BvS Henry Cavill IS Superman - - - - - - - - - - - Part 25

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dying to see all those deleted scenes.

Look at this perfect Clark Kent

tumblr_o4cp14pnQZ1sxwyufo1_400.gif
tumblr_o4cp14pnQZ1sxwyufo2_400.gif

tumblr_o4cp14pnQZ1sxwyufo3_400.gif
tumblr_o4cp14pnQZ1sxwyufo4_400.gif

I really want that jacket.
 
There was maybe, what, two or three minutes of this total in a two and a half hour movie? With none of it being particularly compelling or insightful? I originally said four to be generous but I'm rolling that one back. There's not really much to hang your hat on here. If this were an "original movie" without all those pesky "pre-conceptions" I keep hearing about it still wouldn't be satisfactory.
Conversely, if this were an original movie, how many of you would still be defending it so adamantly? Food for thought.

What does it matter how many minutes of something there was relative to run time. If there was one hours worth of it in a 10 hour movie....Pointless. I think we got plenty of insight into Mufusas 'character' within his 10 minutes, half of which by his actions. The question if you recall was that of so called 'better writing'. As for compelling insight into his character I'd say that was shown throughout the movie right down to the last third of it. I pointed to the DP scene as a moment of great writing into his own insight for if you take a generous 3 minutes to compare the writing of clark kent at the Planet in say the Donner films you might notice something, or at least a different way of measuring things. And that's the entire point, characterization comes to the audience from alot of angles and it's usually not that people don't know who this person is(or what he does and fights for) but simply don't like it. Still, more outright character time would no doubt yield different results from audience members, I'd agree with that sort of statement.

As for these 'pesky' preconceptions, you really have to be kidding me. I was just subject to this "Ed The Soc" video and it's comments. I've 'hung out' our own the batman kills thread a while, I've seen post after post arguing that a smiling/enjoying life character is somehow better than a pensive one and none of these 'arguments' with any grounding other than a preferred expectation. For you never hear someone say Dredd would be better if he smiled, laughed more, probably because that's doesn't actually mean much when it comes to character outside of a specific want. I find Harry Knowles second review on this movie to be very enlightening on this particular and entire matter tbh an out and out apology on the matter in a way. But that's preconception talk for you.

As for the question of if I would adamantly defend something I'm passionate about any less if it was an original movie or not. Surely you jest. As for everyone else, well I'll refrain from speaking for them. I will say if people like something they tend to got to bat for it on forums. I have to imagine it works the same with people hating things. And sure maybe there are superman fans that would defend this "..." film regardless as take it you are asserting. Probably as many superman 'haters' that would hate it regardless, and maybe as many fans that seemingly hate perceived changes to their loved material, and maybe just a many who love preconceptions to their hated material...I don't know. I think it's stupid and aimless game to play in the grande scheme and only serves a a shaky finger point to be honest.

As always, to each their own.
 
It sounds like Snyder had the okay for 3 hours but WB panicked and demanded a trim. If true, it's incredibly unfortunate.

This seems to be the case. Ultimate cut is a complete BvS film.
 
Is it me or does Superman barely talk in this movie? Somebody should count all the lines of dialogue he has.
 
He's about as interesting as a cardboard box.
 
Is it me or does Superman barely talk in this movie? Somebody should count all the lines of dialogue he has.

It's around 18-20. Superman doesn't even speak until about 55 minutes in at the Knightmare.
 
It's around 18-20. Superman doesn't even speak until about 55 minutes in at the Knightmare.

Are you referring to the first time that we hear Clark speak when dressed as Superman or just Clark/Superman in general since Clark speaks way before the Knghtmare sequence.
 
lol I always feel sorry for Cavill; he obviously genuinely has been dying for the Superman role and loves the character but they've really never given him an opportunity to shine in the role.

You can see the occasional glimmer of an amazing superman behind him (more often when he's Clark than Supes to be honest) as he's actually got a really strong natural charisma that is almost absent in these movies. He just REALLY needs a better team behind him.

No matter my views on this film, I do still believe it'd be a real shame to recast anyone (apart from maybe bring in Lex's dad).
 
