TV & Film Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

[Zachy1993]

Saw the film couple weeks ago, it wasn't perfect, wasn't the 'best CBM ever' as some have said...but it definitely wasn't the dumpster fire critics and most media will tell you either. The editing is a little choppy yes, but that's partially WB's fault because I heard they edited out like 30mins before it hit theaters, Snyder was wanting the Ultimate Cut in theaters in the first place.


I'm not one of the people who say Disney has bought out the critics. However I DO find it odd that months before BvS's release, article after article was published on how the film was going to be a failure, DCEU was in trouble, blah blah blah.


Justice League is scheduled to start shooting Monday, if WB were going to fire Snyder like the critics are claiming/wanting, they'd have done it by now.


I just find it odd that most of the reviews I read, all boiled down to BvS not being what the critics were used to from a CBM (Comic Book Movie). It wasn't 'fun', or it was 'dreary'.


I think that the news that JL is going to be 'lighter' and will play to Snyder's strengths as being 'more straightforward rather than existential.' show that WB n Snyder know that trying to take a CBM to THIS level of seriousness kind of was a mistake.


The movie is good IMO, but that doesn't excuse it from being pretty flawed. It has far too much social commentary and as I said: existentialism for any CBM. Taking the lore seriously is great, but trying to make a comic book movie less comic-booky is one of the things I faulted The Dark Knight trilogy for.


Anyway, what are your thoughts everyone?

 

[Lvee]

The only thing I agreed with the critics on was the 'too many plots in one' remark. DC is too desperate in catching up with Marvel. They should've produced solo films for Affleck's Batman and Wonder Woman before putting this out. I mean, Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America had solo films before The Avengers. I think BvS was rushed in this sense. Other than that, it was an excellent film. I had my doubts about Wonder Woman, but she totally stole the show.

 

[call me rae]

I am also in the "It was a fun okay movie" camp. I don't think it was the greatest thing ever to be put on the big screen but I don't think it was dog doo either.


I'd say for me it was paritally the length and the fact that it kind of meandered a bit in the middle to the point where a lot of things happen that you either don't understand or don't care about.


In fairness I hear some parts of Man of Steel where similar ( which is why I never watched it to be honest ) call me simple but I like a coehisve plot in my movies.


I also agree that they tried to tell a few too many different stories in this. The deep thought piece of "Do we Need Superman?" was interesting but didn't really fit with " Explosions! Lex Luthor! Comic Book! "


I think if they had just shaved a bit of that off or put it in a movie previous to this I would have been okay. Like really this needed to be at least two different movies - possibly three.


However what gives me hope is the one thing that is going to ultimately be what carries this franchise.


The actors/characters.


Ben Afleck will have all my money until the end of time / as long as he wants to play Bruce Wayne. He's like the Hugh Jackman of DC.


He not only sold it he knocked it out of the park then did a victory lap.


Gal Gadot did exactly what she was supposed to, she got me intrigued about Wonder Woman and pumped up about her new movie.


Henry Cavil did his best but I blame the script more than the actor for where Superman stumbles. He at least kept me interested enough that I'm curious to see where Superman goes from here.


Jesse Eisenberg -- you tried your best but god no more please. He was so much a cartoon that it just got ridiculous after awhile.


All the Supporting Cast - Lois, Perry, Alfred, etc all sold their parts and I'd be interested in seeing these people in their respective franchises.


The Justice League : well they're coming I guess. There was no umph there but hey I want to see them anyway so there's that.

 

[Cross]

Batman V. Superman's main flaws for me was the editing. The movie was too long and unfocused. The writing strayed from the conflict of the film and didn't do justice to either titular character. It felt like Superman was barely in the movie. Henry Cavil did a solid job on what he was given, which wasn't much. What we did see of him didn't seem very 'superman' like. Clark Kent, when he talked with other characters about the things going on in the news, remained unmoved about concerns of Superman abusing his power. He came across as pretty apathetic about it all.


