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

[spindrift]

Here is my advise, you fellas and gals just ignore what little ole me has to say anyways because you know what....I enjoyed BvS and i'm super excited for the extended cut.

Now, give me some Civil War, then Twink-Men with Wolverine Cameo then Dr. Zizmor!

Still I have high regard for BvS for many reasons..it's all artistic choices Snyder made that fail with most cbm fans but I really loved...
I know CW will be hitting the right buttons for me but I think BvS will have a longer lasting and deeper impact on me....and I will like both films

 

[jye4ever]

I understand that TDKR had some flaws, but so did BB and TDK. I just don't get all the BB and TDK worshiping when those films also have bad scenes, boring scenes, and dialogue where people don't even talk or act like real human beings. Those films are pretentious as ****. I'm glad people are starting to turn against those Nolan films because they think Battfleck is "the real" Batman.

Oh I definately agree that the 3rd act of BB grows weak and that Dent's arc was shallow but when both movies are amalgamated they create a singular narrative which elevates Batman into a powerful force to be respected, appreciated and not to be messed with.

Then HL dies and Nolan comes along and punches me in the nuts.

 

[karamazov80]

Bottom line, the first two Nolan films are fulfilling to me. They are well told stories that stick with you, and they get Batman right in a way no one else has on film (including homicidal nut Affleck, though he has potential to uproot Bale). The acting, the cinematography, the action, the conflict, the pacing, the ebbs and flows, it all works for me. Neither is perfect, but both are better to my eyes than any other comic movie I've seen.

Of course, if you build a movie around the Joker but take the Joker out of the movie, the movie won't work. But if Joker wasn't there the movie would be fundamentally different, so you can't really evaluate a movie that way.

 

[jye4ever]

Bottom line, the first two Nolan films are fulfilling to me. They are well told stories that stick with you, and they get Batman right in a way no one else has on film (including homicidal nut Affleck, though he has potential to uproot Bale). The acting, the cinematography, the action, the conflict, the pacing, the ebbs and flows, it all works for me. Neither is perfect, but both are better to my eyes than any other comic movie I've seen.

Of course, if you build a movie around the Joker but take the Joker out of the movie, the movie won't work. But if Joker wasn't there the movie would be fundamentally different, so you can't really evaluate a movie that way.

And there it is.

 

[Cap'n Cook]

Take the Joker scenes out of TDK, and it's one of the most boring films ever made with an actor and actress that have zero chemistry and an ending that's about 10 minutes too long. Batman Begins' origin is nothing more than rip off of Dr. Strange origin with poorly shot fight scenes, a generic third act with a villain whose plan makes no sense either....but hey, that's the untouchable Nolan golden hand at its best...I guess.

The whole 'take the joker out' argument is pathetic. Never understand that.

It's like 'take Red out of shawshank redemption'. Nonsensical.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Oh I definately agree that the 3rd act of BB grows weak and that Dent's arc was shallow but when both movies are amalgamated they create a singular narrative which elevates Batman into a powerful force to be respected, appreciated and not to be messed with.

Then HL dies and Nolan comes along and punches me in the nuts.

I just think that "great" narrative continues in TDKR. Even the ending of TDKR comes full circle with BB by having Bruce Wayne legally dead just like how Batman Begins begins by having Bruce Wayne legally dead for 8 year. That's some old school OT trilogy poetry right there. I bet you never thought about that

 

[Starscream Soundwave]

The whole 'take the joker out' argument is pathetic. Never understand that.

It's like 'take Red out of shawshank redemption'. Nonsensical.

Or take Lex out of BvS

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

The whole 'take the joker out' argument is pathetic. Never understand that.

It's like 'take Red out of shawshank redemption'. Nonsensical.

Not really. I find almost every scene the Joker is not in, boring. All those Harvey Dent, Bruce Wayne, Lucious Fox and Rachel Scenes...boring. I know I'm not the only one who skips all that crap and goes straight to the Joker scenes.

