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

[kryptonianmutie]

Nope, never seen the movies.

If you watch 6 and don't like it then I doubt you'd enjoy any of the others.

 

[JAWS]

I only saw the first one. I liked it better when it was called "Point Break" and didn't have a cast that's even worse than Keanu Reeves in said film.

Also, the F&F films at the ultimate movies for DudeBro Millennials. No, thank you.

Not fair to slam a movie series you have never seen. You might love it.

Besides I thought the Martha scene was the ultimate DudeBro moment

 

[IrishJedi]

Not fair to slam a movie series you have never seen. You might love it.

Besides I thought the Martha scene was the ultimate DudeBro moment

I've seen enough of the other 6 to know they're not at all my cup of tea. I also can't stand 80% of the cast (especially Vin Diesel).

You and I clearly have different definitions of "DudeBros"

 

[jye4ever]

It's actually pretty simple for me, I have a life long affinity to Marvel and DC characters, I have none to F&F characters therefore I would rather watch TDKR/MOS/BvS back to back before I watch F&F movies.

 

[crows]

Well at least it would explain how he did this not once but twice. Obviously he shares Superman's Anti gravity powers

And survived this without a scratch.

and it would explain how PW pulled this off and whoever was driving that car had to have some sort of precision type super powers

I mean to make that jump when the thing you are running on is going backwards... Super speed and strength is the only explanation






What I really hate about this scene

Is that it took a perfectly good action sequence with lots of practical stunt work and ruined it with an over the top stunt that was so impossible they couldn't even make it look real with CGI . Then the 7th film apparently thought that was the best part and filled the film with the same sort of ridiculousness.

I swear the only reason critics liked it is because they felt they had to because PW died.




Sorry I just had to get that F&F rant off my chest.

this is EQUALLY as dumb and unrealistic and far fetched as this

and im not saying just because that suit doesnt exist or because that technology is not there yet or something like that
no, i dont mean it that way

if that suit existed in real life, the same as in the movie, no human could handle the sharp turns or the changes in speed it does. the force on the suit would kill him...
there is no human that would survive that suit...

so... why do you give that a pass? because it looks cool? because you like the actor? because marvel made it?


also this would have been the death of batman, period... death of both of them.

 

[jye4ever]

You are actually 101% correct, but I personally don't care about those F&F characters, not invested in their story.

So if i'm going to watch impossible feats of heroism it will be with costumed superheroes and not with world traveling drag racers.

An MCU or DC movie could film the exact same action sequence from a F&F movie and I would prefer the MCU/DC version!

 

[kryptonianmutie]

I'll give you that scene in TDK. That always bothered me because even if he survived the fall with minimal damage she should shouldn't have been able to walk away. But that's Nolan's fault for setting up the rules of that universe where nothing supernatural exists. You can't say the same for MCU or DCEU. Even if the characters don't have superpowers, the fact that other beings in the same universe do allows for a certain amount of leeway. If F&F exists in the same universe as Agents of Shield or Daredevil then nobody should have a problem accepting it, but this franchise is supposed to exist in our world which makes the things they do more unbelievable. But honestly I don't care when the movies are fun.[emoji1]

 

[karamazov80]

I gotta say crows, you aren't exactly helping your effort to be viewed as an objective critic of BVS when you are defending the damn Fast and Furious movies this way

It's sad that that moment has more emotional resonance and dynamic action than Superman catching Lois Lane.

 

[jye4ever]

Not STM Superman catching Lois, that was the bomb yo!

 

[Khev]

Saw the first Fast and Furious in the theater and really quite liked it as Point Break on wheels. Saw the second one, deeply regretted it, and never watched any more after that.

 

[jye4ever]

Vin should be the next Batman.

 

[kryptonianmutie]

Vin's voice was digitized at birth.

 

[cmiller99]

Yeah, that's scene's always bothered me. It was such a good scene to that point... all he had to do was use the grappling gun and would have been just that little bit more believable.

 

[JAWS]

this is EQUALLY as dumb and unrealistic and far fetched as this

and im not saying just because that suit doesnt exist or because that technology is not there yet or something like that
no, i dont mean it that way

if that suit existed in real life, the same as in the movie, no human could handle the sharp turns or the changes in speed it does. the force on the suit would kill him...
there is no human that would survive that suit...

so... why do you give that a pass? because it looks cool? because you like the actor? because marvel made it?


also this would have been the death of batman, period... death of both of them.