Ben Afleck also did a okay job. Even though most of his scenes were brooding at the camera and didn't involve much acting. The most intriguing parts with Batman were when he wore the suit. Otherwise, the acting between he and Cavil wasn't really Oscar worthy material--but nothing cringe worthy either.


Gal Gadot was AMMMMAAAAZING at the end, during the fight scenes. She was doing a pretty good job facing Doomsday herself. Honestly, the best part of the movie was when Doomsday showed up. The fight between Batman and Superman wasn't actually that long or memorable. And got resolved in a bizarre way? Sure, their mothers have the same name. Okay?


It was so contrived. Just an excuse to stop the fighting between Batman and Superman b/c the writers didn't know how to resolve the conflict they started. Which the movie WAS supposed to revolve around. I think B v. S did fail to deliver on the movie it promised, but what it brought instead was.... fine. At times, bizarre. Like the dreams. Did Batman really need to dream blood oozing from his mother's grave, and then the tome breaks away, and his mother attacks him? What did that have to do with anything?


Batman's other dream about Superman turning Authoritarian and evil was also forced and jarring. It came out of nowhere.


Jesse Eisenberg deserves everyone's sympathy. The writers decided to make Lex Luther more "psychotic" than genius for some reason. At first, Lex's kooky charisma seemed to be a mask. And then he had some kind of meltdown while giving a speech for a library association and then the viewer realizes, nope, he's not putting on a clever ruse to trick the other characters into underestimating him. He's actually just more insane than intelligent. Lex's character is wholly inconsistent. It comes off like the writers had no idea how to portray him. Or argued about how best to do it so in some scenes he's this way, and in others he acts completely different.


Honestly, it was a fun movie. But still very flawed. There were good scenes too, like the guy in the wheelchair spray painting Superman's stature in the park. Plus the entire fight with Doomsday was entertaining. Overall, I thought the movie was okay.

 

[call me rae]

[QUOTE="Cross_Rhodes]Sure, their mothers have the same name. Okay?
It was so contrived. Just an excuse to stop the fighting between Batman and Superman b/c the writers didn't know how to resolve the conflict they started. Which the movie WAS supposed to revolve around. I think B v. S did fail to deliver on the movie it promised, but what it brought instead was.... fine. At times, bizarre. Like the dreams. Did Batman really need to dream blood oozing from his mother's grave, and then the tome breaks away, and his mother attacks him? What did that have to do with anything?


Batman's other dream about Superman turning Authoritarian and evil was also forced and jarring. It came out of nowhere.

[/QUOTE]
The dreams where part of the WTF is happening part of the roleplay.


The main theory that I find the most logical about explaining it all away is that basically Bruce is having a mental breakdown due to overstress or something. And that's why those random things happen out of nowhere.


And the desert scene is supposedly a vision of the future of a potential future from the Flash.


Which they do not explain at all and so your kind of left -- okay. That happened. Why?


As for the Mother thing I heard someone describe that really well.

Spoiler

In that the reason it worked ( not the reason it made them besties because that's stupid. but the reason it made Batman stop trying to murder Superman ) is because it humanized Superman.


In that entire exchange and most of the movie Batman was thinking of Superman as this untouchable alien/god/destroyer of mankind. He wasn't a Man. He wasn't human. He was a threat that had to be brought down.


Now when he hears Martha's name at first he thinks Superman is taunting him. ( because apparently Clark magically knows Batman is Bruce Wayne and thus can take pot shots at his dead parents. But whatever that was the writers being lazy )


So he understandable gets pissed. Because his parents death is a huge motivating factor in Bruce Wayne's life and Batman's origin. SO he would get HELLA PISSED about someone bringing up either parent.


Then Lois shows up and is all no Martha is Clark/Superman's mom.


