# Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Oh dear...)



## horacethegrey (Mar 23, 2016)

Currently at 39% at Rotten Tomatoes.

Some choice quotes from critics:

Todd McCarthy, Hollywood ReporterThe film may be imposing, but it's not fun.​
Rene Rodriguez, Miami HeraldIn Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, the Dark Knight and the Man of Steel duke it out and the audience loses.​
Joshua Rothkopf, Time OutIf there's any justice, dawning or otherwise, at the multiplex, audiences will reject Zack Snyder's lumbering, dead-on-arrival superhero mélange, a $250 million tombstone for a genre in dire need of a break.​
Jim Vejvoda, IGNBvS is carried by a brutal Batfleck, but as a whole it offers more philosophical drama than superhero escapism.​
The Guardian, Andrew PulverIt’s tough to take all the hardcore emoting seriously, particularly as the emotional heavy lifting is designed to be done by the occasional maudlin line in brief pauses between the explosions. For a film so concerned with its characters’ inner lives, there’s a fundamental disconnect going on here – enough to make you yearn for the lighter touch of the Marvel films.​
Scott Mendelson, ForbesBatman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a treat for the eyes, but it will hurt your brain and break your heart.​
Robbie Collin, TelegraphMarvel can rest easy. Zack Synder's superhero showdown is a meatheaded, humourless mess that makes little sense and squanders its cast - especially the women​
William Bibbiani, CraveOnlineThis film has turned all of its great characters into perfunctory plot points, in the service of a plot that doesn't even work well.​
Sean O'Connell, CinemaBlendAn improvement over Man of Steel, and a much better Batman movie than it is a Superman film. The highlights far outweigh the issues, and DC now has a base on which it can build its empire.​
Oscar Uriel, Cinema MovilThe film is a discordant and almost three hour experience. There are some good and bad things, but still better than Man of Steel.​
Uriel Barco, GaruyoNot only is this a big let down in every sense, it makes you wonder if the rest of the DC Comics films will have the same fate.

​Chris Nashawaty
_Entertainment Weekly_It's another numbing smash-and-bash orgy of CGI mayhem with an ending that leaves the door open wide enough to justify the next 10 installments. Is it too late to demand a rematch?


Will someone please stop giving Zack Snyder any more work? Particularly with comic book movies? ​


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 23, 2016)

RT can suck it.  Critics, from my perspective, get films right less than 33% of the time.

Also, I've seen one reviewer compare BvS' quality to Kubrick's work.

Additionally, I think a lot of the critics were expecting the usual superhero fare and didn't know what to do when they got something different set on their plate.

Edit: It's at 9.1/10 on IMDB.  In other words, don't let critics think for you, because they have no idea what you actually might like.


----------



## horacethegrey (Mar 23, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> Also, I've seen one reviewer compare BvS' quality to *Kubrick's* work.



*snort* Really? Oh man I should read this. Because Kubrick is last director I'd compare Snyder to. LOL



MechaPilot said:


> Edit: It's at 9.1/10 on IMDB.  In other words, don't let critics think for you, because they have no idea what you actually might like.



I could also say one should not let an IMDB score sway on whether a movie is good or not. Most of those who scored it that high are probably diehard DC Comics fanboys who want to prop up it's score. And IMDB is one of the worst places to peruse and discuss movies.

I've been watching movies a long time, and I find move critics are invaluable in determining whether a movie is worth my time. Some of best ones have tastes and opinions that are in line with mine, so I always look up their reviews on a movie I want to see. Of course they get it wrong from time to time, but for the most part they're on the money for the most part.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 23, 2016)

horacethegrey said:


> I could also say one should not let an IMDB score sway on whether a movie is good or not.




I'm not relying on any score.  No score should sway you: you should watch the film (or read the book, or view the painting, etc as it pertains to any consumption of art), take the time to digest it and form your own opinion, and then take in the opinions of others and evaluate those opinions to see if they reveal anything for you.  But you absolutely should never let anyone else's opinion override your own opinion of a film, or any other piece of art.




horacethegrey said:


> Most of those who scored it that high are probably diehard DC Comics fanboys who want to prop up it's score. And IMDB is one of the worst places to peruse and discuss movies.




And most of those critics on RT are probably DC haters.  See, I could make up motivations for people that I don't know too, if I were motivated to do so; it doesn't make for a valid argument though.  Like it or not, we have different places recording opinions on this film, and they came up with different results.  Surprise, surprise, there's no objective standard for evaluating art.




horacethegrey said:


> I've been watching movies a long time, and I find move critics are invaluable in determining whether a movie is worth my time.




I have also been watching movies for a long time, and I have found critics to be a waste of time and ink (digital or otherwise): I can tell from a trailer whether or not I want to watch a film in theaters or if I'm going to wait for the TV or DVD release.




horacethegrey said:


> Some of best ones have tastes and opinions that are in line with mine, so I always look up their reviews on a movie I want to see.




You probably didn't mean it that way, but that statement has a kind of "people who can evaluate movies really well usually agree with me" vibe to it, as if you were pridefully holding up agreeing with your tastes as a sign that critics are doing their job well.



Edit: RT also has Kingdom of the Crystal Skull at 78%.  Stuff like that always makes me glad that i put no stock in critics.


----------



## horacethegrey (Mar 23, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> I'm not relying on any score.  No score should sway you: you should watch the film (or read the book, or view the painting, etc as it pertains to any consumption of art), take the time to digest it and form your own opinion, and then take in the opinions of others and evaluate those opinions to see if they reveal anything for you.  But you absolutely should never let anyone else's opinion override your own opinion of a film, or any other piece of art.






MechaPilot said:


> You probably didn't mean it that way, but that statement has a kind of "people who can evaluate movies really well usually agree with me" vibe to it, as if you were pridefully holding up agreeing with your tastes as a sign that critics are doing their job well.




Now you're putting words in my mouth. When did I ever say I was letting critics opinion of a film override my own? Are you implying that I'm some kind of slave to what movie critics post in their reviews? If I did that, I probably wouldn't have bothered watching any of Marvel Cinematic Universe films because some critics I followed intensely disliked them. 

Roger Ebert is  one of them, and I think he was pretty good. But he absolutely hated _Thor_, which I consider one of my favorite MCU movies. AO Scott of the New York Times is another one. I like his reviews, but I intensely disliked his campaign to s**t on every MCU movie just because he didn't like the idea of a Cinematic Universe. Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly is my favorite movie critic of all time, and he absolutely hated _O Brother, Where Art Thou?_, my favorite movie by the Coen Brothers.

So yeah, those are three  occasions where critics I followed absoluytely disagreed with my taste. Still think I'm some mindless drone that blindingly follows them? And yeah, I do think they're good at their jobs, but there are occasions where they massively drop the ball. As is the case with the examples I posted above.

I rely on movie reviews to see whether a movie is worth my time. For the record though, I plan to watch BvS: Dawn of Justice in the theater, but out of curiosity rather than any genuine excitement.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 23, 2016)

horacethegrey said:


> Now you're putting words in my mouth. When did I ever say I was letting critics opinion of a film override my own? Are you implying that I'm some kind of slave to what movie critics post in their reviews? If I did that, I probably wouldn't have bothered watching any of Marvel Cinematic Universe films because some critics I followed intensely disliked them.




