This is all you really need to understand what is going to happen in the movie. And why batman will "win". Batman is the ultimate Marie-Sue, even more so than Superman.
In a universe where beings like Superman or Martian Manhunter or Flash or Darkseid exist, the fact that Batman is even allowed on the team is a joke.
People cite his genius level intellect and his detective skills, his ability to always be prepared etc... But he lives in a universe where beings can move not only faster than light, but can also think just as quickly (or else they'd smash into/through things/people). The Flash stated in a comic that he perceives events at less than a picosecond and can comprehend them enough to react. A universe where beings are capable of literally punching a hole into a neighbouring universe. A universe where a couple of beings can live inside the sun, and move planets.
Batman is the biggest joke ever played on readers.
In reality, this is what would happen in a fight between Batman and Superman (if Superman were to break his code of morality):
But unfortunately that doesn't make for good cinema, and Batman is:
Lol Yea i feel they do that because of popularity, and are afraid they'd lose fans if they use real logic with batman compared to superior beings etc...i found it weirdfor fans to say bats beat up a guy who didnt even wanna hurt him or fight really...all good i guess lol only 3 more days!!!! https://youtu.be/UMltUXZkPUM Damn i should have just edit added this one to the previous reply. Also BvS has been getting a ton of positive reactions from people surprisingly , Mexico premier & NY premier so many freaking celebrities were there including jim lee&frank miller and twitter is exploding. Supposedly review embargos are lifted tomorrow around 3pm..I'm going to be avoiding spoilers like the plague lol.
Oh and a pretty good spoiler free behind the scenes/featurette for those interested. https://youtu.be/fGiZq78rqoc
I still don't get why they casted Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. He looks like a nerdy, awkward character (whereas Lex is a bold, bald, strong, menacing character) But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until I actually see the movie. It Just seems like a weird/wrong decision.
I still don't get why they casted Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. He looks like a nerdy, awkward character (whereas Lex is a bold, bald, strong, menacing character) But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until I actually see the movie. It Just seems like a weird/wrong decision.
That's the approach I'm taking too. Lex should be a confident figure, and Jesse still comes across as awkward, in the trailer. I think it's mostly his voice, that does not convey strength/confidence. I still want to see the movie, even if he ends up being a terrible choice. I hope I'm wrong, but right now, I do feel like he's going to be the biggest negative about this movie.
That's the approach I'm taking too. Lex should be a confident figure, and Jesse still comes across as awkward, in the trailer. I think it's mostly his voice, that does not convey strength/confidence.
This doesn't actually bother me all that much. The comics already had a "son-of-Lex" character, which is apparently what this film character is supposed to be. There are plenty of ways this could be tied effectively into the narrative. Also, making the character a young, hair-having up-and-comer in the tech sector provides obvious parallels for a modern audience to follow. Eisenberg's casting is a fairly obvious connection to his performance in the Facebook movie.
As long as he exhibits a little mad-scientist technical proficiency I have no real complaints with Eisenberg's casting. I'm concerned about the tone of the film, and Zack Snyder's historical issues with story structure taking a backseat to visuals. Also, adapting a Frank Miller interpretation is a bad idea for a feature film.
The reports I got back from my friends who attended a local preview screening was that Affleck is a great batman, maybe the best Batman to appear in a live action film and the whole thing is "better than it has any right to be". I'm still kinda sceptical about this one, but it's made me a little more interested in the possibility of the Bat-fleck solo movie.
Basically all official reviews are saying it's a terrible movie, but Affleck is the best batman to date. He's just barely on screen. When he is, the movie shines, and the end fight is exactly what you want it to be. It just doesn't make up for the "drama" for the first majority of the movie.
Sounds like a lot of people are expecting nothing but action. But that's not Snyder's MO. More drama / soul searching, it seems.
Yea I've heard that too sadly, most people actually loved the film, but most critics so far are bashing it lol.the common theme in their reviews are weird, saying"not fun" guessing they thought it was going to be similar to marvels stuff, or maybe they just got payed lmao jk.
im pretty sure that the super spoilery trailer ( wich tottally put me off the movie ) and the over the top agressive marketing wasnt able to live up to the hype...
