BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion - - Part 109

[Black Narcissus]

god i hope that means we'll get to see gadot in her costume. i want to see it in its full glory.

I think we will.

 

[AnneFan]

I think we will.

I hope you are right, Samuel.

 

[Rapunzel]

I want some pics to settle the is Eisenberg bald debate.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I want some pics to settle the is Eisenberg bald debate.

Hair? No. Bald? No. Mohawk.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

 

[Herolee10]

Do you guys prefer the fact that Snyder chose to shoot both this movie and MOS on film as opposed to doing it digitally like how so many other comic book films are doing nowadays?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I think digital has gotten to the point where it doesn't look like crap anymore so I'm cool with it. I don't really have a preference anymore...as long as digital is used well I say have at it.

 

[Sawyer]

Hair? No. Bald? No. Mohawk.

Mohawk counts as hair, Krypton, GET YOUR **** TOGETHER!!!

 

[NoLaNitE007]

Mohawk counts as hair, Krypton, GET YOUR **** TOGETHER!!!

Hey...hey...hey! Where is the fire at now? You calm down....before you have a heart attack!

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Do you guys prefer the fact that Snyder chose to shoot both this movie and MOS on film as opposed to doing it digitally like how so many other comic book films are doing nowadays?

Totally honest opinion, that I don't give two airborne copulations if it pisses people off? The supposed differences between film and digital is the domain of pretentious popinjays, the same types that bandy about the phrase "show don't tell" as though they themselves came up with the phrase itself and are now coming down from their one on one with the burning bush to spread their superior wisdom. Most people just really don't notice or care... And I know THAT pisses film nerds off, but it's the truth. The act of watching and creating motion pictures has become a very digital affair these last 20 years and the near future brings us closer to furthering it down the road it is already on. We are and will see more and more content created using digital tech and then consumed the same way. And no one will care that film is no longer being used except for the film nerds that need to have the badge of superiority of being a "champion" of film, and yes, I am not just talking about the average fan voicing their opinion on a forum, but the directors in Hollywood and abroad as well. Am I against those directors holding on to what they prefer? No. I assuredly will see the movies they make on the big screen and enjoy some. But I will still be of the mind that they will be holding onto a pretentious opinion for the sake of feeling superior more than anything else.

I am sure this will catch me holy hell from all the wannabe "auteurs" out there who will insist on some objective standard for art and hold to film being the better tool... I don't really care. It is indeed a tool, and emotional attachment or not, perhaps it's day is done? Perhaps? In any event, I don't give a crap how or why Snyder, or Nolan or Tarantino shoot a film, I care about the final product, which to my eyes, will more or less be the same regardless of whether they used film or digital. Would they be different films, with perhaps some variations if they had been shot one way as opposed to the other? Sure. But probably not as much as most who champion film would make it out to be. So again, as long as the tool used is pro grade... Why should I really care?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Mohawk counts as hair, Krypton, GET YOUR **** TOGETHER!!!

Maybe it's one of those paradox thingies... Like how a man could be both Loud and Silent? But that would be crazy talk.

 

[NoLaNitE007]

Totally honest opinion, that I don't give two airborne copulations if it pisses people off? The supposed differences between film and digital is the domain of pretentious popinjays, the same types that bandy about the phrase "show don't tell" as though they themselves came up with the phrase itself and are now coming down from their one on one with the burning bush to spread their superior wisdom. Most people just really don't notice or care... And I know THAT pisses film nerds off, but it's the truth. The act of watching and creating motion pictures has become a very digital affair these last 20 years and the near future brings us closer to furthering it down the road it is already on. We are and will see more and more content created using digital tech and then consumed the same way. And no one will care that film is no longer being used except for the film nerds that need to have the badge of superiority of being a "champion" of film, and yes, I am not just talking about the average fan voicing their opinion on a forum, but the directors in Hollywood and abroad as well. Am I against those directors holding on to what they prefer? No. I assuredly will see the movies they make on the big screen and enjoy some. But I will still be of the mind that they will be holding onto a pretentious opinion for the sake of feeling superior more than anything else.