 

[DiFabio]

Biggest thing for me is TDKR ruins pretty much all the characters that were made pretty great in Begins and TDK, Alfred being the worst. The only one that doesn't change and has pretty much the same schtick throughout is Fox.

I don't care if someone thinks Begins and TDK are overrated, I'll take them over TDKR any day. Begins might have a crappy third act and Rachel, but it's still a good movie and Batman story. The only compelling thing about the Dark Knight might be the Joker and it's philosophical themes, but I'll take that kind of substance over the half baked, flash in a pan finale of TDKR. I can't even think of a single character I like in TDKR. Atleast TDK has Joker and Gordon in compelling roles.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Biggest thing for me is TDKR ruins pretty much all the characters that were made pretty great in Begins and TDK, Alfred being the worst. The only one that doesn't change and has pretty much the same schtick throughout is Fox.

In what way?

 

[Victοr]

Wait, did Snyder really say that if we're not careful we might one day have a Captain America movie?

Oh man, that's right up there with Lucas and Spielberg saying "It's gonna be great, yep, gonna be great..."

Yep. Snyder's weird like that...

he really did say that, its in the interview... he also did say the batman could be raped if he made that movie ...

he said Batman begins was not as Dark as it could have been, Snyder's batman would be darker.

He also said that his mother taught him how to throw toilet paper at other folks' houses, so there's that, I guess...

 

[DiFabio]

In what way?

Bruce Wayne walks around in his daddy's pajamas and does nothing for 8 years of his life except mope around Wayne Manor and practice archery. This idea of hermit Bruce could have been compelling had all of his failures not occurred offscreen. Why did he randomly funnel all his resources into an energy project that he never seemed interested in doing in the first two movies? Where did that come from? Visiting orphanages with little kids being able to recognize him? Alfred still making his bed? It's pathetic. Then his whole "anyone could be Batman, that was the point" exchange and handing everything over to a random character to fulfill the dreams of his butler is pretty lame. So much for the Wayne legacy. It makes sense when you hear that Bale was disappointed with his performance, his Bruce Wayne/Batman was hardly as hard edged in the end and went out with a whimper.

Gordon becomes a bumbling idiot. None of the characters respect him. The horrible letter he keeps in his pocket that's only there to forward the plot is asinine. He went from that cool, one good cop, to an incompetent has been that reads Charles Dickens' passages for euologies. "B-Bruce Wayne!?" *forced flashback* No ****, you dumb ass.

Alfred leaving his surrogant son at a time when he needs him the most is just wrong. He disappears half way through the movie, and spends most of the movie crying his eyes out. Gone is the humorous and motivatinonal character that brings in the whit and banter. Instead we get a nervous Aflred at his most preachy and pretentious and it's just not very interesting to watch. Out of all the characters in TDKR, Alfred would have better served the plot, dead. Have Bane kill the whiny bastard or something. It's possibly the worst interpretation of Alfred on screen.

 

[karamazov80]

Biggest thing for me is TDKR ruins pretty much all the characters that were made pretty great in Begins and TDK, Alfred being the worst. The only one that doesn't change and has pretty much the same schtick throughout is Fox.

I don't care if someone thinks Begins and TDK are overrated, I'll take them over TDKR any day. Begins might have a crappy third act and Rachel, but it's still a good movie and Batman story. The only compelling thing about the Dark Knight might be the Joker and it's philosophical themes, but I'll take that kind of substance over the half baked, flash in a pan finale of TDKR. I can't even think of a single character I like in TDKR. Atleast TDK has Joker and Gordon in compelling roles.

I thought Scarecrow was good in TDKR. . .

 

[DiFabio]

I thought Scarecrow was good in TDKR. . .

Yeah, that's actually true. I know you're joking, but I actually enjoyed seeing Crane again even though he never got any kind of closure.