Reading the reviews is sounds like the movie suffers from the same problems every Zack Snyder film suffers from. Taking itself too seriously. Guy doesn't understand the concept of comic relief.
Just sounds like people are expecting it to be a marvel movie, when DC has always been a darker, more serious universe.
Which means the movies tend to be both unintentionally hilarious or really boring even in action sequences. DareDevil and Jessica Jones are more appropriate ways to do "grimdark". Also, the main reason I am upset is because I want a good Batman and a good Superman film and I feel WB is going the wrong direction with the films.
Just sounds like people are expecting it to be a marvel movie, when DC has always been a darker, more serious universe.
I don't think that's the problem here. Now that the embargo is up, the reviews are coming out hot-and-heavy. Even the lower-tier reviews from fans are coming down on the harsh side of things. This isn't just a matter of the film being a bit dour. And it's not just a matter of it being "not Marvel" enough. It's sounding like all my worst fears and suspicions about this movie have come to fruition.
While the more serious tone of Man of Steel worked against it, that was not that film's greatest drawback. There were plenty of other issues further up on its list of problems. Limp characterization, terrible script, massive plot holes, bad pacing, the list goes on and on. A lot of fans go easy on Man of Steel because it gave them a few things that they really wanted. It gave them actual fight scenes, an element that Superman films have been traditionally light on. And it gave them a different take on the character, an interpretation that a certain number of fans favored over previous incarnations.
But it is sounding like this "sequel" has all the same problems of Man of Steel, and then some. Again, I think there will be some fans who like this movie, because it panders specifically to what they want to see. But a lot of other viewers aren't going to be coming out of this movie happy.
Basically all official reviews are saying it's a terrible movie, but Affleck is the best batman to date. He's just barely on screen. When he is, the movie shines, and the end fight is exactly what you want it to be. It just doesn't make up for the "drama" for the first majority of the movie.
Sounds like a lot of people are expecting nothing but action. But that's not Snyder's MO. More drama / soul searching, it seems.
I haven't seen it. But still excited for it.
Funny. The reviews I read said it's horrible because it had senseless actions, and really nothing else. That it just wants to look cool, but no characters to it.
I think it was overall good (screened 23rd here in Norway). I didn't like the start (seemed really cliche'd) but catched up nicely throughout the movie. If you liked Man of Steel i guess you should enjoy this one. As a big fan of Nolans Batman movies i i'l say i liked Bale better as the Batman but Affleck did a good job.
Would probably rate this around 7/10, definitely not the best but good enough to be enjoyable (but at the same time slightly disappointing).
So for some reason the "spoiler" feature i had originally added is gone and doesn't work anymore. Sorry if i ruined it for anyone........
I re-watched Man of Steel last night to catch myself up. I'm seriously considering NOT going to see Batman V Superman over the weekend. Probably going to wait this one out.
Watching Man of Steel for a second time reminded me of the problems that were inherent in that movie. From the sound of it, none of that has been fixed in this "sequel." There was zero internal logic for Man of Steel. While the movie was visually attractive, the script was beyond atrocious. I had begun to wonder if I had just imagined some of the issues with the writing. Upon a second viewing those problems were all the more glaring. The film would have been better as some form of pantomime. If you replaced all of the spoken dialogue with a foreign language, and then simply re-wrote the subtitles, you could probably drastically increase the viewer's overall experience. Everything that came out of someone's mouth in that film makes the movie worse.
From the reviews, it's becoming clear that this issue hasn't been addressed in Batman V Superman. The script looks to be just as bad, if not worse. Major character motivations and exposition dumps occur in dream sequences. Snyder is so lazy when it comes to dream sequences. He loves them because they give him free reign to play around with visuals consequence-free. No wonder Sucker Punch turned out the way it did.
