|
Post by stargazer0118 on Apr 2, 2016 15:07:57 GMT -5
I have to disagree.. I think BvS has plenty of pretty things to look at like Superman himself and Batffleck.. Even Wondy is great eye candy, and I'm not into women at all, but I can see when a woman is beautiful. Also the cinematography and imagery is fantastic, IMO.. Well I don't mean just visually but the characters and the emotional connection to them as well. I agree stuff in BvS LOOKS great. When I was s kid Reeve WAS Superman to me. even when he talked. He represented something deeper. A morality. A role model. Something to aspire to. He was the hero of all those comic books I used to read. Even with Routh I felt that connection. Like this was the hero I looked up too. Personally I feel Routh brought more heart to the role than Cavill even if some people say Cavill is the better actor Don't worry though, Star. The DCEU isn't going anywhere. WBs got way too much money tied up and way to many hopes for the future to scuttle their plans for more DC movies. I see what you mean. I see Cavill's Superman as a more troubled version. He is new into this and this is a way more cynical world than Reeve/Routh's Superman. I think he wants to do good, but the world he lives in seem so afraid of him. The people in power. I think in the next movie.. things need/must change. The world saw how Superman defended the world from Doomsday and how he died. But I see goodness in him. He's just beginning. Reeve's Superman didn't have much of that.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Apr 2, 2016 17:57:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 2, 2016 19:26:59 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing. Didn't know that the BvS cast was on Conan. Have to check out the whole thing now!
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 2, 2016 19:54:38 GMT -5
Well I don't mean just visually but the characters and the emotional connection to them as well. I agree stuff in BvS LOOKS great. When I was s kid Reeve WAS Superman to me. even when he talked. He represented something deeper. A morality. A role model. Something to aspire to. He was the hero of all those comic books I used to read. Even with Routh I felt that connection. Like this was the hero I looked up too. Personally I feel Routh brought more heart to the role than Cavill even if some people say Cavill is the better actor Don't worry though, Star. The DCEU isn't going anywhere. WBs got way too much money tied up and way to many hopes for the future to scuttle their plans for more DC movies. I see what you mean. I see Cavill's Superman as a more troubled version. He is new into this and this is a way more cynical world than Reeve/Routh's Superman. I think he wants to do good, but the world he lives in seem so afraid of him. The people in power. I think in the next movie.. things need/must change. The world saw how Superman defended the world from Doomsday and how he died. But I see goodness in him. He's just beginning. Reeve's Superman didn't have much of that. I think you're right. I isn't wish they'd let Cavill show more personality and range of emotion. I think it's one thing that hurt Routh as Superman too (even though his Clark Kent did let him open up and show some range) but I felt even Routh showed more emotional range than Cavill.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 2, 2016 19:59:17 GMT -5
Metallo, I noticed all those coincidences, developments and characters actions you mentioned, but I see it all the time in these type of movies, though.. all the darn time. Not even Avengers is free of that. Personally, I don't have a big problem with any of those things you mentioned. It's so difficult to make Superman vulnerable or to know how powerful he should be, but if you just buy it on an emotional level it works for you. If you didn't well it doesn't. I don't need for everything little thing in these movies to make complete sense.. because if you do, then it's hard to enjoy them for what they are, IMO. Yes Superman can hear everything or a lot, but only when the writers think it works for the plot/story they are telling. Superman the Movie has lots of plot holes, but we still love it, even though some things don't work for me anymore like Luthor and co. They are just so corny and cheesy now it hurts, but some things still hold up very well. I appreciate that in BvS they took the time to actually explain how kryptonite could hurt Superman. STM never did it. Any way, looks like BvS is not doing so good this weekend at the BO, and that makes me sad. Seems things I like a lot are not meant to continue, but only time will tell. I'm watching it again next week with my son who couldn't see it yesterday with me. He is 15 now and thinks Avengers is just ok. We at least agree on that. It's not a bad movie, but we don't get goosebumps like many seem to get with it. I just prefer the DC heroes so much more I suppose. But I respect everyone's opinion. I do agree on one thing, though.. Superman needs to smile more if there is a JL movie. Things need to change in the world so that he can feel more positive and confident. Otherwise, he won't seem to be growing. I agree.... With superhero films, it's hard to know what 'logic bumps' and plot holes are too much to swallow.... Different with each person and film. (An example, I loved Spider-Man 2, but one of my best friends has big issues with his repowering and how doc oc was defeated, took him out of the movie, I had no issues with it) Avengers had some great fanboy moments and scenes, that ere priceless IMO--- but at the same time, overall it felt like a TV movie in some ways, albeit a great tv movie overall. (the clunkiness of loki's possessing people always felt a bit cheesy to me) Because of the parameters and 'checklist' on that film to balance so many elements simultaneously, it's amazing that it's any good at all, though, I felt. I think a lot of that is in the way it's shot. Whedon comes from tv but a complaint of most marvel movies is they don't look very cinematic. I think that's down to marvel wanting a uniform look for most of their stuff. I understand it but sometimes I think it hurts them.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 2, 2016 22:05:38 GMT -5
