But being told they're immoral by out-of-touch millionaires who play Pretend for living while they boff their co-stars and snort everything in sight is a bit much.

Speaking personally, I honestly don't care to ever see Chris Evans in anything, least of all a Captain America movie, ever again. The guy has just burned his last bridge with me. Other celebrities are in the same boat.

Clearly I'm not alone (on some level or another). And so what I think we're seeing boil over in the culture right now has in truth been bubbling for a long time. Twenty years, at least.

I must have missed something but I thought Superman Returns' effects were brilliant...The film had other problems, but the visuals weren't one of them as far as I'm concerned.

As for celebrities, sure some of them have big mouths and they are mostly out-of-touch, but if you end up boycotting all these various actors' films (and there are vocal 'do-gooders' in all of these franchises including the DCEU, and Chris Evans is hardly the 'worst'), you might as well give up on films altogether, and I guess that includes watching and talking about Batman films...and I'm not sure how relevant this site would then be to you, since it's effectively a site dedicated to Batman films.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 21 Mar  2017, 00:29
Speaking personally, I honestly don't care to ever see Chris Evans in anything, least of all a Captain America movie, ever again. The guy has just burned his last bridge with me. Other celebrities are in the same boat.

Clearly I'm not alone (on some level or another). And so what I think we're seeing boil over in the culture right now has in truth been bubbling for a long time. Twenty years, at least.

If you want to see unhinged, look no further than Chris Evans.

Evans and the Marvel brand are stone cold dead to me. The Marvel boycott is really easy for me because I was never a rusted-on Marvel supporter anyway. They have really gone overboard with the SJW crap and their movies are grossly overrated and samey anyway.

Evans "feels rage and fury"? Well, I feel it a LOT more. Hollyweird's purpose is to undermine and destroy America and remake it into a Communist Marxist utopia. So Evans and his crowd can keep on yapping. It's not working out well for them. They just reveal themselves and get added to the shun list.

Girlbusters?
Ocean's H8?
Diversity-Man: Homecoming?
Spielberg's Syrian 'refugee' film?

ALL BOYCOTTED! And I'm not the only one. Will these fools get the hint it's not a good idea to piss off large chunks of people? Probably not, but that's okay too. If I get a whiff of any agenda, I'm voting with my wallet. Leftists call for Ivanka Trump's clothing to be boycotted – her sales skyrocket 346% since January. And there are other similar examples. We hold the power here, but the media like to pretend otherwise.

Honestly, I'm okay with knowing if someone holds a different view to me. That's life and it's to be expected. But if they go off the deep end and start their holier than thou act? That's where I walk away. For example, in the past I liked Madonna's music and aspects of her routine. But after her recent commentary? Nope. She's dead to me. I just cannot follow or support anyone like that. It's sad but that's just how it is. If these people want us to pick a side then we will. She decided to go down that road, not me.

In my estimations, DC Comics have been pretty good. Certainly, nowhere near the levels of Marvel who are nothing but advocacy comics, especially in recent times – female Thor, female Wolverine, etc. I mean, the entire Avengers cast made an election video openly supporting who became the losing candidate. I don't know how much more blatant you can get. Marvel, for example, can't act surprised when there's a backlash because they took such an obvious leaning and continue to do so.

A lot of the entertainment media has become so politicized and honestly, while I follow politics, I explore fiction because it's largely an escape from politics.  Gender, race and sexuality is all they have. And we're sick of it. 

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 21 Mar  2017, 00:54I must have missed something but I thought Superman Returns' effects were brilliant...The film had other problems, but the visuals weren't one of them as far as I'm concerned.

I suppose there's a subjective element to whether or not these effects are enjoyable.

However, my view is many of these shots would have been laughable even back in the PS2 days.

https://youtu.be/9tU0vG9UJ2I?t=94

https://youtu.be/dJLLyP00d8g?t=105

The robotic, rubbery quality of many of those sequences might have been tolerable in the 90's but the technology had progressed more than Superman Returns would have someone believe. It's not quite Scorpion King-bad. But it's still pretty bad.