"A ponderous, smothering, over-pixelated zeppelin crash of a movie scored by a choir that sounds like it's being drowned in lava." "It's like putting your head in a beehive for two and a half hours." "The movie has a bullying, hostile tone that comes through in the surly performances, a callous indifference to innocents killed and the general philosophical disposition of a teenager who just discovered Nietzsche after being grounded." "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is basically a dumpster fire. But from that rubble, there is something salvageable."
Is it really that bad? I mean the latest Avengers was pure shit and it didn't get that much hate.
I haven't seen the Batman vs Superman movie yet, but the second Avengers reused it's beats from last film, had awkward character lines, and a big PR drama, but at the least it had a coherent plot and the heroes were still trying to save people...
I can't say the same thing about Man of Steel.
It isn't related to tone either, as Nolan showed that Batman does just fine. The difference between Nolan and Snyder is that Nolan, while he doesn't handle large casts really well, is very good at conceptual coherence. And due that conceptual coherence you can really feel that his Batman is a person that is deeply scared but ultimately good. Snyder's Superman in comparison is a Ken-doll that side characters praise constantly, and then randomly kills a dude at the end of his movie(On top of the editing being really incoherent).
Add on top of that a certain dissatisfaction from comic book fans who feel DC is trying too hard to be gritty...(And THERE'S a lot of meta-drama regarding Batman vs Superman setups. Noone was expecting this to be good due to that drama)
Honestly I have to say I enjoyed the hell of it, its far from perfect but I would take it over the recent Marvel films any day, pretty sick of the notion that super hero films have to be "fun".
Just saw it and it's definitely not a train-wreck like some people are saying. It's good, or at least decent, has some very strong moments, and overall it's a fun watch. Batfleck is awesome, Cavill's superman is great, and Gal Godot is way too beautiful. It is also very gritty and interprets Batman and Superman the way I felt they should have been for some time. Batman makes much more sense as a borderline psycho who kills bad guys, and Superman is far more believable when he isn't perfect and overtones of menace seep into his interactions. Overall I think the film was solid and could lead to a decent Justice League franchise.
On the flipside, it mashed too much into one mover and still somehow managed to bore at times. Doomsday felt forced, and while Lex Luthor is interestingly interpreted ultimately Eisenberg was too annoying and neurotic to sell the part; it falls flat on its face. Also the motivation for the fight between Batman and Superman doesn't hold a candle to the grudge match of Miller's work.
I wouldn't bother too much with the notion of fun. 99% of the world has no idea what it means. And less than 1% will ever take the time to research the subject.
lol, that's a high horse you are sitting on.
fun -
enjoyment, amusement, or light-hearted pleasure.
I had a fun time eating a carrot. I enjoyedthe taste as it had a certain freshness to it. I was amused by the crunch it made. And overall it made me light-hearted thinking about the health benefits.
If you enjoy it that means its fun. Making paper planes is fun. Everyone is different and trying to make something fun for everyone is impossible. What is there to research.
"Fun is a potential force. Every entertainment product is fun relative to a degree that is relative to what came before it. The best film ever made will remain the best film as long as no other film is made better."
well, this is irrelevant..... I enjoy eating carrots, eating carrots is fun, but i have a experienced chocolate! Eating chocolate is more fun. Doesn't mean eating carrots is no longer fun or that i will stop eating carrots. fun is fun, its not classed on what is "best" fun. Also i don't care what anyone else says. To me Citizen Kane was boring yet its ranked as one of the best films ever made. Its very subjective to personal taste. Yes i know it was revolutionary in cinematography...still bored the living lights out of me.
"And also, we all have different life priorities, but that doesn't mean that fun is different. It just means that in order to experience something fun we also need to have a certain openness. "
Yes we need to be open and try things to see if they are fun but at the end of day some things will resonate and others will not. Again that differs from person to person. I have been open to horror films and i know people who love horror films. I dont like horror films they dont like animated films. i have been open to moe anime and I know people who love moe anime. I dont like moe they dont like shounen. For some people their life priorities are money and luxury, they will buy fast cars and jet planes. To them that is fun. Other people prioritize the simple things. They prefer making paper planes. It's not about openness its about taste. There are different types of fun that appeal to different types of people.
