BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion (TAG SPOILERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'm easily pleased too. I still admit the movie was a mess, a beautiful mess.

 

If you have to make comparisons from one movie to the other, that just tells me you can't sell your movie on it's own.

 

Yeah, I'd say I'm easily pleased as well, but there's no denying Batman v Superman was disappointingly average.

 

^ That's what I consider it as, an average movie that is accepted as bad, because of the hype surrounding it. Now with a better script and a better director, I think it could've lived up to the hype.

 

don't worry, SS will turn the tide and nothing gonna be the same again. every MCU movies will be criticized as "not as good as SS".

 

IMO the movie was just meh. not good and also not bad. i felt nothing after seeing it. after watching my gut feeling was i never want to see this movie again. later when i ha fully digested it. i will try to watch the UC of the movie but will not go out my way to do so.

there has been hyperbole on both sides of the fence. it has good moments, really really good moments but more WTF moment.

JL will be better.

 

It may not be the lion's share of what happens in this film, but there's nothing vague about it.

Clark directly addresses Bruce about the issue at Lex's party. That's one sequence.

He directly addresses the issue at the Daily Planet. That's two.

There's another sequence later on, also with Perry.

Superman confronts Batman directly.

That's four sequences directly addressing Superman's issues with Batman, not including the fight, and not including the deleted scene of him investigating.

Even with just those four sequences, that's a pretty decent amount of development for such a simple idea as Clark having issues with Batman's violent, brutal nature.

Keep in mind the additional scenes showing Batman's violent, brutal nature also are part of this story element, so it's not underdeveloped in the least.

 

Um, comparing can be just examining how different movies do things. In a review, it's likely a direct comparison about quality, but when we fans discuss it, it doesn't have to be just about that.

 

There was one scene in the entire long film that wasn't heavy drama. It wore on audiences. And I hate to say it but I didn't care for the soundtrack.

The editing and even the way Zack makes movies seem to be problematic.
Starting with 4 hours of script is probably his first mistake. If the story requires that much to tell then you make 2 movies and add some stuff.
You don't shoot it and then take an axe to it.

 

[YT]TReIozZ1b10[/YT]

[YT]qpk8eSpRBnY[/YT]

 

Because this is the story they chose. They chose to have these two at serious odds, to have Batman feeling he failed Superman, and forming the League is going to be part of Batman's redemption. The guilt and duty Batman feels to uphold Superman's legacy is a lot more powerful a concept if Superman isn't alive the whole time.

But that's clearly not the only reason they did this. There are likely story reasons, character reasons AND logistical reasons they chose this route.

It's quite clear that this decision was a key part of Superman's arc. In that very interview, Snyder also talks about this, citing experiencing death as Superman's "crucible", something he has to go through to identify with humanity.

And as far as Batman forming the league....

It's not just Batman. It's going to be Batman and Wonder Woman. Which will strengthen their interaction as characters and inform the leadership structure of the JLA.

Also, Batman's a detective. In many versions of the story of the formations of various League's, Batman develops leads on prospective members/recruits, etc and locates them. So it's not unprecedented in the mythology.

Heck, there are versions where Superman didn't even actively join the League for a while.

I really didn't find this that out of left field when it was revealed. Many fans speculated they should do just this to start the league, making Superman's emergence and then absence a key motivator for it to exist.

But people keep cherrypicking complaints about things Snyder says without looking at them in context.

 

yes I agree with those points, as a concept that is fine, it's in the conveyance of those concepts where it's failing. I understood the film and liked it but acknowledge that it might not appeal to the GA

 

that, to me, is BvS in the nutshell.

 

I keep hearing this, about how people doubt WB even knows the issues it had with this film.

What is this based on?

The fact that they didn't immediately give the critics and fans Zack Snyder's head, push back their universe and basically admit defeat and retool? I think that would have been a rather extreme response in the face of a movie that even with LOUSY reviews, appears to be making a decent amount of money.

So is it based on clickbait rumors that they reshot SUICIDE SQUAD to be funnier, which now do not appear to be true?