The fact is that even back in 2006, visual effects could do better than Superman Returns offered. It's something to frown on that The Matrix Reloaded had better flying effects despite being three years older than SR. Not all visual effects in SR had that problem. But I find it interesting that shots which required a certain elegance or nuance to them (such as the two I linked above) tended to be clunky and rubbery. Those usually had the most problems. I therefore infer that Singer originally intended to spend additional time on those shots but... rehab.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 21 Mar  2017, 00:54if you end up boycotting all these various actors' films (and there are vocal 'do-gooders' in all of these franchises including the DCEU, and Chris Evans is hardly the 'worst'), you might as well give up on films altogether,

In many ways, I have. Politicking is nothing new in Hollyweird. But it is becoming unbearable. So I bear it less and less often now.

To be fair, my frustration with Evans goes back to the pre-release hysteria with Winter Soldier where he announced he wanted to finish up his contract and retire from the character. It has snowballed into an avalanche since that time.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 21 Mar  2017, 00:54and I guess that includes watching and talking about Batman films

If that's a snipe at Affleck's politicking, I'm not letting him off the hook for anything. But at the same time, he does it less often and usually to a lesser degree than others. Plus, Affleck played Batman the way I always wanted to see him played and that counts for a lot. His habit of being less annoying combined with his amazing performance has inclined me to give him a lot of latitude.

However, I don't necessarily extend that latitude to just anybody.

I'm DC born and bred so Marvel characters inherently matter less to me. So Evans, however good a job he's done as Cap, doesn't get the same breaks that Affleck can expect.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 21 Mar  2017, 02:18In my estimations, DC Comics have been pretty good. Certainly, nowhere near the levels of Marvel who are nothing but advocacy comics, especially in recent times – female Thor, female Wolverine, etc. I mean, the entire Avengers cast made an election video openly supporting who became the losing candidate. I don't know how much more blatant you can get. Marvel, for example, can't act surprised when there's a backlash because they took such an obvious leaning and continue to do so.

A lot of the entertainment media has become so politicized and honestly, while I follow politics, I explore fiction because it's largely an escape from politics.  Gender, race and sexuality is all they have. And we're sick of it.

Then why aren't you boycotting the DCEU?  Ben Affleck is as openly liberal as anyone involved with the Marvel films.  He was a very vocal John Kerry supporter during the 2004 election.

If you're going to be consistent in your stance, I don't see how you can continue to talk about boycotting these films on political grounds and still give money to any film featuring Ben Affleck.

Maybe you should stick to TDK trilogy (which you bizarrely seem to dislike).  Sir Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and to some degree Morgan Freeman all lean conservative, and Christopher Nolan's films were targeted by some liberal commentators for being pro-surveillance/pro-Patriot Act and anti-Occupy Wall Street.

By the way, if you think multimillionaire movie stars who own private jets and live in multimillion dollar condos in restricted communities, are remotely Communist or Marxist, you really need to pick up a copy of Das Kapital and learn what Communism/Marxism actually means.  Social Justice Warrior rhetoric and Hillary's neoliberal pro-Wall Street/pro-Western interventionist agenda has got zero to do with Communism/Marxism.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 21 Mar  2017, 02:48
If that's a snipe at Affleck's politicking, I'm not letting him off the hook for anything. But at the same time, he does it less often and usually to a lesser degree than others. Plus, Affleck played Batman the way I always wanted to see him played and that counts for a lot. His habit of being less annoying combined with his amazing performance has inclined me to give him a lot of latitude.

However, I don't necessarily extend that latitude to just anybody.

I'm DC born and bred so Marvel characters inherently matter less to me. So Evans, however good a job he's done as Cap, doesn't get the same breaks that Affleck can expect.

Fair enough...

I was mostly referring to Affleck (I'm sure there are other vocal liberals involved with the DCEU, but Affleck stands out as the most prominent), but I will concede that you're right about him being less public about it these days (at the very moment the rest of Hollywood, rightly or wrongly, has gone in the other direction and ramped up the political rhetoric).  Maybe he was burned by his pro-Kerry campaigning back in 2004, and the unhelpful focus on the 'Bennifer' relationship and his issues with alcohol at the time.