He's criminally underused in the three movies. Sucks that he's played off as a cameo joke. Murphy had this underlying creepiness to him and, with a better, more involving story for Scarecrow, could have been so much more. I remember being so excited when it was confirmed in 2007 that he'd be reappearing in TDK. Then he ended up being utilized as a throw away, "hey, remember him!" character. Guess that's better than screaming like a little kid into the night after getting tazed in the head by Katie Holmes.

 

[Khev]

The Nolan trilogy has the biggest narrative deflate in cinema history.

For me it was ALIENS > Alien 3. But that isn't with regard to quality because quality-wise A3 is a decent film. Certainly better than SM3, SW PT, BTTF II & III, etc. I've just never been so invested in a film universe and its characters only to have those things completely transformed/erased in a sequel that was *not* a reboot. Films like ROTJ and TDKR might have been step downs but at least they got to coast a bit on the greatness that came before with some familiar characters and a familiar feel that we still loved. Hell even SM3 retained the previous cast and still "felt" like a Raimi flick, even if it was a piss poor one.

A3's world didn't feel like Cameron's and the wholesale elimination of such pivotal supporting characters as Hicks and Newt was pretty crushing.

How many projects driven largely by commercial concerns have been "great" vs. how many driven by artistic concerns have been "great?" Of course, understanding that this is a continuum, and most projects we are familiar with have components of both. I can rattle off numerous instances in the latter category. Not so much in the former. Can you or anyone else do that? I suspect Khev would put Force Awakens into that category, but he and I disagree on that one.

I'm going to continue to hang my hat on:

1. The Force Awakens was great entertainment.
2. The best Star Wars film since ESB.
3. My personal favorite film since the great LOTR trilogy.

I still have yet to give it a score out of 10 and don't plan to anytime soon. If I did and posted it here the Bat kiddos would probably lose their **** anyway so why bother.

I am inclined to concede superior quality to the wave of incredibly strong dramas we've been getting over the last couple years, films that I've trumpeted a number of times already. Dramas tend to have the luxury of getting to say "we're just going to be great period, we don't care if we make you stand up and cheer, we don't care if we make triple our budget back, we don't need to course correct previously failed attempts in a franchise (which was a burden of both DOFP and TFA) we're just going to go out and have a soundly crafted film, period.

I do think that you and a number of others here don't give TFA enough artistic credit. Abrams and Kasdan could have played the "fanboy service" card so much more. So much more. They could have limited themselves to only telling a story that had Han Solo doing all the cool flying in the Falcon or had Avengers style camera pans around Han, Luke, Leia, and the droids in action again. They also could have sold a LOT more toys by just CGing in a handful of new fighters on both sides. Throw some A-Wings, Y-Wings, and a brand new ship or two to the battles. Boom, tons more toys for Hasbro to sell. But I feel that they really did exercise a lot of restraint because in their minds just a good all around and engaging film was their top priority, above even what some would consider "no brainer" fan service and merchandise padding.

But eh, it is what it is. I know people are going to camp out on the fact that a droid carried some important information and the good guys attacked a big round base at the end while ignoring the fact that 80% of the movie was all new stuff.

 

[batfan08]

Bruce Wayne walks around in his daddy's pajamas and does nothing for 8 years of his life except mope around Wayne Manor and practice archery. This idea of hermit Bruce could have been compelling had all of his failures not occurred offscreen. Why did he randomly funnel all his resources into an energy project that he never seemed interested in doing in the first two movies? Where did that come from? Visiting orphanages with little kids being able to recognize him? Alfred still making his bed? It's pathetic. Then his whole "anyone could be Batman, that was the point" exchange and handing everything over to a random character to fulfill the dreams of his butler is pretty lame. So much for the Wayne legacy. It makes sense when you hear that Bale was disappointed with his performance, his Bruce Wayne/Batman was hardly as hard edged in the end and went out with a whimper.

Gordon becomes a bumbling idiot. None of the characters respect him. The horrible letter he keeps in his pocket that's only there to forward the plot is asinine. He went from that cool, one good cop, to an incompetent has been that reads Charles Dickens' passages for euologies. "B-Bruce Wayne!?" *forced flashback* No ****, you dumb ass.

