Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (March 24th, 2016)

[kryptonianmutie]

What Marvel fanboy is hating on this movie though, i'm excited for it.

Rory is not a Marvel fanboy.

Yeah, it's a bit ridiculous to chalk up any hate for this to just Marvel fanboys. Unless you mean people who think everything Marvel is golden and can't admit when they suck.

 

[karamazov80]

I'm trying to remember what it was like before super hero movies dominated the box office. The market is saturated with them and fans are just hating on them for the fun of it.

Give the super heroes a rest for two or three years and start making some decent sci-fi movies again.

It wasn't like we had this great golden age of action and sci-fi films before Iron Man in 2008. Most movies were garbage before, and it isn't like studios are going to choose to make thoughtful, artsy projects when and if the bubble bursts on this slew of movies. They'll just try to capitalize on another aspect of nostalgia and the stunted emotional development of audiences.

On the other hand, the majority of comic movies are at least fun action movies. I'll take what we have now. If people are getting burned out, then they're probably spending more energy on these than they need to. Watching the movies 10 times at the theater, immediately buying the Blu Ray, and then sticking it on repeat mode at home is going to get you sick of them. I see these movies once, maybe twice on average. And in-between watch a lot of other stuff. So the Age of Ultron isn't revolutionizing cinema, and the new Superman movie may suck. So what? Go watch Moonrise Kingdom or Laura or something.

 

[Platty]

****in batman hell yea!!

 

[jye4ever]

It wasn't like we had this great golden age of action and sci-fi films before Iron Man in 2008. Most movies were garbage before, and it isn't like studios are going to choose to make thoughtful, artsy projects when and if the bubble bursts on this slew of movies. They'll just try to capitalize on another aspect of nostalgia and the stunted emotional development of audiences.

On the other hand, the majority of comic movies are at least fun action movies. I'll take what we have now. If people are getting burned out, then they're probably spending more energy on these than they need to. Watching the movies 10 times at the theater, immediately buying the Blu Ray, and then sticking it on repeat mode at home is going to get you sick of them. I see these movies once, maybe twice on average. And in-between watch a lot of other stuff. So the Age of Ultron isn't revolutionizing cinema, and the new Superman movie may suck. So what? Go watch Moonrise Kingdom or Laura or something.

Thanks for the shout out.

 

[Khev]

So the Age of Ultron isn't revolutionizing cinema, and the new Superman movie may suck. So what? Go watch Moonrise Kingdom or Laura or something.

Exactly. I think a lot of people here think that "cleansing the palette" means taking a break from the MCU and watching...the DCU. Or vice versa. Of course I'm guilty of the "multiple viewings" thing but part of that is that these movies really have the "spectacle" thing going on and once they hit blu-ray your opportunities to ever see them on such a big screen are pretty much nil save for a random re-release years down the road.

But otherwise yeah, there are so many other genres that not only provide great films in their own right but they also help you to continue appreciating whatever popcorn thing you're into by giving you a break so that you don't just get sick of them.

 

[jye4ever]

I'm telling everyone to go see The Witch.

That movie will cleanse your palette alright.

 

[Super Goblin]

Just pre ordered my tickets for the 24th 6 PM showing, now the long wait.

 

[kryptonianmutie]

It wasn't like we had this great golden age of action and sci-fi films before Iron Man in 2008.

So true. I'm trying to think of the good Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies that came out between Blade (which opened the door for the modern era of CBM) and Iron Man. There aren't many.
1.The Matrix
2. Minority Report
3. LOTR trilogy
4."
5."

Anything else?

 

[crows]

Unless you mean people who think everything Marvel is golden and can't admit when they suck.

Before ultron came out negative opinions were discouraged. People having negative reactions were told to leave if they didn't have anything positive to say.
I was one of those that stayed away because any criticism was pushed out and got angry responses (even reports )
Hobbit was the same crap too, don't have positive stuff, don't even dare show up.