For what it's worth, and most of you here probably know where I stand politically (i.e. I'm a liberal), I'm not a fan of celebrity politicking whether it's in favour of a liberal or conservative candidate/agenda.  Like a lot of you here, I don't give much credence to the opinions of multimillionaire celebrities anymore than I do to that of Joe Schmoe (in fact, I probably give less credence to people who don't tend to have the same day-to-day financial problems as the majority of the world), and although I like many political films, I prefer not to know the positions of the people involved.  As far as I'm concerned, they're doing a job; to act/direct/write.  And their respective political positions are immaterial and if anything detract from their work.

As for why it's more of a deal these days, personally I blame Twitter, and similar social media sites.  Anytime I want to look up a particular actor/director/writer/musician, because I'm interested in finding out more about their work, the first damn thing that comes up during a search is their frickin Twitter feed, which often, these days, tends to be commenting on some political matter or another.  Speaking even as a lib, it gets on my bloody nerves, especially as a lot of it strikes me as insincere virtue signalling from spoiled, pampered elitists who know next to nothing about the realities of poverty, bigotry, and social injustice.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 21 Mar  2017, 02:48
If that's a snipe at Affleck's politicking, I'm not letting him off the hook for anything. But at the same time, he does it less often and usually to a lesser degree than others. Plus, Affleck played Batman the way I always wanted to see him played and that counts for a lot. His habit of being less annoying combined with his amazing performance has inclined me to give him a lot of latitude.

However, I don't necessarily extend that latitude to just anybody.

I'm DC born and bred so Marvel characters inherently matter less to me. So Evans, however good a job he's done as Cap, doesn't get the same breaks that Affleck can expect.

Yep. Sure, I disagree with most liberal views, but they exist and that's life. Expressing an opinion is free speech and most of the time I let things slide. Ben has said things but nothing that has really pissed me off. It's far less frequent, and hey, he also loves Tom Brady like 45. That's gotta count for something.

It's when somebody becomes an obnoxious Chris Evans or a raving Madonna who dreams of blowing up the White House. Or if the product they star in comes with a not so subtle SJW/anti conservative message. That's the real issue I have. You're not going to like absolutely everything about someone. That's impossible. But it's the tone they strike that matters.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 21 Mar  2017, 13:54Yep. Sure, I disagree with most liberal views, but they exist and that's life. Expressing an opinion is free speech and most of the time I let things slide. Ben has said things but nothing that has really pissed me off. It's far less frequent, and hey, he also loves Tom Brady like 45. That's gotta count for something.

It's when somebody becomes an obnoxious Chris Evans or a raving Madonna who dreams of blowing up the White House. Or if the product they star in comes with a not so subtle SJW/anti conservative message. That's the real issue I have. You're not going to like absolutely everything about someone. That's impossible. But it's the tone they strike that matters.

The hell of it is that I'm not so bothered by that. I guess I've become immune to it. But they can go out there and advocate for whatever cause they believe in. By all means, I'm immune to it. They won't persuade me so what's the harm?

But when they start insulting people, that crosses a line. Take Michael Shannon, for example. I used to really enjoy his work. He's incredibly talented and he proved to me that he could play a memorable Zod without copying Terrence Stamp. Obviously I love Boardwalk Empire too. I'm pretty sure there's a law about that or something. "You must enjoy Boardwalk Empire or else the puppy gets it". It's something like that.

But what Shannon said was WAY out of order. Those were some of the most vicious insults I've ever seen. Not to get all Internet Tough Guy but if somebody said that to me face-to-face, he's getting smacked. At least one of us is going to the hospital, simple as that. He insulted me, my family, my friends and also about half the country. And we're not talking about politics or politicians here. We're talking about insulting people.

Trash-talking theoretically half of your audience that way is just classless. I admire Shannon's talent. Very few people can do what he does the way he does it as well as he does it. But the fact is that he's on my list now. The boycott list. If his name is in a movie's credits, I'm saving my money. I don't care what the movie is. If he comes back to the DCEU, I guess I'm SOL because that rule is absolute. None of my money goes to a production which involves Michael Shannon. Period.

