BvS BvS Rottentomatoes score - how important will it be, and what do you hope for? - Part 6

[Poni_Boy]

Fans are obviously more visually oriented than GA folks. They want their movies to look just like the comics they read. The looks of the characters and all. They forgive almost any fundamental change to the characters and story as long as it looks like it was ripped from the comics.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Fans are obviously more visually oriented than GA folks. They want their movies to look just like the comics they read. The looks of the characters and all. They forgive almost any fundamental change to the characters and story as long as it looks like it was ripped from the comics.

Maybe that is Snyder's problem.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Marvel is successful with every movie because they follow a formula known to entertain people without creating any sort of controversy. They're simple, basic, predictable movies, very easy to digest. You don't need to think too much about them. You watch them, you eat your popcorn and that's it. You leave feeling good because you watched something light. But maybe 10 years from now you're not gonna be saying "Mannn, remember that Thor 2? What an amazing movie". Most people won't.

You are wrong, Marvel adapt the tone to the superhero in question, they don't just use a proven formula, you can only make Ant-man or GoGT successful if they are light hearted, when the tone need to be serious (TWS, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, probably CW and Doctor Strange), it will be serious

It's actually DC who is using and reusing Nolan's proven formula of Dark and Gritty, not stopping a minute to think that Superman doesn't have to be like that, I mean even Sony learned their lesson for crying out loud, they made TASM2 light hearted after their foray into the dark and gritty realm in TASM which didn't suit Spidey, even though TASM2 was a failure but they got the tone perfect

Now, let's stop pretending MOS wasn't successful. Yeah, half of the critics didn't like it, but that was about it. The audience liked it and the movie made money. Isn't that enough to be successful? That's more than enough. And it was successful being its own product, and not just the execution of a well proven formula.

TASM made more money and was more critically successful, but do you ever see people raving about it being a success?

 

[weezerspider]

Just got back from seeing it....I spent two years defending this film and....I feel so let down. This was absolute ****.

 

[AnneFan]

Just got back from seeing it....I spent two years defending this film and....I feel so let down. This was absolute ****.

What were the issues from your point of view?

 

[Spiderdevil]

Wow finally someone says it!!! I said this 3 years ago about Cavill on these boards and got ripped to shreds! He was honestly one of my main issue's with MOS.

He just does NOT have that special charisma and twinkle/life behind his eye's that someone like Reeves had that made you truely care for the man in the costume.

The ZOD scene "You are not alone" where Cavill is watching the TV was just horrible! No emotion, no acting, no nothing. Chris Reeves eye's would have buldged out of his head. And how Cavill blinks SUPER SLOW when being confronted by danger is soooo annoying! I can go on and on and on.

Not sure if this is Cavill's fault or Snyders, i would more expect Cavill though, as he was hired to portray this character, he just failed for me in MOS.

Hoping he does better in BvS, and BTW, i was one of those who were SUPER excited when Cavill was cast.

You know who i feel would have been an AMAZING SUPS?? PAUL WALKER. I thought this years ago, and when i googled his name with Superman, i found out he actually turned down the role to play Sups back in like 03, as he didn't want to be typecast for the rest of his career.

I think it's the fault of both, just rewatch MOS, Cavill doesn't have single line of Dialogue in the first 30 minute, not a SINGLE LINE

In a origin movie, the first half an hour is of paramount importance for the lead character to win over the audience and have them empathize with him and that will not happen if you keep him mum

 

[Logan0327]

marvel does so well because they understand how to attract a huge wider audience

they are light hearted
they give you a fun time at the movies
they are comedic and funny
they are fun sweeping adventures
their characters are actually happy people to root for

and it is not just the MCU a movie like Jurassic World also has those same elements

 

[jmc]

Just got back from seeing it....I spent two years defending this film and....I feel so let down. This was absolute ****.

Sorry to hear this.

 

[Leenie]

Just got back from seeing it....I spent two years defending this film and....I feel so let down. This was absolute ****.

 

[Wolfgangamadeus]

I'm just genuinely curious. Why can't this film be intellectually engaging and philosophical whilst exploring themes of absolute power? Why does it have to be "fun"?

When you have two titular characters with polar opposite ethical ideals why can't they be explored seriously?

Most reviews are just criticizing like of humor and fun
Not the sub plots or the story but the lack of fun.

