BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion (TAG SPOILERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]512779[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]512707[/split]

 

[titansupes]

It's tough to remember but I'll take your word for it. And yes, at the very least there should have been some splash page translation. But after Trailer #3 I fully expected that he and the writers missed the whole point of that comic series and would condense it into an I memorable 15 minute action scene.

I honestly think WW might have done more fighting against Doomsday, but I'm not positive. It's a let down that it's that close, anyway.

But, I still enjoyed WW's bits a lot, and the Heat Vision battle was a cool little addition.

 

[matt47]

I honestly think WW might have done more fighting against Doomsday, but I'm not positive. It's a let down that it's that close, anyway.

But, I still enjoyed WW's bits a lot, and the Heat Vision battle was a cool little addition.

Yeah she did.

 

[The Endless]

In the last thread someone said they are not invested in the Superman character... they just like movies.

That is fair enough.

But why not have a good movie that ALSO appeals to Superman fans.

Yea all cbms are adaptationstill. But the best ones capture the essence of their characters. I don't think Dawn of Justice really does Superman/Clark Kent justice... ironically. Even as a character regardless of being Superman.

Either way I think DoJ isn't a well made film, let alone a good Superman film.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

In the last thread someone said they are not invested in the Superman character... they just like movies.

That is fair enough.

But why not have a good movie that ALSO appeals to Superman fans.

Yea all cbms are adaptationstill. But the best ones capture the essence of their characters. I don't think Dawn of Justice really does Superman/Clark Kent justice... ironically. Even as a character regardless of being Superman.

Either way I think DoJ isn't a well made film, let alone a good Superman film.

I have my issues with the movie, for sure, but I have to say I liked how they did Superman in the movie, he did plenty of Superman things, so I have to disagree. And I've read plenty of Superman stories where he is conflicted and a bit down. And I loved them. Like Sacrifice and For Tomorrow. But I think he end he does the right thing, just like he did in the movie with Doomsday.

 

[Aquafinn90]

In the last thread someone said they are not invested in the Superman character... they just like movies.

That is fair enough.

But why not have a good movie that ALSO appeals to Superman fans.

Yea all cbms are adaptationstill. But the best ones capture the essence of their characters. I don't think Dawn of Justice really does Superman/Clark Kent justice... ironically. Even as a character regardless of being Superman.

Either way I think DoJ isn't a well made film, let alone a good Superman film.

That was me. I don't think it would be a bad thing at all for a Superman movie to appeal to the fans. Obviously that would be ideal and clearly what WB and Snyder were striving for(wether they managed to do that or not is a different story, as stated, I cannot comment on because I just don't know the comics at all). So I understand if people don't like what they did to these beloved characters that people have grown up with etc etc. It's just that myself personally, I always look at an adaptation as a movie first, and an adaptation second. Thats how I've always looked at them. It's how I view all CBM's, all book to film movies, movies based on real situations or events etc etc. Because to me, the very most important thing is for the movie to stand on its own.
but I would disagree, I think its a very well made film. That being said, I can understand a lot of the criticisms people have about the movie, and I get it, I really do. But most of it really comes down to opinion. And I love having discussions with people about what they thought worked/didn't work in the movie, that's why I'm here after all. I just don't like being told that my opinion is "wrong." Opinions aren't ever "wrong" and theres no need for that.

I apologize if that was long-winded and didn't make much sense. I'm recovering from surgery and on some intense prescription pain meds, so I do hope I got my point across. lol

 

[Poni_Boy]

I honestly think WW might have done more fighting against Doomsday, but I'm not positive. It's a let down that it's that close, anyway.

But, I still enjoyed WW's bits a lot, and the Heat Vision battle was a cool little addition.

Aside from little flashes here and there that whole fight scene was a blur to me. Just, unappealing. Take some of these action set pieces OUT of the night and gloom and rain for god's sake

 

[Greens]

That being said, I can understand a lot of the criticisms people have about the movie, and I get it, I really do. But most of it really comes down to opinion. And I love having discussions with people about what they thought worked/didn't work in the movie, that's why I'm here after all. I just don't like being told that my opinion is "wrong." Opinions aren't ever "wrong" and theres no need for that.

