Hot Toys Batman V. Superman Dawn of Justice Speculation Thread

[nexus]

Thought the film was a 7.75/10. They tried to put in too much, and kept the tone too heavy which is what lost the critics. But I think the audience is going to come through on this one and it will improve with repeat viewings. Affleck is probably the best Batman to date. Gadot was fantastic as WW. I am perfectly fine with Cavill as Superman. The Trinity is solidly in place IMO. Hope the movie tops $1B worldwide to keep the DCCU on track. It was infinitely better than the last two Transformers.

 

[eczamurai]

Your 100% right on all that, and I feel like because that among other things the critics completely missed and which is a major reason why people shouldn't listen to critics as if their word was gospel.

Critics werent paying that much attention cause of the bad things that completely overclouded anything remotely good. Praising this film is like praising age of ultron, which was actually better than this! And that one was... OK at best.

 

[eczamurai]

Subjective vs objective.

You disliked the movie. That is your subjective opinion. Other people did like the movie. That is their subjective opinion.

Both opinions are valid.

They can have their opinion and be wrong. Just like people who support Trump.

 

[Centrocal]

The Doomsday story arc could've been its own film.

 

[Biff]

If a member here is very happy after watching this film then their feelings and positive views/opinions are real. Nobody can say to them: "Hey, you are wrong about your feelings of happiness." But equally, the happy guy can't label you or others wrong for not liking the film - and so it's pointless to argue over wrong or right. However, if we are talking about the technical aspects such as; story telling, script, editing, narrative, acting, special effects etc, then there is room to argue as to the merits of the film based on the standards of the professions/crafts mentioned above.

I have mixed feelings about the film, but I got goosebumps one or twice from Snyder's referencing of famous artworks, particularly near the end (I won't mention the scene for spoiler reasons). It's a reference to a Caravaggio painting - and I know most people won't notice it and certainly don't care about that, but I loved it. Enjoyment is relative.

 

[eczamurai]

If a member here is very happy after watching this film then their feelings and positive views/opinions are real. Nobody can say to them: "Hey, you are wrong about your feelings of happiness." But equally, the happy guy can't label you or others wrong for not liking the film - and so it's pointless to argue over wrong or right. However, if we are talking about the technical aspects such as; story telling, script, editing, narrative, acting, special effects etc, then there is room to argue as to the merits of the film based on the standards of the professions/crafts mentioned above.

This basically. Sure you can like it, but it's not.. good.

 

[SilverStar17]

Subjective vs objective.

You disliked the movie. That is your subjective opinion. Other people did like the movie. That is their subjective opinion.

Both opinions are valid.

I personally wouldn't bother.

Today's society for some reason has produced a lot of individuals who preach tolerance, but are in fact intolerant of any other view that doesn't coincide with theirs. They are under the impression that their opinions are fact, simply because it's what THEY think, so they're too myopic to fathom why anyone else would see something any differently than them. And if you do, you're either stupid, ignorant, etc., because in their mind, you must be "stupid" if you don't share the same opinion as theirs. It's as if they're allowed to believe in whatever they want, but you're not allowed to unless it happens to be exactly what they believe.

Their perspective is either agree with me, or you're wrong.

 

[SilverStar17]

Just finished seeing the film this morning, and I was very impressed with it.

Just like others have stated, it starts out slow and moves quickly back and forth from scene to scene. I can understand the slow start because they are pretty much setting the stage, and it's not hard to follow the quickly paced scenes if you're paying close attention. Picks up later in, and it when it does, it REALLY picks up. Ben Affleck is my favorite interpretation of Batman thus far, and Gadot as WW is neat also. I'm not generally a big fan of WW, but they're portraying her well thus far and making her an interesting character.

Cavill definitely looked more seasoned in his role as Supes, and Eisenberg was pretty good as Luthor. His personality seemed more of like The Joker to me, but he still did well.

And yes, did get teary eyed at the end.

Can't wait for the figures from this film.

 

[Tourist]

This basically. Sure you can like it, but it's not.. good.

Enough with the childish rhetoric, you're just trolling this thread.

 

[Remy]

Just finished seeing the film this morning, and I was very impressed with it.