How do you guys think TDK would've been received today?

 

[dude stannis]

Movie is way too weird and uncommercial for the critics, doesn't surprise me at all.

 

[jmc]

I'm just genuinely curious. Why can't this film be intellectually engaging and philosophical whilst exploring themes of absolute power? Why does it have to be "fun"?

When you have two titular characters with polar opposite ethical ideals why can't they be explored seriously?

Most reviews are just criticizing like of humor and fun
Not the sub plots or the story but the lack of fun.

How do you guys think TDK would've been received today?

It's just flat out structured poorly and its story foundations are poor. There's not much else to it really.

 

[weezerspider]

What were the issues from your point of view?

Well it was incredibly boring. The first hour or so is a jumbled mess and worst of all, it's boring. There's like six or seven minutes of action in the first hour and a half, I'm sure. Suoerman's motivation for fighting Batman is incredibly stupid and the Doomsday fight is incredibly cheesy.

Spoiler

Batman and Superman only fight once which is a huge letdown, but that's one of the two good scenes. The other is when Batman saves Martha Kent. Everything else pretty much blows.

 

[Wolfgangamadeus]

It's just flat out structured poorly and its story foundations are poor. There's not much else to it really.

See you're giving me a reason. I buy that. But most reviews are harping on the fact that it's not fun and too philosophical and dreary.

 

[jmc]

See you're giving me a reason. I buy that. But most reviews are harping on the fact that it's not fun and too philosophical and dreary.

I think it's all connected.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Movie is way too weird and uncommercial for the critics, doesn't surprise me at all.

This is totally a hipster movie for sure.

In 10 years this will be up there with Fight Club, another misunderstood movie at the time.

 

[Leenie]

I'm just genuinely curious. Why can't this film be intellectually engaging and philosophical whilst exploring themes of absolute power? Why does it have to be "fun"?

When you have two titular characters with polar opposite ethical ideals why can't they be explored seriously?

Most reviews are just criticizing like of humor and fun
Not the sub plots or the story but the lack of fun.

How do you guys think TDK would've been received today?

TDK would STILL be received very well. It has a cohesive story, two major protagonists to root for (Batman and Gordon), an amazing villain, and has tons of suspense and excitement. Let's also not forget that it was made by a revered director.

Look at Marvel's Daredevil series. Look at The Winter Soldier. Both of these are darker in tone, but they were met with a very positive reception. There is no question in my mind that TDK would be met with the same love as it did back in 2008.

 

[InJustice]

I'm just genuinely curious. Why can't this film be intellectually engaging and philosophical whilst exploring themes of absolute power? Why does it have to be "fun"?

When you have two titular characters with polar opposite ethical ideals why can't they be explored seriously?

Most reviews are just criticizing like of humor and fun
Not the sub plots or the story but the lack of fun.

How do you guys think TDK would've been received today?

It's not about being either serious or fun. In fact, it's a very limited way of looking at things.

It's about achieving and maintaining balance in the screenplay/movie. You cannot build an entire movie to be only serious and expect the GA to be behind it, as it can get dour very fast. Especially with something as deep as exploring themes of absolute power. You need moments of levity and fun too in order to allow the audience to breathe and let loose from academic-styled analysis. The problem is that Dawn of Justice is not a concise story, leaves a lot to be desired and is a mess from a screenplay POV.

That being said, TDK accomplished this quite well and I have no doubt that if released today, it would get rave reviews just like it did back in 2008. TDK has a clear story with enriching literary themes that it sets up and satisfies. It also has great acting and moments that allow the audience to breathe.

 

[redfirebird2008]

How do you guys think TDK would've been received today?

Probably very well considering it has strong pacing for the most part and Ledger's performance is straight up incredible. Also plenty of funny stuff coming from that character. Lot of good one liners. Last 5 minutes of the movie is one of the best endings in superhero movie history. Chills down your spine.

 

[weezerspider]

Movie is way too weird and uncommercial for the critics, doesn't surprise me at all.

This isn't Fear And Loathing or Inherent Vice. It's not too weird and uncommercial. In fact, nothing weird even happens. It's just bad. Batman isn't my favorite superhero. He's my favorite fictional character and it pains me to say that he's in another awful movie after Batman and Robin and Batman Forever.