"So it might appear to you that we are all different, because some people like Call of Duty and more experienced FPS players really do not, but the reason is because the human mind is at a fundamental level exactly the same for everyone '
(I'm basing this off some of your past posts) But i'm pretty sure this is you saying that experienced FPS players would only really like unreal tournament. Maybe for a moment consider that your fanboyism is blinding you to realize other people have different tastes. Could if possibly be that some people like different games to you because they enjoy the mechanics more than the other game. Not ranking on the mechanics difficulty but how the mechanics resonates with them. Even if they have experience both games and still enjoy COD more.
anyway I'm going to stop here because this is a batman vs superman thread...sorry everyone :P edit: the new quoting system is still confusing haha
Wew, I've never been in an audience so bored at a film. Pretty poor film.
Really? My audience was pretty engaged, and seemed to enjoy the film (as did I).
This feels like the typical Internet 'thing', to trash a movie because they were told they should. People hated this movie before it was even released, and I feel like that hate continued.
That being said, it's not an amazing movie, but I did like it. I think @dfacto was pretty spot on. Eisenberg was too neurotic, and felt like I was rewatching his 'Zuckerberg' role. I felt the pacing was much better than Man of Steel, but didn't care much for the dream sequences. At no point was I bored though.
The only criticisms, I've heard from friends who didn't like it, was comic book related conflicts. "It was too early for Doomsday", or "Batman was supposed to look older than he did". If you don't go in with an open mind, I feel like you're going to dislike this movie. Don't try to relate it to any particular series/timeline, as it's another movie where the source material was manipulated for the big screen.
Wew, I've never been in an audience so bored at a film. Pretty poor film.
Really? My audience was pretty engaged, and seemed to enjoy the film (as did I).
This feels like the typical Internet 'thing', to trash a movie because they were told they should. People hated this movie before it was even released, and I feel like that hate continued.
That being said, it's not an amazing movie, but I did like it. I think @dfacto was pretty spot on. Eisenberg was too neurotic, and felt like I was rewatching his 'Zuckerberg' role. I felt the pacing was much better than Man of Steel, but didn't care much for the dream sequences. At no point was I bored though.
The only criticisms, I've heard from friends who didn't like it, was comic book related conflicts. "It was too early for Doomsday", or "Batman was supposed to look older than he did". If you don't go in with an open mind, I feel like you're going to dislike this movie. Don't try to relate it to any particular series/timeline, as it's another movie where the source material was manipulated for the big screen.
I think you miss a lot of the main problem like with batman is his moral choices which totally contradicts himself
It depends which moral choices you're talking about. If you're referring to him shooting/killing people, I see him as a twisted Batman. One who has broken is own moral code, as even Alfred hinted at (multiple times). He basically is blinded by anger, and is no longer showing self control
Post Jason Todd batman is totally believable that he doesn't care about killing criminals. It was a really interesting way to take the character. Also there's no way you'd believe batman could take on superman if he wasn't planning on killing him. It's something that pretty much had to be done for anything to make any sense at all.
Too bad it didn't help anything make sense as the moral choices of batman are the least of the film's problems. I actually really enjoyed this emotionally unstable, unhealthy batman. Was interesting to see the idea taken to the extreme of his 20+ years of fighting super villains take a toll on him.
It depends which moral choices you're talking about. If you're referring to him shooting/killing people, I see him as a twisted Batman. One who has broken is own moral code, as even Alfred hinted at (multiple times). He basically is blinded by anger, and is no longer showing self control
Yea those choice. i'm totally fine with him killing but it has to mean something. They never earned it, or showed the audience why. Some of us know what happens post Todd but they need to have a flashback scene or something to make it worth it. The suit hanging does not count.
Even still at that point, why does he care if superman killed people if he does exactly the same thing ?
