BvS Have you seen the movie multiple times? If yes, has your opinion changed?

[The Guard]

Even Harry Knowles at Aint It Cool changed his review upon a second viewing.

 

[Reel-Man]

Shame others didn't try or refuse to give it a second look. There's so much in the movie, it needs to be seen a second time. Heck the poll shows it at this point, 40 people said it improved the movie for them. That's not coincidence.

 

[Bruce Malone]

So a friend of mine convinced me to catch it again tomorrow but I will be seeing it in IMAX this time around.

I'm wondering if any of you saw it in both IMAX and conventional and did the IMAX add that much more to the experience in your opinion?

 

[Reel-Man]

So a friend of mine convinced me to catch it again tomorrow but I will be seeing it in IMAX this time around.

I'm wondering if any of you saw it in both IMAX and conventional and did the IMAX add that much more to the experience in your opinion?

I saw it in pseudo iMAX which is BS. That projection and screen was not iMAX even if it said so on the ticket.

Normally from my previous experiences, it's absolutely worth it as there's some sequences which fill up the whole of the screen and you're even more immersed into the scene. Normally it's a 2:35:1 aspect ratio but when it goes to an iMAX shot, the whole frame is projected, therefor it looks like the black bars are gone. Similar to a 16:9 movie on an HDTV vs a 2:35:1 ratio movie. The first won't have any black bars but the second will as the frame is wider.

 

[Booznian]

Definitely enjoyed the film a whole lot more after a second viewing. Especially in IMAX 3D. 8/10.

 

[Andreth]

Try watching it on a 4DX cinema. You'll feel the punches on your back!

 

[AnneFan]

Definitely enjoyed the film a whole lot more after a second viewing. Especially in IMAX 3D. 8/10.

My initial reaction was about 8/10. It's a heavy duty film.

 

[Reel-Man]

Try watching it on a 4DX cinema. You'll feel the punches on your back!

I wish I could. No such thing here in Canada yet unfortunately. The closest thing we have is D-Box seating. Not quite the same. Haha

 

[Andreth]

I wish I could. No such thing here in Canada yet unfortunately. The closest thing we have is D-Box seating. Not quite the same. Haha

awww
Yeah, I was really surprised I couldn't find one in Montreal a couple of years ago.

D-box is like the 10% of what you feel at a 4DX cinema.

 

[writer0327]

Shame others didn't try or refuse to give it a second look. There's so much in the movie, it needs to be seen a second time. Heck the poll shows it at this point, 40 people said it improved the movie for them. That's not coincidence.

Shouldn't have to watch a film twice to like it once. I should watch a movie twice because I enjoyed it the first time.

Otherwise, why not give every film we've disliked a second chance?

 

[Reel-Man]

Shouldn't have to watch a film twice to like it once. I should watch a movie twice because I enjoyed it the first time.

Otherwise, why not give every film we've disliked a second chance?

I didn't come up with the theory. A couple of friends brought this point up before I had seen the movie. When they saw it again (didn't like it at first), it was a turnaround for them. This got me to ask the question here and it seems like a lot of people feel the same way. I've seen a lot mention that it's a lot to take in, therefor they feel overwhelmed. Which in turn made them miss aspects and layers within.

People assume sometimes that due to the fact they don't know what to think initially, that means it was a bad movie. The negativity around it doesn't help when someone is in doubt as it causes them to second guess. Even critics like Harry Knowles changed their mind after a second viewing. That's just an example.

Some movies are like wine, they get better with age (in this case viewings). Same thing happened with a lot of movies back in the day that are either considered cult movies or hit movies now. But they were total flops back then. Just food for thought as it was an observation I've noticed that I find intriguing and fascinating. That's all, no need to take it personal.

 

[writer0327]

I didn't come up with the theory. A couple of friends brought this point up before I had seen the movie. When they saw it again (didn't like it at first), it was a turnaround for them. This got me to ask the question here and it seems like a lot of people feel the same way. I've seen a lot mention that it's a lot to take in, therefor they feel overwhelmed. Which in turn made them miss aspects and layers within. Some movies are like wine, they get better with age (in this case viewings). Same thing happened with a lot of movies back in the day that are either considered cult movies or hit movies now. But they were total flops back then. Just food for thought as it was an observation I've noticed that I find intriguing and fascinating. That's all, no need to take it personal.

