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.
I never said it was realism. Those are your words. I just fail to see how this movie can't try to do something abstract while operating within the framework of a superhero movie. What was such a deconstruction of these characters? Snyder asked the questions and tackled the questions, and he did it while honoring the characters' 75+ year histories. That's what I can't understand. People say "one of the tenets of being Superman is that Superman never kills," but Superman did kill in the comics.

Whether you like it or not, whether you want to marginalize it and say it was a one-time occurrence that was out of character, or whatever, he did it, and that makes it valid. Batman has gone through phases where he's killed. Sure, you could say that the Golden Age Batman was merely a rough sketch of the character that we've come to know and love, but, if that version of the character can go through phases and transition into the Batman of today, why are we so averse to watching that character evolution on screen?

Thing is, those occurences were either retconned, were part of AUs, or are better simply left fogotten. Does anyone remember Avengers: The Crossing? Where Stark turned out to be a traitor manipulated by Kang, who tried to kill the Avengers and was then killed and replaced by his pure, teen self, only for Adult Tony to come back later with no explaination? That was never retconned, so it's still canon. Does it mean that we have to see an evil Tony somewhere down the line? Or an abusive Spider-Man? He did hit a pregnant MJ after all. Or even a female Ultron, a Demon Hulk or Donald Blake-is-Thor-who's-somehow-both-a-person-and-a-persona? These things are all canon, yet, we go for the "normal" versions of these characters, because these have been the staple of them for decades.

Everybody talks about how dark Superman is because of the tone of these films, but I don't understand that. He smiled in Man of Steel, he was overcome with joy when he flew for the first time, and, while he was careless, he clearly evolved between the two films. We see him making an effort to save people and to help people, and, honestly, just take a look at his influences, for instance. Jonathan and Martha Kent are not the saints they were in the comics. They're parents. The point is, they've done everything that they could to protect their son, even if it meant forsaking the world, and they made it crystal clear that, whatever path he took in life, it would be his own.

I think that's pretty powerful right there. That this Superman was raised to basically do what he wanted, and what he chooses to do is help people. He can't control how they respond to him, like in Mexico, for instance, but he still does it. The film deals with some heavy themes. When half of the world worships you and the other half hates you, how does that affect you? It's going to, and we see Clark reflect on that in the film.

You consider everything that Martha Kent said to him, and everything that's happened, and he's a man who's torn between two worlds. Should I be Clark Kent or Superman? He's tried the balancing act, and look what happened. Not only could you argue that his balancing the Clark Kent aspect of his life and prioritizing his own personal relationships in his duties as Superman directly led to his being called before congress, which put the men and women convening there in the crosshairs of a man with a vendetta, but the turmoil he was feeling left him careless, and it cost them all their lives. Then, you consider the fact that the man who did it was a victim of the battle of Metropolis and it's not difficult to see how he might be feeling contemplative.

Ultimately, though, it's these trials and tribulations that forge him into Superman. That's what his death is all about. This film is an evolution of the character we met in Man of Steel, but it's still not the complete picture, and we know that because of all the doubt and self-conflict. The ending of the film is his ascension. That's why they didn't hide the fact that he's coming back. It was the final test, and he was willing to sacrifice not only his own happiness, but himself for the good of the world, and isn't that what you're saying Superman should be about?

I can't really dissagree with anything here. As I've said multiple times, the intentions were good, but the execution? Not so much. The themes are hamfisted, the scenes are shot in a way that turns an act of heroism by Superman into him standing there just waiting to be "praised" instead of putting things straight. The Superman I know would just crack a smile, tell them that he's not so different and fly up, up and away. He wouldn't just stand there for the easily impressionable people to treat him like a God.

I don't see why it's such a cardinal sin for the heroes we watch to be vulnerable or have doubts or, in Batman's case, lapses in judgement. If anything, I feel like it could make them even stronger. You talk about realism and nihilism, but this film isn't completely nihilistic. It's a dark movie, to be sure, and it's heavy and dense, but, by the end of it, you're left in a somewhat more hopeful, optimistic place. At the beginning of the film, you see a Batman who is absolutely a nihilist. He's old, he's tired, and he's stopped caring, and he's stopped seeing the line that separates him from the criminals he's dedicated his life to combatting. Superman and his sacrifice help to redefine that line. In Batman's case, it is very much a deconstruction, but it's also a reconstruction for that character, framed against Superman becoming the hero he was meant to be.