To your point, this is why we probably needed a different movie, explaining Batman's state of mind, instead of jumping into it. Then again, maybe they assume that comic book fans will already understand why he's like that, and the non comic readers, wouldn't know about Batman's self imposed moral rules. Maybe his more of his mental state, will be explained in Suicide Squad... but again, why not have that, before this one?
So basically, I understand your point, but knowing the comics, I had my suspicions, why bats was like that, and my family was none the wiser(they aren't as up on his moral codes).
To your point, this is why we probably needed a different movie, explaining Batman's state of mind, instead of jumping into it. Then again, maybe they assume that comic book fans will already understand why he's like that, and the non comic readers, wouldn't know about Batman's self imposed moral rules. Maybe his more of his mental state, will be explained in Suicide Squad... but again, why not have that, before this one?
So basically, I understand your point, but knowing the comics, I had my suspicions, why bats was like that, and my family was none the wiser(they aren't as up on his moral codes).
I totally agree, I feel like it could have been broken into 3 movies and been much better for it.
lol well we are all agreed lol. This movie just suffers from shoving to much crap into 1. They tried to play catch up to Marvel too fast, they had no setup
haha, I still enjoyed it though. Could it have been better? Sure. Am I glad I saw it at the theater? Yeah. I just feel like the Internet is excessively bashing the movie more than it deserves. Everyone is welcome to their opinions, I just feel like many are influenced opinions, rather than their own. Honestly, I would not be surprised if many of those bitching (outside of PC), didn't even see the movie.
IMO This version of batman is really great, but overall the movie isn't that bad, it's just another souless super hero p orn movie, nothing special like Guardian of Galaxy / Deadpool / Dark Knight
To your point, this is why we probably needed a different movie, explaining Batman's state of mind, instead of jumping into it. Then again, maybe they assume that comic book fans will already understand why he's like that, and the non comic readers, wouldn't know about Batman's self imposed moral rules. Maybe his more of his mental state, will be explained in Suicide Squad... but again, why not have that, before this one?
I think you've hit on a fundamental problem with this movie. The interpretation that this movie takes with most of its characters is novel. It's a version of these characters that feels fresh, one that has been little explored before. There is merit to a different take on these popular characters. And from some of the reaction to Batman V Superman it is clear that quite a few movie-goers are enjoying this fresh look at Superman and Batman.
But these versions of the characters also feel un-earned. They throw Batman into the mix, but we don't have any lead-in to establish this new version of his character. Comic readers might be able to read certain details into this, but general audiences will be lost, only able to read from the inferences that the film provides. A previous stand-alone Batman film would have been able to provide this ground-work. Instead all we get is yet another origin montage and a quick beat where Batman witnesses the fight from the end of Man of Steel. I think it highly unlikely that such a dramatic shift in the presently accepted interpretation of the character would occur just from what transpired during Man of Steel.
Snyder would have been much better served by delivering fewer prophetic vision/dreams, and more backstory for the relevant characters. This is the problem with having a director like Snyder at the helm of these films. Everything is visuals for him. He cares far more about what he can frame on screen than he ever will about the characters he's presenting. How they look is more important than who they are. This is why Marvel has been so consistently successful with their films. Playing fast and loose with story details is easier to get away with when you are presenting strong, well-developed characters that the audience likes. When your main characters are mopey, drab, and un-relatable, it makes it a lot harder to overlook glaring plot-holes.
The people who like Batman V Superman the most are the people who favor these interpretations of these characters. I happen to not be very fond of these interpretations, but that's my personal preference.
According to Forbes, Batman v Superman has set a new record for the biggest Friday-to-Sunday box-office drop for a modern superhero movie. The film dipped 55% from its $82 million Friday debut to its $37 million gross on Sunday. To break that down, the grosses declined 38% Friday to Saturday and another 27% from Saturday to Sunday. By comparison, Forbes cites the Fantastic Four reboot’s decline from last summer, which only dropped 48% Friday-to-Sunday.
Ouch indeed. It'll be interesting to see the repercussions on the rest of DC's superhero movie franchise, or whether they even continue with the ones they're not currently entirely committed to. I'd wager that particularly after Dead Pool, which is now the most lucrative R-Rated movie ever, we might be seeing a lighter, less overwhelming self-serious and dreary tone in future. Fingers crossed.