Not equally as dumb...

For one it all looked better effects wise and looks more believable... Two... They take place in a Universe where suspension of disbelief is part of the game.. Hulk, Superman, Captain America, Aliens attacking from space, Robots coming to life... If I believe in them I can believe in a man in a metal suit pulling off some stunts.. It's the Universe they are in. It's like watching a Star Wars film... In those movies I accept Lightsabers, laser guns that make noise and ships that make sound in space.

F&F is supposed to be real people... There is no talk of Superpowers or Aliens. Just crooks who can drive cars. The first film was grounded very much in reality. That is the Universe that these films are supposed to take place in but somehow they pull off feats that are impossible. They don't even try to be realistic. At least when IM get hurts.. Even with the suit on... Not the F&F crew. Not until it's a plot convenience like Vin falling in his car off the building... Somehow I am supposed to be worried then when he survived much worse earlier in the film.

As for your Batman comparison.. Yeah sure.. They both (Bats and Rachel) should probably die.. But it's one scene.. F&F 7 did it every other scene. Hell they did the exact same thing in the first five min when the Rock pulled the same stunt without any protective batsuit or cape that is supposed to help from falling full speed.


F&F take it too far and they don't look good doing it. That scene from 6 looks awful.. AWFUL. There was no reason for it. Then add to the fact that they just constantly walk away from these events without a scratch.

Now you can argue that the films have gone to a level of silliness that should not be taken seriously. But that does not mean it should get a pass. If you enjoy it that is fine.. But personally I think most of them are pretty awful. Especially the critically and financially successful Seventh film.

You liked the action and thought the ending was great... I thought it was awful and corny. I mean isn't there a scene where Vin jumps his car and attaches a bomb to the chopper or something like that?? I can believe in Aliens with superpowers from space before I believe that that can be pulled off

Some things I can look past like the never ending runway in the 6th film... But much of the stuff in 7 was just too much and too stupid.

 

[Rotfish]

If anyone needed a quick explanation of why BvS was bad, they needn't look further than its thread on SSF -- where F&F is being analyzed and, in some cases, defended.

 

[franpincho]

Vin Diesel is fat.

 

[Wor-Gar]

And gay.

Not sure what any of that has to do with F&F 7 being a realistic representation of speed driving at its finest. Anyone knows that bodies hurling at 100 miles an hour and slamming together will result in a comfortable hug at worst.

 

[thedopefreshness]

So...why is everyone talking about F&F

 

[Khev]

So...why is everyone talking about F&F

Because Wonder Woman was in them I guess.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Couldn't have said better.

Dear Zack Snyder,

I’ve had two weeks to think about your most recent film, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.” As a longtime fan of these characters, and a devout follower of Superman in particular, I’ve found both of your films about him to be lacking the kinds of qualities that have made him resonate with fans around the world for nearly 80 years.

I recall an interview you gave several years ago, while promoting “Watchmen,” where you were asked if you’d be interested in directing a film about Superman. Your answer then? To paraphrase: “No.” You stated that a character with such seemingly one-dimensional goodness didn’t appeal to you. You were far happier dealing with more complex, more subversive subject material like “Watchmen.” I respected that. I disagreed about Superman being simplistic and one-dimensional, but I respected that.

Then you took the “Man of Steel” job a couple of years later.

Needless to say, I was perplexed by this decision of yours- to take on a film about a character that you admittedly didn’t care all that much for. I assumed what did it for you was the opportunity to rebuild and remake the character in a way that did speak to you.

I’m writing to inform you that the version of Superman you’ve created is a failure.

By and large, the folks I’ve spoken to who enjoyed your two films about him have something in common with you: They didn’t really have an affinity for the character prior to your films. So, in essence, it's like you've made Superman films that aren’t for Superman fans. While that may have sounded appealing, the idea of bringing new people into the fandom, the unintended consequence is that you’ve alienated many of the people who were already there.

For two-thirds of a century, writers have been able to create indelible versions of the character that captured the imaginations of fans worldwide. Be it Schuster and Siegel, Bruce Timm, Max Fleischer, Richard Donner, Mark Waid, Jack Kirby, Grant Morrison, Dan Jurgens, or countless others, there have been many people who’ve gotten it right and didn’t feel the need to fundamentally change who Superman is.