Again, nobody's saying that these characters shouldn't have doubts and whatnot, but they should be in line with their "history". They shouldn't just be there for them to be "deep". The intentions were good, but the script, the lines, the delivery, it all made them look more like predetermined lines spoken by robots with programmed emotions rather than genuine lines by "real" characters. "The bat is dead, bury it, consider this mercy" or "You are not brave, men are brave" are cringeworthy lines that are just there to sound "epic".

Another problem is that they talk about only the 2 extremes. I don't believe anyone in this day and age would view Superman as a God and try to worship him. As a celebrity, yes. And yeah, you could argue that we do "worship" them in a way, but this whole "God vs Man" thing is just there to "elevate" the film. It doesn't do a good job of portraying the reaction of the world and no, a TV montage doesn't count in my book. Then again, it is a staple of comic books. When such techniques are used, you never see anybody saying "yeah, I guess he's cool, I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other".

I could see how someone might find the movie pretentious, but I don't see how that can act as an inherent criticism. I could argue that there are a lot of thoughtful, yet seemingly pretentious films that are, often, unanimously praised, and that the most pretentious notion of all is that this film is dismissed based on the fact that, as you said, it's a movie about "capes." I also feel like criticisms like crappy editing, plot conveniences, and choppy writing are all a bit unfounded. They were unconventional, surely, but I'd submit that they're no less crappy than any other unconventional choices.

Well, I'm not one for pretentious film that are chock-full of symbolism, so I'm not really the guy to ask this. Stuff like Boyhood, the Tree of Life, etc, etc, do nothing for me because they suffer from the same problem: They hit you over the head with their "complexity" and "deepness" that turn the whole movie sour. From a technical standpoint Boyhood is a masterpiece, but from a "story" perspective? Not really.

Birdman was a great movie that was almost universally praised, and, yet, we had shots of dinosaurs and the beginning of creation, and a whole variety of those "unconventional" editing choices, yet I didn't see people refer to it as crappy. All of the visions in this movie were no different, and each tied in, thematically, with where we were, currently, in the story.

The difference is that Birdman was part satire, part drama, part black-comedy. It dealt with a mentally ill man who was typecasted and his journey through the film world. The critics were all looking for pretentious ****e in that universe, wanking over stupid things and putting down others while they, themselves couldn't do any better. It was a movie about the inherent stuckup-ness of them. In the end, the whole message is that yes, sometimes less is better and that everyone can surprise you. In general, its point was that yes, super-heroes are ridiculous, but they're also icons and that doesn't make them bad. They just "are".

As far as the writing goes, I can agree with that. I think everything in the movie served a purpose, and led somewhere, but I don't think such a dense film can make for a great viewing experience. I can't really say that it was "incoherent" because of that, but I also think that it takes a lot of reflection to tie everything together, and, potentially, even multiple viewings, and, on that note, I can't really say that's a good thing for a blockbuster of this caliber to do.

Well, the truth is, WB wanted to play catch-up and get some of that sweet Avengers money, that's it. That's why they shoehorned the JL members, that's why they shoehorned Wonder Woman and Doomsday, etc, etc. They were attempting to built a lore that could sustain their universe, by simply throwing it all together in a blender. It's not an incoherent film because it's hard to follow, it's choppy because it tries to juggle so many things at once and, naturally, it fails. Such big, ensemble pieces should not be the second movie in the universe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look, it's not about BvS. When I say that cape-centric films can't be deep it's becuse yeah, they can't unless you change the dundemental history of these characters. They can't because when you boil it down, they feature an alien who works like a plant and gains super-powers, a guy who was gifted a special ring made by ancient aliens which works based on his emotions and a guy who's part of a race which, somehow, evolved from fish and yet is very similar to humans. They're ridiculous and there's no way around that. I'm not saying that they can't be more than Saturday Morning Cartoons, but they'll never be more than action-adventure films whose main selling point is action. It doesn't mean that they can't be good films, but they can't "transcend" the medium.

