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

[Flint Marko]

You make it sound like this is the only place I'm basing this on, no I'm not looking at a message board, I'm sounding off on a message board. I do wonder how many of these internet critics on youtube made it through their videos without as much? Moreover you make it sound like nothign said here reflects anything of the real world. Pages and pages read, all time wasted cause this is just a microcosm with no insight into the real criticisms out there. Nah. Secondly the reason why the preconception argument hits so hard in this instance is because 'everyone' knows them and 'everyone' knows a finite version of them. Fans are often fickle when it comes to this in relation to the GA but when you have so many of the GA in a position to do what fans do(even coming out of nolans batman)..It's worth paying attention.

It's not worth paying attention to when the rest of the conversation is so expansive. You're honing in on what you want to see and pretending it's a widespread issue. It isn't.

Gonna stop you right there. I find this to be the biggest problem. And a huge problem when it comes to criticism of narrative art. Before this same conversation falls into the same trap, I should clarify that much. If I were explain what is genearally maybe "biggest problem" in the context you clearly are meaning it may very well be something different(different than you are going on to explain certainly), it also wouldn't be easy to cite the actual biggest, timing, various other things, editing, story, wants vs analysis...etc. However as clarified, I find it to be the biggest problem. Otherwise known as the thing I find the most daming in the grande scheme, for hearing someone sneer over something they themselves put in the film I find a tail chasing slight to the artist. Criticize him for what's there, not some lesser film you conjured up.

And I'm asking you to explain your reasoning. How you can honestly say the biggest problem here is that some people are nitpicking? How is that the biggest problem this film is facing?
Again, you're ignoring innumerable other valid criticisms and honing on on one subset of people within the general conversation and pretending they have a louder voice than they do. I'm sure there's someone out there who was never going to love a dark superman, or disliked BvS because they found it confusing, but their voices are drowned out by the innumerable other people just like me who have so many other pressing issues with each movie.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

I really hope Suicide Squad is as good as looks. I really do. Think of it if Suicide Squad is critically acclaimed. He gets 89% on RT. Fans love it and critics love it.

Why do I hope for this?

It would prove once and for all there's no DC bias and Zack Snyder just makes godawful films. Only good film of his is 300 because it appeals to all his fetishes.

Big muscular men fighting and killing things violently.

 

[Marvin]

You do realize branding does nothing to child predators and human traffickers right? Child predators and molesters get treated the worst out of everybody in prison because prisoners were often abused as kids.

The branding does nothing. Criminals would still find out what someone was in for Bat brand or no.

Besides everyone in the prison was likely arrested by Batman so why would hate other inmates who have a Batbrand when they too likely were captured by Batman?

The Batband is completely pointless to the film and doesn't change anything if you take it out.

Speaking of points, I'm somewhat confused as to what yours is in relation to what I was responding to?
If you somehow found it pointless, even as a point of characterization, do you think he should have stopped?

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Speaking of points, I'm somewhat confused as to what yours is in relation to what I was responding to?
If you somehow found it pointless, even as a point of characterization, do you think he should have stopped?

I'd like to think Batman knows the criminal justice system well enough that branding is meaningless.

 

[Marvin]

I really hope Suicide Squad is as good as looks. I really do. Think of it if Suicide Squad is critically acclaimed. He gets 89% on RT. Fans love it and critics love it.

Why do I hope for this?

It would prove once and for all there's no DC bias and Zack Snyder just makes godawful films. Only good film of his is 300 because it appeals to all his fetishes.

Big muscular men fighting and killing things violently.

It would prove any number of things. Beyond what we want it to prove. For someone with a big enough agenda it could prove superman simply can't make oney on the big modern screen. Or that these movies need big comedic stars...That's the problem with people that hope critics validate their opinions. It's a pandora's box they think they can then turn into a narrative.

 

[shauner111]

I really hope Suicide Squad is as good as looks. I really do. Think of it if Suicide Squad is critically acclaimed. He gets 89% on RT. Fans love it and critics love it.

Why do I hope for this?

It would prove once and for all there's no DC bias and Zack Snyder just makes godawful films. Only good film of his is 300 because it appeals to all his fetishes.

Big muscular men fighting and killing things violently.