I agree.... With superhero films, it's hard to know what 'logic bumps' and plot holes are too much to swallow.... Different with each person and film. (An example, I loved Spider-Man 2, but one of my best friends has big issues with his repowering and how doc oc was defeated, took him out of the movie, I had no issues with it) Avengers had some great fanboy moments and scenes, that ere priceless IMO--- but at the same time, overall it felt like a TV movie in some ways, albeit a great tv movie overall. (the clunkiness of loki's possessing people always felt a bit cheesy to me) Because of the parameters and 'checklist' on that film to balance so many elements simultaneously, it's amazing that it's any good at all, though, I felt. I think a lot of that is in the way it's shot. Whedon comes from tv but a complaint of most marvel movies is they don't look very cinematic. I think that's down to marvel wanting a uniform look for most of their stuff. I understand it but sometimes I think it hurts them. Avengers 2 I think was much more cinematic- When listening to the commentary, Whedon said he purposely changed his method of shooting (more 2nd unit with more options for edits) and came up with more clever bits to use the camera (i.e. the wonderful "Banner and Stark experimenting" montage)- but, because it slowed him down quite a bit, he said he was going to go back to only shooting what he needed. (I guess that's how he shot Avengers 1). Pity, I thought he was growing as a director with the second one, but glad that we're getting the Roussos who seem to be cinematic and fast at the same time for Avengers 3 .... (Crossing fingers the script is great now)
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by atp on Apr 3, 2016 6:35:33 GMT -5
I saw it last night. I actually liked it better than MoS. That's because I knew what to expect this time. I expected a mindless, fun movie with nice visuals, and that's what it delivered.
I doubt I would ever sit through the whole thing again. As a movie, it's a mess, but has some nice scenes.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 3, 2016 10:30:12 GMT -5
There are some incredibly beautiful images in it.
Snyder might have made a great silent film director, but I just get annoyed that his judgement in story and character oftentimes feel too.... off.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by atp on Apr 3, 2016 10:32:46 GMT -5
There are some incredibly beautiful images in it. Snyder might have made a great silent film director, but I just get annoyed that his judgement in story and character oftentimes feel too.... off. Some of the scenes look like they are straight off the cover of a graphic novel. I don't think anything in MoS looked quite as good.
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Apr 3, 2016 14:06:09 GMT -5
I enjoyed it, even though there were things in the story that could've been better.
1) I liked how the movie took one of MOS's criticisms---Superman destroying everything---and turned it into a potential strength for this movie. However, the storyline didn't really come full circle IMO, but elegant story depth, subtext and drama are not Snyder's forte. And that is unfortunate because I feel both MOS and BvS had the potential to be deeper movies than they came across, but delivering that subtext is lost on Snyder's style. I'm still not convinced Snyder knows how to handle Superman. He still comes across as sort of aloof. I heard that his screen time was axed big time, so maybe that's why, but the "Superman destroys everything" controversy didn't seem sufficiently handled. Thank God for the scenes between Cavill and Amy Adams, since they're the only scenes indicate that Superman is "human" at all IMO.
2) While I fully expected Superman to be demoted to 2nd banana after the "disappointment" of MOS's boxoffice, some of the decisions as to what Batman and Superman would do seemed strange. Why is Batman rescuing Superman's mom? Maybe I missed something, but that seemed like a strange story decision. If Superman was so concerned with his mom, like I know he was, how could he focus on doing something else and leave the rescuing up to Batman. I don't care how much Superman trusts Batman, I think anyone would want to oversee that rescue themselves. Maybe there's a good reason for this, and I need to see the movie again, but I can't remember what else Superman had to do that was so pressing that he couldn't rescue his own mom, especially since all it entailed was beating up a bunch of thugs. It would seem to me that Superman could've handled that crew in 2 seconds and saved Batman the trouble---but then we would've lost a really badass Batman fight sequence.
Some people may have trouble with Batman replacing Superman in scenes like where he confronts Superman's arch nemesis at the end, or replacing Superman as a potential lover for Wonder Woman. I liked that Batman confronted Lex Luthor and had a chemistry with Wonder Woman because that seemed like something new and different. But Batman rescuing Superman's mom was a strange decision.
Despite the story problems, I completely enjoyed the cast.
1) Thought Ben Affleck was a phenomenal Batman. I didn't like him as much as Christian Bale, but I think he just might have surpassed Michael Keaton. I hope he gets to play him again. Although I thought the movie would be horrible (and I was wrong), I predicted Affleck would be the best thing about the movie, and I think that has been proven true. Affleck was fantastic.
