BvS Batman v Superman - Reviews Thread [TAG SPOILERS] - Part 2

[MrsKent26]

Yep, I sure did.

Oh my.

Well Keyser, I may not always agree with you, but at least you own up to quotes you've made.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Oh my.

Well Keyser, I may not always agree with you, but at least you own up to quotes you've made.

Hahaha. Well, what else am I gonna do?

Besides... I wasn't trying to tell him he was wrong for not liking it, though everyone seems to think I was. It's difficult to make my point on this issue, and every time I try it results in a fight.

 

[MrsKent26]

^ I see. I'd ask you what your point was...but I don't want to start a fight, lol.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

^ I see. I'd ask you what your point was...but I don't want to start a fight, lol.

LOL.

My point was... I don't even know HOW to make the point any more. It's like how a piece of furniture can be well-built, sturdy, and built to last, but can also be a thing you'd never want to put in your house, if you know what I mean. By any craftsman's standards it's a good piece of furniture but you sure as hell aren't taking it home.

Or you know... I had a teacher one time who said all of Salvador Dali's work looks like three day old bruises to her. She appreciated it for the form of expression that it was, but she'd never want to hang one in her house.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

That's why I keep bringing up Blade Runner. I understand that it's a very well-made movie, but I do not like it. Nobody can tell you what you should or shouldn't like, that's entirely up to the individual. And you'll have reasons that are your own and that's cool. But just because I don't like Blade Runner, that doesn't make it a bad movie. Just because Ms. Cockey doesn't like Dali's paintings, doesn't make him a bad artist.

 

[MrsKent26]

So, you're saying that BvS is well made, but just isn't to some people's taste?

 

[Keyser Sushi]

So, you're saying that BvS is well made, but just isn't to some people's taste?

Yes. And it may not even be strictly about taste. People may not agree with the ideas it's putting forth, or they may not find it compelling. They may take issue with certain choices or with how characters are presented. And that's all absolutely okay.

 

[The Joker]

Bad movies usually aren't to people's taste.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Bad movies usually aren't to people's taste.

Sure they are. Look at how much money Jim Cameron's Avatar made. Or how many Bayformers movies there have been. Those keep making money. Plenty of people will pay good money to go see a bad movie, if they like it.

 

[MrsKent26]

Yes. And it may not even be strictly about taste. People may not agree with the ideas it's putting forth, or they may not find it compelling. They may take issue with certain choices or with how characters are presented. And that's all absolutely okay.

As you might have guessed, I disagree. I think the closest anyone's going to get to the "truth" of a highly subject matter like this is to say: Some people liked it and some people didn't. Doesn't go any deeper than that. I do think that more people would have liked it if some key things were different though.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

As you might have guessed, I disagree. I think the closest anyone's going to get to the "truth" of a highly subject matter like this is to say: Some people liked it and some people didn't. Doesn't go any deeper than that. I do think that more people would have liked it if some key things were different though.

Oh well. I was hoping you'd understand. I'll admit I'm disappointed that we don't agree on this one, but it is what it is.

 

[MrsKent26]

Oh well. I was hoping you'd understand. I'll admit I'm disappointed that we don't agree on this one, but it is what it is.

Well, if it's any comfort, I do think its terribleness is exaggerated sometimes. Some people seem to give it no credit whatsoever, but I don't think it was so bad that absolutely everything about it was trash.

 

[Snow Queen]

LOL.

My point was... I don't even know HOW to make the point any more. It's like how a piece of furniture can be well-built, sturdy, and built to last, but can also be a thing you'd never want to put in your house, if you know what I mean. By any craftsman's standards it's a good piece of furniture but you sure as hell aren't taking it home.

Or you know... I had a teacher one time who said all of Salvador Dali's work looks like three day old bruises to her. She appreciated it for the form of expression that it was, but she'd never want to hang one in her house.

Whereas this is the type of chair that looks lovely, you bring it home, set it up excitedly, sit on it...and it falls apart instantly.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Well, if it's any comfort, I do think its terribleness is exaggerated sometimes. Some people seem to give it no credit whatsoever, but I don't think it was so bad that absolutely everything about it was trash.

I know, that's one of the reasons I was hopeful. That and because you are a reasonable, level-headed person, as you show in every single post you make.

 

[The Joker]

Sure they are. Look at how much money Jim Cameron's Avatar made. Or how many Bayformers movies there have been. Those keep making money. Plenty of people will pay good money to go see a bad movie, if they like it.

Avatar is not a bad movie.

People don't defend Bayformers as good movies. They are what they are, and they succeed at what they are trying to be. People like them because they can leave their brain at the door and enjoy some flashy action for a couple of hours.

BvS on the other hand doesn't appeal to people because it fails at what it's trying to be. This is why Michael Bay succeeds more as a film maker than Snyder.