And 300 is not even that good. Always thought it was average at best.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

It would prove any number of things. Beyond what we want it to prove. For someone with a big enough agenda it could prove superman simply can't make oney on the big modern screen. Or that these movies need big comedic stars...That's the problem with people that hope critics validate their opinions. It's a pandora's box they think they can then turn into a narrative.

That's completely wrong.

It's not that Superman can't make money.
It's that ****** Superman films can't make money.

We have a Superman world where:
Pa Kent died via tornado
Lois gets in trouble about 20 times a film
Everything about Lex Luthor
Lois and Clark have zero chemistry or reason to be together
Clark Kent is declared dead and had an open casket funeral
Superman dies in his second film (really helps the tension for future films knowing the main character died and came back from the dead)
He beat his first villain but killing him
Jimmy Olsen is a CIA agent and gets a bullet in his head
Superman is silent and gets 43 lines in a 153 minute film meaning he gets lines for 1/3 of the films that are simple sentence

And so so much more.

People don't hate Superman and it's not that Superman can't make money.
It's that ****** Superman films can't make money.

 

[Marvin]

It's not worth paying attention to when the rest of the conversation is so expansive. You're honing in on what you want to see and pretending it's a widespread issue. It isn't.

And we're back to pretending they don't exist and play a role. As if this , as is, being some entirely original picture would elicit the same response. Like I said, I figured we were past that. Grander issues or not, it's just disingenious in my opinion at this point. That many voices crying they don't get the characters....pass.

And I'm asking you to explain your reasoning. How you can honestly say the biggest problem here is that some people are nitpicking? How is that the biggest problem this film is facing?

Cause one, I din't call it nit picking and two I find it the biggest problem. I'm an idealist when it comes to art, the thing I find more important are the slights and injustices, not so much the valid. If 2001 didn't get the audience it deserved due to 'critics', along with it being 'boring' and vague and all that other 'valid' stuff. I'd say that critics were the biggest problem for the reason I just described. Even if the movie only played in one theater and made no money..I don't think you're seeing where I'm coming from...

...other people just like me who have so many other pressing issues with each movie.

And there we have it. People like you that don't like being lumped in with stuff and take every opportuinty to do so or at least claim to do so, only to make the point that you ought not to be. Simplest remdy, don't be. The old "you aren't talking about me" usually works. For me anyways.

 

[Timebomb]

People keep coming up with logical, rational reasons Batman shouldn't have wanted to fight Superman.

But Batman's hatred of Superman wasn't rational. He was trying to rationalize it, but his reaction to Superman was very much an emotional response.

If you are telling a compelling story, you should not have a main character that is irrational. It becomes a dues ex machina. A cop out. You can basically just justify everything your character does by saying this. Its baseless. You can maybe get away with it for one small plot point but not the whole point of your movie. This Batman was not irrational. He was poorly written. (at least his character arc was) IMO there is no justification for Batman to want to murder Superman. Figure out a way to stop someone of his power? Yes. Murder him? No. His redemption falls apart after this. Because I never bought into his motivation, I never bought into the resolution. The 1% speech is just silly because of this. If Superman was a straight villain and was murdering people left and right, then I would buy it, but the movie want me to buy into the fact that Batman (no matter how broken) would want to murder a super powered alien who is actively trying to help people in this world. To justify it by saying he is irrational is a disservice to story telling. IMO of course.

 

[Marvin]

That's completely wrong.

Likes I said, thinking you can control the narrative, especially to the studios. And thinking critics of all people are the way to do so.
Good luck with that.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Likes I said, thinking you can control the narrative, especially to the studios. And thinking critics of all people are the way to do so.
Good luck with that.

But it truly isn't wrong.

Batman v Superman will only make 20 million more with Batman in it then WB made with Man of Steel.

Batman only brings in an extra 20 million.

If anything, the box office numbers have gone up with Superman while they've gone down with Batman.

Batman was a billion dollar money making franchise but now he's not?