2) I enoyed Henry Cavill, but like in MOS, Snyder doesn't know how to update him effectively for full impact. Superman has been shortchanged again, but that is not Cavill's fault. His tenure as Superman is beginning to remind me of the James Bond tenures for actors Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan, who were both great Bonds, but neither were able to star in a truly great Bond film.
3) I ended up enjoying Jesse Eisenberg's performance even though I fully expected it be a disaster of epic proportions. Not sure how Lex in the comics is portrayed these days, but I was hoping for CEO Lex of the 90s early 00s. Instead we seemed to get a sort of Riddlerized version of Lex. Indeed, the way the scene ended made me feel like Lex was a last minute replacement for Riddler/Joker. Still, Eisenberg transcended all that. (And did anyone get the similarity between Lex creating Doomsday and Nuclear Man? Thought obviously better than Superman IV, I thought there was a funny lesson there somewhere since Superman IV like Snyder's Superman movies are good ideas done badly.
Overall, I thought the movie started a bit too slow, and got better in the second half. (The opposite was true of MOS, IMO, which started well and had a second half that was less than.)
I've been a big Snyder defender over the years, even though I didn't like MOS very much, and BvS has done little to convince me that he has a bright future with these kinds of films. I think he needs to get out of the director's chair for future superhero movies. I've come to realize what bugged me about MOS and BvS is that both movies had potentially great scripts that come across as rough drafts onscreen. Deep storylines and subtext seems lost on Snyder's style. I think both movies had the potential to be as great as Dark Knight, but this kind of story isn't Snyder's forte. He's a visual guy. He would be great directing 80s style action films like Cobra, Commando or similar action films that are all about brawn, oneliners and cool stuff with no depth.
There may have been a time when superhero movies might've been like that, but they've evolved. I think many comic book fans want the dramatic, Oscar worthy story depth to go along with all the cool stuff blowing up. And Snyder is not the guy to be delivering the deep storylines.
So overall, I enjoyed it and look forward to watching it again. But looking at it as a Superman fan? It wasn't kind to Superman. While there have been fun and successful Superman shows, the silver screen hasn't been so good. Superman Returns was supposed to be Superman's triumphant return and that didn't happen. MOS was supposed to be Superman's big return, and that didn't happen. And now here we have the 3rd Superman movie in 10 years, and it still didn't quite get people excited about Superman. I hope Cavill's Superman finds critical and boxoffice redemption. He's a good torch bearer for Superman and deserves a better Superman movie.
Meanwhile, we'll just have to try and enjoy what we do have.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by atp on Apr 3, 2016 14:32:59 GMT -5
I enjoyed it, even though there were things in the story that could've been better. 1) I liked how the movie took one of MOS's criticisms---Superman destroying everything---and turned it into a potential strength for this movie. However, the storyline didn't really come full circle IMO, but elegant story depth, subtext and drama are not Snyder's forte. And that is unfortunate because I feel both MOS and BvS had the potential to be deeper movies than they came across, but delivering that subtext is lost on Snyder's style. I'm still not convinced Snyder knows how to handle Superman. He still comes across as sort of aloof. I heard that his screen time was axed big time, so maybe that's why, but the "Superman destroys everything" controversy didn't seem sufficiently handled. Thank God for the scenes between Cavill and Amy Adams, since they're the only scenes indicate that Superman is "human" at all IMO. 2) While I fully expected Superman to be demoted to 2nd banana after the "disappointment" of MOS's boxoffice, some of the decisions as to what Batman and Superman would do seemed strange. Why is Batman rescuing Superman's mom? Maybe I missed something, but that seemed like a strange story decision. If Superman was so concerned with his mom, like I know he was, how could he focus on doing something else and leave the rescuing up to Batman. I don't care how much Superman trusts Batman, I think anyone would want to oversee that rescue themselves. Maybe there's a good reason for this, and I need to see the movie again, but I can't remember what else Superman had to do that was so pressing that he couldn't rescue his own mom, especially since all it entailed was beating up a bunch of thugs. It would seem to me that Superman could've handled that crew in 2 seconds and saved Batman the trouble---but then we would've lost a really badass Batman fight sequence. Some people may have trouble with Batman replacing Superman in scenes like where he confronts Superman's arch nemesis at the end, or replacing Superman as a potential lover for Wonder Woman. I liked that Batman confronted Lex Luthor and had a chemistry with Wonder Woman because that seemed like something new and different. But Batman rescuing Superman's mom was a strange decision. Despite the story problems, I completely enjoyed the cast. 1) Thought Ben Affleck was a phenomenal Batman. I didn't like him as much as Christian Bale, but I think he just might have surpassed Michael Keaton. I hope he gets to play him again. Although I thought the movie would be horrible (and I was wrong), I predicted Affleck would be the best thing about the movie, and I think that has been proven true. Affleck was fantastic. 