I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.  I was merely expressing my opinion on how people should treat critics' reviews of art: I thought that was relevant to the topic at hand since you quoted a bunch of critics in the OP.  Also, the later part of my preceding post (at least, I thought) made it clear that your statements left me with the opposite impression: that you were not a slave to critics, but rather that you thought that only the ones who agreed with your opinion were any good.




horacethegrey said:


> Roger Ebert is  one of them, and I think he was pretty good. But he absolutely hated _Thor_, which I consider one of my favorite MCU movies. AO Scott of the New York Times is another one. I like his reviews, but I intensely disliked his campaign to s**t on every MCU movie just because he didn't like the idea of a Cinematic Universe. Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly is my favorite movie critic of all time, and he absolutely hated _O Brother, Where Art Thou?_, my favorite movie by the Coen Brothers.




I also like O Brother Where Art Thou.  It's one of my favorite musical films, right up there with Little Shop of Horrors.




horacethegrey said:


> I rely on movie reviews to see whether a movie is worth my time. For the record though, I plan to watch BvS: Dawn of Justice in the theater, but out of curiosity rather than any genuine excitement.




I've never been able to find critics who reliably line up with my tastes, so critical reviews to me are entirely worthless in helping me decide whether to see or not see a movie.  For me, critic's reviews are only good for exposing me to an alternate perspective on a film.


----------



## horacethegrey (Mar 23, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.  I was merely expressing my opinion on how people should treat critics' reviews of art: I thought that was relevant to the topic at hand since you quoted a bunch of critics in the OP.



I posted those quotes just to show what an absolute beating this movie is getting from the mainstream press. 

And for the record, I didn't do this to s**t on this film. I actually wanted this film to be good, because I want it to be a success so that DC's Extended Universe can be a thing and give the MCU some competition. But given that Zack Snyder is at the helm, I guess I was asking for too much. I hated _Man of Steel_, and I really wished Warner Bros hadn't brought him back for this. 

*sighs* I guess we'll just wait and see if David Ayer's _Suicide Squad_ does better. It'd be heartbreaking for DC Warner to have 2 critical duds in the same year.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 23, 2016)

How do you know the film is not good?


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 23, 2016)

horacethegrey said:


> And for the record, I didn't do this to s**t on this film. I actually wanted this film to be good, because I want it to be a success so that DC's Extended Universe can be a thing and give the MCU some competition. But given that Zack Snyder is at the helm, I guess I was asking for too much. I hated _Man of Steel_, and I really wished Warner Bros hadn't brought him back for this.




I don't get the Snyder hate.  I liked Watchmen and 300 (they weren't masterpieces, but they were enjoyable) and I love Man of Steel.  I've never seen Sucker Punch though, and I don't really know what else he's done.  But, of the stuff that I know that he's done and that I've seen, I like or love all of it.

I will point out that the DCCU and the MCU are not and will not be competing.  Plenty of fans like some heroes from both companies.  The companies both just want money, and to do that they have to make films that entice a lot of people to see them.  Films don't even need to be good to be a franchise-launching success: look at the Transformers franchise for proof of that.




horacethegrey said:


> *sighs* I guess we'll just wait and see if David Ayer's _Suicide Squad_ does better. It'd be heartbreaking for DC Warner to have 2 critical duds in the same year.




Well, first we have to wait to see if there's even one dud.  I can't speak to whether not not Suicide Squad will be better than BvS, but I have seen nothing about Suicide Squad that would make me doubt it's quality.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 23, 2016)

I wasn't impressed with watchman


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 23, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> Films don't even need to be good to be a franchise-launching success: look at the Transformers franchise for proof of that.




I'm gonna quote myself here but this fits with your statement Mecha 



> I don't blame Bay*, I blame the tons of people  that go to watch his movies... if we could just get people to stop going to see crappy movies,Bay* would stop making them.




*inset director or producer or actor that you dislike


----------



## delericho (Mar 23, 2016)

horacethegrey said:


> Currently at 39% at Rotten Tomatoes.




That's a shame. I'll be going to see this on Friday anyway, but I guess I'll need to re-lower my expectations - initially I hadn't expected anything, but the trailers had brought me around, and now...

Then again...



> Jim Vejvoda, IGNBvS is carried by a brutal Batfleck, but as a whole it offers more philosophical drama than superhero escapism.




Actually, I'm quite happy to see philosophical drama wrapped up in superhero trappings. There's more to comic books than just "Hulk Smash!", and I'm happy to see the films reflect that. So maybe, just maybe, the critics are down on this simply because it just wasn't what they expected rather than because it was truly _bad_. Or maybe not - I guess I'll find out on Friday.


----------



## horacethegrey (Mar 23, 2016)

delericho said:


> Actually, I'm quite happy to see *philosophical drama wrapped up in superhero trappings*. There's more to comic books than just "Hulk Smash!", and I'm happy to see the films reflect that. So maybe, just maybe, the critics are down on this simply because it just wasn't what they expected rather than because it was truly _bad_. Or maybe not - I guess I'll find out on Friday.



For me there's nothing wrong with a comicbook movie to have deep philosophical themes, as long as it's done well. 'Done well' being the key phrase here, since I've seen a number of comic book films attempt this and fall short becoming pretentious messes. Ang Lee's _Hulk_ from 2003 is a classic example. That movie was a bore and despite Lee's skill as a dramatic auteur I couldn't care for the characters and just wanted more 'Hulk Smash' scenes. 

The Batman films of Christopber Nolan are also guilty of this. Now let me state that I like Chris Nolan's trilogy, but the dramatic exposition could get a bit heavy handed at times, fortunately the action and suspense that Nolan is known for more than makes up for it.

Zack Snyder is already guilty of this with adaptation of _Watchmen_. His bombastic style completely failed to convey the complexity and moral ambiguity of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's book. And I'm pretty sure he's made the same mistakes here in BvS.


----------



## delericho (Mar 23, 2016)

horacethegrey said:


> For me there's nothing wrong with a comicbook movie to have deep philosophical themes, as long as it's done well. 'Done well' being the key phrase here...




Absolutely. I'm reserving judgement on BvS until I see it, but I'm entirely aware it may well suck.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 23, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> I don't get the Snyder hate.  I liked Watchmen and 300 (they weren't masterpieces, but they were enjoyable) and I love Man of Steel.  I've never seen Sucker Punch though, and I don't really know what else he's done.  But, of the stuff that I know that he's done and that I've seen, I like or love all of it.
> 
> I will point out that the DCCU and the MCU are not and will not be competing.  Plenty of fans like some heroes from both companies.  The companies both just want money, and to do that they have to make films that entice a lot of people to see them.  Films don't even need to be good to be a franchise-launching success: look at the Transformers franchise for proof of that.
> 
> Well, first we have to wait to see if there's even one dud.  I can't speak to whether not not Suicide Squad will be better than BvS, but I have seen nothing about Suicide Squad that would make me doubt it's quality.




"Sucker Punch" stars several beautiful women, who are objectively objectified (if that's a thing), and has far too much CGI. The story could have been done with more real life imagery, but I understand why it was done. With that said when you realize what "Sucker Punch" really is, it becomes an interesting film. No "Citizen Kane", but watchable.



MechaPilot said:


> RT can suck it.  Critics, from my perspective, get films right less than 33% of the time.
> 
> Also, I've seen one reviewer compare BvS' quality to Kubrick's work.
> 
> ...




There are two newspapers in Toronto whose critics I read, if I want to know if a movie will be good. If they both agree that it's crap, I make it a 'must watch.'


----------



## delericho (Mar 23, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> There are two newspapers in Toronto whose critics I read, if I want to know if a movie will be good. If they both agree that it's crap, I make it a 'must watch.'




My general rule with reviews is to ignore individual reviews other than from particular individuals whose tastes generally match my own - if they like a film then that means I probably will.