Just like others have stated, it starts out slow and moves quickly back and forth from scene to scene. I can understand the slow start because they are pretty much setting the stage, and it's not hard to follow the quickly paced scenes if you're paying close attention. Picks up later in, and it when it does, it REALLY picks up. Ben Affleck is my favorite interpretation of Batman thus far, and Gadot as WW is neat also. I'm not generally a big fan of WW, but they're portraying her well thus far and making her an interesting character.

Cavill was definitely looked more seasoned in his role as Supes, and Eisenberg was pretty good as Luthor. His personality seemed more of like The Joker to me, but he still did well.

And yes, did get teary eyed at the end.

Can't wait for the figures from this film.

Lol...like I said yesterday...I had a feeling you'll have the same perspective as I did.
Great minds think alike. He he.

Glad you love the movie.
I'm gonna see it again tomorrow.

Agree with everything you said. Affleck is now my favorite batman.
And I don't understand people saying cavill's acting is wooden.
I thought he did a great job conveying a conflicted hero.

 

[batfan08]

Let me put it like this: Sharknado is a better film because that one was bad on purpose. This one is just bad. The editing and story are bad. I can't think of anything to say in defence of the story and anyone saying doomsday was done justice in this movie is just lying to you and themselves.

What exactly was there to do "justice," here? I love all these "Doomsday" fans coming out of the woodwork that view him as some sort of, oh, I don't know, actual character. Since his conception in the '90s, all he's ever been was a plot device; a mindless brute who was there with one purpose, and that's exactly what we got, give or take a few spikes. Do I feel like he would've looked cooler with a few more spikes than he had? Yeah, why not. He already looked like Doomsday, just sans a lot of bony, calcified protrusions, but I fail to grasp what the big ****ing deal was.

Secondly, the editing. I will contend that the editing was all over the place. That being said, I don't think this was "amateur hour" where some guy who had no clue what the **** he was doing tried to make a movie. Many of the choices Snyder's being criticized for seemed very deliberate, and they seemed like exactly what they were: experiments. It's interesting, though, that people criticize him for doing in a comic book movie what some other directors are praised for in other genres.

 

[SilverStar17]

Lol...like I said yesterday...I had a feeling you'll have the same perspective as I did.
Great minds think alike. He he.

Glad you love the movie.
I'm gonna see it again tomorrow.

Agree with everything you said. Affleck is now my favorite batman.
And I don't understand people saying cavill's acting is wooden.
I thought he did a great job conveying a conflicted hero.

Indeed.

When I go into a movie, I go in expecting to be entertained. I don't go into it already being skeptical. During Affleck's fight scene when he was manhandling Luthor's cronies with brute force, I couldn't help but think of Heath Ledger's Joker voice saying, "Now THERE'S a Batman."

One of the people I saw the film with actually didn't like Cavill's portrayal of Supes in MoS, but loved his portrayal of him in this. I thought he definitely looked like a more mature Superman in this one, which was obviously the intent. Even the hairstyle alone gives that impression.

I'm definitely going to have to see it again because there was a lot to digest, as there usually is in a lot of these films. I feel they definitely aren't for simple minded people, because there's a lot of things that cause you to have to think and fill in the gaps on your own. I like when films do that. I don't need everything spelled out for me, so to speak.

I'm also not sure why everyone is complaining about the look of Doomsday. He looked perfectly fine to me.

Spoiler

I also thought Pa Kent's cameo was a nice addition and moving. It to me shows that Clark/Supes still looks up to his father and keeps him close to heart.

What exactly was there to do "justice," here? I love all these "Doomsday" fans coming out of the woodwork that view him as some sort of, oh, I don't know, actual character. Since his conception in the '90s, all he's ever been was a plot device; a mindless brute who was there with one purpose, and that's exactly what we got, give or take a few spikes. Do I feel like he would've looked cooler with a few more spikes than he had? Yeah, why not. He already looked like Doomsday, just sans a lot of bony, calcified protrusions, but I fail what the big ****ing deal was.

Secondly, the editing. I will contend that the editing was all over the place. That being said, I don't think this was "amateur hour" where some guy who had no clue what the **** he was doing tried to make a movie. Many of the choices Snyder's being criticized for seemed very deliberate, and they seemed like exactly what they were: experiments. It's interesting, though, that people criticize him for doing in a comic book movie what some other directors are raised for in other genres.