Well, keep in mind, Sunday was also Easter. I don't know the history of movies, on Easter, but this might not be the kind of movie christian families were looking for, on Easter.
Maybe it blew its wad on Friday, and it just didn't get the repeat viewings. Obviously the internet popularity to hate on the movie, is strong with this too.
I think a better telling sign, is how it does this weekend.
Well, keep in mind, Sunday was also Easter. I don't know the history of movies, on Easter, but this might not be the kind of movie christian families were looking for, on Easter.
Maybe it blew its wad on Friday, and it just didn't get the repeat viewings. Obviously the internet popularity to hate on the movie, is strong with this too.
I think a better telling sign, is how it does this weekend.
It is rated PG-13, not R, so I don't think that there is going to be that much of a reaction from religion. If there is any influence from that quarter, it would be from people associating it with not being a family film. That's on the tone of the movie.
A better sign will be how the film does over the next several weeks. Deadpool proved that a more niche R-rated superhero movie can still sell several weeks after release. But then, Deadpool had relatable, likeable characters and a much more appealing tone. Take that as you will.
Replies
This is all you really need to understand what is going to happen in the movie. And why batman will "win". Batman is the ultimate Marie-Sue, even more so than Superman.
In a universe where beings like Superman or Martian Manhunter or Flash or Darkseid exist, the fact that Batman is even allowed on the team is a joke.
People cite his genius level intellect and his detective skills, his ability to always be prepared etc... But he lives in a universe where beings can move not only faster than light, but can also think just as quickly (or else they'd smash into/through things/people). The Flash stated in a comic that he perceives events at less than a picosecond and can comprehend them enough to react. A universe where beings are capable of literally punching a hole into a neighbouring universe. A universe where a couple of beings can live inside the sun, and move planets.
Batman is the biggest joke ever played on readers.
In reality, this is what would happen in a fight between Batman and Superman (if Superman were to break his code of morality):
But unfortunately that doesn't make for good cinema, and Batman is:
Damn i should have just edit added this one to the previous reply.
Also BvS has been getting a ton of positive reactions from people surprisingly , Mexico premier & NY premier so many freaking celebrities were there including jim lee&frank miller and twitter is exploding. Supposedly review embargos are lifted tomorrow around 3pm..I'm going to be avoiding spoilers like the plague lol.
Oh and a pretty good spoiler free behind the scenes/featurette for those interested.
As long as he exhibits a little mad-scientist technical proficiency I have no real complaints with Eisenberg's casting. I'm concerned about the tone of the film, and Zack Snyder's historical issues with story structure taking a backseat to visuals. Also, adapting a Frank Miller interpretation is a bad idea for a feature film.
EDIT: Welp. Apparently everyone else hates it.
Sounds like a lot of people are expecting nothing but action. But that's not Snyder's MO. More drama / soul searching, it seems.
I haven't seen it. But still excited for it.
Also, the main reason I am upset is because I want a good Batman and a good Superman film and I feel WB is going the wrong direction with the films.
I don't think that's the problem here. Now that the embargo is up, the reviews are coming out hot-and-heavy. Even the lower-tier reviews from fans are coming down on the harsh side of things. This isn't just a matter of the film being a bit dour. And it's not just a matter of it being "not Marvel" enough. It's sounding like all my worst fears and suspicions about this movie have come to fruition.
While the more serious tone of Man of Steel worked against it, that was not that film's greatest drawback. There were plenty of other issues further up on its list of problems. Limp characterization, terrible script, massive plot holes, bad pacing, the list goes on and on. A lot of fans go easy on Man of Steel because it gave them a few things that they really wanted. It gave them actual fight scenes, an element that Superman films have been traditionally light on. And it gave them a different take on the character, an interpretation that a certain number of fans favored over previous incarnations.
