Jump to content

Lucas1138
 Share

Recommended Posts

I saw it this afternoon. It was certainly a flawed movie, but I enjoyed it. As with MoS, I like what they were trying to do with this, but they definitely could have handled much of it better. There were many parts I could have done without, but I actually liked the fact that parts of it felt especially like a Batman movie and other parts a Superman movie so that it came across as a meeting between the two rather than one of them just showing up in the other character's movie.

 

Even knowing it was coming, Wonder Woman's entrance into the battle was pretty damn awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed it, but as far as superhero movies go, I'd put MoS and BvS on par with Shumaker's Batman films. The only difference is that I think the Shumaker films were going for cheesiness, whereas MoS and BvS are trying to be something epic but failing. Everything seems too rushed and condensed.

 

Again, not saying I didn't like it, because I did. I'll probably see it again. I just feel that the film isn't hitting anywhere close to what its aiming for. I felt the same way about MoS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm honestly surprised this hasn't been on their radar.

 

This is the best evidence that Warner Bros. is run by people who have never seen a movie, listened to a song, read a book/comic book, etc. I assume they just count money all day. How the fuck do you not give Paul Dini a pass at the script and, at the very least, make Bruce Timm a consultant?

 

Also, did anyone watch this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW6WVBjqM7w

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'm honestly surprised this hasn't been on their radar.

 

This is the best evidence that Warner Bros. is run by people who have never seen a movie, listened to a song, read a book/comic book, etc. I assume they just count money all day. How the **** do you not give Paul Dini a pass at the script and, at the very least, make Bruce Timm a consultant?

 

Also, did anyone watch this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW6WVBjqM7w

 

Probably because Timm and Dini's ideas might not fit into WB's idea of what is globally appealing. No matter how much I appreciated Timm or Dini's work, or thought they delivered near-perfect adaptations of DC lore, their approach could be seen as not being as capable of checking all of the boxes a studio needs when aiming for a billion. That is the central motivator of all superhero films, not what in the know comic fans think, so you can count yourself as lucky if any superhero film actually comes close to getting it right, considering why the films are made at all. That's why of all of the Marvel films, the Cap entries always rank at the top of the list. Avengers and Ant Man....not really.

 

About BVS--it was at its best when the characters (mainly Luthor and Bruce) repeatedly crashed their heads into the ground over their self generated misunderstanding of Superman's place among humans, with both revealing their own weaknesses in railing against a non-God as if he was God.

 

That was a nice set up (going forward) of both hero and villain suffering from a thunderously shaken ego, since both live by attempting to control their environments and the people within...until they are faced with something neither are equipped to understand.

 

Wonder Woman, while ok with what little she was given, at least makes me look forward to her origin film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Probably because Timm and Dini's ideas might not fit into WB's idea of what is globally appealing. No matter how much I appreciated Timm or Dini's work, or thought they delivered near-perfect adaptations of DC lore, their approach could be seen as not being as capable of checking all of the boxes a studio needs when aiming for a billion. That is the central motivator of all superhero films, not what in the know comic fans think, so you can count yourself as lucky if any superhero film actually comes close to getting it right, considering why the films are made at all. That's why of all of the Marvel films, the Cap entries always rank at the top of the list. Avengers and Ant Man....not really.

 

 

 

I'm really not sure what this means. What is it about their approach that would diminish the potential of making a billion dollars? Avengers went for a feel that's similarly earnest, almost faultlessly faithful to the feel of the source material, and character driven -- and it literally made a billion dollars. Timm and Dini's material isn't exactly comprised of inaccessible deep cuts. Anyone, adult or child, could watch Justice League Unlimited or Batman: The Animated Series and gain a real appreciation for the characters. It seems to me that BvS went for a distinctly inaccessible approach by making every character miserable and the story incredibly shallow and violent. By doing so they're probably dissuading parents from bringing their kids to see it. I know I wouldn't want to bring my child to see that drudging mess. DC's idea of what constitutes a globally appealing superhero film is clearly the problem here -- and that's why they're not going to clear a billion.