I am sure this will catch me holy hell from all the wannabe "auteurs" out there who will insist on some objective standard for art and hold to film being the better tool... I don't really care. It is indeed a tool, and emotional attachment or not, perhaps it's day is done? Perhaps? In any event, I don't give a crap how or why Snyder, or Nolan or Tarantino shoot a film, I care about the final product, which to my eyes, will more or less be the same regardless of whether they used film or digital. Would they be different films, with perhaps some variations if they had been shot one way as opposed to the other? Sure. But probably not as much as most who champion film would make it out to be. So again, as long as the tool used is pro grade... Why should I really care?

Good!

 

[Sawyer]

Maybe it's one of those paradox thingies... Like how a man could be both Loud and Silent? But that would be crazy talk.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Attack Eyebrows!!

 

[NoLaNitE007]

Hey..hey

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I would watch the hell out a movie where Capaldi and Deniro just drove around and grimaced at stuff silently.

 

[The Sage]

About digital vs film...I honestly can't tell the difference when I'm in the movie theater.

 

[antonydelfini]

Totally honest opinion, that I don't give two airborne copulations if it pisses people off? The supposed differences between film and digital is the domain of pretentious popinjays, the same types that bandy about the phrase "show don't tell" as though they themselves came up with the phrase itself and are now coming down from their one on one with the burning bush to spread their superior wisdom. Most people just really don't notice or care... And I know THAT pisses film nerds off, but it's the truth. The act of watching and creating motion pictures has become a very digital affair these last 20 years and the near future brings us closer to furthering it down the road it is already on. We are and will see more and more content created using digital tech and then consumed the same way. And no one will care that film is no longer being used except for the film nerds that need to have the badge of superiority of being a "champion" of film, and yes, I am not just talking about the average fan voicing their opinion on a forum, but the directors in Hollywood and abroad as well. Am I against those directors holding on to what they prefer? No. I assuredly will see the movies they make on the big screen and enjoy some. But I will still be of the mind that they will be holding onto a pretentious opinion for the sake of feeling superior more than anything else.

I am sure this will catch me holy hell from all the wannabe "auteurs" out there who will insist on some objective standard for art and hold to film being the better tool... I don't really care. It is indeed a tool, and emotional attachment or not, perhaps it's day is done? Perhaps? In any event, I don't give a crap how or why Snyder, or Nolan or Tarantino shoot a film, I care about the final product, which to my eyes, will more or less be the same regardless of whether they used film or digital. Would they be different films, with perhaps some variations if they had been shot one way as opposed to the other? Sure. But probably not as much as most who champion film would make it out to be. So again, as long as the tool used is pro grade... Why should I really care?

I think it is completely ignorant to say that the directors who prefer to shoot using film are doing it to feel superior more than anything else. Some may do, but thse directors have technical reasons for doing so (the grainy look, the way it captures light and color, etc). And if you are a director, you should be OC about these things.

I agree that majority of moviegoers do not care, as most of them seem to only care for the story, character journey, visual effects, exciting and fast pacing, unexpected twists and cool plot turns, etc.

but what separates the great masters like Kubrick, Hitchcock, or Scorsese from the good ones/ the mediocre/ the bad, is their obsession with the little things like cinematography, framing, editing, art direction, etc. when they say that film looks better and gives a better movie going experience, it's better to listen and respect their opinion than call them pretentious because they are the ones who obsess about this stuff.

 

[BH/HHH]

I truly loved MOS. I am a massive superman fan and one thing I've always wanted to see was superman throw down on the big screen and I believe Snyder truly delivered on those action sequences. Seeing them first time in cinema, and even now, still has that wow factor. I don't understand the hatred it gets, I know its not a perfect movie, but its good and for me it delivered a 21st century superman.

Welcome to the Hype!