2) I enoyed Henry Cavill, but like in MOS, Snyder doesn't know how to update him effectively for full impact. Superman has been shortchanged again, but that is not Cavill's fault. His tenure as Superman is beginning to remind me of the James Bond tenures for actors Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan, who were both great Bonds, but neither were able to star in a truly great Bond film. 3) I ended up enjoying Jesse Eisenberg's performance even though I fully expected it be a disaster of epic proportions. Not sure how Lex in the comics is portrayed these days, but I was hoping for CEO Lex of the 90s early 00s. Instead we seemed to get a sort of Riddlerized version of Lex. Indeed, the way the scene ended made me feel like Lex was a last minute replacement for Riddler/Joker. Still, Eisenberg transcended all that. (And did anyone get the similarity between Lex creating Doomsday and Nuclear Man? Thought obviously better than Superman IV, I thought there was a funny lesson there somewhere since Superman IV like Snyder's Superman movies are good ideas done badly. Overall, I thought the movie started a bit too slow, and got better in the second half. (The opposite was true of MOS, IMO, which started well and had a second half that was less than.) I've been a big Snyder defender over the years, even though I didn't like MOS very much, and BvS has done little to convince me that he has a bright future with these kinds of films. I think he needs to get out of the director's chair for future superhero movies. I've come to realize what bugged me about MOS and BvS is that both movies had potentially great scripts that come across as rough drafts onscreen. Deep storylines and subtext seems lost on Snyder's style. I think both movies had the potential to be as great as Dark Knight, but this kind of story isn't Snyder's forte. He's a visual guy. He would be great directing 80s style action films like Cobra, Commando or similar action films that are all about brawn, oneliners and cool stuff with no depth. There may have been a time when superhero movies might've been like that, but they've evolved. I think many comic book fans want the dramatic, Oscar worthy story depth to go along with all the cool stuff blowing up. And Snyder is not the guy to be delivering the deep storylines. So overall, I enjoyed it and look forward to watching it again. But looking at it as a Superman fan? It wasn't kind to Superman. While there have been fun and successful Superman shows, the silver screen hasn't been so good. Superman Returns was supposed to be Superman's triumphant return and that didn't happen. MOS was supposed to be Superman's big return, and that didn't happen. And now here we have the 3rd Superman movie in 10 years, and it still didn't quite get people excited about Superman. I hope Cavill's Superman finds critical and boxoffice redemption. He's a good torch bearer for Superman and deserves a better Superman movie. Meanwhile, we'll just have to try and enjoy what we do have. I much preferred the first half of BvS even though it was slower.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 3, 2016 14:48:29 GMT -5
I enjoyed it, even though there were things in the story that could've been better. 1) I liked how the movie took one of MOS's criticisms---Superman destroying everything---and turned it into a potential strength for this movie. However, the storyline didn't really come full circle IMO, but elegant story depth, subtext and drama are not Snyder's forte. And that is unfortunate because I feel both MOS and BvS had the potential to be deeper movies than they came across, but delivering that subtext is lost on Snyder's style. I'm still not convinced Snyder knows how to handle Superman. He still comes across as sort of aloof. I heard that his screen time was axed big time, so maybe that's why, but the "Superman destroys everything" controversy didn't seem sufficiently handled. Thank God for the scenes between Cavill and Amy Adams, since they're the only scenes indicate that Superman is "human" at all IMO. 2) While I fully expected Superman to be demoted to 2nd banana after the "disappointment" of MOS's boxoffice, some of the decisions as to what Batman and Superman would do seemed strange. Why is Batman rescuing Superman's mom? Maybe I missed something, but that seemed like a strange story decision. If Superman was so concerned with his mom, like I know he was, how could he focus on doing something else and leave the rescuing up to Batman. I don't care how much Superman trusts Batman, I think anyone would want to oversee that rescue themselves. Maybe there's a good reason for this, and I need to see the movie again, but I can't remember what else Superman had to do that was so pressing that he couldn't rescue his own mom, especially since all it entailed was beating up a bunch of thugs. It would seem to me that Superman could've handled that crew in 2 seconds and saved Batman the trouble---but then we would've lost a really badass Batman fight sequence. Some people may have trouble with Batman replacing Superman in scenes like where he confronts Superman's arch nemesis at the end, or replacing Superman as a potential lover for Wonder Woman. I liked that Batman confronted Lex Luthor and had a chemistry with Wonder Woman because that seemed like something new and different. But Batman rescuing Superman's mom was a strange decision. Despite the story problems, I completely enjoyed the cast. 1) Thought Ben Affleck was a phenomenal Batman. I didn't like him as much as Christian Bale, but I think he just might have surpassed Michael Keaton. I hope he gets to play him again. Although I thought the movie would be horrible (and I was wrong), I predicted Affleck would be the best thing about the movie, and I think that has been proven true. Affleck was fantastic. 