But it is sounding like this "sequel" has all the same problems of Man of Steel, and then some. Again, I think there will be some fans who like this movie, because it panders specifically to what they want to see. But a lot of other viewers aren't going to be coming out of this movie happy.
Would probably rate this around 7/10, definitely not the best but good enough to be enjoyable (but at the same time slightly disappointing).
So for some reason the "spoiler" feature i had originally added is gone and doesn't work anymore. Sorry if i ruined it for anyone........
Watching Man of Steel for a second time reminded me of the problems that were inherent in that movie. From the sound of it, none of that has been fixed in this "sequel." There was zero internal logic for Man of Steel. While the movie was visually attractive, the script was beyond atrocious. I had begun to wonder if I had just imagined some of the issues with the writing. Upon a second viewing those problems were all the more glaring. The film would have been better as some form of pantomime. If you replaced all of the spoken dialogue with a foreign language, and then simply re-wrote the subtitles, you could probably drastically increase the viewer's overall experience. Everything that came out of someone's mouth in that film makes the movie worse.
From the reviews, it's becoming clear that this issue hasn't been addressed in Batman V Superman. The script looks to be just as bad, if not worse. Major character motivations and exposition dumps occur in dream sequences. Snyder is so lazy when it comes to dream sequences. He loves them because they give him free reign to play around with visuals consequence-free. No wonder Sucker Punch turned out the way it did.
After Gigli and Daredevil, he had to direct 2 amazing;y gritty crime drama's, and win an Acadamy Award before he got back into everyone's good graces.
TBH, I think I'll still watch this.
"A ponderous, smothering, over-pixelated zeppelin crash of a movie scored by a choir that sounds like it's being drowned in lava."
"It's like putting your head in a beehive for two and a half hours."
"The movie has a bullying, hostile tone that comes through in the surly performances, a callous indifference to innocents killed and the general philosophical disposition of a teenager who just discovered Nietzsche after being grounded."
"Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is basically a dumpster fire. But from that rubble, there is something salvageable."
I can't say the same thing about Man of Steel.
It isn't related to tone either, as Nolan showed that Batman does just fine. The difference between Nolan and Snyder is that Nolan, while he doesn't handle large casts really well, is very good at conceptual coherence. And due that conceptual coherence you can really feel that his Batman is a person that is deeply scared but ultimately good. Snyder's Superman in comparison is a Ken-doll that side characters praise constantly, and then randomly kills a dude at the end of his movie(On top of the editing being really incoherent).
Add on top of that a certain dissatisfaction from comic book fans who feel DC is trying too hard to be gritty...(And THERE'S a lot of meta-drama regarding Batman vs Superman setups. Noone was expecting this to be good due to that drama)
On the flipside, it mashed too much into one mover and still somehow managed to bore at times. Doomsday felt forced, and while Lex Luthor is interestingly interpreted ultimately Eisenberg was too annoying and neurotic to sell the part; it falls flat on its face. Also the motivation for the fight between Batman and Superman doesn't hold a candle to the grudge match of Miller's work.
fun -
I had a fun time eating a carrot.
I enjoyed the taste as it had a certain freshness to it. I was amused by the crunch it made. And overall it made me light-hearted thinking about the health benefits.
If you enjoy it that means its fun. Making paper planes is fun. Everyone is different and trying to make something fun for everyone is impossible. What is there to research.
I enjoy eating carrots, eating carrots is fun, but i have a experienced chocolate!
Eating chocolate is more fun. Doesn't mean eating carrots is no longer fun or that i will stop eating carrots. fun is fun, its not classed on what is "best" fun.
Also i don't care what anyone else says. To me Citizen Kane was boring yet its ranked as one of the best films ever made. Its very subjective to personal taste. Yes i know it was revolutionary in cinematography...still bored the living lights out of me.
"And also, we all have different life priorities, but that doesn't mean that fun is different. It just means that in order to experience something fun we also need to have a certain openness. "
Yes we need to be open and try things to see if they are fun but at the end of day some things will resonate and others will not. Again that differs from person to person.