It's my favourite movie, I knew I was gonna love it from day one just had a feeling (had the same feeling for Batman Begins too). Of course I know it has its flaws (what film doesn't?) but to me it's pretty much beat for beat perfection. I think the reason the film has been like marmite us that people hold Superman up to their own preconceived notions and different standards to the rest.

 

[jmc]

Totally honest opinion, that I don't give two airborne copulations if it pisses people off? The supposed differences between film and digital is the domain of pretentious popinjays, the same types that bandy about the phrase "show don't tell" as though they themselves came up with the phrase itself and are now coming down from their one on one with the burning bush to spread their superior wisdom. Most people just really don't notice or care... And I know THAT pisses film nerds off, but it's the truth. The act of watching and creating motion pictures has become a very digital affair these last 20 years and the near future brings us closer to furthering it down the road it is already on. We are and will see more and more content created using digital tech and then consumed the same way. And no one will care that film is no longer being used except for the film nerds that need to have the badge of superiority of being a "champion" of film, and yes, I am not just talking about the average fan voicing their opinion on a forum, but the directors in Hollywood and abroad as well. Am I against those directors holding on to what they prefer? No. I assuredly will see the movies they make on the big screen and enjoy some. But I will still be of the mind that they will be holding onto a pretentious opinion for the sake of feeling superior more than anything else.

I am sure this will catch me holy hell from all the wannabe "auteurs" out there who will insist on some objective standard for art and hold to film being the better tool... I don't really care. It is indeed a tool, and emotional attachment or not, perhaps it's day is done? Perhaps? In any event, I don't give a crap how or why Snyder, or Nolan or Tarantino shoot a film, I care about the final product, which to my eyes, will more or less be the same regardless of whether they used film or digital. Would they be different films, with perhaps some variations if they had been shot one way as opposed to the other? Sure. But probably not as much as most who champion film would make it out to be. So again, as long as the tool used is pro grade... Why should I really care?

You've got a funny idea about why some directors want to hold onto film. Directors wanting to use film comes down to a personal preference, it's no different to someone who still develops film for photographs or paints with a brush on canvas despite the widespread use of digital alternatives. And frankly if they think their chosen tools make for better results that's entirely their opinion, that's not the same as them thinking because they use said tools that makes them better than other directors. Directors who champion for film do so because they don't want to see the format eliminated.

 

[Jumpman]

You've got a funny idea about why some directors want to hold onto film. Directors wanting to use film comes down to a personal preference, it's no different to someone who still develops film for photographs or paints with a brush on canvas despite the widespread use of digital alternatives. And frankly if they think their chosen tools make for better results that's entirely their opinion, that's not the same as them thinking because they use said tools that makes them better than other directors. Directors who champion for film do so because they don't want to see the format eliminated.

On top of that, many of them still advocate for it for archival purposes, which is tried and true. Digital archiving is not tried and true yet.

Films shot digitally still have to have at least a few film prints of it for that purpose alone. That's one of the main reasons why Nolan pushes to keep film around, besides it being his preferred format.

 

[Harley2004]

About digital vs film...I honestly can't tell the difference when I'm in the movie theater.

In a theater it's very clear, film judder and grain. It looks clearly better in a high quality theater, imo. More organic. Granted video, looks a lot better than it used to be like with Star Wars 12 years ago. Gone Girl, looks good but is noticeably shot on video.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

In a theater it's very clear, film judder and grain. It looks clearly better in a high quality theater, imo. More organic. Granted video, looks a lot better than it used to be like with Star Wars 12 years ago. Gone Girl, looks good but is noticeably shot on video.

So... The Sage is a liar?

 

[king666]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/zack-snyder-becomes-latest-suspect-748860

opening credits stuff pls

 

[The Sage]

In a theater it's very clear, film judder and grain. It looks clearly better in a high quality theater, imo. More organic. Granted video, looks a lot better than it used to be like with Star Wars 12 years ago. Gone Girl, looks good but is noticeably shot on video.

So... The Sage is a liar?

What? Okay, we're going to have shut everything down off that libel.