There's so much about this film and this universe that is down to perception. Now it's perceived that the film was an awful mess, that WB doesn't have a plan, doesn't know what they're doing, etc, and I find much of that ridiculous, and unsubstantiated besides.

And what's sad is that because it's such a hot topic, it's become cool to hate on the movie, so now, apart from all the memes and such, the story is clickbait for pretty much every media outlet, which just feeds and reinforces the perception even more.

This movie didn't happen in a vacuum. It's quite clear WB knew what they were making. Their company line was to make darker, more serious films. They talked about taking risks. They talked about not doing exactly what Marvel has done.

Their BVS and JUSTICE LEAGUE screenwriter came out before this movie was even released and said Justice League was going to be lighter in tone. The studio announced a Director's Cut before the film was released.

The studio knew something about what the response was likely to be, they just didn't expect it to be savaged by critics like it was.

I think it's really unrealistic to think WB doesn't know the very obvious problems people have with this movie. They've been shouted from the rooftops this time around.

Almost every single critic who had issues with this movie said the following:
-Superman is not warm and charismatic enough
-The tone is too dark
-Not enough fun/action

And besides complaints about source fidelity, these are the main issues that fans continue to complain about as well.

I guarantee you WB has heard the message loud and clear.

The question now is what they will do about it. And there's plenty they can do.

 

You were talking about critics that compared movies and the critics aren't the ones making the movie, so it's not "their" movie. Not sure what you're getting at.

Then there's also the fact that plenty of critics compared BvS to previous superhero movies (yes, even those that liked the movie), and fans are doing it on this forum all the time. So what's so special about critics doing it?

 

i wonder how it was when Armageddon and Deep Impact came out in the same summer.

 

If you think WB has gotten the message and truly gets what they get wrong, or how it can be improved, that's fine. I'm skeptical at this point. Sorry.

 

Same here. I consider Age of ultron and Dawn of Justice to be equals. I loved Age of Ultron more than the first and Dawn of Justice showed me stuff I haven't seen before in my life. You can edit out only the Batman scenes and stitch it together and I would pay to watch them.

 

it's 60% of what was shot. no way you take a script and cut that much without hurting what's left. It should have been 2 films. they should have ended part 1 when Bats got the Kryptonite. Show a big fight scene with him infiltrating Lexcorp. Maybe add Diana and let her and Mercy go at it. During that fight we find out Mercy is a cyborg. Make getting the rock a big deal is what I'm saying.

 

I don't like that bit about superman needing to die to identify with humanity. Sure, it's a valid choice and they have creative license to do it, but it's not something I want to see for the character. Superman has existed on Earth for 33-35 years and been rescuing them for almost as long, and it takes his death to identify with people?

My issue about Batman, WW or whomever forming the league isn't a vote against those characters. My complaint is more about what superman is missing, not what they get to do. He's in a casket and not being seen to interact or participate or endear himself to the audience. If he'd gotten better characterization thus far, I may not have such a resistance to this. But as of now, I feel it's just going to exacerbate the existing issues with his character.

 

I agree with this. The movie would have gained a lot if they had split it.

 

Better than The Dark Knight Rises, so i'm good.

 

No one said that was the only way he can identify with humanity. It's just a key way to do so. It's a transition point for his character.

Have you seen JUSTICE LEAGUE? Do you know how they will address Superman's death and resurrection for sure? How do you know he's not going ot have an integral role in bringing the League together, cementing them?

 

I don't know about that. I think a tighter and simpler script would've been better. Having a 2 part movie so early in the franchise is questionable.

 

It's an odd way to do so, for superman.

No, I haven't seen it. Considering BvS's handling of his character, I don't have much faith in its handling in JL. I honestly think he'll be absent for the formation of the JL (of course with people talking about how great he was). Then he'll come back compromised (brainwashed maybe) in some way and they'll have to find some way (Lois?) to get him to be normal again. They'll eventually succeed and he might get a couple of lines and punches in on the baddie. I realize that's just speculation and reflexive negativity, but that's what I expect.