 

[dude stannis]

This isn't Fear And Loathing or Inherent Vice. It's not too weird and uncommercial. In fact, nothing weird even happens. It's just bad. Batman isn't my favorite superhero. He's my favorite fictional character and it pains me to say that he's in another awful movie after Batman and Robin and Batman Forever.

[YT]pWdd6_ZxX8c[/YT]

 

[Wolfgangamadeus]

It's not about being either serious or fun. In fact, it's a very limited way of looking at things.

It's about achieving and maintaining balance in the screenplay/movie. You cannot build an entire movie to be only serious and expect the GA to be behind it, as it can get dour very fast. Especially with something as deep as exploring themes of absolute power. You need moments of levity and fun too in order to allow the audience to breathe and let loose from academic-styled analysis. The problem is that Dawn of Justice is not a concise story, leaves a lot to be desired and is a mess from a screenplay POV.

That being said, TDK accomplished this quite well and I have no doubt that if released today, it would get rave reviews just like it did back in 2008. TDK has a clear story with enriching literary themes that it sets up and satisfies. It also has great acting and moments that allow the audience to breathe.

But the critics are the ones complaining about the academic analysis whIle they're supposed to be film enthusiasts while the GA seems to be ok with it.

I mean I haven't seen the film so I can't defend it. But to knock of points merely for attempting to convey something meaningful about the human existence, power while inculcating philosophical and moral dilemmas seems unfair to me. Simply because it wasn't fun.

Was 'Apocalypse Now' a fun film? Was Herzog's 'Aguirre'?

Granted this is a superhero film. But why criticize for trying to be meaningful?

 

[Stark Bauer]

This is totally a hipster movie for sure.

In 10 years this will be up there with Fight Club, another misunderstood movie at the time.

Idk, this is shaping up to be MOS part 2 no pun intended. Just repeating the same mistakes tone wise and what's worse, taking the bad and placing more emphasis on them. To say that BvS will be the next Fight Club, or even Shawshank, is to be determined. From the reactions, it is sounding more like any other Zack Snyder film.

 

[Spiderdevil]

I'm just genuinely curious. Why can't this film be intellectually engaging and philosophical whilst exploring themes of absolute power? Why does it have to be "fun"?

When you have two titular characters with polar opposite ethical ideals why can't they be explored seriously?

Most reviews are just criticizing like of humor and fun
Not the sub plots or the story but the lack of fun.

How do you guys think TDK would've been received today?

For one, we take the definitions of 'Fun' as your typical hammy, cheesy jokes, while it's not that, it's the charm, the subtle humour here there and TDK has plenty of that

'Hands up pretty boy'
'Very poor choice of words'
'We don't wanna...blow this out of proportion'
'No...I kill the bus driver'
'Never start with the head...see'
'Accomplice? I am gonna say the whole thing was your idea'

Basically everything that the Joker does and says is amusing, even if he not making a straight up joke most of the time, it keeps us engrossed and adds charm, while MOS was a gloomy and charmless movie masquerading as dark ,gritty and philosophical , and going by the critics BvS is the same. In simple words MOS was depressing

We need stop making theories about how Marvel has spoiled the critics and now they only want cheesy, hammy jokes and can't appreciate a dark tone! FFS look at DoFP! It's dark as a superhero movie can get, but it has charm and an element of hope in it, look at Daredevil, Jessica Jones, they have all been received well

Secondly, going by the reviews and reactions, BvS isn't engaging and a philosophical discussion about power either, most of the reactions say it is a mess of a story line with terrible story and pacing issues

 

[InJustice]

But the critics are the ones complaining about the academic analysis whIle they're supposed to be film enthusiasts while the GA seems to be ok with it.

I mean I haven't seen the film so I can't defend it. But to knock of points merely for attempting to convey something meaningful about the human existence, power while inculcating philosophical and moral dilemmas seems unfair to me. Simply because it wasn't fun.

Was 'Apocalypse Now' a fun film? Was Herzog's 'Aguirre'?

Granted this is a superhero film. But why criticize for trying to be meaningful?

Because the film didn't communicate the analysis that Snyder sought, as well as it could have. In fact, it is as I mentioned, a mess and a symbol of the missed potential that the story had with its themes and ideas in mind.

Think of it this way. This movie IMO, represents the film version of a noob English major writing an insanely flawed 3000-word essay. That is, it lacks transitioning, clear/concise vision, and it's very disjointed.