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

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
And one thing is certain, if they were really concerned about dollars I wouldn't be here right now. I'm as expendable as it gets. :lol

IrishJedi you're an asset, an expendable asset, and so WB cooked up a JL story and dropped you right in the meat grinder. What happened to you Irish? Your taste in film used to be something I could trust. ;)

original.jpg
 
Personally I am hopping that they are just Unhappy enough to make sure that the stories are better from here on out.

There is a plan in place and they're not diverting from it. That said, it includes the movies (Justice League, included) being lighter and more "fun" from here, so perhaps you'll be more pleased next time. Just don't expect a reboot or anything (unless Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman and JL all struggle).

BvS did what it had to do. It opened the door for the rest of the films and made more than enough money to justify them.
 
IrishJedi you're an asset, an expendable asset, and so WB cooked up a JL story and dropped you right in the meat grinder. What happened to you Irish? Your taste in film used to be something I could trust. ;)

original.jpg

:lol

Need the arm-wrestling handshake here but I'm mobile and don't have it!
 
There is a plan in place and they're not diverting from it. That said, it includes the movies (Justice League, included) being lighter and more "fun" from here, so perhaps you'll be more pleased next time. Just don't expect a reboot or anything (unless Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman and JL all struggle).

BvS did what it had to do. It opened the door for the rest of the films and made more than enough money to justify them.

Oh I don't want a reboot. I like BvS and enjoy the first hour of MOS. I don't know if I even need them to be more "fun" Just tell a better story that gets the audience more invested.
 
of course the critics matter! for those of us who have fun with the movie business and find it to be a hobby, reading the reviews are just part of the process. And it lets us see things from a non-fanboy angle. Reviews aren't be-all end-all, but they are fun to read (if sometimes painful to read).

If I lived in a little bubble and never heard any other opinions about BVS I would rank it up there, like really high up there. But hearing all the criticism deflated that, and I came to my senses that the movie was a bit of a mess. Although 29% of critics liking it is still a head scratcher.

The critics only matter

When they agree with me :)
 
Many of the people I know who saw it thought it was dark and depressing. Most of the action happened at night. Batman and Superman were angry and sad. For many it did not come across as a feel good movie.
 
Many of the people I know who saw it thought it was dark and depressing. Most of the action happened at night. Batman and Superman were angry and sad. For many it did not come across as a feel good movie.

Where did it say it was supposed to be? I found great hope in it for Supes saving the world from Doomsday and people finally seeing what a great hero he was....
plus that dirt lifting on the last shot well that clinches you know who is coming back:lol
 
I got it, but they didn't understand why he had to die in the first place. I knew where they were gong with the story and where everything was going, but would t the world consider him a hero if they all just defeated doomsday without him dying?
 
Where did it say it was supposed to be? I found great hope in it for Supes saving the world from Doomsday and people finally seeing what a great hero he was....
plus that dirt lifting on the last shot well that clinches you know who is coming back:lol

I'm going to call him Dirtman from now on, until he becomes Superman :D
 
Crap! How did you know Snyder is directing Peanuts 2????????????????????????????????:lol
JL/Peanuts is a crossover no one expected! Could definitely work. Can't wait to see Krypto V Snoopy: Dawn of the Super Pets

I'm going to call him Dirtman from now on, until he becomes Superman :D
Speaking of dirty DC characters, I doubt Fox would mind letting their loser Ragman wanna-be go now that the FF movie BOMBED.

k3fujOx.jpg


From what I saw in the trailers and promo videos, he would fit pretty well with this new Justice League.
 
Another example while on the the subject of superhero movies, take a look at Batman Forever. Back in 1995 it wasn't panned, it got good reviews and did great financially. That movie was such a critical and financial success that they IMMEDIATELY went to work on Batman and Robin, which is kinda unheard of.

Not really. Batman Forever did "okay" with critics, not the 41% that RT is showing but probably in the 60% range (but maybe that is your point.) We didn't have these nationwide collective reviews at the time just four or five national reviewers (Siskel & Ebert, Gene Shalit, Joel Siegel, and maybe Leonard Maltin) coupled with whatever your local newspaper was at the time. I remember really enjoying BF and then being surprised that Ebert gave it two and a half out of four stars. Particularly because unlike Siskel he'd judge films based on how they measured up in their own genre (as opposed to comparing every movie to Citizen Kane.)

He had this to say about BF (which is currently linked on RT so even if they add reviews to old films it doesn't mean they are retrospective hindsight opinions):

Batman would be a sensation in any leather bar, but "Batman Forever" is at pains to show that he has heterosexual tastes. Nicole Kidman plays Dr. Chase Meridian, who sounds like a bank, but is, in fact, a student of abnormal psychology. She's powerfully attracted to Batman the moment she meets him, and wonders what he's looking for in a woman: Would it help, she wonders, if she carried a whip? She's thrilled that Batman reads her books ("Not every girl makes a superhero's night table"), but less than thrilled when her date for the Gotham Charity Circus is boring old bachelor Bruce Wayne. Maybe the clothes do make the man.

