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

[ChaserFan]

Just got back from the midnight screening here.

I didn't really like Man of Steel, and after all the trailers for this, I wasn't expecting anything great. So I'm surprised by how much I enjoyed it. Ben Affleck makes a pretty good Batman and Bruce Wayne. Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor didn't end up as lame as he looked in the trailers...that "You should not pick a fight with this man" scene didn't end up being the worst thing in the world. Even the stupid "Is she with you? I thought she was with you" line kinda worked.

The integration of the events of Man of Steel was done well. The fight between Batman and Superman was decent. Wonder Woman was cool, I guess. The only bit that wasn't so great was the creation of Doomsday...the whole process that lead to that was kinda weird and clumsy.

I like where this ended, and it seems to be heading in the right direction. I wasn't that excited for the Justice League film, but now...I think this is proof that they can make it work like it did for The Avengers.

 

[JAWS]

Just to clarify before everybody jumps on '89.... Burton, Uslan and the rest were actually purposefully doing that 1939 Batman in Batman '89 (which includes the use of lethal force) in order to get back to the characters initial roots and move as far away from the Batman '66 stigma as they could. So there is a reasoning for him crossing the line in Burton's films as the original version of the character also did this.

There is no '66 stigma prevailing in the public now as there was before Batman '89. They don't need to darken him as far as they can to get him off the other end of the spectrum.

You probably knew that already, and I'm not meaning this to come off as correcting you. I just am stating it for those that might not be aware.

Sallah

Correct away Great points made.. I remember that the big deal with 89 was to separate itself from the 60's show. But I like how you spelled it all out

Back in 89 I never thought much of bats killing in the movie. I don;t care for it now.. Having said that I have never cared for that film as a whole to begin with.. But that is a discussion for another day

 

[Plastic Bateman]

All joking aside, I'll reserve final judgement for when (if?) I see this film but it sounds to me like Snyder needs to be quietly shuffled off into an executive producer position and George Miller needs to be presented with a wheelbarrow full of $100 bills to convince him to make the Justice League movies.

 

[Uncle Bingo]

I never had a problem with Batman killing people

 

[sallah]

I never had a problem with Batman killing people

I guess it really depends on how it is handled...

But they can't have it both ways. He can't be shown killing regular bad guys but then leaving big level threats like Joker alive. That doesn't make much sense.

Sallah

 

[Jameson Rook]

Just to clarify before everybody jumps on '89.... Burton, Uslan and the rest were actually purposefully doing that 1939 Batman in Batman '89 (which includes the use of lethal force) in order to get back to the characters initial roots and move as far away from the Batman '66 stigma as they could. So there is a reasoning for him crossing the line in Burton's films as the original version of the character also did this.

There is no '66 stigma prevailing in the public now as there was before Batman '89. They don't need to darken him as far as they can to get him off the other end of the spectrum.

You probably knew that already, and I'm not meaning this to come off as correcting you. I just am stating it for those that might not be aware.

Sallah

Maybe the filmmakers were reading All-Star Batman & Robin, thinking it was what Batman should be like.

I'd rather not ask if there was a "******* Batman" joke.

 

[Uncle Bingo]

I guess it really depends on how it is handled...

But they can't have it both ways. He can't be shown killing regular bad guys but then leaving big rogues like Joker alive. That doesn't make much sense.

Sallah

That's why Batman '89 is still the best

 

[Snake Plissken]

That's why Batman '89 is still the best

 

[olbertfrog]

I personally am confused by the "DC is doing something different with their universe and people just don't get that" & "I am glad they are taking a different approach than the Marvel films" arguments.

Can anyone explain to me why? Why exactly would they need to make their films darker and more adult than Marvel's films? Why are you happy that they are seemingly limiting their audience for no other reason than to be "different" than Marvel? Its not like the world wouldn't accept more comic book films geared towards broad audiences. Its not like these films don't stem from the same medium geared towards the exact same audience. Its not like kids don't like Captain America & Spider-MAn AND Batman & Superman and wouldn't like to be part of the audience for both. It isn't like the Marvel films are cheapening their characters by trying to make them as accessible as possible without compromising their integrity. It isn't like they aren't generally well-received, or that they are slammed by "mature" comic fans for not making it "for them" alone.

That just seems like an easy excuse to justify Snyder's approach. "Well he is doing this to make it different than Marvel." Okay... but why? Why does it HAVE to be different? It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you think about it. Why not worry about just making the best films you can instead of trying to make them "different"?

I just don't get it.

I am a bigger fan of the DC characters than I am the Marvel ones.... but so far I am much happier with Marvel Studios approach to their films. I am not afraid to admit when they make dogs though.

Iron Man 2 was pretty bad.
Iron Man 3 was awful.
Avengers 2 was mediocre.