And that's when you see Bruce start to work it out. Wait. What? This guy has a mom! A human mom who has the same name as my mom! This makes superman human. Add that to the idea that another woman named Martha is about to be killed. And it's a lot for him to process.


So I thought that was actually kind of brilliant. The besties afterward thing was stupid as hell. But by that point in the movie I had given up on logic and was just along for a fun ride.

 

[Zachy1993]

The alternate future vision is pretty much based on Injustice: Gods Among Us, Supes even clarifies this by mentioning 'she was my world' and Flash later saying "Lois is the key!" Since Injustice's future has Supes going nuts because Lois and his unborn child were murdered by Joker, and starting a dictatorship.

 

[call me rae]

The alternate future vision is pretty much based on Injustice: Gods Among Us, Supes even clarifies this by mentioning 'she was my world' and Flash later saying "Lois is the key!" Since Injustice's future has Supes going nuts because Lois and his unborn child were murdered by Joker, and starting a dictatorship.

Yes but my point is they don't explain that. They don't explain who the flash is - what the desert scene means - etc. I mean for comic book fans you can kind of piece together that it has something to do with a alternate future - because Flash.


But even then unless your familiar with the Injustice Storyline specifically - or even just the Flash character in general your left with no context or explanation for what appears to just be a random hallucination by Bruce Wayne.

 

[Zachy1993]

Yes but my point is they don't explain that. They don't explain who the flash is - what the desert scene means - etc. I mean for comic book fans you can kind of piece together that it has something to do with a alternate future - because Flash.
But even then unless your familiar with the Injustice Storyline specifically - or even just the Flash character in general your left with no context or explanation for what appears to just be a random hallucination by Bruce Wayne.

Yeah that's one of the problems I had and one of the reasons it might've not gotten warm reviews from critics. Cause unless you're diehard DC lore you're not gonna get the easter eggs or who Cyborg is etc.

 

[call me rae]

Yeah that's one of the problems I had and one of the reasons it might've not gotten warm reviews from critics. Cause unless you're diehard DC lore you're not gonna get the easter eggs or who Cyborg is etc.

Well Cyborg and such don't really need explanations I'm sure most people got that : these are people with power that Batman and Wonder Woman are going to turn into the Justice League.


So you don't really need to know WHO they are to understand that they'll be featured in the next movie.


It's more the subtler things like : who/what is lex talking about when at the end. who/what are the bat things in the desert. even the flash i am a die hard member of the scarlet speedster fan club and i was like... is that cyborg?


and I KNOW WHO THAT CHARACTER IS. I have done exhaustive research on him.


And even I couldn't place him until after the sequence was over.


So yeah. It's the editing and the fact they couldn't decide who this was for. Comic fans or Mainstream audience.


Cuz mainsteam doesn't care about comic lore or continuity they're just wanting a coehsive explosion filled movie.


Comic nerds want the titular fight.


No one got exactly what they wanted but probably the people in the middle had the most fun.

 

[Zachy1993]

Yeah WB should focus on making a straight up comic book film, which I've heard JL will be more of crowd pleasing, straightforward kinetic Snyder goodness with less dark and gritty everywhere. But yeah Wb cut like 30m of footage out and Snyder was wanting the director's ultimate cut to go to theaters which might explain choppy editing.


And they have that deleted scene on youtube called Communion where Lex is speaking with Yuga Khan of Apokolips.

 

[ZHNelson17]

I really need to see this movie, I just wish that my classmate didn't spoil the content that wasn't in the trailers. >

 

[call me rae]

I really need to see this movie, I just wish that my classmate didn't spoil the content that wasn't in the trailers. >

Never talk to people who have seen a movie prior to going in. lol. i'm a chronic youtube reviewer fangirl and i know better to even click a link until after I see the movie. For that matter I don't look online or even watch trailers anymore.


But in fairness : if you saw the trailers most of it was spoiled anyway so there's that.