This theme - the girl in love with the image but not the reality - is also standard in the Superman series, where Lois Lane chases the Man of Steel, but rejects Clark Kent. What's new in "Batman Forever" is that Batman himself (Val Kilmer) has to do a little seduction. At the circus, young acrobat **** Grayson (Chris O'Donnell) saves the crowd by rolling Two-Face's TNT bomb into the river. His family is killed during this process. Bruce Wayne, impressed by the orphaned young man, invites him to stay at Wayne Manor, but **** is a rebellious motorcycle freak who wants outtathere - until Wayne shows him his collection of bikes, including priceless old Harleys and Indians. The subtexts in this scene are so deep, you have to wade through them.

The plot of the movie involves the embittered Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones), a former district attorney who is deranged after half his face is scarred by acid. He's mean, but not brilliant. For brains, the movie provides Edward Nygma (Jim Carrey), who uses a computer program to name himself the Riddler, and who hooks up with Two-Face to steal lots of loot to finance his evil scheme.

The Riddler's scheme is one of the more amusing aspects of "Batman Forever," considering that the movie is being distributed by Warner Bros., a division of Time Warner, which owns HBO and other cable outlets. The Riddler wants to put a copy of "The Box" on top of every TV set in Gotham.

This device is not exactly an Internet provider. It works by sucking up the brain waves of its users, transferring them to the Riddler, whose own I.Q. expands at dizzying speed.

Although the first two Batman movies were big winners at the box office, there was a feeling after "Batman Returns" (1992) that the series had grown too dark and gloomy. Batman was a reclusive neurotic, his enemies included the deformed Penguin (raised from childhood in sewers), and the movies tried for a marriage of superheroes and film noir. That didn't work: The message of noir is that there are no heroes.

Tim Burton, director of the first two brooding Batman films, steps up to producer for "Batman Forever," and the new director, Joel Schumacher, makes a generally successful effort to lighten the material. There are more clever one-liners for Alfred the butler (Michael Gough), lots of laughs for the Riddler (played by Jim Carrey like a riff on his character in "The Mask"), and even sitcom moments like the one when Alfred tells Bruce Wayne that the "young master" has run off with the car. "The Jaguar?" asks Wayne. "No, sir. The other car." The movie looks great, of course; Gotham City is a web of towering spires, bridges and expressways, planted in a swamp of despond. Boardrooms and laboratories look like German Expressionist sets, and the charity circus could come straight from Murnau's "Sunrise." There are neat gimmicks, like the Riddler's brain-wave helmet, and neat stunts, as when the Batmobile climbs straight up the side of a skyscraper. And there is a consistent visual motif: two hands clasping in a firm grip. **** Grayson is caught in such a grip by his acrobat father during a dangerous trick, and later the shot is repeated to show that Bruce Wayne is now his surrogate father.

But somehow Batman still doesn't come alive. Val Kilmer is a completely acceptable substitute for Michael Keaton in the title role, but in all three of the movies, Batman remains shadowy and undefined. The movies exist for their villains, who this time both seem to be playing the same note; the Riddler and Two-Face alternate in overacting, until the pace grows wearying. There is no rhythm to the movie, no ebb and flow; it's all flat-out spectacle.

Is the movie better entertainment? Well, it's great bubble gum for the eyes. And younger children will be able to process it more easily (some kids were led bawling from "Batman Returns," where the PG-13 rating was a joke).

I liked the look of the movie and Schumacher's general irreverence toward the material. But the great Batman movie still remains to be made. Here is the most complex and intriguing of classic comic superheroes, inhabiting the most visually interesting world, but somehow a story hasn't been found to do him justice. A story - with a beginning, a middle and an end, and a Batman at its center who emerges as more than a collection of costumes and postures. More than ever, after this third movie, I found myself asking, Who was that masked man, anyhow?

His thumbs up was marginable at best and seemed to be somewhat padded by his dismay over the darkness of Batman Returns. And that was exactly what was printed in papers in 1995.

Warner Bros. just jumped right into it and it began filming in, what, 1996? The Burton and Nolan movies had three years between them, TDKR, four. Forever had great word of mouth and legs and I remember the newspapers and tv spots with all of it's gushy positive reviews and headlines.

I don't think that WB said "wow, BF is such a success both critically and financially lets make the next one quicker" as I'm sure like with Star Wars (which were also three years apart) pre-production began immediately after B89 and BR. In fact since the B89 phenomenon was something I followed at the time (I definitely bought into the hype) I still remember Mary Hart on Entertainment Tonight announcing when the first film hit $250 million (and was obviously still in theaters) that WB declared that Batman would "be a trilogy." That was an exciting moment. But then Burton left after the second one, Schumacher came on board and BF did reasonably well enough (about GOTG or Minions numbers adjusted for inflation and certainly not as well as Batman 89) and they probably realized "hey, apparently we don't need Burton taking his time with these, let's just start spitting these out with whomever is at the helm." Unfortunately that turned out to be a very, very bad idea.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top