I apologize if that was long-winded and didn't make much sense. I'm recovering from surgery and on some intense prescription pain meds, so I do hope I got my point across. lol

Literally everything ultimately comes down to opinion, but film-making has a basic framework of guidelines that pretty much every mainstream filmmaker follows. Some visionary directors can get away with bending these guidelines, but that's because they are so talented they can create something new out of it.

Film editing is an art, but in Western culture we have laid out some ground-rules that are essential to a good viewing experience, for a mass audience anyway. If a film isn't justified in straying from these ground rules and does it anyway, it's jarring. That's what this film did. The editing in the first half is jarring. Can you personally find it interesting and enjoyable? Sure, but it breaks convention in a way that most people just find it annoying and not supportive of the story or the product as a whole at all.

 

[Aquafinn90]

Literally everything ultimately comes down to opinion, but film-making has a basic framework of guidelines that pretty much every mainstream filmmaker follows. Some visionary directors can get away with bending these guidelines, but that's because they are so talented they can create something new out of it.

Film editing is an art, but in Western culture we have laid out some ground-rules that are essential to a good viewing experience, for a mass audience anyway. If a film isn't justified in straying from these ground rules and does it anyway, it's jarring. That's what this film did. The editing in the first half is jarring. Can you personally find it interesting and enjoyable? Sure, but it breaks convention in a way that most people just find it annoying and not supportive of the story or the product as a whole at all.

That would be a valid criticism of the film. It was definitely "bizarre" but once I got a few scenes in I was totally on board with it. I felt like it was done in a way to not lose sight of the several sub plots going on. I thought it worked really well, most thought it did not, and that's totally okay. For me, I saw what looked like an immense amount of effort going into the way it was edited in an attempt to balance the storylines equally. I was totally on board with it. Has me wondering really how different the Ultimate Cut will be on a technical level.

 

[Greens]

That would be a valid criticism of the film. It was definitely "bizarre" but once I got a few scenes in I was totally on board with it. I felt like it was done in a way to not lose sight of the several sub plots going on. I thought it worked really well, most thought it did not, and that's totally okay. For me, I saw what looked like an immense amount of effort going into the way it was edited in an attempt to balance the storylines equally. I was totally on board with it. Has me wondering really how different the Ultimate Cut will be on a technical level.

To piggyback on my own point, I think this is one of the reasons why critics are valuable. A normal person might walk out of BvS and say "that didn't feel right. something was off" and discover what exactly was off by reading the reviews. Most critics have an above average understanding of film and have the ability to put a film's flaws into words as opposed to a vague "that was off".

I personally think the weird editing was more of a necessary thing to condense the movie into 2,5 hours than a creative choice. Most directors will start out with cuts that are longer than the theatrical release, but I think Snyder just crammed too much into that 3 hour window he set for himself. Because of that, some of the stuff he cut was pretty essential to the story.

 

[titansupes]

I personally think the weird editing was more of a necessary thing to condense the movie into 2,5 hours than a creative choice. Most directors will start out with cuts that are longer than the theatrical release, but I think Snyder just crammed too much into that 3 hour window he set for himself. Because of that, some of the stuff he cut was pretty essential to the story.

Which is why I'll never understand directors going into a movie like that. A similar thing-- though arguably less extreme-- happened with Whedon on AoU. He was aiming for a certain running time, but went into production with a substantially longer script than that, and tried to fix it in the editing room... It rarely works out well that way.

 

[Supernova]

Superman as a movie character though doesnt appeal to the masses. His symbol sure as heck sells alot of t shirts and is etched in society as well as the classic john williams score but as a movie character he doesnt relate as well as say batman or spiderman. Its hard to ask normal movie goers to relate to a god who has no weaknesses unless kryptonite is in the room.

It sucks for sure but it is what is unfortunately, Unless we have a batman begins type perfect storm someday

 

[titansupes]

^ I don't think that's true... at all. The Reeve era resonated incredibly well with audiences, and that interpretation of him was considered old hat then. They even lampshade it (without mocking him) within the movie a few times.

I think it would still fly (no pun intended) today, done right. Look at Captain America, he's not exactly far off. The problem is... Nobody's giving us that. They're afraid to give it a chance and instead giving us this weird grim Superman... Which hasn't exactly landed (again, no pun).