2) I enoyed Henry Cavill, but like in MOS, Snyder doesn't know how to update him effectively for full impact. Superman has been shortchanged again, but that is not Cavill's fault. His tenure as Superman is beginning to remind me of the James Bond tenures for actors Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan, who were both great Bonds, but neither were able to star in a truly great Bond film. 3) I ended up enjoying Jesse Eisenberg's performance even though I fully expected it be a disaster of epic proportions. Not sure how Lex in the comics is portrayed these days, but I was hoping for CEO Lex of the 90s early 00s. Instead we seemed to get a sort of Riddlerized version of Lex. Indeed, the way the scene ended made me feel like Lex was a last minute replacement for Riddler/Joker. Still, Eisenberg transcended all that. (And did anyone get the similarity between Lex creating Doomsday and Nuclear Man? Thought obviously better than Superman IV, I thought there was a funny lesson there somewhere since Superman IV like Snyder's Superman movies are good ideas done badly. Overall, I thought the movie started a bit too slow, and got better in the second half. (The opposite was true of MOS, IMO, which started well and had a second half that was less than.) I've been a big Snyder defender over the years, even though I didn't like MOS very much, and BvS has done little to convince me that he has a bright future with these kinds of films. I think he needs to get out of the director's chair for future superhero movies. I've come to realize what bugged me about MOS and BvS is that both movies had potentially great scripts that come across as rough drafts onscreen. Deep storylines and subtext seems lost on Snyder's style. I think both movies had the potential to be as great as Dark Knight, but this kind of story isn't Snyder's forte. He's a visual guy. He would be great directing 80s style action films like Cobra, Commando or similar action films that are all about brawn, oneliners and cool stuff with no depth. There may have been a time when superhero movies might've been like that, but they've evolved. I think many comic book fans want the dramatic, Oscar worthy story depth to go along with all the cool stuff blowing up. And Snyder is not the guy to be delivering the deep storylines. So overall, I enjoyed it and look forward to watching it again. But looking at it as a Superman fan? It wasn't kind to Superman. While there have been fun and successful Superman shows, the silver screen hasn't been so good. Superman Returns was supposed to be Superman's triumphant return and that didn't happen. MOS was supposed to be Superman's big return, and that didn't happen. And now here we have the 3rd Superman movie in 10 years, and it still didn't quite get people excited about Superman. I hope Cavill's Superman finds critical and boxoffice redemption. He's a good torch bearer for Superman and deserves a better Superman movie. Meanwhile, we'll just have to try and enjoy what we do have. Whoa! I didn't expect a return voice to this forum! Hey sir! Welcome back! (Assuming more posts? Maybe? I hope?) Given it's mostly tumbleweeds here, this is like an explosion of voices this last week or so. And- yeah, Snyder seems to like the idea of Superman as a greek god from '300' or such in a way and ways to use him visually. The human stuff doesn't seem to be his strong point. On the flip side, I think even the comic book creators at WB/DC even have troubles figuring out ways to connect Superman to new readers. The Siegel and Shuster comics had him above it all, but having fun at times via his Kent disguise, but I think Superman is tough to pull off if trying to pander to everyone rather than just staying true in spirit to his original character. Also, with DC trying to crank out multiple titles a month with his character and reboots every couple of years in comics doesn't seem to help creatively, either.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 3, 2016 15:18:32 GMT -5
I enjoyed it, even though there were things in the story that could've been better. 1) I liked how the movie took one of MOS's criticisms---Superman destroying everything---and turned it into a potential strength for this movie. However, the storyline didn't really come full circle IMO, but elegant story depth, subtext and drama are not Snyder's forte. And that is unfortunate because I feel both MOS and BvS had the potential to be deeper movies than they came across, but delivering that subtext is lost on Snyder's style. I'm still not convinced Snyder knows how to handle Superman. He still comes across as sort of aloof. I heard that his screen time was axed big time, so maybe that's why, but the "Superman destroys everything" controversy didn't seem sufficiently handled. Thank God for the scenes between Cavill and Amy Adams, since they're the only scenes indicate that Superman is "human" at all IMO. 2) While I fully expected Superman to be demoted to 2nd banana after the "disappointment" of MOS's boxoffice, some of the decisions as to what Batman and Superman would do seemed strange. Why is Batman rescuing Superman's mom? Maybe I missed something, but that seemed like a strange story decision. If Superman was so concerned with his mom, like I know he was, how could he focus on doing something else and leave the rescuing up to Batman. I don't care how much Superman trusts Batman, I think anyone would want to oversee that rescue themselves. Maybe there's a good reason for this, and I need to see the movie again, but I can't remember what else Superman had to do that was so pressing that he couldn't rescue his own mom, especially since all it entailed was beating up a bunch of thugs. It would seem to me that Superman could've handled that crew in 2 seconds and saved Batman the trouble---but then we would've lost a really badass Batman fight sequence. Some people may have trouble with Batman replacing Superman in scenes like where he confronts Superman's arch nemesis at the end, or replacing Superman as a potential lover for Wonder Woman. I liked that Batman confronted Lex Luthor and had a chemistry with Wonder Woman because that seemed like something new and different. But Batman rescuing Superman's mom was a strange decision. Despite the story problems, I completely enjoyed the cast. 1) Thought Ben Affleck was a phenomenal Batman. I didn't like him as much as Christian Bale, but I think he just might have surpassed Michael Keaton. I hope he gets to play him again. Although I thought the movie would be horrible (and I was wrong), I predicted Affleck would be the best thing about the movie, and I think that has been proven true. Affleck was fantastic. 