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

[Logan0327]

Are you telling me the film's poor screenplay is just a poor screenplay, and not a misunderstood work of art?

i am waiting for snyder to pull a M. Night Shyamalan soon and say his films are just misunderstood and people just dont get him

 

[Eggyman]

Some fans of BvS are already doing that for him.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Some fans of BvS are already doing that for him.

Many reviews claim the film didn't need retelling of Wayne's murder. How is it not misunderstanding of the film? It's one of pivotal points. Seeing many reactions, A LOT of people didn't get it because they didn't pay attention or just were unable to register it. I'm not dissing good reviews, where people have legitimate criticisms the film deserves, but when I see crap like what I wrote above - how else should people, who loved the film, react?

 

[WBwins]

If a Directors stories are constantly misunderstood then he is a bad storyteller.

 

[AnneFan]

Many reviews claim the film didn't need retelling of Wayne's murder. How is it not misunderstanding of the film? It's one of pivotal points. Seeing many reactions, A LOT of people didn't get it because they didn't pay attention or just were unable to register it. I'm not dissing good reviews, where people have legitimate criticisms the film deserves, but when I see crap like what I wrote above - how else should people, who loved the film, react?

The murder has thematic meaning, but even if it didn't I'd still include it. It's the very origins of this version of Batman, who is going to have a long filmic run. Burton, Nolan and even Schumacher did their version of the sequence, so Snyder could too.

 

[matt47]

I still think the movie could have worked without the murder scene at the start and just have the same flashbacks in the moment.

 

[OutOfBoose]

If a Directors stories are constantly misunderstood then he is a bad storyteller.

Not really. Sometimes a film isn't popcorn-chewing material. Good or bad - decide for yourself. It's not equal to bad storytelling.

 

[OutOfBoose]

The murder has thematic meaning, but even if it didn't I'd still include it. It's the very origins of this version of Batman, who is going to have a long filmic run. Burton, Nolan and even Schumacher did their version of the sequence, so Snyder could too.

I disagree. It's critical in Batman's story arc, not just "everyone did it, so Snyder did it too".

 

[FunkMiller]

My opinion on DotD is biased because I'm not really in to horror as a genre and I got bored with zombies a long time ago anyways. I do see why DotD is well-liked, but it wasn't for me.
.

DotD Remake is still probably Snyder's best movie. He works best when working to a story set down by somebody else, and he was remaking the best zombie movie ever made, and one of the top 5 horror movies of all time, so he had a strong basis to work from.

However, and this is a classic hallmark of Snyder's work, it's a movie that is all style over substance.

The original Dawn Of The Dead is an allegory for consumerism in modern America as much as it is a pulp zombie movie. Snyder's version completely misses the point of the original narrative, stripping all of the sharp satire out of the story.

It does look very nice though.

 

[OutOfBoose]

I still think the movie could have worked without the murder scene at the start and just have the same flashbacks in the moment.

No, it couldn't. Removing that scene renders pointless Bruce's crypt dream, talk about Waynes being hunters and Martha scene would feel absolutely random, just like people joke about it.

 

[AnneFan]

I disagree. It's critical in Batman's story arc, not just "everyone did it, so Snyder did it too".

Yeah, but I didn't say exactly that. I said it had thematic meaning, but even if it didn't, I'd have no issue with it being included.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Yeah, but I didn't say exactly that. I said it had thematic meaning, but even if it didn't, I'd have no issue with it being included.

I see. OK.

 

[WBwins]

Not really. Sometimes a film isn't popcorn-chewing material. Good or bad - decide for yourself. It's not equal to bad storytelling.

I didn't say bad story.I said bad storytelling.

 

[matt47]

No, it couldn't. Removing that scene renders pointless Bruce's crypt dream, talk about Waynes being hunters and Martha scene would feel absolutely random, just like people joke about it.

Oh yeah..take that crypt scene out too.
I don't see how it makes the hunters scene feel random.
Like you said it already feels random to majority of people and we see the muder in the moment anyway.

 

[Charlatan]

Oh yeah..take that crypt scene out too.
I don't see how it makes the hunters scene feel random.
Like you said it already feels random to majority of people and we see the muder in the moment anyway.

yeah the crypt scene is just strange and unnecessary. As is the scene where he goes down to look at the suit before going to the party. In the previous scene Alfred is telling him about it. Then he goes to say goodbye to the suit and then you see him taking the tarp off the car.
Two scenes that are congruous he breaks up for no good reason.

 

[matt47]

yeah the crypt scene is just strange and unnecessary. As is the scene where he goes down to look at the suit before going to the party. In the previous scene Alfred is telling him about it. Then he goes to say goodbye to the suit and then you see him taking the tarp off the car.
Two scenes that are congruous he breaks up for no good reason.

Yeah that was a bit random too.

 

[metaphysician]

Lol at the notion that Snyder is a better director than Whedon and the Russos. He may have the visuals but hes just not a good storyteller.

I'd question whether he's even as good, visually. He's more *stylized*, definitely, but stylized != good. Its a matter of, ahem, style. And most of his best visuals are cribbed directly from source material, so. . .

( As opposed to, say, the best visual moments Whedon did in the Avengers movies, which were clearly inspired by the comics, but not by *specific* comics. Whedon didn't crib the Avengers Assemble scene in the same way Snyder cribbed stuff from Dark Knight Returns. )

 

[OutOfBoose]

I didn't say bad story.I said bad storytelling.