Didn't take it personal at all. I think the question is an interesting case, because if you need to watch this sort of movie twice to understand it, it means at some level the filmmakers have likely failed. You are correct, some films, cult classics, get better with repeat viewings. But those are generally art house films, or low budget movies with a unique vision that the world wasn't ready for quite yet. I don't know if this film meets that, certainly not on a budget level, maybe on an artistic level.

But what I think is happening with multiple viewings of this films is this: there is a cohesive story underneath the surface of the film that many didn't see the first time out, but some people just have to watch it multiple times to understand it. I got the understanding of the film the first time out, one of my criticisms is there is a story there that isn't well told. I doubt multiple viewings would improve it for me. But if I didn't get the story the first time out, I could see a second viewing improving the film for me.

 

[Reel-Man]

Didn't take it personal at all. I think the question is an interesting case, because if you need to watch this sort of movie twice to understand it, it means at some level the filmmakers have likely failed. You are correct, some films, cult classics, get better with repeat viewings. But those are generally art house films, or low budget movies with a unique vision that the world wasn't ready for quite yet. I don't know if this film meets that, certainly not on a budget level, maybe on an artistic level.

But what I think is happening with multiple viewings of this films is this: there is a cohesive story underneath the surface of the film that many didn't see the first time out, but some people just have to watch it multiple times to understand it. I got the understanding of the film the first time out, one of my criticisms is there is a story there that isn't well told. I doubt multiple viewings would improve it for me. But if I didn't get the story the first time out, I could see a second viewing improving the film for me.

Very good points and really appreciate the conversation. I'm yet to see it for the second viewing myself. When I first saw it, I caught everything my friends were complaint about after their first viewing (without giving spoilers of course). There was a few things I didn't understand in terms of comics references and such as I haven't read comics in ages so some stuff was lost on me, such as the Darkseid angle. Those things only made sense to me after reading the forum and seeing some people explain the connections and correlation to the comic history.

I do think this factors in a lot as well as the fact they have a lot of the plot points that tie into the next one, which in turn makes this seem like an unresolved scene/element. I cannot wait to see what was cut, as naturally removing 30 minutes of film will have a big impact on pacing, regardless of the best editor in the business. I did have that exact reaction I described above, where I was unsure, but I didn't make the decision right there. It was only when I sat down and started thinking back on the movie that I got excited again. That made me realize I did really enjoy it.

To me personally it felt very close to the experience I had with Watchmen. This is a very different movie to what we're accustomed to. I can't wait to see how my second viewing is.

 

[writer0327]

Very good points and really appreciate the conversation. I'm yet to see it for the second viewing myself. When I first saw it, I caught everything my friends were complaint about after their first viewing (without giving spoilers of course). There was a few things I didn't understand in terms of comics references and such as I haven't read comics in ages so some stuff was lost on me, such as the Darkseid angle. Those things only made sense to me after reading the forum and seeing some people explain the connections and correlation to the comic history.

I do think this factors in a lot as well as the fact they have a lot of the plot points that tie into the next one, which in turn makes this seem like an unresolved scene/element. I cannot wait to see what was cut, as naturally removing 30 minutes of film will have a big impact on pacing, regardless of the best editor in the business. I did have that exact reaction I described above, where I was unsure, but I didn't make the decision right there. It was only when I sat down and started thinking back on the movie that I got excited again. That made me realize I did really enjoy it.

To me personally it felt very close to the experience I had with Watchmen. This is a very different movie to what we're accustomed to. I can't wait to see how my second viewing is.

I liked Watchmen, but didn't love it. But I think I would have felt differently if I loved the graphic novel as much as others. I liked the graphic novel, it was a good read, but I think most of my feeling, and many others, is directly linked to our love of the source material.

When it comes to Batman and Superman, I don't like those characters, I LOVE them. I had the toys, the comics, the coloring books, the lunchboxes, the pajamas. Big part of my childhood. As you can tell from my moniker, I am a writer. Why? Because of comic books. Because of Batman stories, Superman stories. The first stories I ever wrote as a 8-year-old kid....my own comic books, inspired by those guys (and Spidey and Hulk). These characters are near and dear to me, not just from my childhood but from who I am today. I hate seeing them abused like this. So it's personal for me, not just slightly either.

I too want to see what material was cut and I will give it a fair viewing, not holding the edited version against it.