My sentiments also.

 

[eczamurai]

What exactly was there to do "justice," here? I love all these "Doomsday" fans coming out of the woodwork that view him as some sort of, oh, I don't know, actual character. Since his conception in the '90s, all he's ever been was a plot device; a mindless brute who was there with one purpose, and that's exactly what we got, give or take a few spikes. Do I feel like he would've looked cooler with a few more spikes than he had? Yeah, why not. He already looked like Doomsday, just sans a lot of bony, calcified protrusions, but I fail to grasp what the big ****ing deal was.

Secondly, the editing. I will contend that the editing was all over the place. That being said, I don't think this was "amateur hour" where some guy who had no clue what the **** he was doing tried to make a movie. Many of the choices Snyder's being criticized for seemed very deliberate, and they seemed like exactly what they were: experiments. It's interesting, though, that people criticize him for doing in a comic book movie what some other directors are praised for in other genres.

The whole "origin" was laughable. Not that Doomday's original is anything Shakespearean, but the writers sure are a special kind of stupid if they can make a pretty lacklustre origin into a terrible one. Also, Doomsday's powers were so weird it's not even funny, they gave ZERO explanation as to why he could do an EMP. This film needs to decide what it wants to be. It was a 5 out of 10, especially considering the budget. It deserves to bomb like fantastic four did.

 

[eczamurai]

Henry Cavill is about as charismatic as a sandwich without any toppings.

 

[Starscream Soundwave]

Henry Cavill is about as charismatic as a sandwich without any toppings.

Don't think Cavill is a problem. Or Affleck. With the exception of the God-awful Lex, the cast was fine. It was everything else that was awful.

 

[batfan08]

The whole "origin" was laughable. Not that Doomday's original is anything Shakespearean, but the writers sure are a special kind of stupid if they can make a pretty lacklustre origin into a terrible one. Also, Doomsday's powers were so weird it's not even funny, they gave ZERO explanation as to why he could do an EMP. This film needs to decide what it wants to be. It was a 5 out of 10, especially considering the budget. It deserves to bomb like fantastic four did.

I fail to see what was so "laughable" about it. It's Luthor doing mad science; something Luthor has done since his earliest appearances. Luthor sees that the matrix recognizes Kryptonian DNA, he sees what would happen if he introduces human DNA into the mix. They have a volatile reaction, and Doomsday is born. I don't see how that's any worse than "mad Kryptonian" kills and clones baby until it can no longer die."

 

[spindrift]

Maybe a knock off will be done of Lex as a figure "Crazy Young Scientist Redhead" or something

 

[The Iron Koob]

Jesus opinions are all over the place on this one. You can make any absolute statement you want but you'll find someone with an opinion that directly contradicts it. I've never seen anything like this before. Personally, I don't see how any blame could be placed on Cavill's Superman. I could see Lex rubbing people the wrong way and Affleck was forgettable in the role but not bad. Wonder Woman was cool. I don't see why people are so critical of these performances.

 

[spindrift]

Jesus opinions are all over the place on this one. You can make any absolute statement you want but you'll find someone with an opinion that directly contradicts it. I've never seen anything like this before. Personally, I don't see how any blame could be placed on Cavill's Superman. I could see Lex rubbing people the wrong way and Affleck was forgettable in the role but not bad. Wonder Woman was cool. I don't see why people are so critical of these performances.

They can't.......they speak with an angry agenda....Cavill gets hate but I am happy with him in this film and he had alot of the story's weight on his shoulders...

 

[SilverStar17]

Jesus opinions are all over the place on this one. You can make any absolute statement you want but you'll find someone with an opinion that directly contradicts it. I've never seen anything like this before. Personally, I don't see how any blame could be placed on Cavill's Superman. I could see Lex rubbing people the wrong way and Affleck was forgettable in the role but not bad. Wonder Woman was cool. I don't see why people are so critical of these performances.

My sentiments also.

As far as Affleck being forgettable in the role though, my feeling is that it's only been one film. Let him be in at least two or three like Keaton and Bale respectively; it's kind of difficult to make your mark on a role such as Batman based on one film. The only other two to compare a one movie performance to is Kilmer and Clooney, and I think Affleck's performance blows both of those out of the water.

For being his debut as Batman, I think he killed it.