If Shannon went out there to advocate for some leftie wackadoo cause, eh, whatever. Let him say his piece. But when he attacks and mocks the American people, the voters, his freaking customers, then we've got a problem.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 21 Mar  2017, 13:54
It's when somebody becomes an obnoxious Chris Evans or a raving Madonna who dreams of blowing up the White House. Or if the product they star in comes with a not so subtle SJW/anti conservative message. That's the real issue I have. You're not going to like absolutely everything about someone. That's impossible. But it's the tone they strike that matters.

A couple of days ago, I started to uphold this stance against Mark Waid because I was totally disgusted with his conduct on Twitter, where he slanders people for having different views i.e. blocking somebody and calling that person a misogynist because he had The Killing Joke poster on his wall, and being completely ignorant about topics he knows nothing about (hint: look up "Mark Waid GamerGate" on Google).

By the way, Waid currently works for Marvel, so he must be one of those people who are ruining comics with misguided social justice propaganda. Whatever, he deserves no attention from me.

Gerry Conway is the same. I've lost respect for the man when he went on a tirade about Snyder because of BvS, tweeting how he should go f*** himself because he hated BvS. How pathetic, unprofessional and small can you get? But then again, Conway did spit the dummy because DC Comics weren't paying him royalties, so his resentment might have something to do with that.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 22 Mar  2017, 11:27A couple of days ago, I started to uphold this stance against Mark Waid because I was totally disgusted with his conduct on Twitter, where he slanders people for having different views i.e. blocking somebody and calling that person a misogynist because he had The Killing Joke poster on his wall, and being completely ignorant about topics he knows nothing about (hint: look up "Mark Waid GamerGate" on Google).

By the way, Waid currently works for Marvel, so he must be one of those people who are ruining comics with misguided social justice propaganda. Whatever, he deserves no attention from me.

I've pretty much avoided Mark Waid interviews for the last few years just because things have gotten so polarized and he's so famously outspoken on his liberal causes that I didn't have the heart to read any of it. His work has meant so much to me over the years and I would hate to add him to my Boycott List. So I'm trying to protect against that by avoiding his Twitter and any interviews he gives but, man, he doesn't make it too easy.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 22 Mar  2017, 11:27Gerry Conway is the same. I've lost respect for the man when he went on a tirade about Snyder because of BvS, tweeting how he should go f*** himself because he hated BvS. How pathetic, unprofessional and small can you get? But then again, Conway did spit the dummy because DC Comics weren't paying him royalties, so his resentment might have something to do with that.

I've always thought that vitriol like that is on a different order when it comes from one professional to another. I mean, it's one thing for us to criticize, I dunno, the Russo brothers for Civil War, for example. But it would be different if a comic writer or a screenwriter or some other pro did it. And I would say it's worse, if anything.

It's really hard to be creative and pour your soul into something only for people to attack it and to attack you on personal levels. "This is the worst, most amateurish clusterf**k I've ever seen, and I was on the set of Showgirls for god's sake! The director of this movie obviously was abused as a child if he thought this movie was any good and he should be launched into the sun as payment for his sins. If he had any self-respect whatsoever, he'd kill himself as penance for making this movie!" I mean, that stuff cuts deep, y'all.


While exempting myself from nothing, I don't expect anonymous Internet commenters to understand how hurtful that stuff can be but pros like Conway should know better. "Eh, it wasn't for me but I hope you guys all have fun at the movie!" or something equally diplomatic should be as bad as they get to one another, if you ask me. Zack Snyder was called everything in the book for making BVS. Love or hate BVS, all the guy wanted to do was make a movie. Let's try keeping it in perspective here, Gerry Conway.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 22 Mar  2017, 16:14
While exempting myself from nothing, I don't expect anonymous Internet commenters to understand how hurtful that stuff can be but pros like Conway should know better. "Eh, it wasn't for me but I hope you guys all have fun at the movie!" or something equally diplomatic should be as bad as they get to one another, if you ask me. Zack Snyder was called everything in the book for making BVS. Love or hate BVS, all the guy wanted to do was make a movie. Let's try keeping it in perspective here, Gerry Conway.