I do pay _some_ attention to review-aggregation sites, but only where there's a fairly large number of reviews - the "wisdom of crowds" effect. But that's only a rough guide, and even then only if there are plenty of reviews.


----------



## megamania (Mar 23, 2016)

In many cases, if a certain critic "hates" a movie, it is a guarantee that I will enjoy it.

As a comic book fanboy I am sure I will enjoy it at least on that level.

Hope to see it next week regardless of what the critics say.   I'll judge it then.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 24, 2016)

FWIW, I try not to discount or elevate the opinions of critics- or anyone else- out if hand.  I pay attention to what they say and how they say it.

Usually, if someone has general hate for something or someone, it comes across in the reviews.  Ditto fanbois.  And then there are reviews that miss the point of a plot element or even the whole piece.  To this day, I remember the Siskel & Ebert review of Shwarzenegger's _Running Man_.  The fact that portions of the movie were over-the-top lampoons of the NFL and the various televised wrestling shows completely evaded Roger Ebert, and his highlighting of those elements while ridiculing the film made it a must watch for me.

Enjoyed it, too.

But it isn't like I discounted S&E in general.  I actually enjoyed their show, and thought they got it right more often than not.

...that said, I have seen nothing in the ads for any of the most recent crop of DC movies- or most of the Marvel ones- that makes me want to see them.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 24, 2016)

Here's a sampling of reviews  from non-critics it  http://www.newsarama.com/28529-newsarama-readers-review-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice.html


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 24, 2016)

The more i thought about the casting over the last few months, I actually came to expect Afflek to do well in the role.  I'm glad his performance is being well received.  I'm also glad for Gal Godot's reception.

Still, not going to see this one.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 24, 2016)

trappedslider said:


> Here's a sampling of reviews  from non-critics it  http://www.newsarama.com/28529-newsarama-readers-review-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice.html




Thanks for the link.  I found it quite interesting compared to the vitriol you find the comments section of YouTube review videos.  Also, I didn't see any spoilers in the reviews I read in that link, which was a pleasant surprise (bear in mind that I did not read them all and am not claiming all the reviews are spoiler free).


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 24, 2016)

trappedslider said:


> Here's a sampling of reviews  from non-critics it  http://www.newsarama.com/28529-newsarama-readers-review-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice.html




Its interesting that throughout those reviews there are only 7 mentions of Cavill's portrayal of Superman as opposed to 21 mentions of Affleck and 18 mentions of Gadot. Even Eisenhower gets 16 mentions.
I'm not sure what that says about the tone of the Movie, but it certainly seems that both critics and fans agree that the vehicle has done a better service to Batman than it has for Supes. 

Thats not surprising considering the nature of Superman and since I am an anthropologist I wonder if that reflects the mythic tropes still embedded in Western culture. I remember a comment made once that Ang Lees Hulk movie should have been shot as a horror rather than a superhero flick and I wonder if thats an argument that applies to superman too. Hulk and Superman are such that they stand as either 'gods' or 'monsters', Superman must be the boyscout or else he becomes the Alien invader. 
Trying to give Superman a batman spin in order to examine his 'flawed humanity' challenges societies mythic trope and requires skill to achieve that is usually beyond the scope of the Hollywood blockbuster.

still I'll wait to see it - albeit I'm in no rush


----------



## horacethegrey (Mar 24, 2016)

Tonguez said:


> Trying to give Superman a batman spin in order to examine his 'flawed humanity' challenges societies mythic trope and requires skill to achieve that is usually beyond the scope of the Hollywood blockbuster.



I don't think a 'batman spin' is required to examine Superman's flawed humanity. You can keep the mythic dimension of Superman while exploring the flaws in his character, which I think Richard Donner did well in the Christopher Reeve films. The flaw being Superman's love for Lois, leading him to make two mistakes. The first being turning back time on Earth to save her life. Then giving up his power to be with her, which of course leads him unable to stop Zod and company until he gets his power back.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 24, 2016)

horacethegrey said:


> I don't think a 'batman spin' is required to examine Superman's flawed humanity. You can keep the mythic dimension of Superman while exploring the flaws in his character, which I think Richard Donner did well in the Christopher Reeve films. The flaw being Superman's love for Lois, leading him to make two mistakes. The first being turning back time on Earth to save her life. Then giving up his power to be with her, which of course leads him unable to stop Zod and company until he gets his power back.




A bit of a "God who would be Man" trope. Superman can't have a normal life. I think that "Watchmen" did a pretty good job of making Dr. Manhattan appear as the god-like being who, despite his good will, evoked fear in regular people. One of the mistakes that seems to be made with Superman, is the effort to see him at normal eye level; like every other main character in the movie. Some of the shots I've seen from BvS make it look like they may be getting the feel of his character, from the point of view of the average human, right at least to some degree. Lots of shots of him looking down from on high, or being looked up to at steep angles. This is critical to making Batman's view of him, as the potential Earth threatening danger, sympathetic.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 24, 2016)

Despite the reviews, I still can't wait to see this. I suspect I'll enjoy it, but I'll know for sure tomorrow. Batfleck looks incredible. I liked Man of Steel a lot, too - I waited for 30 years to see Superman properly punch somebody (those Superman II fight scenes were dated even when they originally showed!)


----------



## horacethegrey (Mar 24, 2016)

For me, the God connotations with Superman I think are part of the problem. He's just too powerful that I think maybe they should depower him a bit. Perhaps bring him back to his power levels in the Golden Age, as depicted best in the Fleischer Animated Shorts:

[video=youtube;sjdnCC6n4xk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjdnCC6n4xk[/video]


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 24, 2016)

I'm thinking this will be a case of Critical Dissonance when all is said and done. I plan to see it tonight with a friend.

EDIT: Interesting to not on RT that the current Audience score is 80% liking it and an Average Rating: 4.1/5, so I do believe my above statement will hold true.


----------



## delericho (Mar 24, 2016)

horacethegrey said:


> For me, the God connotations with Superman I think are part of the problem. He's just too powerful...




He's had the same problem as Han Solo - successive writers have felt the need to load more and more powers (or superlatives) on him to the point that anything that was once interesting about the character has been buried under the paragon.



> that I think maybe they should depower him a bit.




The comics have tried that repeatedly. The problem is that it doesn't stick any better than death.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 24, 2016)

horacethegrey said:


> For me, the God connotations with Superman I think are part of the problem. He's just too powerful that I think maybe they should depower him a bit. Perhaps bring him back to his power levels in the Golden Age, as depicted best in the Fleischer Animated Shorts:





There has been some effort to scale back his powers somewhat but anti-heroes seem to be far more popular, these days, than invulnerable boy scouts. Perhaps that's why so many reviews seem to concentrate more on Affleck's Batman, than Cavill's Superman?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 24, 2016)

I think there's also an element of painting a style as "badwrongfun". Some folks like pop music, some like opera, some like both. But a pop fan saying an opera is poor because it's not pop music is largely meaningless. I'm personally looking forward to a darker, more serious movie than the 8-years-and-counting onslaught of bright, cheery superhero flicks. Both are great.

I suspect if DC had started it's shared universe first and Marvel second, the styles might be reversed. But the worst thing DC could do is copy Marvel.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 24, 2016)

trappedslider said:


> I'm thinking this will be a case of Critical Dissonance when all is said and done. I plan to see it tonight with a friend.
> 
> EDIT: Interesting to not on RT that the current Audience score is 80% liking it and an Average Rating: 4.1/5, so I do believe my above statement will hold true.




Where do you find the current audience score?