 

[Marvin]

If you are telling a compelling story, you should not have a main character that is irrational. It becomes a dues ex machine. A cop out. You can basically just justify everything your character does by saying this. Its baseless. You can maybe get away with it for one small plot point but not the whole point of your movie. This Batman was not irrational. He was poorly written. (at least his character arc was) IMO there is no justification for Batman to want to murder Superman. Figure out a way to stop someone of his power? Yes. Murder him? No. His redemption falls apart after this. Because I never bought into his motivation, I never bought into the resolution. The 1% speech is just silly because of this. If Superman was a straight villain and was murdering people left and right, then I would buy it, but the movie want me to buy into the fact that Batman (no matter how broken) would want to murder a super powered alien who is actively trying to help people in this world. To justify it by saying he is irrational is a disservice to story telling. IMO of course.

time out, how does batman stop him without killing him?
The threat as he exlplains is that there is an alien with the power to destroy eveyone inside of a weekend and even if he's not the enemy today we've seen what power can do and more to the point we've seen other allies change, even break promises. Then we see a vision in which superman loses something and does this very thing?
But again, how do you stop him without killing him...given what's available in this film?
Surely not your proposed showing him our desperate cards so that tmr he knows not that we can beat him but rather how.

'ok now that I've shown you I can beat you, please don't come at me any differently tmr, be a good boy forever'. It's not exactly a surprise you can play twice..

 

[Flint Marko]

And we're back to pretending they don't exist and play a role. As if this , as is, being some entirely original picture would elicit the same response. Like I said, I figured we were past that. Grander issues or not, it's just disingenious in my opinion at this point. That many voices crying they don't get the characters....pass.

If we're going to hone in on this and pretend it plays a larger role than it does, let's look at the flip side of this coin:
Had BvS been an entirely original film, how many people here and elsewhere would still be vehemently defending it? It seems the aforementioned bias/preconceptions actually work both ways, and the argument could easily be made that more people over on your side have an active bias than mine. How many people here who enjoyed BvS also enjoyed GL when it first came out?
All of this is, again, meaningless since that doesn't accurately describe a significant majority of this film's defenders.

Cause one, I din't call it nit picking and two I find it the biggest problem. I'm an idealist when it comes to art, the thing I find more important are the slights and injustices, not so much the valid. If 2001 didn't get the audience it deserved due to 'critics', along with it being 'boring' and vague and all that other 'valid' stuff. I'd say that critics were the biggest problem for the reason I just described. Even if the movie only played in one theater and made no money..I don't think you're seeing where I'm coming from...

No, I see where you're coming from and I can tell you think this movie is misunderstood. You're going to defend it at every turn, not unlike the previous entry into the DCEU, and spend a good deal of the conversation discussing the film's detractors as opposed to the content of the film itself.

And there we have it. People like you that don't like being lumped in with stuff and take every opportuinty to do so or at least claim to do so, only to make the point that you ought not to be. Simplest remdy, don't be. The old "you aren't talking about me" usually works. For me anyways.

You aren't talking about most people period, is my point.

 

[Clark-Kent]

I really hope Suicide Squad is as good as looks. I really do. Think of it if Suicide Squad is critically acclaimed. He gets 89% on RT. Fans love it and critics love it.

Why do I hope for this?

It would prove once and for all there's no DC bias and Zack Snyder just makes godawful films. Only good film of his is 300 because it appeals to all his fetishes.

Big muscular men fighting and killing things violently.

I see SS in the 40's for some reason right now. I hope it ends up being a fresh movie though. That would be a great boost for DC films!

 

[Marvin]

But it truly isn't wrong.

Batman v Superman will only make 20 million more with Batman in it then WB made with Man of Steel.

Batman only brings in an extra 20 million.

If anything, the box office numbers have gone up with Superman while they've gone down with Batman.

Batman was a billion dollar money making franchise but now he's not?

I'd rather not talk box office here. But I will say people do seem to confuse brands with momentum. This is a batman reboot, not the same batman that was making a billion dollars and on it's way down domestcially. Inception is an 800milllion dollar thing and if you reboot it now with no leo or nolan or even that same universe...it's not some guarantee. Ignoring all the ledger and joker momentum present in that stuff, that last batman reboot argues something different about the brand. That of circumstance, and clearly not just of quality. The first spiderman reboot made almost half what the first movie did domestically.
Secondly if it only makes 20million more(ok...), maybe it's because they spent a great deal more. It's not a simple as picking and choosing gross vs revenue numbers.