But here, here it feels like the more negative the reaction the better. The more encouraged. Negative attacks to this movie are better received and even encouraged.

This entire board sucks marvel's milk off their udders and you guys know it. Don't deny it. Attacking marvel.could even get u in trouble which is why I stayed away from some marvel threads

 

[EVILFACE]

Just saw the ABC clip. Wonder if Supes tests Batmans suit out before deciding to send him through a building.....

 

[karamazov80]

So true. I'm trying to think of the good Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies that came out between Blade (which opened the door for the modern era of CBM) and Iron Man. There aren't many.
1.The Matrix
2. Minority Report
3. LOTR trilogy
4."
5."

Anything else?

Primer was a memorable one, from the mid-2000s. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind if it counts. Donnie Darko maybe. Zathura was like a pre-comic movie explosion warmup by Favreau.

 

[BlackWidow89]

3:00

LOL! Thanks for posting this!

 

[a-dev]

Speaking for myself I take Marvel films on a case by case basis. Avengers Age of Ultron was a let-down, pretty average. I do however subscribe to the view that Marvel's way of universe-building is the better one.

Seeing Batman fighting Superman will be exciting but probably not quite as exciting as it could have been if we had ever seen this particular Batman in his own movie beforehand. Likewise Wonder-Woman. And this is what people mean when they say this all seems very rushed - not that this one movie is rushed, that the universe-building is rushed.

 

[crows]

This movie has problems and bad casting but the hate seems to be extreme

 

[IrishJedi]

Speaking for myself I take Marvel films on a case by case basis. Avengers Age of Ultron was a let-down, pretty average. I do however subscribe to the view that Marvel's way of universe-building is the better one.

This is a notion that I just don't understand (and I'm not singling you out, a-dev, as your thoughts on this are absolutely among the majority.

But here's the deal: The Marvel Studios way of building their cinematic universe WAS perfect. FOR THEM. But it need not be a blue print for the only way to do so. People often overlook the reason why Marvel took a slower, methodical approach to introducing each Avenger character: They basically had to. It might be hard for some people to believe now, but before 2008 Iron Man was NOT exactly a household name. To say nothing of a character like Black Widow.

The main difference is that Warner Bros/DC doesn't really need to introduce the core Justice League characters to the world. Everyone is already familiar with them. And not just Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman (who pretty much any human in the civilized world is familiar with)... even their 2nd tier characters (Flash, Aquaman, etc) are pretty well known. So there was no need to do several solo films before bringing them all together. All they had to do was introduce a movie universe that they could all share and inhabit, and then get on with it. And that's exactly what they did. Whether or not it will work will remain to be seen over the next couple of years, but clearly WB felt that this was the best way to build THEIR cinematic universe. And I personally tend to agree. This is not a Zero Sum game. It's also not a race, despite how the internet wants to see it.

 

[Khev]

This is a notion that I just don't understand (and I'm not singling you out, a-dev, as your thoughts on this are absolutely among the majority.

But here's the deal: The Marvel Studios was of building their cinematic universe WAS perfect. FOR THEM. But it need not be a blue print for the only way to do so. People often overlook the reason why Marvel took a slower, methodical approach to introducing each Avenger character: They basically had to. It might be hard for some people to believe now, but before 2008 Iron Man was NOT exactly a household name. To say nothing of a character like Black Widow.

The main difference is that Warner Bros/DC doesn't really need to introduce the core Justice League characters to the world. Everyone is already familiar with them. And not just Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman (who pretty much any human in the civilized world is familiar with)... even their 2nd tier characters (Flash, Aquaman, etc) are pretty well known. So there was no need to do several solo films before bringing them all together. All they had to do was introduce a movie universe that they could all share and inhabit, and then get on with it. And that's exactly what they did. Whether or not it will work will remain to be seen over the next couple of years, but clearly WB felt that this was the best way to build THEIR cinematic universe. And I personally tend to agree.