Alfred leaving his surrogant son at a time when he needs him the most is just wrong. He disappears half way through the movie, and spends most of the movie crying his eyes out. Gone is the humorous and motivatinonal character that brings in the whit and banter. Instead we get a nervous Aflred at his most preachy and pretentious and it's just not very interesting to watch. Out of all the characters in TDKR, Alfred would have better served the plot, dead. Have Bane kill the whiny bastard or something. It's possibly the worst interpretation of Alfred on screen.

Honest question: why the **** is everyone so surprised by Bruce's retirement?

Batman Begins: "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy and I can't do that as Bruce Wayne. As a man, I'm flesh and blood, I can be ignored, I can be destroyed; but as a symbol... as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting."

The Dark Knight: "You know that day that you once told me about, when Gotham would no longer need Batman? It's coming.

"Bruce. You can't ask me to wait for that."

"It's happening now. Harvey is that hero. He locked up half of the city's criminals, and he did it without wearing a mask. Gotham needs a hero with a face."

I mean, ****, the stand-out line in Batman Begins is "it's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me." The whole "Batman can be anybody" thing was there from the word "go," and Bruce made his intentions to quit known several times in both previous movies. If people want to get all pissy when it actually comes to fruition for once, that's on them.

 

[Khev]

Batman Begins: "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy and I can't do that as Bruce Wayne. As a man, I'm flesh and blood, I can be ignored, I can be destroyed; but as a symbol... as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting."

For me personally I read those lines and key into the parts about Bruce being ignored or destroyed as reasons to be replaced. He doesn't say "As a man I'm flesh and blood, I can retire, see the world, but as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting." So I would have preferred him "winning" by being ignored or destroyed and still having his symbol live on in another form. I think that would have maintained the core themes of the trilogy and would have been a more satisfying, poignant, and most importantly respectable conclusion to the character of Nolan/Bale's Bruce Wayne.

 

[DiFabio]

But Batfan, he didn't just give up Batman, he gave up Bruce Wayne too!


And no, what he does in TDKR is a contradiction to Begins and TDK. In Begins he wanted to inspire citizens to stand up for themselves and fight against corruption. In TDK he's vehemently against other vigilantes taking on the mantle and fighting crime (kind of a hypocrite, but whatever). But then what does he do in TDKR? He admits he's a failure and, instead of burying the Batman legacy and having it die with his own retirement, he hands it over to a cop he knew for a day by giving him all of his stuff. So he's essentially promoting vigilantism and conceding that the city will always need a Batman. So much for inspiring every day people to fight for their city. What did they do? They stayed in their homes cowering in fear for 5 months. Great message there.

 

[karamazov80]

Yeah, that's actually true. I know you're joking, but I actually enjoyed seeing Crane again even though he never got any kind of closure.

He's criminally underused in the three movies. Sucks that he's played off as a cameo joke. Murphy had this underlying creepiness to him and, with a better, more involving story for Scarecrow, could have been so much more. I remember being so excited when it was confirmed in 2007 that he'd be reappearing in TDK. Then he ended up being utilized as a throw away, "hey, remember him!" character. Guess that's better than screaming like a little kid into the night after getting tazed in the head by Katie Holmes.

I'm not joking, though. I did like him. Just, as you say, it was a cameo and there wasn't much to it. But he was consistent in these films more or less, and I also really liked his take on the character.

I do think that you and a number of others here don't give TFA enough artistic credit. Abrams and Kasdan could have played the "fanboy service" card so much more. So much more. They could have limited themselves to only telling a story that had Han Solo doing all the cool flying in the Falcon or had Avengers style camera pans around Han, Luke, Leia, and the droids in action again. They also could have sold a LOT more toys by just CGing in a handful of new fighters on both sides. Throw some A-Wings, Y-Wings, and a brand new ship or two to the battles. Boom, tons more toys for Hasbro to sell. But I feel that they really did exercise a lot of restraint because in their minds just a good all around and engaging film was their top priority, above even what some would consider "no brainer" fan service and merchandise padding.