 

I don't understand your last point either...the top of what list? I think Avengers and Ant Man were two of the better Marvel films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

1. I'm really not sure what this means. What is it about their approach that would diminish the potential of making a billion dollars? Avengers went for a feel that's similarly earnest, almost faultlessly faithful to the feel of the source material, and character driven -- and it literally made a billion dollars. Timm and Dini's material isn't exactly comprised of inaccessible deep cuts. Anyone, adult or child, could watch Justice League Unlimited or Batman: The Animated Series and gain a real appreciation for the characters.

 

2.It seems to me that BvS went for a distinctly inaccessible approach by making every character miserable and the story incredibly shallow and violent. By doing so they're probably dissuading parents from bringing their kids to see it. I know I wouldn't want to bring my child to see that drudging mess. DC's idea of what constitutes a globally appealing superhero film is clearly the problem here -- and that's why they're not going to clear a billion.

 

I don't understand your last point either...the top of what list? I think Avengers and Ant Man were two of the better Marvel films.

 

I think there's a bit of confusion about what the film's singular point was, and why it had to be handled that way, but first...

 

1. I meant Timm and Dini worked well for that narrow, comic-centric audience. That's why they were the absolute darlings of the hardcore fanbase, but the movies are trying to appeal to as wide a population as possible, which means the story has to speak a more "common" language. But a common language does not mean mindless flash and...Michael Bay.

 

2. Instead of being a film drawing so much from the comics that it keeps the average viewer out of the loop, BVS used the heroes to address a story the audience could relate to, and believe justifies the two-way fight: taking down a false God figure. That's the entire point of the film, but I see some fans (not meaning you) went into this expecting something else, and when they did not get it, the film was written off as pointless.

 

The BVS story has a plot that has long cultural roots for the average viewer, and when obvious candidate Superman is the target, everyone understands the why and how of Luthor & Wayne, all accomplished without too many references to comic sources that would fly over the audience's head.

 

The Captain America films work in the same way--Marvel fans can get off on the Easter eggs and references to characters or ideas only they get, but the main plot was speaking a language the larger audience could understand, without their needing to know a thing about Hydra, Asgardian devices, etc.

 

Earlier, you said you think parents would not want to take their kids to see shallow characters in a violent film, but again, the real story justifies behavior and tone--they are not dark or troubled for the hell of it, or some movie trend, but due to fear. Audiences understand the post MOS situation--alone--forced the characters to behave as seen in BVS, but as this conflict was resolved, the characters' attitudes will change to meet the challenge of new situations.

 

If any parent resisted taking kids to see this, well I would ask the same parents if they took the children to see CA: Winter Soldier, where the film was filled with several assassinations, a screaming message that those in authority are corrupt / out to get you, numerous killings and so on. There's nothing in BVS that is any darker or violent than the constantly brutal, near paranoid plot of the 2nd Cap film, and i'm guessing Civil War will surpass that level, too. If they can handle Cap movies, then BVS would not pose a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just glad I'm not an obsessive comic fan boy for either side so I can just go in and enjoy a movie and not look for things to pick apart.

 

The fact that someone called this film violent (which it was) and not say anything about the violence in Marvel movies is an idiot.

 

That being said, finally saw the movie. I wouldn't say it was an awesome movie but it isn't the stinker everyone is making it out to be. I give it a grade of a B.

 

I am now very interested in the Wonder Woman origin story coming up. She's a tad bit of a bad ass...and hawt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Snyder strictly sticks to a single comic book narrative like 300 or Watchmen I think his movies can be pretty awesome. I started to dislike him when I saw Man of Steel. the reason 300 and Watchmen worked is because he literally just took the comic panels and used them as storyboards. So Frank Miller and Alan Moores works went mostly unscathed.

 

The problem with MoS and BvS is they're like greatest hits volumes of comic book history without really any effort to connect or streamline the story structure and have it make a whole lot of sense. I think a big reason BvS is making so much money is because of these "greatest hits" comic book moments that are tacked on to the movie. Every Fan wants to finally see those moments on the big screen even if that means enduring an otherwise crapfest of a movie because we all know Snyder does good action scenes.

 

I imagine the person who wrote this script just looked at all the best Superman and Batman comic book moments and then thought, now how can I loosely tie all these events together to make it one movie?