That being said my point about was about rotten tomatoes then telling the studio exactly what you want. I just don't think it works that way. And yes we are all hoping SS does well. Most of us anyways.
Though I should warn folks, Sndyer is a big time producer on that and it only works to help his stock and pull at the studio...

 

[Timebomb]

time out, how does batman stop him without killing him?
The threat as he exlplains is that there is an alien with the power to destroy eveyone inside of a weekend and even if he's not the enemy today we've seen what power can do and more to the point we've seen other allies change, even break promises. Then we see a vision in which superman loses something and does this very thing?
But again, how do you stop him without killing him...given what's available in this film?
Surely not your proposed showing him our desperate cards so that tmr he knows not that we can beat him but rather how.

'ok now that I've shown you I can beat you, please don't come at me any differently tmr, be a good boy forever'. It's not exactly a surprise you can play twice..

That's exactly what I am saying. If Batman was trying to discover a way to stop Superman in the future if he ever turned evil then I would believe his motivation. Even with the dumb vision. Which is just that, a vision. Every person has the 1% potential to do something bad, you can't just use that as your assumption that they will. Again, if that's what this Batman is doing, as well as using what he dreamed about as justification, it's bad form.

 

[Timebomb]

I must also add that if the fight took place so that Batman could show Superman that a human had the means to kill him if he ever stepped out of line, I would have found that much more satisfying than the dreaded "MARTHA" moment.

 

[Marvin]

1. Had BvS been an entirely original film, how many people here and elsewhere would still be vehemently defending it?

2. How many people here who enjoyed BvS also enjoyed GL when it first came out?

1) none? What an odd question. The people that loved the film would love it, the ones that hated it would hate it...You're seemingly arguing that the reason so many people like this movie is because it plays into preconceptions(who'd have thought)? You realize this is fickle for we are dealing with the a added variable of 'challenging' preconceptions and the avenue that has allowed for detraction, it would be different if it didn't. If you remove preconceptions entirely from the playing field the way you have for say (most of)Inception, you are left with that avenue for detraction completely erased. You are arguing that this picture then loses just as many people the other way? Or maybe you mean this movie actually garnered enormous fans due to batman being so bad and superman being so different cause what came before was such a turn off...Either way, someone should tell Zach quick before he goes and learns a lesson from all those think pieces and changes things.

2) Beats me. An even more odd question I think.

No, I see where you're coming from and I can tell you think this movie is misunderstood. You're going to defend it at every turn, not unlike the previous entry into the DCEU, and spend a good deal of the conversation discussing the film's detractors as opposed to the content of the film itself.

I spent very litty time discussing detractors last time. I actually spent a good deal of time telling certain detractors to stop talking about others and maybe focus on the subject at hand(you might remember). When it comes to defending the thing, comes down to if it's as misunderstood at the last one. See evil jon kent and man of muder and such things. I must admit I'm seeing alot of that brewing with the martha thing already. If that happens here it will happen here. That being said preconceptions are dumb and if that falls on detractors then it can't be helped.

You aren't talking about most people period, is my point.

No, I'm talking about who I'm talking about. Never said otherwise.
Trouble is you can't talk about anyone without someone running in and saying "but you aren't accurately describing me personally..stop it".

 

[Marvin]

That's exactly what I am saying. If Batman was trying to discover a way to stop Superman in the future if he ever turned evil then I would believe his motivation. Even with the dumb vision. Which is just that, a vision. Every person has the 1% potential to do something bad, you can't just use that as your assumption that they will. Again, if that's what this Batman is doing, as well as using what he dreamed about as justification, it's bad form.

Every person has more than a one percent chance to go evil, not every person can destroy the entire race and planet on a whim, he uses both of those facts in conjunction. If this was senator finch he probably wouldn't use that reasoning to then 'destroy her'. Problem here is you are only going with them half way as you explain. If a toaster has one percent chance of going off and hurting someone that's great, maybe destroy it maybe not, if a nova bomb has a one percent chance of destroying the galaxy, it needs to be dealt with is the point.