Same goes for DC... but sadly there hasn't been a really good one in quite awhile. And sadly BvS continues this trend. And just saying "well its a different approach than Marvel" isn't a big enough band-aid to fix it. Sure, that could be used to excuse why it presents another grim, dreary look at superheroes... and why everyone seems to be sad most of the time... and the overwhelming lack of fun presented here (especially from Superman... who really should be a fun character). But it doesn't excuse its weakest point- The film has one of the messiest plot I have ever seen. It falls apart with even the slightest bit of questioning. And to make matters worse, the film gets incredibly overloaded with non-sensical sequences and "ooohhh... there is so and so" appearances that add nothing to an already herky-jerky story.

And a film like this is usually only as good as its villain. And if we call Eisen-Lex the main villain of this piece... Well, it just can't overcome how painfully awful he is.

Sorry to come across as a rant there. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. This is just mine.

Sallah

I think that What you dont get is that its simply Zack Snyder taste, his thing.
The guy basically like Miller DKR, Watchmen its What he likes in comic book and its simply the kind of movie he wants to see on screen. And he was lucky enough that the studio backed up his vision of the material.
Simple as that. From the studio pov Yeah you can see it as a réaction to Marvel but to me seeing how adamant they are to stay on tracks the end Line is that its simply the artistic vision of an "author"

 

[greygoose]

View attachment 254310

Sallah

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

View attachment 254310

Sallah

Nah, if Batman just kills people, then the police can't be on his side. Gordon becomes an accomplice. The only way it works is if, Batman doesn't kill...intentionally, and he works with the police...or, he kills people and he's a vigilante and the cops aren't on his side, imo. That's one thing I never liked about the Burton films, Gordon was okay with Batman killing criminals. In Batman Begins, Batman is not a killer...and when he does take the blame at the end of TDK, he becomes a vigilante...and he was still a vigilante in The Dark Knight Rises.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

Other then 1939 Batman and the 89 batman (I did not like him killing in that one either) O can't think of 9or just don;t know of ) any stories of Batman flat out killing people. Not like the gif here and not like in Batman 89.. Are there are other examples?

As for the "they are all Valid interpretations"... Well that don;t make them good ones

There was a period in the 70's where he carried a gun and used it

 

[sallah]

I think that What you dont get is that its simply Zack Snyder taste, his thing.
The guy basically like Miller DKR, Watchmen its What he likes in comic book and its simply the kind of movie he wants to see on screen. And he was lucky enough that the studio backed up his vision of the material.
Simple as that. From the studio pov Yeah you can see it as a réaction to Marvel but to me seeing how adamant they are to stay on tracks the end Line is that its simply the artistic vision of an "author"

You missed the point of my post.

I know Snyder makes dark films.
I know Warner wants dark films (likely because there only successful DC film series in recent memory was the dark trilogy from Nolan).

My point wasn't asking why they make dark films... It was why folks use the argument that they are doing that "to be different than Marvel" or that they are glad they didn't "do it like Marvel". Neither of those statements really make sense. I am asking people to explain why they would ever feel that DC should NEED their movie product to be different than Marvel, or what is so wrong in what Marvel has done that they would want something "different just to be different".

Or is simply saying "they do it dark because they need to make it different" the easy answer to explain why Warner/Snyder does it like this?

Sallah

 

[GasparZizou]

Damn, even the reviewers I like aren't blown away by the movie, like Jeremy Jahns, and that dude always free of critic ********, he tells it how it is.

I just saw this post on 4chung

It's clear now that the long-awaited Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice has been met with some pretty harsh reactions from critics, holding close to a 40% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
​
I recently spoke with a source at Warner Bros who took place in a late-night conference call with execs following the initial flood of negative reviews. The call was moderated by exec Steve Spira and included many of the higher-ups at WB. Here's what my source had to say:

"WB execs are ******** their pants. If [Batman V Superman] makes less than a billion, [Zack] Snyder is out and Justice League will be delayed 8 months."


"Chris Nolan is being courted as a producer and George Miller, David Yates, Louis Letterier, and Vincenzo Natali are all being courted to take over Justice League."


"Wonder Woman is undergoing major rewrites to be more of a standalone film. Aquaman, Cyborg, and Green Lantern Corps. are all on the chopping block."


"Investors are planning a major takeover if [Batman V Superman] flops and have plans to install a board that will order the universe to be rebooted."

Major Shakeup For Warner Bros And DC - MOOVIENEWS.com

If this movie is really as bad as people are saying, I would consider not going to see it, but I already bought my ticket so what the hell. Anyway, if it's really as bad, meaning, worse than AoU and all the other crappy MCU movies, then I'm all in for a reboot with George Miller on top, Snyder has been given too many chances and I've supported him enough. I just hope they don't go full MCU because of this, I don't want that **** for DC.