I have been open to horror films and i know people who love horror films. I dont like horror films they dont like animated films.
i have been open to moe anime and I know people who love moe anime. I dont like moe they dont like shounen.
For some people their life priorities are money and luxury, they will buy fast cars and jet planes. To them that is fun. Other people prioritize the simple things. They prefer making paper planes.
It's not about openness its about taste. There are different types of fun that appeal to different types of people.
"So it might appear to you that we are all different, because some people like Call of Duty and more experienced FPS players really do not, but the reason is because the human mind is at a fundamental level exactly the same for everyone '
(I'm basing this off some of your past posts) But i'm pretty sure this is you saying that experienced FPS players would only really like unreal tournament. Maybe for a moment consider that your fanboyism is blinding you to realize other people have different tastes. Could if possibly be that some people like different games to you because they enjoy the mechanics more than the other game. Not ranking on the mechanics difficulty but how the mechanics resonates with them. Even if they have experience both games and still enjoy COD more.
anyway I'm going to stop here because this is a batman vs superman thread...sorry everyone :P
edit: the new quoting system is still confusing haha
This feels like the typical Internet 'thing', to trash a movie because they were told they should. People hated this movie before it was even released, and I feel like that hate continued.
That being said, it's not an amazing movie, but I did like it. I think @dfacto was pretty spot on. Eisenberg was too neurotic, and felt like I was rewatching his 'Zuckerberg' role. I felt the pacing was much better than Man of Steel, but didn't care much for the dream sequences. At no point was I bored though.
The only criticisms, I've heard from friends who didn't like it, was comic book related conflicts. "It was too early for Doomsday", or "Batman was supposed to look older than he did". If you don't go in with an open mind, I feel like you're going to dislike this movie. Don't try to relate it to any particular series/timeline, as it's another movie where the source material was manipulated for the big screen.
Too bad it didn't help anything make sense as the moral choices of batman are the least of the film's problems. I actually really enjoyed this emotionally unstable, unhealthy batman. Was interesting to see the idea taken to the extreme of his 20+ years of fighting super villains take a toll on him.
Even still at that point, why does he care if superman killed people if he does exactly the same thing ?
So basically, I understand your point, but knowing the comics, I had my suspicions, why bats was like that, and my family was none the wiser(they aren't as up on his moral codes).
IMO This version of batman is really great, but overall the movie isn't that bad, it's just another souless super hero p orn movie, nothing special like Guardian of Galaxy / Deadpool / Dark Knight
But these versions of the characters also feel un-earned. They throw Batman into the mix, but we don't have any lead-in to establish this new version of his character. Comic readers might be able to read certain details into this, but general audiences will be lost, only able to read from the inferences that the film provides. A previous stand-alone Batman film would have been able to provide this ground-work. Instead all we get is yet another origin montage and a quick beat where Batman witnesses the fight from the end of Man of Steel. I think it highly unlikely that such a dramatic shift in the presently accepted interpretation of the character would occur just from what transpired during Man of Steel.
Snyder would have been much better served by delivering fewer prophetic vision/dreams, and more backstory for the relevant characters. This is the problem with having a director like Snyder at the helm of these films. Everything is visuals for him. He cares far more about what he can frame on screen than he ever will about the characters he's presenting. How they look is more important than who they are. This is why Marvel has been so consistently successful with their films. Playing fast and loose with story details is easier to get away with when you are presenting strong, well-developed characters that the audience likes. When your main characters are mopey, drab, and un-relatable, it makes it a lot harder to overlook glaring plot-holes.
The people who like Batman V Superman the most are the people who favor these interpretations of these characters. I happen to not be very fond of these interpretations, but that's my personal preference.
Ouch
Maybe it blew its wad on Friday, and it just didn't get the repeat viewings. Obviously the internet popularity to hate on the movie, is strong with this too.
I think a better telling sign, is how it does this weekend.
A better sign will be how the film does over the next several weeks. Deadpool proved that a more niche R-rated superhero movie can still sell several weeks after release. But then, Deadpool had relatable, likeable characters and a much more appealing tone. Take that as you will.