But eh, it is what it is. I know people are going to camp out on the fact that a droid carried some important information and the good guys attacked a big round base at the end while ignoring the fact that 80% of the movie was all new stuff.

Of course, there was a lot of creativity involved in Force Awakens. And it was a good movie. But again, my point is that for something to be "great" it really has to move itself outside of an existing way of thinking about something. Think about some of the greatest, most well known guitar players. Charlie Christian, Jimi Hendrix, Richie Blackmore, Eddie Van Halen. These are all guys who were major innovators because they charted a new path, as visionaries of a sort. They all started with what came before, but did not feel an allegiance to that in their effort to create something important. Credit to Zach Snyder, he attempted this with Sucker Punch. That was a movie that was pretty dang distinctive and original in many ways. Did it work critically? Maybe not, but I think that's the approach a filmmaker has to take if they have ambitions of really changing the game with a "great" artistic creation. Force Awakens never had the ambition of doing this, and that's fine. But if they want to create films to rival the great sci-fi films out there, I think they're going to need to check the nostalgic call-backs at the door.

I should add that I think the guy from Brick and Looper very much has the potential to do that. But we'll see what he is allowed to do, and what he really wants to do with the next film. No hope for Jurassic World guy. But maybe it will be a fun "rollercoaster ride" like Jurassic World was to some.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Alfred still making his bed? It's pathetic.

Alfred was still bring him food to his bed in TDK...that's literally Alfred's intro in TDK

Gordon becomes a bumbling idiot. None of the characters respect him. The horrible letter he keeps in his pocket that's only there to forward the plot is asinine. He went from that cool, one good cop, to an incompetent has been that reads Charles Dickens' passages for euologies. "B-Bruce Wayne!?" *forced flashback* No ****, you dumb ass.

Gordon was in charge and taking care of business as best he could while Bruce Wayne was away for 5 months and in the end he was the one who stopped the bomb from going off. What did he do in BB? He destroyed a bridge...that's it. In TDK he fell for the Joker's plan and lost the Asian guy, ignored Harvey Dent and trusted the wrong people, and never had any idea what was going on if not for Batman telling him all the time. In fact, Gordon was going to kill a bunch of hostages at the end of TDK if it wasn't for Batman's intervention. He was always a *******.

Alfred leaving his surrogant son at a time when he needs him the most is just wrong. He disappears half way through the movie, and spends most of the movie crying his eyes out. Gone is the humorous and motivatinonal character that brings in the whit and banter. Instead we get a nervous Aflred at his most preachy and pretentious and it's just not very interesting to watch. Out of all the characters in TDKR, Alfred would have better served the plot, dead. Have Bane kill the whiny bastard or something. It's possibly the worst interpretation of Alfred on screen.

I think that was a natural progression of that character. He was always against Bruce Wayne being Batman. He finally had enough, so he walked away. I do think think he should have come back when Bruce returned to the city, but perhaps Alfred left the city and had difficulty getting back in.

Honest question: why the **** is everyone so surprised by Bruce's retirement?

Batman Begins: "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy and I can't do that as Bruce Wayne. As a man, I'm flesh and blood, I can be ignored, I can be destroyed; but as a symbol... as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting."

The Dark Knight: "You know that day that you once told me about, when Gotham would no longer need Batman? It's coming.

"Bruce. You can't ask me to wait for that."

"It's happening now. Harvey is that hero. He locked up half of the city's criminals, and he did it without wearing a mask. Gotham needs a hero with a face."

I mean, ****, the stand-out line in Batman Begins is "it's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me." The whole "Batman can be anybody" thing was there from the word "go," and Bruce made his intentions to quit known several times in both previous movies. If people want to get all pissy when it actually comes to fruition for once, that's on them.

^^ This