2) I enoyed Henry Cavill, but like in MOS, Snyder doesn't know how to update him effectively for full impact. Superman has been shortchanged again, but that is not Cavill's fault. His tenure as Superman is beginning to remind me of the James Bond tenures for actors Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan, who were both great Bonds, but neither were able to star in a truly great Bond film. 3) I ended up enjoying Jesse Eisenberg's performance even though I fully expected it be a disaster of epic proportions. Not sure how Lex in the comics is portrayed these days, but I was hoping for CEO Lex of the 90s early 00s. Instead we seemed to get a sort of Riddlerized version of Lex. Indeed, the way the scene ended made me feel like Lex was a last minute replacement for Riddler/Joker. Still, Eisenberg transcended all that. (And did anyone get the similarity between Lex creating Doomsday and Nuclear Man? Thought obviously better than Superman IV, I thought there was a funny lesson there somewhere since Superman IV like Snyder's Superman movies are good ideas done badly. Overall, I thought the movie started a bit too slow, and got better in the second half. (The opposite was true of MOS, IMO, which started well and had a second half that was less than.) I've been a big Snyder defender over the years, even though I didn't like MOS very much, and BvS has done little to convince me that he has a bright future with these kinds of films. I think he needs to get out of the director's chair for future superhero movies. I've come to realize what bugged me about MOS and BvS is that both movies had potentially great scripts that come across as rough drafts onscreen. Deep storylines and subtext seems lost on Snyder's style. I think both movies had the potential to be as great as Dark Knight, but this kind of story isn't Snyder's forte. He's a visual guy. He would be great directing 80s style action films like Cobra, Commando or similar action films that are all about brawn, oneliners and cool stuff with no depth. There may have been a time when superhero movies might've been like that, but they've evolved. I think many comic book fans want the dramatic, Oscar worthy story depth to go along with all the cool stuff blowing up. And Snyder is not the guy to be delivering the deep storylines. So overall, I enjoyed it and look forward to watching it again. But looking at it as a Superman fan? It wasn't kind to Superman. While there have been fun and successful Superman shows, the silver screen hasn't been so good. Superman Returns was supposed to be Superman's triumphant return and that didn't happen. MOS was supposed to be Superman's big return, and that didn't happen. And now here we have the 3rd Superman movie in 10 years, and it still didn't quite get people excited about Superman. I hope Cavill's Superman finds critical and boxoffice redemption. He's a good torch bearer for Superman and deserves a better Superman movie. Meanwhile, we'll just have to try and enjoy what we do have. Enrique! You sonnuva b***! Yeah the first thing I noticed about the doomsday thing was "crap they just stole Lex's scheme from Superman IV." I also noticed Lex's "tell me everything" moment on the Kryptonian ship was lifted right from Superman Returns where Lex did the same thing in the Fortress. I've been saying forever these movies have good ideas but they're half baked and unexplored. I guess we all have. Shame nobody at WB cares.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 3, 2016 15:21:27 GMT -5
There are some incredibly beautiful images in it. Snyder might have made a great silent film director, but I just get annoyed that his judgement in story and character oftentimes feel too.... off. Some of the scenes look like they are straight off the cover of a graphic novel. I don't think anything in MoS looked quite as good. CAM nailed it. Give the guy a co director. Imagine if Singer directed the acting and story stuff and Snyder directed the action. They could make one heck of a team.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by atp on Apr 3, 2016 15:22:08 GMT -5
I enjoyed it, even though there were things in the story that could've been better. 1) I liked how the movie took one of MOS's criticisms---Superman destroying everything---and turned it into a potential strength for this movie. However, the storyline didn't really come full circle IMO, but elegant story depth, subtext and drama are not Snyder's forte. And that is unfortunate because I feel both MOS and BvS had the potential to be deeper movies than they came across, but delivering that subtext is lost on Snyder's style. I'm still not convinced Snyder knows how to handle Superman. He still comes across as sort of aloof. I heard that his screen time was axed big time, so maybe that's why, but the "Superman destroys everything" controversy didn't seem sufficiently handled. Thank God for the scenes between Cavill and Amy Adams, since they're the only scenes indicate that Superman is "human" at all IMO. 2) While I fully expected Superman to be demoted to 2nd banana after the "disappointment" of MOS's boxoffice, some of the decisions as to what Batman and Superman would do seemed strange. Why is Batman rescuing Superman's mom? Maybe I missed something, but that seemed like a strange story decision. If Superman was so concerned with his mom, like I know he