I'll make up my mind tomorrow, see what critics are made of.

 

[olbertfrog]

Also all this talk about the joker is pointless as we know nothing about the chronology of the dc universe.
Its clear that since Supes arrived Bruce has become more violent (its adressed in one of the prequel comics where two thugs say it out loud).
So who is to say that suicide squad is not taking place 10 years ago when Bruce was not so violent and in BVS batman may have already killed him.
Dunno, one might want to wait and see before crying Wolf.

 

[sallah]

Also all this talk about the joker is pointless as we know nothing about the chronology of the dc universe.
Its clear that since Supes arrived Bruce has become more violent (its adressed in one of the prequel comics where two thugs say it out loud).
So who is to say that suicide squad is not taking place 10 years ago when Bruce was not so violent and in BVS batman may have already killed him.
Dunno, one might want to wait and see before crying Wolf.

No wolf crying here. I highly doubt Joker would only be used in stories set in the past... But even if that were the case-

Spoiler

He also lets Luthor live. A guy directly responsible for a ton of deaths in the film. But he offs plenty of his goons. So he kills the minnows... But lets the big fish live?

Sallah

 

[azurepred]

Damn, even the reviewers I like aren't blown away by the movie, like Jeremy Jahns, and that dude always free of critic ********, he tells it how it is.

I just saw this post on 4chung



Major Shakeup For Warner Bros And DC - MOOVIENEWS.com

If this movie is really as bad as people are saying, I would consider not going to see it, but I already bought my ticket so what the hell. Anyway, if it's really as bad, meaning, worse than AoU and all the other crappy MCU movies, then I'm all in for a reboot with George Miller on top, Snyder has been given too many chances and I've supported him enough. I just hope they don't go full MCU because of this, I don't want that **** for DC.

I'll make up my mind tomorrow, see what critics are made of.

but what is there to really reboot? If BvS is garbage, MOS was pretty good imo, and a solo bats and WW haven't even come out yet, so all that would really need to be changed is what has already been written for the future Bat and WW movies. It doesn't sound like the actors or their portrayals of the heroes are the problem here.

 

[olbertfrog]

You missed the point of my post.

I know Snyder makes dark films.
I know Warner wants dark films (likely because there only successful DC film series in recent memory was the dark trilogy from Nolan).

My point wasn't asking why they make dark films... It was why folks use the argument that they are doing that "to be different than Marvel" or that they are glad they didn't "do it like Marvel". Neither of those statements really make sense. I am asking people to explain why they would ever feel that DC should NEED their movie product to be different than Marvel, or what is so wrong in what Marvel has done that they would want something "different just to be different".

Or is simply saying "they do it dark because they need to make it different" the easy answer to explain why Warner/Snyder does it like this?

Sallah

Maybe simply because these peoples you talk about simply dont like Marvel movies.
So they are happy to see another approach of the genre.

 

[GasparZizou]

My point wasn't asking why they make dark films... It was why folks use the argument that they are doing that "to be different than Marvel" or that they are glad they didn't "do it like Marvel". Neither of those statements really make sense. I am asking people to explain why they would ever feel that DC should NEED their movie product to be different than Marvel, or what is so wrong in what Marvel has done that they would want something "different just to be different".

Or is simply saying "they do it dark because they need to make it different" the easy answer to explain why Warner/Snyder does it like this?

DC is inherently a little darker and a little more serious than Marvel, the current trend is that Marvel (in the comics too) makes fun of itself, in an I'm too cool to take myself seriously way is cheesy and straight up detrimental for some characters, "lmao u wearing a cape dude", they make a joke out of themselves and people eat it up (not even kidding), ask darthkostis, DC still takes itself seriously which is how it should be with superheroes, at least with most of the A-listers.

 

[karamazov80]

I've seen a lot of talk about how the DC vs. Marvel stories in the comics are fundamentally different, which would support the argument you reference Sallah. But frankly I'm not sure where that all comes from, either. Yes, DC has more crazy super powered characters than Marvel on balance (factoring in the Green Lantern Corps, guys like Firestorm and the New Gods, of course Superman). But apart from Superman comics specifically, I haven't seen the big difference in stories. Both have very powerful and relatively weak heroes. Both have humorous titles. Both have grim and dark titles. Both have more heroic and uplifting types of characters. Both have A-listers and B-listers. Both have run-of-the-mill criminal scum. Both have galactic, world destroying threats.

There's not much really fundamentally different about the companies, except that none of Marvel's marquee titles has a super god guy running the show. And Marvel has guys like Hulk and Thor, so they aren't full of regular guys in tights running around.