I don't really want to talk about BvS again, truth be told. Everything's been covered and I don't expect anyone's opinion to change. I'm sorry if it came out like that it wasn't really my intention, but I guess I got carried away. What I did talk about though is the "nature" of comic books and the difference between a CBM and an SHM. I've been reading lots of things from various publishers for a lot of years, and this is simply my take.

PS: On the realism part, I wasn't responding exclusively to you, just to the general "audience", who thinks that darkness equals realism. Look, I'm not really dissagreeing with anything here. I liked both MoS and BvS fine, just not enough to classify them as more than average movies. They had a different direction, and that was good, I never said that I wanted yet another comedy film. But to simply say it's great because it's different doesn't jive with me.
 
batfan firing on all cylinders, great posts fan of bat, enjoyed reading them. :rock

If you keep it up one day you just might be feared like this guy is...

image.jpeg
 
Thing is, those occurences were either retconned, were part of AUs, or are better simply left fogotten. Does anyone remember Avengers: The Crossing? Where Stark turned out to be a traitor manipulated by Kang, who tried to kill the Avengers and was then killed and replaced by his pure, teen self, only for Adult Tony to come back later with no explaination? That was never retconned, so it's still canon. Does it mean that we have to see an evil Tony somewhere down the line? Or an abusive Spider-Man? He did hit a pregnant MJ after all. Or even a female Ultron, a Demon Hulk or Donald Blake-is-Thor-who's-somehow-both-a-person-and-a-persona? These things are all canon, yet, we go for the "normal" versions of these characters, because these have been the staple of them for decades.



I can't really dissagree with anything here. As I've said multiple times, the intentions were good, but the execution? Not so much. The themes are hamfisted, the scenes are shot in a way that turns an act of heroism by Superman into him standing there just waiting to be "praised" instead of putting things straight. The Superman I know would just crack a smile, tell them that he's not so different and fly up, up and away. He wouldn't just stand there for the easily impressionable people to treat him like a God.



Again, nobody's saying that these characters shouldn't have doubts and whatnot, but they should be in line with their "history". They shouldn't just be there for them to be "deep". The intentions were good, but the script, the lines, the delivery, it all made them look more like predetermined lines spoken by robots with programmed emotions rather than genuine lines by "real" characters. "The bat is dead, bury it, consider this mercy" or "You are not brave, men are brave" are cringeworthy lines that are just there to sound "epic".

Another problem is that they talk about only the 2 extremes. I don't believe anyone in this day and age would view Superman as a God and try to worship him. As a celebrity, yes. And yeah, you could argue that we do "worship" them in a way, but this whole "God vs Man" thing is just there to "elevate" the film. It doesn't do a good job of portraying the reaction of the world and no, a TV montage doesn't count in my book. Then again, it is a staple of comic books. When such techniques are used, you never see anybody saying "yeah, I guess he's cool, I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other".



Well, I'm not one for pretentious film that are chock-full of symbolism, so I'm not really the guy to ask this. Stuff like Boyhood, the Tree of Life, etc, etc, do nothing for me because they suffer from the same problem: They hit you over the head with their "complexity" and "deepness" that turn the whole movie sour. From a technical standpoint Boyhood is a masterpiece, but from a "story" perspective? Not really.



The difference is that Birdman was part satire, part drama, part black-comedy. It dealt with a mentally ill man who was typecasted and his journey through the film world. The critics were all looking for pretentious ****e in that universe, wanking over stupid things and putting down others while they, themselves couldn't do any better. It was a movie about the inherent stuckup-ness of them. In the end, the whole message is that yes, sometimes less is better and that everyone can surprise you. In general, its point was that yes, super-heroes are ridiculous, but they're also icons and that doesn't make them bad. They just "are".