 

[Poni_Boy]

^ I don't think that's true... at all. The Reeve era resonated incredibly well with audiences, and that interpretation of him was considered old hat then. They even lampshade it (without mocking him) within the movie a few times.

I think it would still fly today, done right. Look at Captain America, he's not exactly far off. The problem is... Nobody's giving us that. They're giving us this weird grim Superman.

Do people still think the Reeve era movies debuted during a campy, lighthearted, happy time? It was the total opposite. They were charming, hopeful movies in a dark, dreadful decade of geopolitical war.

 

[jonathancrane]

To be fair, the Bat-franchise has a history of editing problems: look at the armored car chase scene in TDK. It is almost incomprehensible.

 

[titansupes]

Do people still think the Reeve era movies debuted during a campy, lighthearted, happy time? It was the total opposite. They were charming, hopeful movies in a dark, dreadful decade of geopolitical war.

Yep. And even in his debut era-- off the heels of the great depression and the cusp of WWII, right? I don't see how "dark times" automatically have to mean a dour hero. Hell, more recently-- Spider-Man debuted less than a year after 9/11.

To be fair, the Bat-franchise has a history of editing problems: look at the armored car chase scene in TDK. It is almost incomprehensible.

In no way is that true.

 

[Poni_Boy]

To be fair, the Bat-franchise has a history of editing problems: look at the armored car chase scene in TDK. It is almost incomprehensible.

Lol. No.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Yep. And even in his debut era-- off the heels of the great depression and the cusp of WWII, right? I don't see how "dark times" automatically have to mean a dour hero. Hell, more recently-- Spider-Man debuted less than a year after 9/11.

Yep. Dark times create some of the most hopeful superhero properties out of necessity. BvS feels more like a late 90s era CBM. Age of excess. Because why not.

 

[Greens]

To be fair, the Bat-franchise has a history of editing problems: look at the armored car chase scene in TDK. It is almost incomprehensible.

Most people only say that because of that one blog that took it apart.

Does the scene have continuity goofs? Yes, every movie does. Does it ruin the flow of the scene? No, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Charlatan]

Do people still think the Reeve era movies debuted during a campy, lighthearted, happy time? It was the total opposite. They were charming, hopeful movies in a dark, dreadful decade of geopolitical war.

they were well after Vietnam was over. Carter was president. No wars during his term (only president in modern age) Sure there was a cold war with Russia but when Carter was in office it wasn't ramping up like it did after Reagan was elected. The big news of the day then was OPEC,the "energy crisis" and inflation.

 

[Clark-Kent]

It's funny with all the bullets on the ground and destruction of Lexcorp, many of us assumed it meant Doomsday escaped from research containment lab. It kind of is a bummer that he wasn't created as a fail safe device against meta-humans. Could have worked in a Waller cameo as well, and would have worked between films in the DC universe. Lex having worked with the government or something for its creation would not have implicated him either. Instead they waited till end of the movie and had a mess of Lex interrelate to Martha, Lois, Superman, and Batman. Doomsday was the backup if he couldn't force these 2 heroes to destroy each other.

Let's say his plan worked by the way. One of them would have died presumably right? That means he does not end up killing both heroes. One way or another he'd still have an enemy left over. Was he just on team Batman then and counting on Superman to lose? From what I remember he did seem to smile or something when finding the [blackout]batarang from stolen kryptonite right?[/blackout]

 

[STARMAN]

I still believe Superman can appeal to the modern masses. None of the Superman films that have under achieved were great films. It's not the character. It's the quality. That's what's being rejected.

 

[Poni_Boy]

they were well after Vietnam was over. Carter was president. No wars during his term (only president in modern age) Sure there was a cold war with Russia but when Carter was in office it wasn't ramping up like it did after Reagan was elected. The big news of the day then was OPEC,the "energy crisis" and inflation.

You just proved my point. Or did you not read my post?

 

[Charlatan]

You just proved my point. Or did you not read my post?

Sure but it didn't feel like a time of huge Geo-political stress. And I'm one who barely missed being drafted for Vietnam by 3 yrs. After they brought the guys home it was actually a time of respite. Or so it seemed to me as a young adult.