There have been many great takes on Superman, but I'm going to isolate the single most influential one. The one that made a generation of fans believe a man can fly. Much has been made about how the Christopher Reeve Superman of the 70s and 80s would never fly with today’s modern audiences. The thing is, many- including you- have ignored what made that version so special to fans.

People like to focus on the corniness, the wholesomeness, and the humor in those films, but they don’t seem to realize that none of that is why they worked. Why they worked was that behind Reeve’s comforting smile were eyes that conveyed a bittersweet sense of loneliness, vulner1ability, and isolation.

While you couldn’t pierce his skin, you could certainly break his heart.

That’s what makes Superman special. He’s an orphan. He’s alone. He’ll never be one of us, yet he’ll also never be able to be a true Kryptonian since there’s no longer any Krypton to speak of. Faced with a destiny that means he’ll never truly belong anywhere, he makes the decision to be earth’s greatest hero. Imagine the deep sadness you’d feel if you spent most of your formative years simply wanting to live a normal life: Work the farm for your folks, make your dad proud of you, play football, kiss the girl. Then you suddenly find out that not only will you never be able to do those things, but you’re actually an alien from a destroyed world. Your life up until now has been a beautiful lie.

A man that can come from that level of heartbreak, who can still arrive at the decision to be a beacon of hope, and who wants to help us- in spite of ourselves- is a fascinating character. Reeve’s Superman had that mixture of kindness, sadness, the weight of his responsibilities, a genuine curiosity about mankind, a love for what we can be, and a desire to be a friend to us even when all we seem to want to do is nuke each other.

So when we talk about those films getting Superman right, we’re not saying that we want a campy real estate mogul Lex Luthor, a cartoonish oaf like Otis, a bumbling over-the-top slapstick portrayal of Clark Kent, or a giant plastic Superman S that can be used as a net in the new films. We’re saying we want a hero that decides to do great things, and does so with pride, despite all of the pain in his heart. That’s what a hero does. You’ve instead chosen to focus almost entirely on the pain, and the weight of his responsibility.

While other artists have given us a hero whose desire to help is bittersweet, you've given us an alien that comes off as simply bitter.

The sad part is that there’ve been glimpses of a more noble Kal-El in your two films. Yet, by and large, you’ve suffocated his more positive qualities with your decisions from the director’s chair. You’ve under-emphasized what makes Superman great, while shining a spotlight on what you seem to think makes him “cool" to the kinds of people who think Superman is boring.

So many iterations of the character have embraced what a powerful symbol for good Superman is.

There are plenty of badass anti-hero types out there for fans who don't care for Superman to follow. Stop trying to turn Superman into one of them.

When I decried “Man of Steel,” many folks told me that the character was a work in progress in that film. I was promised that we’d see the real Superman, the genuine hero, in 2016 when “Batman v Superman” came out. The sad part is, it looks like this year I will see the crusader that still stands for Truth, Justice, and The American Way; The hero who’s old-fashioned sense of Right and Wrong often puts him at odds with the world around him; The man who’s unbreakable will pits him against his own allies; The guy who’s not afraid to be seen as square in an increasingly cynical world, because that’s just who he is. But his name won’t be Clark Kent. It’ll be Steve Rogers.

Yes, the folks at Marvel somehow magically figured out a way to make their Boy Scout character work, while you’ve gone and turned Superman into Batman-Lite. That’s a shame, because you are currently the custodian of one of the greatest fictional characters ever created, and you’re squandering him. It's also a shame because I didn't grow up loving Captain America, but now I have no choice but to root for him since he's seemingly the closest I'll get to seeing Superman on the big screen.

All fans such as myself can hope for is that you decide to start emphasizing more of what makes him an inspiration and less on how conflicted and distrustful you think he should be. We've awarded your two Superman films with mediocre-to-terrible reviews, and your second one has failed to live up to its box office promise- yet you may still be blind to what you're doing wrong.

"These people need me, so I'll just kind of float here with a sullen look on my face while a flood overtakes their home."

"Look how thrilled I am to have just saved a life. Go ahead. Worship me."

People love seeing heroes be heroic; Not brooding about what it means to be a hero, or if humanity deserves a champion like Superman. At a time when our world is so fractured, and so filled with terror, we need a hero that wants to lift our spirits and say, "It's going to be okay. You can do this." Let Batman be the dark, conflicted hero, and just please allow Superman to be the guiding light in a murky, complex world. The world needs Superman, and you've been keeping him from us.

Sincerely, A Friend.