Well, the truth is, WB wanted to play catch-up and get some of that sweet Avengers money, that's it. That's why they shoehorned the JL members, that's why they shoehorned Wonder Woman and Doomsday, etc, etc. They were attempting to built a lore that could sustain their universe, by simply throwing it all together in a blender. It's not an incoherent film because it's hard to follow, it's choppy because it tries to juggle so many things at once and, naturally, it fails. Such big, ensemble pieces should not be the second movie in the universe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look, it's not about BvS. When I say that cape-centric films can't be deep it's becuse yeah, they can't unless you change the dundemental history of these characters. They can't because when you boil it down, they feature an alien who works like a plant and gains super-powers, a guy who was gifted a special ring made by ancient aliens which works based on his emotions and a guy who's part of a race which, somehow, evolved from fish and yet is very similar to humans. They're ridiculous and there's no way around that. I'm not saying that they can't be more than Saturday Morning Cartoons, but they'll never be more than action-adventure films whose main selling point is action. It doesn't mean that they can't be good films, but they can't "transcend" the medium.

I don't really want to talk about BvS again, truth be told. Everything's been covered and I don't expect anyone's opinion to change. I'm sorry if it came out like that it wasn't really my intention, but I guess I got carried away. What I did talk about though is the "nature" of comic books and the difference between a CBM and an SHM. I've been reading lots of things from various publishers for a lot of years, and this is simply my take.

PS: On the realism part, I wasn't responding exclusively to you, just to the general "audience", who thinks that darkness equals realism. Look, I'm not really dissagreeing with anything here. I liked both MoS and BvS fine, just not enough to classify them as more than average movies. They had a different direction, and that was good, I never said that I wanted yet another comedy film. But to simply say it's great because it's different doesn't jive with me.

The thing that I can't understand is "why now?" You talk about these either being retconned, being part of an alternate universe, or simply better yet forgotten, but why now? Many people to this day declare Keaton and Reeve to be the definitive Batmen and Superman, even though, in both instances, they were versions of the characters that killed (with Reeve, it's a bit more ambiguous, and kind of dependent on the criteria, but, if people were to say that Superman killed the African warlord based purely on what was in the theatrical version of BvS, the same could be said for Reeve and Zod in Superman II). Plus, as far as Batman's concerned, I appreciate the fact that Snyder tackled it head on as opposed to Nolan just ignoring the truck crash in accordance to Batman's rules, or handwaving away the fact that Batman was crushing cop cars like it's a demolition derby, and blowing up parked cars in a strip mall parking garage for no good reason. And those are just the two versions people think most about. I'd say Batman Forever's "throwing coins to cause Two-Face to fall to his death" is about on par with "disabling KGBeast's flamethrower by shooting it."

I'm not even saying I don't agree with you. I think it would've worked very well in giving Batman a definitive moral high ground over Superman had he never compromised his values and killed someone. All I'm saying is that it seems like Snyder is getting an unfair amount of flack for something filmmakers have been getting away with for decades, and, if his versions of the characters do kill, maybe they should be treated with the same considerations that people afforded those other versions.

And I absolutely agree with you about the two extremes. I actually joked earlier that it's pretty bad when the US Government is the most reasonable of the three groups in the movie. You've got the Luthors and the Waynes of the movie who are like "he's a monster! He has to be put down," and the Mexicans who are like "O Dio! Dio," and then you have the United States Government, who are like "hold on a minute, why don't we just ask him, 'hey, what are you all about?'" Naturally, they're the ones who get blown up.:lol

And I also agree with you about there being a ton to digest. I even said earlier that they could've made the JL set-up flow more naturally and be less intrusive and gratuitous. So, even though I, personally, "love" it, as far as being a "great" movie goes, I'm not saying it deserves any Oscars or anything. I just don't think it's a particularly horrible movie like some people do.
 
OK, but I'd still like to know how a mother box popped up on earth. A mother box is a direct link to Darkseid. Silas Stone doesn't work for Lex and as far as I can tell, it didn't arrive on a Kryptonian ship. So, I'm very curious as to how this mother box showed up.
In the movie Justice League War, Flash gives Stone the mother box to analyze. The mother boxes were planted all across the planet by parademons. I don't know if that's how it was done in the comics because I never read New52 JL.
 
The thing that I can't understand is "why now?" You talk about these either being retconned, being part of an alternate universe, or simply better yet forgotten, but why now? Many people to this day declare Keaton and Reeve to be the definitive Batmen and Superman, even though, in both instances, they were versions of the characters that killed (with Reeve, it's a bit more ambiguous, and kind of dependent on the criteria, but, if people were to say that Superman killed the African warlord based purely on what was in the theatrical version of BvS, the same could be said for Reeve and Zod in Superman II).