I didn't say bad story either.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Oh yeah..take that crypt scene out too.
I don't see how it makes the hunters scene feel random.
Like you said it already feels random to majority of people and we see the muder in the moment anyway.

I might be wrong, but Thomas Wayne takes action to protect what's dear for him, he attacks the threat, and it ultimate leads to his and his wife's death. Bruce points out how his ancestors were hunters, signifying he's ready to hunt down the threat too, he's following his ancestry. To me it looks pretty related. As for the crypt scene... It's pretty damn important, because they had to show how his father's last word and his mother's death haunt Bruce. You can't cut it. Or you just might cut Batman entirely from the film. But that's another topic.

So what that many people didn't get it in the theater? David Lynch films also require analysis to understand what's going on, but it doesn't make his films stupid or what he shows unnecessary.

 

[metaphysician]

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.

Honestly, I think this is being a little unfair to Michael Bay. While Bay is a fairly blah storyteller, he actually can string together a basic functional narrative when he actually cares to, and is usually fairly good at keeping the story from interfering with the visuals. He also is actually pretty good at the visuals, in a gaudy "everything explodes" kind of way. He's more like Andy Warhol, in my mind: he's not making High Art, he's making a product, but he knows he's making a product, is fine with that, and seeks to make the most salable product he can. And is, indeed, very successful at that.

Snyder would probably do a lot better if he actually acted more like Bay.

 

[Eggyman]

Many reviews claim the film didn't need retelling of Wayne's murder. How is it not misunderstanding of the film? It's one of pivotal points. Seeing many reactions, A LOT of people didn't get it because they didn't pay attention or just were unable to register it. I'm not dissing good reviews, where people have legitimate criticisms the film deserves, but when I see crap like what I wrote above - how else should people, who loved the film, react?

I get that and was replying in general. Someone told me I didn't understand the film the other day just because I said I wasn't a fan of it.

In regards to the flashback, it didn't really bother me. However, I can understand the people who didn't like it being retold. Yes, it was needed due to how that was designed to play out in the end. It didn't need to be designed to play out that way.

Basically, the omission of it would have meant something else was needed to end the conflict. Maybe something as simple as Bruce realising he's been played by Lex.

But going back to my initial point, I don't particularly have a problem with the flashback being in the film. I do have a problem with how it was used at the end of the fight. I understand it, but to me it's very weak and borderline laughable.

I'll respect the opinions of those who disagree if I'm given the same courtesy.

 

[Charlatan]

I get that and was replying in general. Someone told me I didn't understand the film the other day just because I said I wasn't a fan of it.

In regards to the flashback, it didn't really bother me. However, I can understand the people who didn't like it being retold. Yes, it was needed due to how that was designed to play out in the end. It didn't need to be designed to play out that way.

Basically, the omission of it would have meant something else was needed to end the conflict. Maybe something as simple as Bruce realising he's been played by Lex.

But going back to my initial point, I don't particularly have a problem with the flashback being in the film. I do have a problem with how it was used at at the end of the fight. I understand it, but to me it's very weak and borderline laughable.

I'll respect the opinions of those who disagree if I'm given the same courtesy.

When I first read the rumor of the ending I was like "really"? but watching it play out I got what was going on in Bruce's head no problem. Here was a person before him not an "alien". In his mind he dehumanized him. Bruce had no idea that he had a mother he loved. From what he had read these creatures were grown in pods. In that moment he became a person who would not kill to save his mother or himself. Who was trying to reason with him and he refused to listen.

 

[Eggyman]

When I first read the rumor of the ending I was like "really"? but watching it play out I got what was going on in Bruce's head no problem. Here was a person before him not an "alien". In his mind he dehumanized him. Bruce had no idea that he had a mother he loved. From what he had read these creatures were grown in pods. In that moment he became a person who would not kill to save his mother or himself. Who was trying to reason with him and he refused to listen.

I get it. I honestly do. It isn't so subtle that people should have a problem understanding it. I just don't like how it played out. Why is the film being explained to people who do not like it? It's completely rude to be assuming people do not understand this thing the scholar Zack Snyder gave manbirth to. It's offensive.

Can we not, for the sake of argument, just accept that some with the available brainpower to understand this majestic riddle simply do not like it?

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I never got how some say Bruce was manipulated by Lex to fight Superman.
Second opening scene Bruce thinks "**** you Superman, you destroyed my building and killed people in my city in your battle against that *****e from your home."
"1%" speech.
"Tell me, do you bleed? You will."

How did Lex manipulate him? By inviting Bruce to a party Clark attended, Bruce accepted after Alfred convinced him to keep an eye on Lex, and the duo meet there?


Anyway, the stupid opening scene with Bruce's childhood redone is as necessary as it is in Batman Forever, even less. The Flashback Batman has when he hears the name of his mom only takes him back to her tombstone, and we barely see a face of someone other than Bruce's in his childhood sequence.

 

[Charlatan]

I get it. I honestly do. It isn't so subtle that people should have a problem understanding it. I just don't like how it played out. Why is the film being explained to people who do not like it? It's completely rude to be assuming people do not understand this thing the scholar Zack Snyder gave manbirth to. It's offensive.

Can we not, for the sake of argument, just accept that some with the available brainpower to understand this majestic riddle simply do not like it?

it fits into Snyder's messianic Superman subplot too. Bats is lost,broken and through Clark he finds his way again.