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 24, 2016)

Morrus said:


> I think there's also an element of painting a style as "badwrongfun". Some folks like pop music, some like opera, some like both. But a pop fan saying an opera is poor because it's not pop music is largely meaningless. I'm personally looking forward to a darker, more serious movie than the 8-years-and-counting onslaught of bright, cheery superhero flicks. Both are great.
> 
> I suspect if DC had started it's shared universe first and Marvel second, the styles might be reversed. But the worst thing DC could do is copy Marvel.




It seems that more than a few reviews are criticizing exactly that; that it isn't a four-colour version of a movie, like the Marvel outings typically have been. That there might be < GASP! > something cerebral in it, that isn't in keeping with the usual punch-em-up. Far from putting me off, I'm seeing this as a big positive sign. I don't mind a little navel gazing in my entertainment. It's actually sounding much better than I had feared.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 24, 2016)

Morrus said:


> Where do you find the current audience score?




The popcorn icon, to the right of the "Tomatometer."

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/batman_v_superman_dawn_of_justice/


----------



## Morrus (Mar 24, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> The popcorn icon, to the right of the "Tomatometer."
> 
> http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/batman_v_superman_dawn_of_justice/




I only see the Tomatometer and a Want to See icon. No popcorn.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 24, 2016)

Interesting. This is what I see. Are you using it on mobile? That could be the issue, because pages are frequently pared-down.


----------



## horacethegrey (Mar 24, 2016)

Down to 33% I see. Thanks a lot Zack Snyder.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 24, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> Interesting. This is what I see. Are you using it on mobile? That could be the issue, because pages are frequently pared-down.




Same on the desktop.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 24, 2016)

Morrus said:


> Same on the desktop.




Interesting. Might be nationalized settings then. Odd.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 24, 2016)

I know some people who worked on the dubbing and they say it is rather bad. The reviews (with tiltes like Yawn of Justice and Batman V Superman V Bad) just confirm what I was told. 

I'll still see it, but from now I'll use Snyder instead of Bay when I want to make fun of bad films.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 24, 2016)

goldomark said:


> I know some people who worked on the dubbing and they say it is rather bad. The reviews (with tiltes like Yawn of Justice and Batman V Superman V Bad) just confirm what I was told.
> 
> I'll still see it, but from now I'll use Snyder instead of Bay when I want to make fun of bad films.




My favourite alternative title is what Nerdist jas been using for something like the last 9 months, when talking about it; "Batman v Superman, Dong of Justin."


----------



## Umbran (Mar 24, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> That there might be < GASP! > something cerebral in it, that isn't in keeping with the usual punch-em-up.




WHile I have not been digging around for them, the typical negative review I've seen is that the movie basically takes what emotional depth it might have had, and replaces it with Grimdark and lots of smashing things up - basically, putting a grey and brown filter on the four color, and hoping that makes it *look* cerebral, without actually having intelligent content.  

For example, one review I saw:

"'Batman v Superman' is an overlong, boring, masochistic, mess of a film that fetishizes violence, makes no sense, and is full of bad acting and distracting CGI. Who would've expected that from Zack Snyder, director of 300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch, and Man of Steel? Thankfully, it also includes Batman's origin story, which is great because no one's ever heard that before."

And a friend of mine commented:  "Best line I've seen from a BvS review: "I left feeling like I’d just been yelled at by someone I don’t know on a bus."


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 24, 2016)

Umbran said:


> WHile I have not been digging around for them, the typical negative review I've seen is that the movie basically takes what emotional depth it might have had, and replaces it with Grimdark and lots of smashing things up - basically, putting a grey and brown filter on the four color, and hoping that makes it *look* cerebral, without actually having intelligent content.
> 
> For example, one review I saw:
> 
> ...




So false gravitas, punches, and 'splosions? Good thing I planned on taking a pass during the first weekend, to see what people were saying. So far it's split between negative reviews that make me hopeful it has some weight and negative reviews that make me sad for the movie industry, with an icing sugar like topping of rare positive reviews.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 24, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> My favourite alternative title is what Nerdist jas been using for something like the last 9 months, when talking about it; "Batman v Superman, Dong of Justin."




That is just nasty. Even if this movie is craptacular, it doesn't deserve to be compared to Bieber's wiener. Only Trump's fingers mesure up to that.


----------



## horacethegrey (Mar 24, 2016)

Umbran said:


> WHile I have not been digging around for them, the typical negative review I've seen is that the movie basically takes what emotional depth it might have had, and replaces it with Grimdark and lots of smashing things up - basically, putting a grey and brown filter on the four color, and hoping that makes it *look* cerebral, without actually having intelligent content.



Which was a problem with Snyder's _Watchmen _as well. As grim as the comic was, it didn't have muted brown colors that Snyder filtered his adaptation with. The violence was fetishized and stylistic when the comic emphasized realism and consequences of vigilante justice. And whatever genuine human emotion that Moore infused his characters with is muted in favor of emotional bombast.

I'm guessing he's made the same mistakes here too.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 24, 2016)

Umbran said:


> For example, one review I saw:
> 
> "'Batman v Superman' is an overlong, boring, masochistic, mess of a film that fetishizes violence, makes no sense, and is full of bad acting and distracting CGI. Who would've expected that from Zack Snyder, director of 300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch, and Man of Steel? Thankfully, it also includes Batman's origin story, which is great because no one's ever heard that before."




Y'know, the "Who'd have expected that from Zack Snyder...?" pretty much nullifies that review for me, as it indicates a pre-existing judgement before he even saw the movie. Whether he did or not (and there's no way to tell) it makes it sound to me like the reviewer went in wanting to hate a Zack Snyder film. And one thing with movies - you often get what you want; confirmation bias is stronger in the arts than it is anywhere else. You see what you want to see!


----------



## Morrus (Mar 24, 2016)

horacethegrey said:


> Which was a problem with Snyder's _Watchmen _as well. As grim as the comic was, it didn't have muted brown colors that Snyder filtered his adaptation with. The violence was fetishized and stylistic when the comic emphasized realism and consequences of vigilante justice. And whatever genuine human emotion that Moore infused his characters with is muted in favor of emotional bombast.
> 
> I'm guessing he's made the same mistakes here too.




I really enjoyed Watchmen, 300, and Man of Steel. Those aren't mistakes; they're stylistic choices not to your liking.


----------



## horacethegrey (Mar 24, 2016)

Morrus said:


> I really enjoyed Watchmen, 300, and Man of Steel. Those aren't mistakes; they're stylistic choices not to your liking.



Well that's your opinion man. Personally I think it was a mistake to have Snyder direct _Watchmen _and _Man of Steel_, as his 'style' was a wrong fit for both properties.

I will admit to liking 300. But hey, it's Frank Miller, and I think his grim n' gritty comics fits Snyder's style quite well.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 24, 2016)

horacethegrey said:


> Well that's your opinion man.




Clearly.



> Personally I think it was a mistake to have Snyder direct _Watchmen _and _Man of Steel_, as his 'style' was a wrong fit for both properties.




Well that's your opinion man.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 24, 2016)

Morrus said:


> I really enjoyed Watchmen, 300, and Man of Steel. Those aren't mistakes; they're stylistic choices not to your liking.




I enjoyed Watchmen, as well.

But, when you are in the business of making *popular* art - art that is supposed to sell to as many as possible, an artistic choice that is not to the liking of enough people can be viewed as a mistake. 

For popular media, how do we judge a mistake?  By the numbers. 