Paraphrasing jmc here, but Bay a least knows he makes obnoxious movies and doesn't apologise for them, he doesn't pretend they are anything more than what they are. Snyder tries to make his films look far more intelligent than what they actually are, spewing philosophy and ideologies in an attempt to sound smart whilst overlooking the fundamentals of narrative and character development. Synder is like some contemporary artist who thinks he's smart by throwing a bunch of trash on the ground, calls it high art and expects you to find meaning in it. Bay is like an artist who's throws trash on the ground, knows it's trash, knows it has no meaning to it, but also knows someone is going to buy it for $100,000 because some people are idiots. Both directors make ordinary movies, but only one of them is quite happy to embrace that.

Whereas this is the type of chair that looks lovely, you bring it home, set it up excitedly, sit on it...and it falls apart instantly.

Good analogy

 

[Visualiza]

A few days ago he told me I was objectively wrong for saying the film was poorly made with an unfocused narrative and poorly developed characters.

I remember reading that exchange. There's a lot of noise made around here about interpretations and what not, whether that's interpretations of the characters by the creative team, or how the viewing public interprets the movies.

What's interesting to me is that among the hardliners, they're apparently very open-minded when it comes to the former(i.e. Batman has killed before so it's ok in BvS), yet very rigid when it comes to the latter (The film has allegories and themes, therefore it's intelligent; no exceptions). Maybe I'm crazy, but there seems to be something of a disconnect there.

There's only one correct way to interpret it, which would be in the way clearly intended by the people who made it.

It's not that simple.

In the case of this movie in particular, their intentions either aren't so clear, or they've done a very poor job of communicating their intentions effectively, given the back-and-forth we've been seeing. Often times, the creators want the viewers to develop their own interpretations of their films, especially ones that feature moral, political, and social issues at the center. I think that Snyder tends to be so on-the-nose with his themes and symbolism that it hurts, but that's just me. Both sides are quick to call the other stupid in this debate, but the truth of it is that people come away from these movies with different impressions. You could easily say that people who are critical of this movie are misinterpreting it, but to me, that comes across as yet another veiled way of saying that they're too stupid to understand it.

In any case, this is an evasion of the matter at hand, so I'll just ask you directly; in what way(s) did the Den of Geek analysis misinterpret the movie? Since your basis for the correct interpretation is Snyder & Terrio's vision, I'd also ask you to cite them directly for clarification.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I think movies are all subjective. HOWEVER, what isn't subjective is that this film is critically panned and struggling financially. It probably won't crack a billion.

The film has flaws. The question is..do these flaws make the film BAD? Or just unappealing to a mass audience?

The answer, is up to you.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Whereas this is the type of chair that looks lovely, you bring it home, set it up excitedly, sit on it...and it falls apart instantly.

It hasn't fallen apart on me.

Avatar is not a bad movie.

It's not great. It's ham-fisted and not as smart as it thinks it is, and mostly it's a remake of much better movies like "The Last of the Mohicans."

People don't defend Bayformers as good movies. They are what they are, and they succeed at what they are trying to be. People like them because they can leave their brain at the door and enjoy some flashy action for a couple of hours.

That wasn't my point. My point is, they're bad and people enjoy them. Just refuting your blanket statement, is all.

BvS on the other hand doesn't appeal to people because it fails at what it's trying to be. This is why Michael Bay succeeds more as a film maker than Snyder.

And what is it trying to be?

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I think movies are all subjective. HOWEVER, what isn't subjective is that this film is critically panned and struggling financially. It probably won't crack a billion.

The film has flaws. The question is..do these flaws make the film BAD? Or just unappealing to a mass audience?

The answer, is up to you.

I bolded the stuff I agree with. It seems pointless to try and argue the movies being subjective thing, but it flies in the face of what they teach you about art when you study it, so I do not accept that statement as anything other than your opinion.

Basically, the way you react to a movie is subjective, your experience is your own. But the movie is what it is.

 

[The Joker]

It's not great. It's ham-fisted and not as smart as it thinks it is, and mostly it's a remake of much better movies like "The Last of the Mohicans."

I didn't call it a great movie. But a bad movie it is not by any stretch of the imagination.

That wasn't my point. My point is, they're bad and people enjoy them. Just refuting your blanket statement, is all.

Alright let me re-phrase; people don't enjoy bad movies that are bad because they fail at trying to be what they want to be.

And what is it trying to be?

A smart, coherent, thematically complex, layered movie.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

In any case, this is an evasion of the matter at hand, so I'll just ask you directly; in what way(s) did the Den of Geek analysis misinterpret the movie? Since your basis for the correct interpretation is Snyder & Terrio's vision, I'd also ask you to cite them directly for clarification.