was, how could he focus on doing something else and leave the rescuing up to Batman. I don't care how much Superman trusts Batman, I think anyone would want to oversee that rescue themselves. Maybe there's a good reason for this, and I need to see the movie again, but I can't remember what else Superman had to do that was so pressing that he couldn't rescue his own mom, especially since all it entailed was beating up a bunch of thugs. It would seem to me that Superman could've handled that crew in 2 seconds and saved Batman the trouble---but then we would've lost a really badass Batman fight sequence. Some people may have trouble with Batman replacing Superman in scenes like where he confronts Superman's arch nemesis at the end, or replacing Superman as a potential lover for Wonder Woman. I liked that Batman confronted Lex Luthor and had a chemistry with Wonder Woman because that seemed like something new and different. But Batman rescuing Superman's mom was a strange decision. Despite the story problems, I completely enjoyed the cast. 1) Thought Ben Affleck was a phenomenal Batman. I didn't like him as much as Christian Bale, but I think he just might have surpassed Michael Keaton. I hope he gets to play him again. Although I thought the movie would be horrible (and I was wrong), I predicted Affleck would be the best thing about the movie, and I think that has been proven true. Affleck was fantastic. 2) I enoyed Henry Cavill, but like in MOS, Snyder doesn't know how to update him effectively for full impact. Superman has been shortchanged again, but that is not Cavill's fault. His tenure as Superman is beginning to remind me of the James Bond tenures for actors Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan, who were both great Bonds, but neither were able to star in a truly great Bond film. 3) I ended up enjoying Jesse Eisenberg's performance even though I fully expected it be a disaster of epic proportions. Not sure how Lex in the comics is portrayed these days, but I was hoping for CEO Lex of the 90s early 00s. Instead we seemed to get a sort of Riddlerized version of Lex. Indeed, the way the scene ended made me feel like Lex was a last minute replacement for Riddler/Joker. Still, Eisenberg transcended all that. (And did anyone get the similarity between Lex creating Doomsday and Nuclear Man? Thought obviously better than Superman IV, I thought there was a funny lesson there somewhere since Superman IV like Snyder's Superman movies are good ideas done badly. Overall, I thought the movie started a bit too slow, and got better in the second half. (The opposite was true of MOS, IMO, which started well and had a second half that was less than.) I've been a big Snyder defender over the years, even though I didn't like MOS very much, and BvS has done little to convince me that he has a bright future with these kinds of films. I think he needs to get out of the director's chair for future superhero movies. I've come to realize what bugged me about MOS and BvS is that both movies had potentially great scripts that come across as rough drafts onscreen. Deep storylines and subtext seems lost on Snyder's style. I think both movies had the potential to be as great as Dark Knight, but this kind of story isn't Snyder's forte. He's a visual guy. He would be great directing 80s style action films like Cobra, Commando or similar action films that are all about brawn, oneliners and cool stuff with no depth. There may have been a time when superhero movies might've been like that, but they've evolved. I think many comic book fans want the dramatic, Oscar worthy story depth to go along with all the cool stuff blowing up. And Snyder is not the guy to be delivering the deep storylines. So overall, I enjoyed it and look forward to watching it again. But looking at it as a Superman fan? It wasn't kind to Superman. While there have been fun and successful Superman shows, the silver screen hasn't been so good. Superman Returns was supposed to be Superman's triumphant return and that didn't happen. MOS was supposed to be Superman's big return, and that didn't happen. And now here we have the 3rd Superman movie in 10 years, and it still didn't quite get people excited about Superman. I hope Cavill's Superman finds critical and boxoffice redemption. He's a good torch bearer for Superman and deserves a better Superman movie. Meanwhile, we'll just have to try and enjoy what we do have. Enrique! You sonnuva b***! :-)
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 3, 2016 15:23:14 GMT -5
I think a lot of that is in the way it's shot. Whedon comes from tv but a complaint of most marvel movies is they don't look very cinematic. I think that's down to marvel wanting a uniform look for most of their stuff. I understand it but sometimes I think it hurts them. Avengers 2 I think was much more cinematic- When listening to the commentary, Whedon said he purposely changed his method of shooting (more 2nd unit with more options for edits) and came up with more clever bits to use the camera (i.e. the wonderful "Banner and Stark experimenting" montage)- but, because it slowed him down quite a bit, he said he was going to go back to only shooting what he needed. (I guess that's how he shot Avengers 1). Pity, I thought he was growing as a director with the second one, but glad that we're getting the Roussos who seem to be cinematic and fast at the same time for Avengers 3 .... (Crossing fingers the script is great now) I love the way the hulk vs Hulkbuster scene looks. I think you're right. AOU LOOKS better. The action might be better too. The story just suffered from iron man 2 syndrome.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by atp on Apr 3, 2016 16:56:50 GMT -5
The bit at the end where the army nukes Superman and Doomsday also felt flat. The whole thing was unearned. The army people paid lip service to feeling bad about it, but there was nothing there.