 

[Silliminite]

Watched it for the second time today. Didn't like it as much as the first viewing.

 

[SuperAl]

Watched it for the second time today. Didn't like it as much as the first viewing.

This was kinda my thought, mainly because i went in the 2nd time thinking, alright, what could they have taken out to make this better for critics. There were certain scenes that i felt were unneeded, like the dream where a giant bat jumps at bruce or little bruce floating up the well. Then i thought about the deleted scene they released yesterday and thought they shouldve kept that in. Thought the flash scene wouldve been better if he appeared first and then the vision happened.

I did like Lex much more this time around as i paid more attention to his dialogue. The Bat v supes fight was still great. WW was still great, i noticed her accent a lot more this time around, i wasnt sure if she changed it to sound more "american" but it doesnt sound like she did which is fine.

 

[SiegePerilous]

I liked it more the second time around. First time was about a 7/10, but I may bump it up to an 8/10 now. Despite some obvious flaws, there's too much in this film I loved to give it a poor rating. Can't wait for the Ultimate Cut.

 

[ZackBop]

I've seen it three times. The first time I was mixed. I liked it more the second and third time.

 

[Greeneyes]

I've seen a lot mention that it's a lot to take in, therefor they feel overwhelmed. Which in turn made them miss aspects and layers within.

I think a lot of us needed time for it to settle in and to fully appreciate the film, but it's a little frightening to me that a large number of the audience (general and critics) couldn't follow the story, or the underlying story, subtleties and nuances etc.

Doesn't this point out that the problem may lie with the times we live in and the way people watch and take in information?

Or maybe there are just millions of shallow, stupid people with no taste

A few people sat around me were constantly eating and checking their phones every 5 mins. I was going to go all Batman saving Martha on em, but that would have had me arrested, and missing the film. So I ignored them as best as I could.

 

[Reel-Man]

I think a lot of us needed time for it to settle in and to fully appreciate the film, but it's a little frightening to me that a large number of the audience (general and critics) couldn't follow the story, or the underlying story, subtleties and nuances etc.

Doesn't this point out that the problem may lie with the times we live in and the way people watch and take in information?

Or maybe there are just millions of shallow, stupid people with no taste

A few people sat around me were constantly eating and checking their phones every 5 mins. I was going to go all Batman saving Martha on em, but that would have had me arrested, and missing the film. So I ignored them as best as I could.

That will definitely ruin a movie experience, I agree. I suppose it's also to do with this instant gratification generation we have now and a lot of people want something and want it now. They don't want to have to do any guesswork. With the Internet and social media aspects so deeply rooted in society, the attention span is extremely poor. There was a little short posted online about that but that's off topic. Haha

 

[Silliminite]

This was kinda my thought, mainly because i went in the 2nd time thinking, alright, what could they have taken out to make this better for critics. There were certain scenes that i felt were unneeded, like the dream where a giant bat jumps at bruce or little bruce floating up the well. Then i thought about the deleted scene they released yesterday and thought they shouldve kept that in. Thought the flash scene wouldve been better if he appeared first and then the vision happened.

I would've actually removed all of the dream scenes, as they just served to confuse the audience and negatively affect the film's pacing. None of them were integral to the film's plot.

The parts that I enjoyed even the second time around were the Superman saving people montage (absolutely stunning visuals), the scene when Senator Finch visits Lex at his home and the title battle.

 

[Reel-Man]

I might be wrong but I believe the first two nightmares had to do with him needing to be Batman and that was causing him conflict and torment. The other dreams tie into Justice League, so in a sense it's necessary to setup the next film. Specially seeing as how they don't have any credit stinger to leave you on a cliffhanger.

 

[Greeneyes]

That will definitely ruin a movie experience, I agree. I suppose it's also to do with this instant gratification generation we have now and a lot of people want something and want it now. They don't want to have to do any guesswork. With the Internet and social media aspects so deeply rooted in society, the attention span is extremely poor. There was a little short posted online about that but that's off topic. Haha

Yeah, times are crazy. The annoying folk didn't spoil the film for me though t:

I've made the mistake of venturing into some other threads too...

 

[jerkhero]

Have only watched it once. Unfortunately I have no interest to watch it again at the moment. I will give the ultimate edition a chance though.

 

[The Shape]

I saw it a second time on Sunday and thought it held up better, and the emotional beats landed harder with me this time.