I think Snyder gambled, he thought he could take Superman somewhere different and be applauded for it, but it just kinda, it didn't take off, no pun intended.

As an example, the whole neck breaking.

Had he just explained to the army that Zod's craft can deactivate the gravitational field, so that the atmosphere is like krypton - with no super strength - to get it ready, then grabbed Zod, bear hugged him and flew up through the roof, out to space and we like have a 3 min fight, on the dark side of the moon, we just hear thumps, red eyes glowing, but we see their power fade as they get weakened with no solar energy to restore it, then we see a silhouette of supes lifting a massive boulder and knocking Zod out, to return with Zod beaten, then place him in a modified cell?

The ending was just too out of character from what the GA know, regardless of what fan boys know.

That's why people voiced their opinion about MOS destruction, etc. BvS was an opportunity to address that, it did, but the root of it all, was the way Superman was presented, they wanted the lighter one. Anyways.

I say a TV is in order.
 
Except it DIDN'T. I didn't really address the fallout from MOS, merely made lip-service to it. Instead, this poorly-conceived/executed Africa sequence ends up being much more important.
 
The Africa sequence, in its finished form, made no sense and should've been cut entirely. The senate hearing should have been about the attacks in Metropolis. There's no getting around that.

The "problem", such as it is, is that doing this would require acknowledging and grappling with the events from the first movie. I'm pretty sure Snyder very much did *not* want to do this, because at the very least it would require acknowledging that Superman was reckless and incautious about collateral damage. Thus, Snyder whipped up a scenario where Superman can suffer blame, despite not actually being particularly at fault. The blame can thus be discarded as injust and absurd, and symbolically excuse him from the blame he received from fans.

Or basically, Snyder thinks the fans who were pissed off at how he portrayed Superman are a bunch of irrational jerks looking to yank on the cape of someone truly great ( ie, Snyder ) and drag them down.
 
*launches into thousand-word essay about Henry Cavill's portrayal of Clark/Superman and what it means in BvS and going forward into Justice League*

"So the dynamic of Clark/Superman and his motivations has clearly been..."

*sees GIF*

tumblr_mohyrvTfyS1rei3gfo1_500.gif

"As I was saying, so the dynamic of Clark/Superman and his motivations has clearly...what was I saying? :drl:
 
Which is still more interesting than Donner Superman.

Not exactly true is it? People can take swipes at Donner's Superman till they're blue in the face, but it was far more successful than Snyder's.
 
I think Donner's Superman isn't that interesting, but he is captivating. Which is what Superman should be, first and foremost.
 
Not exactly true is it? People can take swipes at Donner's Superman till they're blue in the face, but it was far more successful than Snyder's.

That's because it wasn't made today. Try doing a "Superman flies around the world and reverses time" and a "Superman goes to a pub with an unshaven face and drinks alcohol in his full costume" see how movie going audiences are going to go at it. And let's not get into Lois' screaming. Audiences' standards have been raised dramatically. So, apples and oranges.

Superman3_christopher_reeves_Bar.jpg
 
I'll say it again: Donner's Superman is willing to give up his powers and abandon his heroics simply so he can get laid.

Anyone trying that today would get crucified. It's ridiculously against everything Superman is.

And don't get me started on the mind wiping kisses
 
As people have pointed out before, the donner movies aren't perfect, we the defenders understand that. The point is that the faults are looked past because those movies were actually fun, light hearted and Reeve fit the role like a glove. Had MOS and BVS been really fun they would have been received much more favorably.
 
That's because it wasn't made today. Try doing a "Superman flies around the world and reverses time" and a "Superman goes to a pub with an unshaven face and drinks alcohol in his full costume" see how movie going audiences are going to go at it. And let's not get into Lois' screaming. Audiences' standards have been raised dramatically. So, apples and oranges.

Superman3_christopher_reeves_Bar.jpg

That didn't happen in donners superman
 
No I'm talking about supes not clark

Like asking when spiderman talks as opposed to toby, or ironman as opposed to rd..tony. Sure I guess but it's not like we are dealing with a hulk/banner split here. That goes double for origins(for obvious reasons).
Just saying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,266
Messages
22,075,101
Members
45,875
Latest member
kedenlewis
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"