In light of the Snyder family going through this terrible time right now, I'd like to know if that piece of sh*t Gerry Conway feels in any way remorseful for those comments? Same goes for that c*** Rotten Tomatoes editor-in-chief Matt Atchity about the entire cast and crew should punch themselves in the face over BvS.

Sadly, I doubt very much these disgusting pigs have any conscience.  f*** all of these pathetic lowlife scumbags to hell. Utter c***s.

I don't suppose those critics of Zack Snyder were aware of the family trauma he was going through, or about to go through, when they made those comments.

Nevertheless, that does, if anything, underline the importance of us all demonstrating more perspective and civility when we discuss what is, in essence, simply entertainment, made with all the best intentions in the world.  Although I don't think I've ever made any seriously personalised comments about Snyder with respect to BvS, I do feel some guilt and remorse for some of the more hyperbolic criticisms I made.

For what it's worth, I have now seen BvS, and whilst many of my pre-screening criticisms stand, I also found it to be a far more enjoyable, entertaining, and competent film than I feared, and it is in no way deserving of the measly 28% 'Rotten' rating it has on Rotten Tomatoes.  I also suspect that some of the more vitriolic critics had a personal vendetta against Warner Bros, Zack Snyder, and the types of films they were making.

That certainly doesn't mean I consider BvS to be an unheralded classic, or even the Batman versus Superman film I think we all deserved, but it's certainly far from a disaster.  Moreover, it's a film that I can actually see myself re-visiting.  Whilst it's lack of humour is a slight problem, and it's interpretation of Lex Luthor a big sticking point for me (part of it is down to Jesse Eisenberg's casting, part of it is down to the filmmakers' flawed conception of the character), the performances of Affleck, Cavill, and Gadot are all fine, as are Amy Adams and Holly Hunter, in significant roles, the film raises many intelligent and thought-provoking questions about the presence of super-powered alien lifeforms on Earth (something that the MCU has never really given any true consideration to, despite the seismic repercussions of the Chitauri attack on New York), and for the most part the film looks fantastic, and is certainly more visually arresting than the Nolan trilogy.

Civility. Yes. Ages ago I saw a documentary called Heckler. It basically said that critics are hecklers, more or less, and they frequently cross the line. Hecklers and critics both, though, are horrible. George Lucas invested every nickel he had to his name to make Episode I... and was called a rapist. He made a movie and hoped people would enjoy it. And a lot of them called him a rapist. South Park actually showed him as a rapist.

Gee, I wonder why he sold Lucasilm to the evil empire, the house of mouse.

A-holes.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 23 May  2017, 17:12
For what it's worth, I have now seen BvS

Good to hear. Did you see the Theatrical or Ultimate Edition?

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 24 May  2017, 09:56

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 23 May  2017, 17:12
For what it's worth, I have now seen BvS

Good to hear. Did you see the Theatrical or Ultimate Edition?

The theatrical version.  I wanted to see the version everyone had seen in the cinema first.  But I will eventually see the Ultimate Edition.

Having rather liked the Theatrical version, I look forward to seeing the Ultimate Edition.  However, at the moment I'm mostly looking forward to Wonder Woman.

I definitely recommend you see the Ultimate Edition at some point. As someone who liked the Theatrical, I loved the Ultimate Edition. It's a much better experience. The extra thirty minutes gives much more focus to Clark Kent, strengthens existing plot points and just has added clarity. It's Snyder's true vision.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 24 May  2017, 11:39
I definitely recommend you see the Ultimate Edition at some point. As someone who liked the Theatrical, I loved the Ultimate Edition. It's a much better experience. The extra thirty minutes gives much more focus to Clark Kent, strengthens existing plot points and just has added clarity. It's Snyder's true vision.

Oh, I will see it.  Most likely within the next couple of months.  But I'll take your recommendation as an added incentive to see it. :)

Personally I don't own any of the DCEU films yet, I'm hoping they'll have a box set the way marvel does.