Yeah, every team-up film can't go the MCU route. Imagine if before X-Men we had to first have a Wolverine solo film, Cyclops, Nightcrawler, etc., before finally letting them all join together five films later. Though with regard to the current "universes" I definitely think that the MCU did "the MCU way" better than the DCCU is doing the "DCCU way" if that makes any sense.

 

[crows]

This is a notion that I just don't understand (and I'm not singling you out, a-dev, as your thoughts on this are absolutely among the majority.

But here's the deal: The Marvel Studios way of building their cinematic universe WAS perfect. FOR THEM. But it need not be a blue print for the only way to do so. People often overlook the reason why Marvel took a slower, methodical approach to introducing each Avenger character: They basically had to. It might be hard for some people to believe now, but before 2008 Iron Man was NOT exactly a household name. To say nothing of a character like Black Widow.

The main difference is that Warner Bros/DC doesn't really need to introduce the core Justice League characters to the world. Everyone is already familiar with them. And not just Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman (who pretty much any human in the civilized world is familiar with)... even their 2nd tier characters (Flash, Aquaman, etc) are pretty well known. So there was no need to do several solo films before bringing them all together. All they had to do was introduce a movie universe that they could all share and inhabit, and then get on with it. And that's exactly what they did. Whether or not it will work will remain to be seen over the next couple of years, but clearly WB felt that this was the best way to build THEIR cinematic universe. And I personally tend to agree. This is not a Zero Sum game. It's also not a race, despite how the internet wants to see it.

Excellent post
Perfect response. I wish I could rep u

 

[Rorywan]

But think of of it this way Irish..

Take yourself back to the eighties, early 90's.

Imagine if we had actually got to see Reeve Superman and Keaton Batman in the same film. In the same ****** film frame? interacting?
The sheer impact of seeing two established iconic characters actually appearing together would be jaw dropping. Two established film franchises colliding.

then as a contrast....

Imagine they had made a movie with Reeve and Keaton in it together, but two first timers, no-one knew had seen these particular takes on these superheroes before. Fewer people would give a damn, why would they?
Superman The movie and Batman 89 had never been made.

It would have none of the gravitas, story/history building or weight.

That's what's happening here. No ground work.

 

[IrishJedi]

But think of of it this way Carl..

Take yourself back to the eighties, early 90's.

Imagine if we had actually got to see Reeve Superman and Keaton Batman in the same film. In the same ****** film frame? interacting?
The sheer impact of seeing two established iconic characters actually appearing together would be jaw dropping. Two established film franchises colliding.

then as a contrast....

Imagine they had made a movie with Reeve and Keaton in it together, but two first timers, no-one knew had seen these particular takes on these superheroes before. Superman the movie and Batman had never been made.
It would have none of the gravitas, story/history building or weight.

That's what's happening here. No ground work.

I don't know. I'd say that certainly SUPERMAN '78 and probably even BATMAN '89 came into a very different media and pop culture climate than we have today. And both of those characters (particularly Batman, as the image within the zeitgeist was still the Adam West show) NEEDED to be reborn and re-introduced to the mainstream.

It's just not the same today.

Also, I'm personally sick of ******* superhero origin movies.

 

[crows]

But think of of it this way Carl..

Imagine is we had actually got to see Reeve Superman and Keaton Batman in the same film. In the same ****** film frame?
The sheer impact of seeing two established iconic characters actually appearing together would be jaw dropping.

Now imagine they had made a movie with Reeve and Keaton in it together, but Superman the movie and Batman had never been made.
It would have none of the gravitas, story/history building or weight.

That's what's happening here. No ground work.

That's complete horse cupp...
Batman has had 7 movies made already, plus a tv show plus a couple of cartoons, Superman has had 6 movies made....

If you don't know who these characters are u aren't from this planet...

The only one that has not have anything like that is wonder woman and they are giving her her own whole movie...

Not having a solo batman movie before this is not a problem because we just came out of a batman trilogy. Ur points are ridiculous.