As for the dreaded martha moment, I think you're selling it short. But to each his own. I personally don't see what showing superman that humans have a means to kill him accomplishes...if he was some zod like dictator perhaps..
but that's me.

 

[HELLilac]

That's completely wrong.

It's not that Superman can't make money.
It's that ****** Superman films can't make money.

We have a Superman world where:
Pa Kent died via tornado
Lois gets in trouble about 20 times a film
Everything about Lex Luthor
Lois and Clark have zero chemistry or reason to be together
Clark Kent is declared dead and had an open casket funeral
Superman dies in his second film (really helps the tension for future films knowing the main character died and came back from the dead)
He beat his first villain but killing him
Jimmy Olsen is a CIA agent and gets a bullet in his head
Superman is silent and gets 43 lines in a 153 minute film meaning he gets lines for 1/3 of the films that are simple sentence

And so so much more.

People don't hate Superman and it's not that Superman can't make money.
It's that ****** Superman films can't make money.

This. Movies with great GA reception make money, period. I'm sick of people making that 'Cap is more popular than Supes' statement when in fact we haven't gotten a Superman movie with TA or WS quality for a fair comparison yet. Give me a movie that portray Supes in his favourable light and we can then talk about how marketable the character actually is.

 

[FunkMiller]

This. Movies with great GA reception make money, period. I'm sick of people making that 'Cap is more popular than Supes' statement when in fact we haven't gotten a Superman movie with TA or WS quality for a fair comparison yet. Give me a movie that portray Supes in his favourable light and we can then talk about how marketable the character actually is.

He's actually the first two billion dollar superhero, if done right. No other comic character is as well known across the whole of this planet more than Superman.
We currently live in a time of great uncertainty and fear. A Superman than would have shone a light on the world would have cleaned up at the box office. But never mind, let's have a dark and dour Superman instead, and let Marvel have the hopeful dollar.

 

[Jaxon]

Please read or listen

http://www.manofsteelanswers.com/blog/

 

[B]

[YT]tbPi8liw-zI[/YT]

I realise that given how on point & up to date a lot of you are on here but I thought I'd post (or re-post) it anyway based on the fact I happen to agree with every single word that the Nostalgia Critic & Angry Joe say in their joint review of Batman vs Superman & essentially their review of Zack Snyder & the job he did.

 

[javonstokess]

That's completely wrong.

It's not that Superman can't make money.
It's that ****** Superman films can't make money.

We have a Superman world where:
Pa Kent died via tornado
Lois gets in trouble about 20 times a film
Everything about Lex Luthor
Lois and Clark have zero chemistry or reason to be together
Clark Kent is declared dead and had an open casket funeral
Superman dies in his second film (really helps the tension for future films knowing the main character died and came back from the dead)
He beat his first villain but killing him
Jimmy Olsen is a CIA agent and gets a bullet in his head
Superman is silent and gets 43 lines in a 153 minute film meaning he gets lines for 1/3 of the films that are simple sentence

And so so much more.

People don't hate Superman and it's not that Superman can't make money.
It's that ****** Superman films can't make money.

So freakin' true. Hollywood keeps trying to do "their version" of Superman instead of just doing a Superman movie.

A Superman movie where:
His secret identity is clumsy, nerdy Clark Kent
Lois Lane is a capable journalist that's not about to die every 5 seconds
He works at the Daily Planet with Lois, Perry, Jimmy Olsen & Cat Grant
He cherishes ALL life and refuses to kill
He's kind, charismatic, honorable, intelligent and well spoken
He's not just a Messianic example
Lex Luthor is not only a genius, but an extremely capable businessman
Metropolis is a shiny, clean city with it's own personality
He fights comic book versions of Brainiac, Metallo, Doomsday or Mongul

 

[javonstokess]

Oh how many times. No where does anyone believe Superman killed those men directly. But his interferance in an Africa resulted in gun fire and deaths. So very clearly Senator Finch said he was responsible for that outcome, not that he is a murderer.

If that's the case, why does he implicitly say to Lois "I didn't kill those people in Africa" and why is she going out of her way to provide evidence (the Lexcorp bullet)to the General that Superman didn't kill anyone?

You guys think people who didn't like the movie "don't remember it" or "are seeing what we want" but you don't seem to remember the movie you liked.