I've seen man of steel and batman v superman twice each. I actually think part of the reason Batman v Superman underwhelmed (and maybe even Suicide Squad too) was man of steel. Dark, depression, and realism just don't work for Superman the way they work for Batman. Batman vs Superman represents dark vs. light, gloomy Gotham vs. colourful Metropolis. By making Superman too much like Batman, it really took away when they fought. I didn't feel any identity was created for either city, so much so that if you were to tune in at a random moment, you wouldn't be able to tell whether the scene is Gotham or Metropolis. I'm sure we all would have given anything to see the Christopher Reeve or even Brandon Routh Superman in the same movie as Burton/Keatons Batman. Those films really set the atmosphere for Gotham and Metropolis and it would have been something to see those worlds collide.

The main thing this movie lacks which every live action Batman movie back to the Adam west one got was making Gotham City almost into it's own character. This film gave no identity to its setting which is important to why Bruce does what he does at any given time.

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 24 May  2017, 14:33
Personally I don't own any of the DCEU films yet, I'm hoping they'll have a box set the way marvel does.

I've seen man of steel and batman v superman twice each. I actually think part of the reason Batman v Superman underwhelmed (and maybe even Suicide Squad too) was man of steel. Dark, depression, and realism just don't work for Superman the way they work for Batman. Batman vs Superman represents dark vs. light, gloomy Gotham vs. colourful Metropolis. By making Superman too much like Batman, it really took away when they fought.

The only thing I do fault about Snyder's films is they borrow too much of the overserious tone of the Nolan films. Otherwise, I have to disagree on this account. I think BvS does a much better job at analysing a superhero in a realistic context than any of Nolan's films for example, which paid lip service to the whole idea. We see what happens when people react to Superman as a godlike being, including the positive and negative perceptions of his impact on the world. Superman wants to do the right thing, but he is constantly tested and challenged by a violent world. Despite his doubts and injustices, he still saves his tormentor from dying at the hands of Doomsday and sacrifices himself to save the planet from doom. That doesn't scream "dark" like Batman to me. BvS particularly shows us how Batman was a former shadow of himself right before he had that moment of clarity at the end of his battle with Superman.

Besides, a lot of Post Crisis comics hadn't always depicted Superman as the smiling, cheerful Boy Scout. Here's one example of him threatening a gunman while pursuing him in Adventures of Superman Vol.1 Annual #7 (1995):

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fx5BMepU.jpg&hash=78cef4fe22e2978527947caadb82f1b2b3095f43)

Not to mention that Superman had been in many brutal fights over the years. Even the DCAU TV shows had Superman acting less of a boy scout, including the time where he was willing to fight to the death against Darkseid: "I won't stop until you're a greasy smear on my fist".

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 24 May  2017, 14:33
I didn't feel any identity was created for either city, so much so that if you were to tune in at a random moment, you wouldn't be able to tell whether the scene is Gotham or Metropolis.

I will agree with you on this. If there is one thing I'd give Superman Returns one credit is the Daily Planet building was an Art Deco design complete with the iconic planet on top of the building, which hadn't been done before. Unfortunately, Batman movies haven't showed us a unique-looking Gotham City for twenty years now. Only Burton and Schumacher made the city looked larger than life.

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 24 May  2017, 14:33
I didn't feel any identity was created for either city, so much so that if you were to tune in at a random moment, you wouldn't be able to tell whether the scene is Gotham or Metropolis.

We didn't see much of Gotham in the first place to make a clear judgement.

But the Ultimate Edition was a step in the right direction.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscreenrant2.imgix.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FBatman-V-Superman-Ultimate-Billboard.jpg%3Fauto%3Dformat%26amp%3Bcs%3Dtinysrgb%26amp%3Bq%3D100%26amp%3Bw%3D786%26amp%3Bh%3D393%26amp%3Bfit%3Dcrop&hash=9ac15764939d973ff730d489ec08f6a353b55e7d)

The billboard is in disrepair. We get a big Watchmen Easter egg, as well as the idea this area of Gotham isn't exactly feeling hopeful. The ACE Chemicals building can be seen, the sky is nice and gloomy and the buildings aren't lit up brightly. It's a small sequence but the tone seems right to me. There's plenty of room for Matt Reeves to expand upon Gotham.