 

And when you structure a movie around action set pieces instead of a strong story that's almost always bad news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to me what I find myself wanting to pick apart and what I don't, even for the same set of characters in different mediums. For instance, there isn't much about BvS that particularly upsets me despite some significant changes to modern version of characters, such as Batman killing. This time around, it's probably at least partially due to the fact that, given MoS, I knew that WB and Snyder were going for a very different take on things. With that being the case, I am sure that the fact that I am fascinated by the idea behind this take on Superman — an alien invasion movie for MoS and trying to tear down a false god in BvS — plays a large part in it. While it isn't necessarily the take on Superman that I would expect, I am so glad that they are at least doing something very different than the Donner films, unlike Superman Returns. Even for Batman's willingness to kill, that is something that filmmakers have struggled with for some reason for every incarnation of Batman since Burton, so it doesn't particularly surprise me anymore. Here, it may even bother me less due to Batman clearly being inspired by Miller's DKR, so he is even more utilitarian than usual.

 

At the same point, I acknowledge that the movie has some serious flaws story-wise and craft-wise, so please don't think I am blindly ignoring them. For instance, pretty much every Justice League tie-in outside of Wonder Woman and the discussion between her and Bruce at the end was awful and I wish they hadn't included them. This includes Bruce's seemingly prophetic dream with a Darkseid-ruled Earth and future Flash appearing to him in it. If they had just gone for the same basic dream with Superman ruling with an army of supporters and ending with him unmasking Bruce, I would have preferred it greatly.

 

On the other hand, the show Gotham bothers me tremendously with its huge mishandling of characters and plots. First and foremost, they have completely butchered pretty much everything about the Jim Gordon character, which is terrible to me since he is the primary character. They've also gone overboard with introducing so many Bat-villains long before Batman. I get why they are doing it since so many people hated the first season, but I don't like it. Meanwhile, other changes, like young Bruce bonding with young Selina, don't bug me. I don't entirely know why I keep watching the show at this point either, but that's certainly completely on me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw it this weekend with 2 friends and when we came out we agreed that overall we 'liked' it. Then we spent the next 30 minutes picking it apart. There are so many dumb decisions, editing problems and plain content inclusion problems in this movie.

 

 

 

 

 

From massive 'how did person x know about situation y' type of problems to minor nitpicks like 'why does kryptonite glow like a lightsaber in some scenes and then not at all in others?'

 

 

 

 

I think someone else nailed it earlier but this was like a greatest hits of Batman and Superman and much like those hastily thrown together at Xmas albums - Snyder/Goyer/Studio notes made no attempt to make a really complete product - unlike Abrams' Star Wars which is essentially a love letter to the OT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stories, costumes and even a lot of the scenes and dialogue are ripped straight out of the comics. And what do we always hear people say staying true to the source material?

Some people,, (Torch), think these things are important. But I'd rather these be completely different if it means getting the characters right. As I said, Zack Snyder has an inherent misunderstanding of both Batman and Superman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I meant Timm and Dini worked well for that narrow, comic-centric audience. That's why they were the absolute darlings of the hardcore fanbase, but the movies are trying to appeal to as wide a population as possible, which means the story has to speak a more "common" language. But a common language does not mean mindless flash and...Michael Bay.

A narrow, comic-centric audience....and children? I mean all their shows were kid shows. How much more accessible can you get than that? They were the darlings of the hardcore fanbase not because they went especially deep into lore, but because they adapted the stories and characters in artful, affecting ways. You don't need to read a single comic book to understand their adaptation of For the Man Who Has Everything or that awesome Booster Gold episode where he saves the world while everyone else is paying attention to a different threat. But if you haven't read Injustice, Rock of Ages, Crisis on Infinite Earths, or Flashpoint that dream (?) sequence in the movie might be a bit confusing to you, like it was to my girlfriend and seemingly everyone in the audience for my showing. You might also be confused about what the hell Luthor was talking about when he was going on about "something coming" at the end of the film. The initiated certainly knew he was talking about Darkseid. My girlfriend had absolutely no idea what he was referring to.

2. Instead of being a film drawing so much from the comics that it keeps the average viewer out of the loop, BVS used the heroes to address a story the audience could relate to, and believe justifies the two-way fight: taking down a false God figure. That's the entire point of the film, but I see some fans (not meaning you) went into this expecting something else, and when they did not get it, the film was written off as pointless.