I've chosen to ignore the rest because I'd just be rehashing stuff that I, and others, have already said a million times. I'll take your challenge on this one, but on the condition that I won't be posting it tonight. You're asking me to write the equivalent of a school paper, and I am many years out of school, though I do still write. I am also employed full-time.

So, I will write that. I totally will. But I don't have time to do it tonight. Part of me wishes I had a copy of the movie as well, so I could make sure to cite events, shots, and dialogue accurately, but I will have to do without that, or your wait will be long indeed. It's going to take a while as it is since I disagree with basically every single point in the Den of Geek article. That's a lot of citations.

 

[Snow Queen]

It hasn't fallen apart on me.

And yet it has for myself and many others. That's the problem with arguing to objectivity, everyone thinks they're the one being objective. It's a pointless argument. You say it's objectively a well made film, I say it's an objectively poorly made film, and around in circles we go.

 

[MrsKent26]

I know, that's one of the reasons I was hopeful. That and because you are a reasonable, level-headed person, as you show in every single post you make.

Thanks. I appreciate the kind words.

My stance on no film being objectivity well-made/bad/etc. has been something I've carried for a while.

I think movies are all subjective. HOWEVER, what isn't subjective is that this film is critically panned and struggling financially. It probably won't crack a billion.

That, along with personal reasons, is why I think JL should have been delayed and Snyder replaced. But...that ship has sadly sailed already...with Snyder on it.

 

[shauner111]

Here's something, you animals!

During the whole Batman/Superman fight. Right before Bats tries to murder him for the second time with a spear (i think bashing a sink over his head so violently would be the first time he tried)...he says this to him. Which is something i forgot, everytime a defender brings up how Bats is shocked that Superman has a mother he cares for.

"I bet your parents taught you that you mean something. That you're here for a reason. My parents taught me a different lesson. Dying in the gutter. For no reason at all."

So he assumes that Superman has parents who taught him something positive. Something that made him believe in himself.

So why does every single defender ignore this dialogue??? It's always the same "He just thought of him as a destructive alien who is completely alone, with no feelings! When he sees him calling out for his mother, it not only reminds him of his own, it shocks him that he cares for someone!"

You can say, maybe Bruce figured they were dead. Is he talking about his Kryptonian parents or Earth parents? I don't know. But he sure as hell assumes that Supes had a mom and dad who invested some time into their child, to teach Clark something.

To me this kinda proves that his shock and decision to not spear him had NOTHING to do with any of that s**t. It's all about the name Martha and how it reminded him of his mom. Or he thought he was talking about Martha Wayne. Which is another hole! During the courtroom explosion, Wayne sees some papers with writing "You let your family die". He assumes it's Superman toying with him after a night where Supes threatens him to quit being Batman. He furiously looks at the television where they're showing the explosion "caused by Superman". It fuels Bruce to quickly act like a hot-head without thinking, to train for the big fight, putting kryptonite on a spear.

So what the f**k?!!?

WHY IS HE SCREAMING AT SUPERMAN "HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT NAME? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?". If he and the rest of the world know that your parents died when you were a kid, then that's how he knows that name. Plus in this moment your stupid ass believes that Supes wrote you goofy letters about mommy and daddy dying. If Clark was talking about your mom Bruce, that's how. Everyone knows their names were Thomas and Martha. They were billionaires like you, dumbass.

Supes: You're letting him kill Martha!
Bats: What does that mean!? Why did you say that name!?
Supes: Find him! Save Martha!
Bats: Why did you say that name? Martha. Why did you say that name?
Lois: Stop! Please, stop!
Bats: WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME!?
Lois: It's his mother's name!...It's his mother's name..

That's the exact bit of dialogue. Here's a controversial opinion: I prefer listening to Bale scream WHERE'S THE TRIGGER!? countless times over this nonsense.

As you can imagine, I just put on the Martha scene and now it's coming to the warehouse. Which is the only true Batman scene in the whole movie..

He literally just grabbed a thug's gun while it was going off like apes**t does a rotation around the room trying to kill the rest of the thugs. They duck. Don't think anyone got hit but INTENT PEOPLE! INTENT! I may ignore it because he's trying to save MARTHA! (why did you say that name!? ) OK he could have f**ked them up another way.

Badass scene. Reminds me of Winter Soldier fights. Everytime Bats gets hit, stabbed or shot in this movie i burst out laughing at his reaction. It's that deep robotic voice going OH!! Ahh, at least something is funny in this movie.

Boy, KGBeast is a bad actor. Well, scene is over. At least Bats did the right thing at the end of this scene. Killed a dude to save Martha (what does that mean!? ) I guess, that erases all the dumb **** he did right!?

 

[Lencho01]

I just assumed the silliness of the Martha moment trumped Batman already saying Superman had parents. Without the parents line, the moment is dumb. With the parents like, the moment is dumb too.