 

[ZHNelson17]

Never talk to people who have seen a movie prior to going in. lol. i'm a chronic youtube reviewer fangirl and i know better to even click a link until after I see the movie. For that matter I don't look online or even watch trailers anymore.
But in fairness : if you saw the trailers most of it was spoiled anyway so there's that.

Yeah, releasing that third trailer was a huge mistake, and Snyder claims it wasn't a spoiler but I don't agree. That was a massive spoiler and it ruined the whole idea about who would win the B v S fight. Everyone was hyped about who they wanted to win, and then this trailer comes out and obliterates the anticipation.

 

[call me rae]

Yeah, releasing that third trailer was a huge mistake, and Snyder claims it wasn't a spoiler but I don't agree. That was a massive spoiler and it ruined the whole idea about who would win the B v S fight. Everyone was hyped about who they wanted to win, and then this trailer comes out and obliterates the anticipation.

Well that actually doesn't ruin the actual fight. It does kind of ruin wonder woman's big reveal. There are a few surprise moments - but mostly a lot of confusion.

 

[ZHNelson17]

Well that actually doesn't ruin the actual fight. It does kind of ruin wonder woman's big reveal. There are a few surprise moments - but mostly a lot of confusion.

Would you say it's worth seeing at this point?

 

[call me rae]

Would you say it's worth seeing at this point?

Absolutely. It does exactly what it's supposed to : It makes you excited about the rest of the DC Universe. It makes you excited about the characters.


Is it perfect? No. Do I have some problems with the story-telling Sure.


But for god-sake I think the Avengers is about the closest thing to perfect a movie is capable of being. And even I'll admit that parts of it are kind of.... okay....


Besides I would always recommend forming your own opinion. Don't let what I think color what you do. Because chances are what I'm going in there wanting to see and experience is going to be different to you anyway.

 

[Zachy1993]

Absolutely. It does exactly what it's supposed to : It makes you excited about the rest of the DC Universe. It makes you excited about the characters.
Is it perfect? No. Do I have some problems with the story-telling Sure.


But for god-sake I think the Avengers is about the closest thing to perfect a movie is capable of being. And even I'll admit that parts of it are kind of.... okay....


Besides I would always recommend forming your own opinion. Don't let what I think color what you do. Because chances are what I'm going in there wanting to see and experience is going to be different to you anyway.

Well said! Agree 100%!

 

[JokerValentine]

With all the hype for the movie, I honestly cannot believe that it got 28 ON ROTTEN TOMATOES AND A 44 ON METACRITIC. Honestly, although it is the critic's take on it, I really was surprised by it.

 

[Zachy1993]

With all the hype for the movie, I honestly cannot believe that it got 28 ON ROTTEN TOMATOES AND A 44 ON METACRITIC. Honestly, although it is the critic's take on it, I really was surprised by it.

It's not a terrible movie by any means. The critics honestly didn't get it, which is why I don't trust most critics anymore because the hate BvS and DCEU is getting with all the clickbait articles and negative talk is unbelievable. Audiences/Fans >>> Critics.

 

[JokerValentine]

It's not a terrible movie by any means. The critics honestly didn't get it, which is why I don't trust most critics anymore because the hate BvS and DCEU is getting with all the clickbait articles and negative talk is unbelievable. Audiences/Fans >>> Critics.

I'm not having an opinion on the movie, but rather that it got a 28 on Rotten Tomatoes. Especially considering that the fanbase gives it relatively high marks.

 

[Zachy1993]

I'm not having an opinion on the movie, but rather that it got a 28 on Rotten Tomatoes. Especially considering that the fanbase gives it relatively high marks.

Mostly because the fanbase actually knows the source material, and critics..well...don't.

 

[JokerValentine]

Mostly because the fanbase actually knows the source material, and critics..well...don't.

Not necessarily, but perhaps. I think they may have simply focused on how the movie presented itself, rather than how it adapts the source material. *shrug*

 

[call me rae]

Mostly because the fanbase actually knows the source material, and critics..well...don't.