Well, as someone who didn't grow up with Reeve and Keaton, I'm not sure I am qualified to answer this, but here's my take: Nostalgia. That, plus the fact that they were the first to portray them in the big screen. Sure, they changed some stuff, but, for the most part, those two translated those 2 giants to the big screen without erasing their history. They had the tights, the mannerisms and whatnot. But, if you ask me, I don't think they're perfect translations. They have some aspects nailed, but the same goes for the most recent movies. Ever flick will hit at least one note but miss ten others.


Plus, as far as Batman's concerned, I appreciate the fact that Snyder tackled it head on as opposed to Nolan just ignoring the truck crash in accordance to Batman's rules, or handwaving away the fact that Batman was crushing cop cars like it's a demolition derby, and blowing up parked cars in a strip mall parking garage for no good reason. And those are just the two versions people think most about. I'd say Batman Forever's "throwing coins to cause Two-Face to fall to his death" is about on par with "disabling KGBeast's flamethrower by shooting it."

Honestly, I was never a big Nolan fan. His Batflicks were, for the most part, great movies. They deserved the praise, most of the time, as simple "movies". But as Batman flicks? Hell no. The stupid voice, the love interests, the times he gave up, the fact that he was barely made out to be a detective (and nah, the bullet scene doesn't make up for it) or a genius, and the movies in general didn't feel like Batman ones. They had some elements down to a t, but they missed the mark on many others.

I'm not even saying I don't agree with you. I think it would've worked very well in giving Batman a definitive moral high ground over Superman had he never compromised his values and killed someone. All I'm saying is that it seems like Snyder is getting an unfair amount of flack for something filmmakers have been getting away with for decades, and, if his versions of the characters do kill, maybe they should be treated with the same considerations that people afforded those other versions.

Yeah, well, that's what most people were expecting. A fight cause by a rift due to ideological differences, and instead we got a boring plot of manipulation. It was obvious the emotional weight wouldn't be there since we didn't "know" these versions, but at least had the movie been about conflicting personalities, it would've been at least a bit different. Instead, we get Batman being used by Lex Luthor, who gets used by an unseen force, tangles with a reluctant Supes, and then solve their differences in secons to go beat up the bad guy. It's just not an exciting or even original plot.

Now, that's what I fault Snyder and the script's writer (with all the revisions, who knows who he is) with. Not the deaths or the lack of morals, the fact that the movie itself was actually surprise free. Everyone knew that they'd make up by the time the credits rolled and solve their misunderstanding. And... that happened. As soon as Doomsday was shown, then yeah, everyone knew the end, and, even though we were asured that this wouldn't be it... it ultimately was.

It would've been much better to use Metallo and have Scoot's character be him. It'd follow on the MoS thread, it wouldn't waste Doomsday and in general would've made sense in-story. It was such an obvious move that I'm really surprised why they went with a botched Doomsday. Still, the plot would've been just as predictable, but it would've allowed of a bigger exploration of the feelings of a survivor and the lengths he'd go to enact his vengeance. It would've elevated the movie a bit IMO.

And I absolutely agree with you about the two extremes. I actually joked earlier that it's pretty bad when the US Government is the most reasonable of the three groups in the movie. You've got the Luthors and the Waynes of the movie who are like "he's a monster! He has to be put down," and the Mexicans who are like "O Dio! Dio," and then you have the United States Government, who are like "hold on a minute, why don't we just ask him, 'hey, what are you all about?'" Naturally, they're the ones who get blown up.:lol

I don't like generalizations truth be told, so that part lost me. Instead of focusing on the actual response, which like all things would be somewhere in the middle, the film focuses on the two extreme sides of the argument. I imagine their opinions would change depending on their location. A Metropolis citizen who was saved would be grateful, but one who lost his family from the flying debris would be furious. A British guy who didn't experience any destruction would be grateful that this genocidal alien who wanted to destroy the whole world was stopped. Instead of showing us that, we get the classic "Fedora Tippers vs Ignorant Believers" "debate".