300 was a commercial success.  Its sequel (same basic style, with Snyder writing but not directing) didn't even make its production cost back in domestic gross.  Watchmen didn't make its production budget back on domestic gross (it cost $130 million to make, and worldwide gross only got $185 million).  Man of Steel only barely made back it's production on domestic gross.    Sucker Punch only barely it's production budget back in *worldwide* gross.  No abject failures, but it isn't like he's been knocking them out of the park regularly.

And, critically speaking, the hits were 300 and Watchmen, and those not by much.  Sucker Punch and MoS weren't critical wins, if Rottentomatoes is our judge.

So, in actuality, Snyder is pretty hit-or miss.  We could say he makes as many mistakes as he makes solid choices.  

Now, in baseball, a 50% hit rate is phenomenal for a batter.  But, for most of us, "make as many mistakes as good choices" would typically get us fired.  Just sayin'.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 24, 2016)

Umbran said:


> I enjoyed Watchmen, as well.
> 
> But, when you are in the business of making *popular* art - art that is supposed to sell to as many as possible, an artistic choice that is not to the liking of enough people can be viewed as a mistake.
> 
> ...




MoS made nearly $700m with production budget of $225m; it did pretty well. There's almost zero chance BvS won't be a commercial success. 

Appeals to popularity aren't going to convince me of anything, especially in a conversation about art. But if they *are* used as the metric, then I think the numbers are going to show BvS to be an artistic success. Of course, we won't know for a while, but advance box office tracking is very high.

But we're talking about whether we think we'll like the film or not. I couldn't care less about Warner Brothers' profits (unless I have a percentage I don't know about).


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 24, 2016)

Umbran V Morrus. 

Who likes it? Who doesn't?


----------



## Mallus (Mar 24, 2016)

I'm going to try and catch BvS in the theaters. Which means I'll probably watch it on Blu-ray in a few months. I still regret not seeing MoS on the big screen; I let myself be swayed by it's critics (and generally laziness) and gave it a pass in the theaters. When I finally saw it, I found it's one of my top 5 superhero films. I spent a month watching pieces of it on HBO every time I happened across it. 

Bottom line is I find Zack Snyder to be too good at the parts of film-making he's good at to make an uninteresting movie. And some of the popular critiques of his films just make no sense to me. I see MoS as grand and somber and elegiac; a lovely evocation of Superman as both American immigrant with a bit of American Christ thrown in. It's sheer sense of scale, pitting Superman against a world-threatening, umm, threat, was great. I don't see how that barrage of gorgeously de-saturated Americana got labelled "grim & gritty". Those... are not the right words for the film. Even considering the neck-snapping at the end. It wasn't like Supes went all Rorschach on General Zod. 

Maybe I'll think BvS is terrible. The trailers kinda make it look like the film MoS's harshest critics made it out to be. But I'll give it shot. Snyder's been interesting so far.


----------



## Joker (Mar 24, 2016)

goldomark said:


> Umbran V Morrus.
> 
> Who likes it? Who doesn't?




Who won?  Who's next?  You decide!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 24, 2016)

Morrus said:


> MoS made nearly $700m with production budget of $225m; it did pretty well. There's almost zero chance BvS won't be a commercial success.




Depends on whether they're looking at the movie in question using standard accounting or "Hollywood" accounting.  Remember that Eddie Murphy's _Coming to America_ lost money using the latter system, despite grossing $400m+ worldwide on a $40m budget.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 24, 2016)

goldomark said:


> Umbran V Morrus.
> 
> Who likes it? Who doesn't?




That's less like Supes vs Bats, and more like Bats vs Nightwing.


Just sayin'.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 24, 2016)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Depends on whether they're looking at the movie in question using standard accounting or "Hollywood" accounting.  Remember that Eddie Murphy's _Coming to America_ lost money using the latter system, despite grossing $400m+ worldwide on a $40m budget.




They use the two methods for different things. The former for deciding if they should do this again; the latter for paying taxes and profit shares.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 24, 2016)

horacethegrey said:


> Well that's your opinion man. Personally I think it was a mistake to have Snyder direct _Watchmen _and _Man of Steel_, as his 'style' was a wrong fit for both properties.
> 
> I will admit to liking 300. But hey, it's Frank Miller, and I think his grim n' gritty comics fits Snyder's style quite well.




I find some irony here, because BvS is supposed to be heavily inspired/influenced by the Frank Miller graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns.  With TDKR as the inspiration for the film, you'd think Snyder would be as much a fit for it as he was for 300.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 24, 2016)

Here's another review. I post it with three warnings:

- It is spoilery
- This boy loves his thesaurus
- If you read it all the way through, you'll want to open a major artery

http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2016/03/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice.html


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 24, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> Here's another review. I post it with three warnings:
> 
> - It is spoilery
> - This boy loves his thesaurus
> ...



Damn. That made me want to see it even more.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 24, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> Here's another review. I post it with three warnings:
> 
> - It is spoilery
> - This boy loves his thesaurus
> ...






> BVS is a visit to father confessor and obeisance to mother dominatrix. It'll make you feel like  and you'll go back again, and again, and again, because it's what you deserve, isn't it, worm? I know this because it's what we all deserve. ​



Damn. That made me want to see it even more.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 24, 2016)

goldomark said:


> Damn. That made me want to see it even more.




You devil you.  I want to go in with no spoilers, but you're really making me want to read that review.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 24, 2016)

Edit: stupid double-post.


----------



## horacethegrey (Mar 25, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> I find some irony here, because BvS is supposed to be heavily inspired/influenced by the Frank Miller graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns.  With TDKR as the inspiration for the film, you'd think Snyder would be as much a fit for it as he was for 300.



_The Dark Knight Returns_ is completely the wrong material to take inspiration from. For one, it's a future storyline that focuses on a much older Batman. The conflict there between Supes and Bats has some emotional weight because of their shared history together, whereas _Dawn of Justice_ is supposed to be their first meeting. And lastly, _DKR _is solely focused on Batman. But this movie is supposed to be about both characters, so taking inspiration from a story that heavily biased on one character's side seems to run counter to that notion.

Anyway, Rotten update is now at 30%. **** you Snyder.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 25, 2016)

horacethegrey said:


> _The Dark Knight Returns_ is completely the wrong material to take inspiration from. For one, it's a future storyline that focuses on a much older Batman. The conflict there between Supes and Bats has some emotional weight because of their shared history together, whereas _Dawn of Justice_ is supposed to be their first meeting. And lastly, _DKR _is solely focused on Batman. But this movie is supposed to be about both characters, so taking inspiration from a story that heavily biased on one character's side seems to run counter to that notion.




We can debate which stories should have been used for inspiration for the film till the cows come home, but I really don't have any interest in that: frankly, I'd have to Google most of the stories you'd mention, because while I love superheroes and have gotten into certain superhero comics, I've only read a handful of Batman comics.

I was just pointing out the irony in your statement that you thought Snyder's style fit with a movie adaptation of a Frank Miller graphic novel, but you didn't think his style was a good fit for BvS, which by all accounts was inspired by TDKR, a Frank Miller work.




horacethegrey said:


> Anyway, Rotten update is now at 30%. **** you Snyder.




**** Rotten Tomotaoes.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 25, 2016)

Edit: another stupid double post.


----------



## ccs (Mar 25, 2016)

Wow, that could have been..... alot better.
(Could've been worse too.)