As @JokerValentine said a lot of the critics are fans, I follow a lot of them. And even the ones who thought it was three levels of dog-shit had legitimate reasons for that.


The story-telling was sloppy. It wasn't assessible to people who weren't fans. The performances weren't very good. It went against the source material.


I mean people can hate a movie that you like and not be terrible people. You don't have to agree with them but I wouldn't say that invalidates their opinions. Just the same way that because they hated it doesn't make it any less valid that I liked it fine.

 

[Zachy1993]

As @JokerValentine said a lot of the critics are fans, I follow a lot of them. And even the ones who thought it was three levels of dog-shit had legitimate reasons for that.
The story-telling was sloppy. It wasn't assessible to people who weren't fans. The performances weren't very good. It went against the source material.


I mean people can hate a movie that you like and not be terrible people. You don't have to agree with them but I wouldn't say that invalidates their opinions. Just the same way that because they hated it doesn't make it any less valid that I liked it fine.

1. How was the story-telling sloppy? The story it told was fine, the EDITING was sloppy.


2. It was accessible to people who wanted to put forth effort into not making snap-judgments and if they didn't understand something I'm sure they'd have access to the internet or have at least one person they knew who could explain. The film is only inaccessible to people who went in with a mindset of "i'm going to hate this movie." and a closed mind.


3. The performances were EXCELLENT, especially Gal Gadot since it was her first outing in a major blockbuster like this. Ben Affleck is and will always be the best casting decision they've made so far for this DCEU. Henry Cavill wasn't given much to do so it can't really be said he didn't give a good performance. Jesse Eisenberg was a different Lex Luthor than we're accustomed to, and IMO would've made a better Riddler.


4. How did it go against the source material? If you're talking about Batman killing then you have to say the same about Bale, Keaton and pretty much every Batman film to date. Batman killed people in the Frank Miller Dark Knight Returns, which is what this Batman is directly pulled from. There was extreme care taken to in fact bring all they could onto the screen which was directly from DC comics.


This isn't about critics simply having an opinion, it's about the non-stop barrage of negative articles published even before BvS came out, and the stream of vitriol and clickbaiting that has been slung at WB and DCEU and especially Zack Snyder, since it's premiere. It's ok to have an opinion, it's another to be clearly biased and have an agenda.

 

[call me rae]

This isn't about critics simply having an opinion, it's about the non-stop barrage of negative articles published even before BvS came out, and the stream of vitriol and clickbaiting that has been slung at WB and DCEU and especially Zack Snyder, since it's premiere. It's ok to have an opinion, it's another to be clearly biased and have an agenda.

Okay first off I wasn't saying that's my opinion. I was saying that's the opinion of the critics and they are entitled to thinking those things.


Do you have to agree? No.


But essentially you just jumped down my throat because I dared to say that opinions other than your own exist.


That to me is where the problem lies. With people that can't accept that other people feel differently or think differently to them.


Also just because people have opinions you don't agree with doesn't mean they have a bias and an agenda. These people are paid to review movies it's as simple as that.


And further more a movie is never made just for fans. That's ridiculous. A movie is made to make money and ( in the case of BvS ) it is made to intrique people enough that they watch other movies in the franchise.


And guess what most of the people who watch this movie aren't going to be fans. They might be somewhat familiar with the idea of Batman and Superman but they are very likely not going to know any of the insider information that diehard comic fans have.


And that shouldn't invalidate the enjoyment they can get out of this movie. And if some of those non-fan movie goers happen to be paid to write reviews on movies. Well that's their job and they ought to be allowed to do it in peace.


How would you like it if people came to your job and shouted at you about how you were doing it wrong or you had no right to do the thing your paid for because you didn't understand the process. That you were just being baised and carrying an agenda when you were going about your work day?


Now again. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the critics. I am saying I respect their right to have an opinion and form my own opinion on my own feelings to the movie.