 

 

Okay, let's leave aside that the fight was largely drawn directly from the end of The Dark Knight Returns for a second, or that the end was a adaptation of the Death of Superman, or that the dream sequence was a riff on the titles I mentioned earlier, or that the Robin costume scene was an homage to A Death in the Family (I could go on for a while). You really think that film presented good reasons for the two characters to fight? Superman was duped into fighting Batman because Luthor kidnapped his mother. Batman had a decent reason. He saw what Clark's presence on Earth could lead to -- a ton of destruction and death. But this Batman is pretty much a meat-headed idiot, isn't he? He doesn't do any detective work to find out what the deal is with this alien being who might be able to kill everyone. He doesn't try to maybe use some diplomacy first, like the smartest guy in the DCU might( like he did in John Byrne's Man of Steel). Nope. He concludes that if there is a 1% chance that Clark MIGHT be hostile that's a justifiable reason to kill him. I'm glad the US didn't employ that sort of reasoning when they found out the USSR had nukes.

 

If any parent resisted taking kids to see this, well I would ask the same parents if they took the children to see CA: Winter Soldier, where the film was filled with several assassinations, a screaming message that those in authority are corrupt / out to get you, numerous killings and so on. There's nothing in BVS that is any darker or violent than the constantly brutal, near paranoid plot of the 2nd Cap film, and i'm guessing Civil War will surpass that level, too. If they can handle Cap movies, then BVS would not pose a problem.

Yeah, I wouldn't take my kid to see The Winter Solder either. it's not particularly kid friendly, but it's also not trying to be universally appealing, like you're suggesting that this movie is. Winter Soldier is going for a Three Days of the Condor sort of feeling while incorporating Bourne-esque action. This is fine for a character like Cap, but it should be a little different with Superman. I would prefer that my kid be exposed to a Superman who behaves like a hero, not some scowling dickhead who fires into a badguy, slamming him through two brick walls at one-hundred and fifty miles an hour, surely killing the guy -- the first time we see him in the film.

 

Also, I have absolutely no problem with my hypothetical kid being exposed to entertainment that makes him skeptical, if not outright distrustful of authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking about the film today. I saw it last week an other than Ben Affleck's Batman and Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman, it was a mess. I really don't care for Superman. I don't know if it's Henry Cavill's acting or the script, but something feels off.

 

Spoilers coming up (do I even need to say spoilers?)...anyways, I'm wondering if and when they do future Superman movies who is his alter ego going to be? It can't be Clark Kent, because there was an obituary, a coffin and a funeral for him like there was for Superman. Will he even have an alter ego next time? I guess it doesn't matter if Zack Snyder is involved, because he barely did anything with the Clark persona to begin with. I also hated what he did to Jimmy Olsen. Man, he really made a depressing picture. That's not how I like to think of Superman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you haven't read Injustice, Rock of Ages, Crisis on Infinite Earths, or Flashpoint that dream (?) sequence in the movie might be a bit confusing to you, like it was to my girlfriend and seemingly everyone in the audience for my showing. You might also be confused about what the hell Luthor was talking about when he was going on about "something coming" at the end of the film. The initiated certainly knew he was talking about Darkseid. My girlfriend had absolutely no idea what he was referring to.

For this I will use the Episode VII defense. I was underwhelmed with The Force Awakens and, long story short, I decided that some of those defending it were right in that I need to wait to truly judge it based on the "finished work." TFA is just the set up film. Once the sequel trilogy is complete, then we'll know what to really think of it. BvS is a set up film for Justice League I and II. So it too is basically the first of a planned trilogy. Thus, when you mention how your girlfriend and those like her who have never opened a comic in their life didn't understand some of the things that were happening, once the series is complete it will all make sense. I think that's one of the things that's throwing people off. BvS is not meant to be watched as a one off film.

 

By the way, my wife and her friends are in the same boat. They don't know anything about superhero comics or any other medium besides the films. And they too didn't understand some of the things that we saw. But they still loved it. In fact, since they watched the film as a standalone without any background knowledge of the comic history or upcoming film plans, they actually cried at the end during the Superman funeral. They thought that was it for the character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that's craziness. What is there to like about that Superman? I thought including the Death of Superman was a total waste since there's no reason to feel anything for him. He's been in a movie and a half, if you consider how much screen time he gets, and in that time he treats saving people like it's about as personally fulfilling as cleaning out a vacuum filter. Then they telegraph that he's not really dead like eight minutes later. What was the point? Why not wait until Cavil doesn't want to do it anymore? Then bring in someone to play Steel, or Kon-El or something?