And I also agree with you about there being a ton to digest. I even said earlier that they could've made the JL set-up flow more naturally and be less intrusive and gratuitous. So, even though I, personally, "love" it, as far as being a "great" movie goes, I'm not saying it deserves any Oscars or anything. I just don't think it's a particularly horrible movie like some people do.

Honestly, the only thing we needed about JL was the last hint with Bruce speaking to Diana. We didn't need to see a time-travelling Flash, Bruce's visions or the computer files. They didn't flow well, they wre awkwardly placed and messed up with the narrative. If you're going forward with JL before the solos, then **** it and just introduce them then. The "Seven Samurai" didn't have a solo flick for everyone of them. Introduce them in the League and then flesh them out in their solos. Just don't screw everything up in an attempt to "debut" them a year before.

Again, I didn't think the movie was horrible or a disaster. It was still somewhat enjoyable and I'll see the extended cut. I don't have any problem with anyone liking or not liking it. What simply pisses me off is the fact that some people think it's a cinematic masterpiece and that those of us who don't love it, didn't get it. The fact that some folks treat their opinions as fact, and make something out of nothing. Like it? Cool. Don't like it? Still cool. Just don't expect everyone to share your POV.

Just let everyone do as he or she likes, there're no "rules" here. As long as insults are avoided, who cares? I understand that some things can be repetitive but eh, just go with the flow. The majority is fairly respectable I think, eve when we're joking or taking offense with something. It's just one or two bad apples max that cause trouble.

Anyway, good talk. Twas constructed well, with no insults and you were a real debater, unlike some. Kudos! :hi5: :duff
 
Yeah, that's more like it. That's how you have a discussion, even when you disagree.

Good job, gents. :duff

Thank you! Tis indeed a rare sight to see a discussion without personal insults on "dem interwebsz".

Pfff...a civilized discussion. Damn it, I wanted blood!! That ''discussion" was more anticlimactic than the B vs S fight. :monkey3

are-you-not-entertained-w-text-720x396.jpg
 
Pfff...a civilized discussion. Damn it, I wanted blood!! That ''discussion" was more anticlimactic than the B vs S fight. :monkey3

:thwak

Those posts from darthkostis has to be some of the best movie analysis I have ever seen posted here about comic book movies since my birth here.

Whomever that person is, kudos! :duff

For me to even read that wall of text meant that I was thoroughly engaged.

But I guess you have a point, they should fight to the internet death now. :lol
 
I can't imagine BvS isn't going to rake in the promo and merch money. I didn't even like the movie and I bought two Batfleck figures and multiple branded Dorito bags. :lol
 
batfan firing on all cylinders, great posts fan of bat, enjoyed reading them. :rock

If you keep it up one day you just might be feared like this guy is...

View attachment 258961

giphy.gif


Always a pleasure hearing such good things from my favorite of the lolcat guild. :lol :duff



Well, as someone who didn't grow up with Reeve and Keaton, I'm not sure I am qualified to answer this, but here's my take: Nostalgia. That, plus the fact that they were the first to portray them in the big screen. Sure, they changed some stuff, but, for the most part, those two translated those 2 giants to the big screen without erasing their history. They had the tights, the mannerisms and whatnot. But, if you ask me, I don't think they're perfect translations. They have some aspects nailed, but the same goes for the most recent movies. Ever flick will hit at least one note but miss ten others.




Honestly, I was never a big Nolan fan. His Batflicks were, for the most part, great movies. They deserved the praise, most of the time, as simple "movies". But as Batman flicks? Hell no. The stupid voice, the love interests, the times he gave up, the fact that he was barely made out to be a detective (and nah, the bullet scene doesn't make up for it) or a genius, and the movies in general didn't feel like Batman ones. They had some elements down to a t, but they missed the mark on many others.



Yeah, well, that's what most people were expecting. A fight cause by a rift due to ideological differences, and instead we got a boring plot of manipulation. It was obvious the emotional weight wouldn't be there since we didn't "know" these versions, but at least had the movie been about conflicting personalities, it would've been at least a bit different. Instead, we get Batman being used by Lex Luthor, who gets used by an unseen force, tangles with a reluctant Supes, and then solve their differences in secons to go beat up the bad guy. It's just not an exciting or even original plot.