The best parts?  The batmobile, Wonder Woman, and a BM vs mercenary fight.
The worst?  Jessie Eisenberg as Luthor & his rediculous plot & personality.
The next worse?  Several: 
•Retelling BM origin - again.  And then several flashbacks & scenes involving it.  I'll assume it's there to club a certain bit of info into the heads of general audience members prior to it being important later.  But it's overkill.  Comic fans know it.  General audience has thier time wasted after a point.
•Batman's vision of the future.  Ugh.  Such a heavy handed club to set up JL.
•An almost random scene with Kevin Costner in it - to show SMs inner dialogue.
●Superman can hear when Lois is mortal danger.  And can reach her in the space of several seconds, once hearing & flying from Kansas to Metropolis.  He demonstrates this 3 times!
OK, fine.
But he doesn't notice when his mother really needs him.  And he doesnt think to let BM know "hey, when your butler talks to you, I CAN HEAR IT.  So you guys find mom & just mention it.  10 seconds later?  She'll be safe."  This does however set up that really good BM vs mercs fight I mentioned.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2016)

> Jessie Eisenberg as Luthor & his rediculous plot & personality.



Yeah, every clip I saw of him was a HUGE turn-off.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 25, 2016)

‘Batman v Superman’ Cast, Director Respond to Negative Reviews


So, I enjoyed it and while Jessie Eisenberg as Luthor was a bit odd,he bring an almost manic energy to the role. my biggest issue was the way they put in the cameo for the other three leaguers, it felt like an after thought IMO.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 25, 2016)

Morrus said:


> But we're talking about whether we think we'll like the film or not.




Because topic drift can't happen?  I was addressing the question of whether there's such a thing as "mistakes" in artistic choices, and how different forms of art may be considered to have different measures.  You know, being all cerebral and stuff. 



			
				Joker said:
			
		

> Who won? Who's next? You decide!




Is anyone else struck by the irony of a user named "Joker" being gleeful in a Batman v Superman thread?

But, to answer the question, I don't think there's much of a context here where I "win".  Thankfully, I am not in this to "win" so that's not an issue.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 25, 2016)

horacethegrey said:


> Anyway, Rotten update is now at 30%. **** you Snyder.




Wardrobe malfunction! I think your confirmation bias may be showing a little. 

(But also please don't use profanity here, even if you disguise it).


----------



## Joker (Mar 25, 2016)

Morrus said:


> Wardrobe malfunction! I think your confirmation bias may be showing a little.
> 
> (But also please don't use profanity here, even if you disguise it).




Unless it's in Klingon.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 25, 2016)

Watched the first hour or so of the extended edition of Snyder's Watchman last night. Haven't revised it since I saw the theatrical run. Two things stood out.

One, it's damn good. There's more distictive style/voice in one hour of Watchman than any 5 Marvel superhero films -- excluding season 1 of Daredevil on Netflix, which really nails Daredevil-as-a-neo-noir. 

Two, it's tonally very different from Man of Steel. Like night and day, despite Snyder's bag of technical tricks being on full display. The idea that Snyder is super-limited in range, or makes everything "grimdark" --insert your favorite overused, ambiguous, probably-nicked-from-TVTropes-or-wherever, pseudo-criticism term here-- is kinda, well, wrong.

So I hold out hope BvS will be interesting, if not actually good/great.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 25, 2016)

Mallus said:


> The idea that Snyder is super-limited in range, or makes everything "grimdark"




It isn't Snyder who does that, no.  My understanding is that is DC's call - they've required that their movies be Serious.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 25, 2016)

Umbran said:


> It isn't Snyder who does that, no.  My understanding is that is DC's call - they've required that their movies be Serious.



Oh, both Watchman & MoS are _serious_. Only one is grim+dark. 

That's all I was saying.


----------



## horacethegrey (Mar 25, 2016)

Morrus said:


> Wardrobe malfunction! I think your confirmation bias may be showing a little.
> 
> (But also please don't use profanity here, even if you disguise it).




I don't hate Zack Snyder. I've given him numerous chances to prove me wrong. As I said before, I enjoyed _300_. _Watchmen _however, left me cold. And I still watched _Man of Steel_ in theaters in the hopes that critics were being unusually harsh on it. Boy was I wrong, that movie was a pain to watch.

The last thing I wanted was for BvS to receive the critical savaging that it's been getting. Like I said, I want DC's Extended Universe to be a thing that goes up against the MCU. But I guess hoping against hope that Zack Snyder would listen to the complaints regarding MOS was too much.



Mallus said:


> Watched the first hour or so of the extended edition of Snyder's Watchman last night. Haven't revised it since I saw the theatrical run. Two things stood out.
> 
> One, it's damn good. There's more distictive style/voice in one hour of Watchman than any 5 Marvel superhero films -- excluding season 1 of Daredevil on Netflix, which really nails Daredevil-as-a-neo-noir.
> 
> ...




I'd give more credit to the original source material rather than Snyder. While _Watchmen _isn't my favorite work from Alan Moore, it's still a fantastic graphic novel on it's own and there's a goldmine of stuff that would translate well onscreen. 

But man, did Snyder mess up in adapting some scenes from the book. Whatever subtlety and carefully constructed symbolism Moore inserted into it Snyder seems happy to take a wrecking ball and smash it down. 

Like when Walter Kovacs finally loses it and becomes Rorshach full time. A scene which plays out like silent mental breakdown from Rorshach's perspective, but Snyder films it like Rorshach finally succumbs to his bloodlust and kills the guy by hacking his head. 

The scene where Laura Juspeczyk (Silk Spectre 2) finally discovers the truth regarding her and the Comedian is also another misfire. In the book Laura has her revelation by piecing together all the snippets from her memory, but in the movie it's through some quantum magic via Dr. Manhattan that she finds out. I thought that was such a lazy copout and really undermined Laura's character. 

And lest we forget, did we really need that extended sex scene between Night Owl and Silk Spectre? 

I could go on and on about why I think Snyder's _Watchmen _is such a poor adaptation, but I'll leave saying that I thought the opening credits were cool.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 25, 2016)

Mallus said:


> Only one is grim+dark.




To you.  I know several people who find that (what the view as) the complete lack of humor in MoS has the result of making it pretty darned grim and dark, especially considering how the movie ends.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 25, 2016)

Umbran said:


> To you.



Yes, to me, Obviously. I'm in the habit of giving my own opinions. 



> I know several people who find that (what the view as) the complete lack of humor in MoS has the result of making it pretty darned grim and dark, especially considering how the movie ends.



What do _you_ think? Are the tones of the two films comparable? If you disagree with my assertion, let's talk about it.

edit: I definitely agree MoS had very little humor. To it's detriment. But that didn't really affect the overall tone too much.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 25, 2016)

horacethegrey said:


> I could go on and on about why I think Snyder's _Watchmen _is such a poor adaptation, but I'll leave saying that I thought the opening credits were cool.



Heh... I could counter going on and on I why I think Snyder's _Watchman_ was successful. But I'll spare us both that! Instead I'll just say -- to me!!-- the film got right what it needed to get right, and yes, those credits were cool. Genius, even.


----------



## Joker (Mar 25, 2016)

Ya'll are having a discussion about whose opinion is better.

As for what RT thinks:  Meh, they gave borefest Age of Ultron 75%.  I can't take such an aggregate site seriously if that's their opinion.  I'm gonna see BvS tomorrow.  I'll see what's what.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 25, 2016)

Joker said:


> Ya'll are having a discussion about whose opinion is better.




About whose opinion is more reliable, and why, really.

Remember that Hollywood is strongly (but not entirely) driven by the box office take of a movie.  When you buy a movie ticket, even if you never see the movie, you are voting, "I want to see more of this," as far as Hollywood is concerned.  You are, in effect, casting a vote for more of a thing *you haven't yet seen*.