I don't really go in for the "wait for the story to finish" argument. I don't believe they have a story. There's no story in BvS. If you can't entertain me with a single installment why should I believe the larger picture will be any more satisfying? Plus, the way they're framing things right now it's looking like they're steering towards Injustice, and that is the wrong direction.

(I loved The Force Awakens, btw).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. Comics may be getting away with selling dissatisfying story fragments for four bucks a pop, but that's not a sustainable marketing tactic for a product that's $8-$13 per showing per person. It didn't work for Mockingjay and it's really not a wise idea for DC Angry Dudes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Probably because Timm and Dini's ideas might not fit into WB's idea of what is globally appealing. No matter how much I appreciated Timm or Dini's work, or thought they delivered near-perfect adaptations of DC lore, their approach could be seen as not being as capable of checking all of the boxes a studio needs when aiming for a billion. That is the central motivator of all superhero films, not what in the know comic fans think, so you can count yourself as lucky if any superhero film actually comes close to getting it right, considering why the films are made at all. That's why of all of the Marvel films, the Cap entries always rank at the top of the list. Avengers and Ant Man....not really.

 

 

 

I'm really not sure what this means. What is it about their approach that would diminish the potential of making a billion dollars? Avengers went for a feel that's similarly earnest, almost faultlessly faithful to the feel of the source material, and character driven -- and it literally made a billion dollars. Timm and Dini's material isn't exactly comprised of inaccessible deep cuts. Anyone, adult or child, could watch Justice League Unlimited or Batman: The Animated Series and gain a real appreciation for the characters. It seems to me that BvS went for a distinctly inaccessible approach by making every character miserable and the story incredibly shallow and violent. By doing so they're probably dissuading parents from bringing their kids to see it. I know I wouldn't want to bring my child to see that drudging mess. DC's idea of what constitutes a globally appealing superhero film is clearly the problem here -- and that's why they're not going to clear a billion.

 

I don't understand your last point either...the top of what list? I think Avengers and Ant Man were two of the better Marvel films.

 

(Long time no see, Justin. Missed ya, Bro. Hope you stick around here more.)

 

I completely agree with this. Tonally, WB doesn't get it, and they've appointed people who do not understand either.

 

Last year the internet saw 'Power/Rangers', a satirical Power Rangers fan film that contained nudity, profanity, drug use, blood and so on. The fan film was not intended as a satire of Power Rangers, but of the Hollywood thought process that says that in order for a kids' concept be taken seriously, you have to make it 'dark' and 'gritty' and 'extreme'. That 'maturity'=GRIMDARK and brooding, with no sense of fun or lightheartedness. BvS is pretty much that mindset made manifest. Goyer and Snyder very much operate with that mentality, and that is what hurts the film.

 

Look, I'm a Marvel fanatic, but I still appreciate DC's characters. I think the DCAU is the best interpretation of any superhero universe ever made. I am partial to Wonder Woman, and was happy that she is getting well-deserved exposure, and I'd be first in line for a good Wonder Woman film. But, thus far, the characters are in the hands of people who Just. Don't. Get. It.

 

Marvel's Cinematic Universe gets a lot of praise, and that is because the people in charge understand the source material. They know what tone fits what characters, and they balance lightness and fun with darkness and seriousness when appropriate. Darkness by itself is not bad. It's how it's used. Look at Marvel's Daredevil and Jessica Jones series. The later especially is darker than anything in BvS, dealing with issues of PTSD, rape, misogyny, trauma, abuse, abortion, drug use, and so on. But, rather than just being thrown in to make them quote/unquote 'Mature', the dark elements are there because it is true to the story and the character. Furthermore, for all the darkness of both series, there is still plenty of hope and optimism, a sense that the characters genuinely care about people, a camaraderie with friends you know they'd do anything for. As well, other Marvel offerings like Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy, are far lighter and fun, because that's what they need. Yet, even within that lightness, there is buoyed some pathos and an understanding of when to be serious.

 

That balance is thus far missing from the DC movies, because they are being made by people who think hope, lightheartedness and fun means 'for children', and GRIMDARK angsting is serious cinema. And DC's movies will continue to suffer as long as that continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.