Batman v Superman
Moderator: MGM
- Mr Wallstreet
- Posts: 3734
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:21 pm
Batman v Superman
Is really getting hammered by bad reviews. This doesn't bode well for the future of DC movies. Has anyone seen it yet?
- Tragic Angelus
- Posts: 3397
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:44 pm
- Location: Indiana
Re: Batman v Superman
Scenes with Wonder Woman were the best parts, and even then some of them weren't that great.
I spent time about 30 minutes in wondering if people would care if I streamed the last episode of Daredevil season 2 on my phone, or if my friends would mind if I just left to go watch basketball at the bar next door. I was not invested in it at all.
I spent time about 30 minutes in wondering if people would care if I streamed the last episode of Daredevil season 2 on my phone, or if my friends would mind if I just left to go watch basketball at the bar next door. I was not invested in it at all.
- Mr Wallstreet
- Posts: 3734
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:21 pm
Re: Batman v Superman
You just hate comics
- Tragic Angelus
- Posts: 3397
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:44 pm
- Location: Indiana
Re: Batman v Superman
I totally do.
Re: Batman v Superman
Based on the reviews I plan not to see this movie. Not just the professional reviews, but also reviews of fans and pro's in the comic-world really slam the movie. I'm not spending 2.5 hours of my time (and money) on a movie this badly critcized. Also, Snyder's Superman was not that great either and I think that his view for the DC movieverse (and mostly the lack of any light in it) is terrible.
Re: Batman v Superman
Saw it last night. There were some entertaining moments but overall bad.
There was also two or three moments that made this movie irredeemable for me as they were so out of character Snyder should have been fired, or told to change them.
There was also two or three moments that made this movie irredeemable for me as they were so out of character Snyder should have been fired, or told to change them.
Re: Batman v Superman
Spoil the moments (since I'm curious).
Re: Batman v Superman
It's the expected Snyder crap.
- Stocky Boy
- Posts: 1861
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 10:09 am
- Location: England, UK
Re: Batman v Superman
I think we're going to have a unanimous view on this.
Poo!
Action and spectacle : Good. Certainly has a Snyder style, even if that means heavily murky.
Story/Plot : Poo.
Dialogue : Poo.
Characterisation : Poo.
Editing : Poo.
The basic premise that Batman believes that Superman as a nuke belonging to a rogue nation is pretty reasonable. What's not is believing that Batman would then feel killing him is the right response after a second large scale incident occurs that also, plainly wasn't Superman's fault.
Why was Lex Luthor even needed for this film?
It's possible to do gritty in comics and for it to work. See Daredevil.
I reckon you can do gritty with Superman too, but probably best not to gamble this on your new, potential Marvel combating franchise. Maybe stick to the boyscout with power characterisation who has hope for humanity instead. None of this emo crap. Did he have to basically sigh like an emo bitch when the bomb went off so that we side with Batman more?
Why wouldn't Superman talk to Batman first before taking the law, hypocritically into his own hands to tell Batman he should stop contributing? But for that matter why is Batman doing an All Star Batman-like parody of himself and carrying around a Bat branding iron?
Editing was all over the place because they presumably had to trim down a four hour film into something shorter.
Affleck's Bruce Wayne at a party was refreshingly quite enjoyable. So too was Irons's take on Alfred and Gal Gadat's Wonder Woman seemed very good for the short appearance she had. Eisenberg's Luthor... well, much like Cavil's Superman and Clark Kent, I guess they achieved what Snyder envisioned, but what was envisioned was not the best characterisation of those characters.To think, Snyder passed on Bryan Cranston after reconsidering Eisenberg off of the Jimmy Olsen role.
I see that they wanted a gritty film, but it didn't need to be so joyless. It was intentionally joyless, which they cemented for you by killing Superman. Lol!
Poo!
Action and spectacle : Good. Certainly has a Snyder style, even if that means heavily murky.
Story/Plot : Poo.
Dialogue : Poo.
Characterisation : Poo.
Editing : Poo.
The basic premise that Batman believes that Superman as a nuke belonging to a rogue nation is pretty reasonable. What's not is believing that Batman would then feel killing him is the right response after a second large scale incident occurs that also, plainly wasn't Superman's fault.
Why was Lex Luthor even needed for this film?
It's possible to do gritty in comics and for it to work. See Daredevil.
I reckon you can do gritty with Superman too, but probably best not to gamble this on your new, potential Marvel combating franchise. Maybe stick to the boyscout with power characterisation who has hope for humanity instead. None of this emo crap. Did he have to basically sigh like an emo bitch when the bomb went off so that we side with Batman more?
Why wouldn't Superman talk to Batman first before taking the law, hypocritically into his own hands to tell Batman he should stop contributing? But for that matter why is Batman doing an All Star Batman-like parody of himself and carrying around a Bat branding iron?
Editing was all over the place because they presumably had to trim down a four hour film into something shorter.
Affleck's Bruce Wayne at a party was refreshingly quite enjoyable. So too was Irons's take on Alfred and Gal Gadat's Wonder Woman seemed very good for the short appearance she had. Eisenberg's Luthor... well, much like Cavil's Superman and Clark Kent, I guess they achieved what Snyder envisioned, but what was envisioned was not the best characterisation of those characters.To think, Snyder passed on Bryan Cranston after reconsidering Eisenberg off of the Jimmy Olsen role.
I see that they wanted a gritty film, but it didn't need to be so joyless. It was intentionally joyless, which they cemented for you by killing Superman. Lol!
- Mr Wallstreet
- Posts: 3734
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:21 pm
Re: Batman v Superman
This film didn't work for me on multiple levels which many people have stated above. I genuinely don't know what Snyder was going for. Grim and gritty but this was the polar opposite of Batman & Robin where everything was just depressing as shit. There were several head scratching moments where I just couldn't get it.
There was a funny April Fool's article Newsarama posted last week about how Snyder was fired from the film and replaced with George Miller. For a hot second, I actually fell for it and then remembered the date.
What does every one think will happen with The Justice League movie? As bad as this performed do you guys think Snyder will be given a shot at redemption or will they replace him?
There was a funny April Fool's article Newsarama posted last week about how Snyder was fired from the film and replaced with George Miller. For a hot second, I actually fell for it and then remembered the date.
What does every one think will happen with The Justice League movie? As bad as this performed do you guys think Snyder will be given a shot at redemption or will they replace him?
Re: Batman v Superman
I think if Snyder directs the JL movie, it will be so depressing someone may commit suicide in the theatre.
- Tragic Angelus
- Posts: 3397
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:44 pm
- Location: Indiana
Re: Batman v Superman
I'm hoping they ease up a bit. The fact that Suicide Squad is now getting some reshoots to add comedy and make it a bit lighter tells me that possibly Warner Bros. will try to dial back the grim and gritty, but I don't think it'll be all that great. Doing the big team movie before building up and helping me care about the individual heroes just doesn't seem like the smart move to me.