In addition, it isn't like movie tickets are cheap, and that home video is still crappy.  Waiting for it to come out on Netflix is a viable option.  Or, really, how much are you missing if you just take a pass?

So, it isn't like, "Do I go to see this?" is a no-brainer question.  Asking whether it is worth the time and money isn't irrational.  Looking for information to help answer that question isn't foolish or pointless.  Taking *hours* pouring over reviews trying to decide is probably foolish - if you spend more time reading reviews than seeing the movie, you've got a problem.  So, it becomes a question of who has the more reliable opinion, so you can look someplace quickly and get an idea of whether it is worth it.


----------



## Joker (Mar 25, 2016)

Umbran said:


> About whose opinion is more reliable, and why, really.
> 
> Remember that Hollywood is strongly (but not entirely) driven by the box office take of a movie.  When you buy a movie ticket, even if you never see the movie, you are voting, "I want to see more of this," as far as Hollywood is concerned.  You are, in effect, casting a vote for more of a thing *you haven't yet seen*.
> 
> ...




I was referring to the two in here having words with each other.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 25, 2016)

Mallus said:


> Yes, to me, Obviously.




No, not obviously. 

You shouldn't assume that people will understand you mean it is just your opinion, if you don't *say* so.  Not that there's policemen who are going to come and get you, but you're setting the stage for misunderstanding if you do.  This is especially true on the internet, where there are so many, many people who will state their opinions as objective facts and mean it, and people can't get any vocal tone or the like off you. 



> What do _you_ think? Are the tones of the two films comparable? If you disagree with my assertion, let's talk about it.




I have no opinion, as I haven't seen MoS.  I thought the Watchmen movie came off as... cynical, where I'd call the graphic novel more grim and dark.  Similar, but not the same.  And that's okay, as I never look to have a piece come across the same when it jumps between media.


----------



## Janx (Mar 25, 2016)

Umbran said:


> So, it isn't like, "Do I go to see this?" is a no-brainer question.  ...snip...




sans the y'all's dialogue on movies, our general metric was "is it sci fi/fantasy/super heroes?"  If yes, we'll probably go see it in the theatre.

Except for the latest FF movie, we watch every Marvel film in the theatre.

We skipped Man of Steel, based on indicators that they betrayed Superman's strength of character (his earthly dad would NEVER tell him not to help people and such).

DoJ hits another negative vein.  Classic superman is not evil.  is not corrupt.  doesn't force his will on good people.  Batman appears to be starting a slew of trouble and fighting with a man who is NOT a problem.  He should in fact be studying Superman, judging his behavior, and only when it crosses a line, does he intervene.

So like MoS, DoJ appears to betray the generally accepted moral strength of character of Superman, and as such, won't get my dollars.

I'll be plenty happy to watch Captain America and Iron Man squabble over their more plausible disagreement that is in line with both their characters.

Also, it should be a crime for Hollywood to reshoot the origin story of any character that has already been "origin'd" on film.  Thus sparing us any more repeats of Batman, Spiderman and Superman's origin stories.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 25, 2016)

Janx said:


> sans the y'all's dialogue on movies, our general metric was "is it sci fi/fantasy/super heroes?"  If yes, we'll probably go see it in the theatre.
> 
> Except for the latest FF movie, we watch every Marvel film in the theatre.
> 
> ...




I would say that it isn't Superman's morality that isn't betrayed by this movie, it's Batman's. In this movie it appears that Batman fulfills the role that is commonly ascribed to Lex Luthor; the person who thinks that mankind shouldn't be using a godlike being as a crutch.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 25, 2016)

Janx said:


> We skipped Man of Steel, based on indicators that they betrayed Superman's strength of character (his earthly dad would NEVER tell him not to help people and such).




Johnathan Kent never told him not to help people in MoS.  What he does tell him is a lot more profound than either "don't help people" or "go help everyone."  He tells his young son that he doesn't have the answers.  What he tells Clark in that discussion amounts to this, "I want you to grow up to be a good man, but I love you as my own son, and I'm scared for you, and what people will think about you and try to do to you when they find out how different you really are."

This is especially weighty given Clark's age at the time.  Imagine what would happen if Clark's secret got out and the government came to claim him (recall that having contact with an alien life form is actually a federal crime that you can be imprisoned for in the U.S., and that he is illegally adopted, and an illegal alien, so there exists plenty of legal authority to rip that family apart).  If child Clark, without the fully formed morals he would have as an adult, was faced with that situation he could very easily become a wildly destructive threat to others similar to the little girl in the film Firestarter (yes, I know it was a novel first, but I haven't read it yet).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 25, 2016)

One thing I didn't get - if Bruce Wayne has been Caped Crusading for twenty years, fighting the Joker, responding to Bat-Signals... why is he 'the Bat Vigilante in Gotham' who's newsworthy all of a sudden?

And is it canonical that Gotham and Metropolis are, like, a short cab ride apart? 

-Hyp.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 26, 2016)

Hypersmurf said:


> One thing I didn't get - if Bruce Wayne has been Caped Crusading for twenty years, fighting the Joker, responding to Bat-Signals... why is he 'the Bat Vigilante in Gotham' who's newsworthy all of a sudden?
> 
> And is it canonical that Gotham and Metropolis are, like, a short cab ride apart?
> 
> -Hyp.




If they've tied this closely to "The Dark Knight Returns", then Batman would have been inactive for a while. 

I don't know about anyone else but in my own mind Gotham and Metropolis are Boston and New York, respectively.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 26, 2016)

*Batman V Superman: Spoilers of Plot Holes*

Transfered.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 26, 2016)

goldomark said:


> ...




I recommend that you put this in a spoiler block, so that you don't spoil the movie for anyone else.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2016)

Janx said:


> DoJ hits another negative vein.  Classic superman is not evil.  is not corrupt.  doesn't force his will on good people.  Batman appears to be starting a slew of trouble and fighting with a man who is NOT a problem.  He should in fact be studying Superman, judging his behavior, and only when it crosses a line, does he intervene.
> 
> So like MoS, DoJ appears to betray the generally accepted moral strength of character of Superman, and as such, won't get my dollars.




Not that I care whether you see it, but that doesn't reflect the actual events in the film whatsoever. There's a lot more to it than that.

I just got back from it; I enjoyed it immensely.  It managed to surprise me in major ways twice. 



> Also, it should be a crime for Hollywood to reshoot the origin story of any character that has already been "origin'd" on film. Thus sparing us any more repeats of Batman, Spiderman and Superman's origin stories.




Meh.  just because you've seen it before doesn't mean every 10 year old has. There are kids who have never heard of Michael Keaton, to whom this will be their first introduction to the character. And in this one, it's just, like, a minute at the opening credits. They get it out of the way fast.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2016)

Hypersmurf said:


> One thing I didn't get - if Bruce Wayne has been Caped Crusading for twenty years, fighting the Joker, responding to Bat-Signals... why is he 'the Bat Vigilante in Gotham' who's newsworthy all of a sudden?




[sblock]Lex was manipulating Bats with those notes and stuff, and driving his paranoia up.  As such, Bats was getting more violent; he was branding people. Even Alfred was disturbed, talking to Bruce about how Bruce's feelings of helplessness in the face of gods "drives good men... cruel".[/sblock]


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 26, 2016)

Morrus said:


> [sblock]Lex was manipulating Bats with those notes and stuff, and driving his paranoia up.  As such, Bats was getting more violent; he was branding people. Even Alfred was disturbed, talking to Bruce about how Bruce's feelings of helplessness in the face of gods "drives good men... cruel".[/sblock]




[sblock]Yeah, I thought Irons-as-Alfred was my high point of the film and could have used more   But it seemed weird that even with the escalation, he was being treated like a new phenomenon, and didn't have a 'name', just the sort of description we usually expect during an origin story before the character has established himself in the public consciousness. I'd have expected the headline to be "Batman acting weird!" rather than "Unknown Bat-vigilante causing trouble!"[/sblock]

-Hyp.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2016)

I'll start a spoiler thread. There's nothing I like less than an entire thread full of sblocks (which don't work on Tapatalk anyway).