Now, that's what I fault Snyder and the script's writer (with all the revisions, who knows who he is) with. Not the deaths or the lack of morals, the fact that the movie itself was actually surprise free. Everyone knew that they'd make up by the time the credits rolled and solve their misunderstanding. And... that happened. As soon as Doomsday was shown, then yeah, everyone knew the end, and, even though we were asured that this wouldn't be it... it ultimately was.

It would've been much better to use Metallo and have Scoot's character be him. It'd follow on the MoS thread, it wouldn't waste Doomsday and in general would've made sense in-story. It was such an obvious move that I'm really surprised why they went with a botched Doomsday. Still, the plot would've been just as predictable, but it would've allowed of a bigger exploration of the feelings of a survivor and the lengths he'd go to enact his vengeance. It would've elevated the movie a bit IMO.



I don't like generalizations truth be told, so that part lost me. Instead of focusing on the actual response, which like all things would be somewhere in the middle, the film focuses on the two extreme sides of the argument. I imagine their opinions would change depending on their location. A Metropolis citizen who was saved would be grateful, but one who lost his family from the flying debris would be furious. A British guy who didn't experience any destruction would be grateful that this genocidal alien who wanted to destroy the whole world was stopped. Instead of showing us that, we get the classic "Fedora Tippers vs Ignorant Believers" "debate".



Honestly, the only thing we needed about JL was the last hint with Bruce speaking to Diana. We didn't need to see a time-travelling Flash, Bruce's visions or the computer files. They didn't flow well, they wre awkwardly placed and messed up with the narrative. If you're going forward with JL before the solos, then **** it and just introduce them then. The "Seven Samurai" didn't have a solo flick for everyone of them. Introduce them in the League and then flesh them out in their solos. Just don't screw everything up in an attempt to "debut" them a year before.

Again, I didn't think the movie was horrible or a disaster. It was still somewhat enjoyable and I'll see the extended cut. I don't have any problem with anyone liking or not liking it. What simply pisses me off is the fact that some people think it's a cinematic masterpiece and that those of us who don't love it, didn't get it. The fact that some folks treat their opinions as fact, and make something out of nothing. Like it? Cool. Don't like it? Still cool. Just don't expect everyone to share your POV.

Just let everyone do as he or she likes, there're no "rules" here. As long as insults are avoided, who cares? I understand that some things can be repetitive but eh, just go with the flow. The majority is fairly respectable I think, eve when we're joking or taking offense with something. It's just one or two bad apples max that cause trouble.

Anyway, good talk. Twas constructed well, with no insults and you were a real debater, unlike some. Kudos! :hi5: :duff

As were you, sir. It was a real pleasure. :hi5:

Yeah, that's more like it. That's how you have a discussion, even when you disagree.

Good job, gents. :duff

Thank you, sir. It'd be nice if that was the norm, wouldn't it?:lol
 
:thwak

Those posts from darthkostis has to be some of the best movie analysis I have ever seen posted here about comic book movies since my birth here.

Whomever that person is, kudos! :duff

For me to even read that wall of text meant that I was thoroughly engaged.

Me? Oh I'm nothing special...

large.gif


Who also happens to look exactly like this guy:

giphy.gif


And I'm as much of a genius as this guy:

200_s.gif


Oh, not to mention that I'm worth:

UxX63QU.jpg


So, in general, I'm this guy:

3874525-9224525733-36604.gif


And thus, now that my secret has been uncovered:

tumblr_nodwz024Tp1tob7k5o1_1280.png


So says Doom!

tumblr_n34n6eUSPp1t3u8ezo1_400.gif


-----------------------------------------------------------

Kidding aside, thanks for the kind words, I really appreciate it! :hi5: :duff
 
What Crown Prince prefers:

ohxeg.gif


giphy.gif

:lol:lol:lol

Something like that...or this.




:thwak

Those posts from darthkostis has to be some of the best movie analysis I have ever seen posted here about comic book movies since my birth here.

Whomever that person is, kudos! :duff

For me to even read that wall of text meant that I was thoroughly engaged.

But I guess you have a point, they should fight to the internet death now. :lol

:hi5:

cLHYses.gif
 
Back
Top