----------



## Umbran (Mar 26, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> I don't know about anyone else but in my own mind Gotham and Metropolis are Boston and New York, respectively.




Boston is *way* too small to be Metropolis.

I like Frank Miller's take on it.  Gotham is New York City at night.  Metropolis is NYC in the daytime.

For one of the DC RPGs, I think their atlas placed Gotham on the coast of the southern end of New Jersey, and Metropolis is in Delaware.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2016)

I always used to think Metropolis was New York and Gotham was Chicago for some reason. And there's Star City, National City, Central City, Coast City (I think). But I think they're actually both in New York State. I find them being close to each other kind of odd, too. I just never thought of them being close.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 26, 2016)

New Adventures of Superboy” #22

Of course it does change with the writers although the New Jersey location of Gotham is almost canon (ie has been repeated a number of times).

New York itself also exists in the DC universe so having three New York sized cities in New York state seems a bit like overkill (even more so than having all three of the same Coast)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2016)

FWIW, a guy I know on another board just called BvS the _Gigli_ of superhero movies.


----------



## delericho (Mar 26, 2016)

I'm just back from seeing it. It was pretty terrible.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2016)

delericho said:


> I'm just back from seeing it. It was pretty terrible.




What it clearly is is polarising. I find that fascinating.


----------



## ccs (Mar 26, 2016)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> FWIW, a guy I know on another board just called BvS the _Gigli_ of superhero movies.




Clearly he hasn't seen enough bad superhero movies, because that's way too harsh.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 26, 2016)

ccs said:


> Clearly he hasn't seen enough bad superhero movies, because that's way too harsh.




It is probably being called that because of the Afflectation.


----------



## delericho (Mar 26, 2016)

Umbran said:


> It is probably being called that because of the Afflectation.




Yep. Which is ironic, since he's the best thing about it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2016)

He did not seem to share that view.  "Worst on-screen portrayal of Batman since Clooney."




...but I also think he hates Afflek.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2016)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> He did not seem to share that view.  "Worst on-screen of Batman since Clooney."




Why do we care what some bloke you saw on another message board said? I saw someone on another message board say Einstein got it all wrong, but I'm not going to enter that into evidence. 

I'd care what *you* thought, Danny.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2016)

Why do we care?

Communicating is what people do.  If we didn't care, critics wouldn't have a job.  Spies, either.  And people wouldn't gossip.  Etc.  and from those flawed sources, we make flawed judgements.

What it comes down to is gathering data and sorting it through your own filters.  Nobody- no critic, no buddy, no dööd howling in the wilds of the Interwebz- can tell you if you will enjoy a particular film.  All they can do is tell you what they observed and how they felt about it. It's up to you to to decide whether what they describe increases or decreases your desire to see a film.

So why did I bring up that guy on another board?  Just to illustrate that it isn't just the critics giving BvS a resounding raspberry of a review.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2016)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Why do we care?
> 
> Communicating is what people do.  If we didn't care, critics wouldn't have a job.  Spies, either.  And people wouldn't gossip.  Etc.  and from those flawed sources, we make flawed judgements.
> 
> ...




Oh. Well a guy on Twitter said he liked it.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 26, 2016)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So why did I bring up that guy on another board?  Just to illustrate that it isn't just the critics giving BvS a resounding raspberry of a review.




And, also, to be honest, he said it in a clever way, which is a selling point for the written piece, if not the opinion behind it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2016)

Well...yeah, TBH.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 26, 2016)

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice pulled in over $27 million Thursday night, for the seventh best opening preview in history. Its looking at $172 million over Easter in the US, making it the No. 4 opening of a comic book adaptation and the No. 6 opening for any film.  It’s also earned an estimated $115.2 million outside the U.S.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-batman-v-superman-877979

so its bringing in audiences despite the critics


----------



## Umbran (Mar 27, 2016)

Tonguez said:


> so its bringing in audiences despite the critics




I think there's some number of people who read critics, but I don't suspect the critics have much impact on attendance for large properties.

This is part of why we see so many movies with known characters - they are known to sell, whatever the content is reported to be.  People will go to see it *because* it is bad, even.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 27, 2016)

People want to see this movie, they saw the trailers and said "this is cool" and do not care what critics or other people are saying.  From a marketing point, come on, it is Batman vs Superman.  How is that not cool, it is right up there with Hulk Hogan vs Andre The Giant, Muhammad Ali vs Joe Frazier!  Mad Men like Don Draper dream of this advertising.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 27, 2016)

There's also an element of word of mouth being significantly better than the critical response. Divisive as it is, that's still half of viewers saying it's good (actually, according to Rotten Tomatoes, 70% of the audience). I know some people weren't planning on seeing it are now after folks said they enjoyed it.

It's not a terrible movie, by any stretch. I personally like it a lot, of course (as I've said). I put it way above Age of Ultron, though not as good as The Dark Knight.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 27, 2016)

Sorry!  Lost track of the threads.  Reposting in the other thread.

TomB


----------



## Morrus (Mar 27, 2016)

[MENTION=13107]tomBitonti[/MENTION] could you put that question in the spoilers thread?  The subject is a bit too spoilery for this one.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 28, 2016)

And The Tonight Show wades in:
[video=youtube;Uf4glf5Mtww]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf4glf5Mtww&sns=em[/video]


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 28, 2016)

Six Ways the Fight Might Actually Go 


[video]https://youtu.be/n9NeeHXBC3A[/video]

Just a bit of comedy


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 28, 2016)

Hypersmurf said:


> One thing I didn't get - if Bruce Wayne has been Caped Crusading for twenty years, fighting the Joker, responding to Bat-Signals... why is he 'the Bat Vigilante in Gotham' who's newsworthy all of a sudden?
> 
> And is it canonical that Gotham and Metropolis are, like, a short cab ride apart?
> 
> -Hyp.



I dunno, but they both seem New York stand-ins, so maybe the 3 cities create a triangle? (Since New York also exists, AFAIK). Vastly overpopulated region, apparently. 

Not sure where Flash's and Arrow's city are supposed to be located.


----------



## horacethegrey (Mar 28, 2016)

Well, I finally watched it. And I had to watch it since I bothered starting this thread.

And I thought it sucked.

Well, it didn't suck as much as I thought it would. And on the suckiness scale it edges out _Man of Steel_ by virtue of being less sucky. But not by much.

So there be my thoughts, I'll give a more thorough on why it sucks in the spoiler thread. For now though, I'll just sigh dejectedly on how DC/Warner sucks in getting their movieverse started.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 28, 2016)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Not sure where Flash's and Arrow's city are supposed to be located.




Those I mentally put on the west coast; LA and San Fran respectively.

Cue the guys who will pull actual references out of the comics, to shoot me down


----------



## ccs (Mar 29, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> Those I mentally put on the west coast; LA and San Fran respectively.
> 
> Cue the guys who will pull actual references out of the comics, to shoot me down




Keystone/Central cities (home to the various Flashes) is usually located on the KS/MO line just below the tip of NE.
Star City (Green Arrow) is on the west coast in CA.  North of SanFran.


----------