Compare that with the scene in The Rock, where they decide to bomb the island. That's how you do a scene like that.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 3, 2016 19:54:28 GMT -5
You guys want to know what's really messed up when you think about it? Wonder Woman is in the movie for maybe ten minutes and has ten lines and even she has a clearer, stronger character arc than Superman. Her story is also clearly resolved. She's hiding who she is after retreating from mans world because of all the evil in it. By the end of the movie she's decided to return to the fight and reveal herself to the world.
How the heck did they let that happen?
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Apr 3, 2016 21:30:11 GMT -5
I appreciate the welcome, guys.
Too bad the old crew isn't here since I'd be kinda curious to read their reactions to the film. I'm particularly curious if the big MOS fans were equally enthused about BvS. I found that some of the people I know in person that liked MOS didn't like this one as much, or at all, but the people I know that didn't like MOS very much seemed to like this one better.
Anyway, I'm curious if they really did trim a lot of Superman out of the movie.
What did you guys think of Doomsday? I've heard a lot of people say that Doomsday reminded them too much of Abomination from "The Incredible Hulk" movie. I kinda see why, but that didn't bug me that much. I was more bothered by the overall writing of the Superman sections of the film.
The big finish, which should've hit an emotional crescendo, didn't feel like that big bang finish that it should've felt like. The feeling I get from Luke saying "NEVER!" and the music that followed his beatdown of Vader during the emotional climax of the original Star Wars trilogy, or the emotion that I felt when Superman screamed like a maniac when Lois died in STM. I don't know how you would describe that feeling, but I think that's the emotion that was missing during Superman's moment in BvS. Interestingly, I felt it when Batman beat Superman and screamed, "How do you know that name?!" but I didn't feel it at the climax.
On a separate note, prior to watching the film, I heard some criticisms that Batman killed people. Given the way they handled Superman killing Zod in MOS , I wasn't surprised, but did that happen outside the dream sequence in BvS? If so, I didn't remember it (and I didn't even go to the bathroom). Was it a "blink and you'll miss it" moment? Or maybe it was kinda like Batman "killing" the Joker's goons when he blew up Axis Chemicals---yeah, I guess you can say "Batman killed", but you also kinda pretend he didn't. "
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 3, 2016 22:12:52 GMT -5
I appreciate the welcome, guys. Too bad the old crew isn't here since I'd be kinda curious to read their reactions to the film. I'm particularly curious if the big MOS fans were equally enthused about BvS. I found that some of the people I know in person that liked MOS didn't like this one as much, or at all, but the people I know that didn't like MOS very much seemed to like this one better. Anyway, I'm curious if they really did trim a lot of Superman out of the movie. What did you guys think of Doomsday? I've heard a lot of people say that Doomsday reminded them too much of Abomination from "The Incredible Hulk" movie. I kinda see why, but that didn't bug me that much. I was more bothered by the overall writing of the Superman sections of the film. The big finish, which should've hit an emotional crescendo, didn't feel like that big bang finish that it should've felt like. The feeling I get from Luke saying "NEVER!" and the music that followed his beatdown of Vader during the emotional climax of the original Star Wars trilogy, or the emotion that I felt when Superman screamed like a maniac when Lois died in STM. I don't know how you would describe that feeling, but I think that's the emotion that was missing during Superman's moment in BvS. Interestingly, I felt it when Batman beat Superman and screamed, "How do you know that name?!" but I didn't feel it at the climax. On a separate note, prior to watching the film, I heard some criticisms that Batman killed people. Given the way they handled Superman killing Zod in MOS , I wasn't surprised, but did that happen outside the dream sequence in BvS? If so, I didn't remember it (and I didn't even go to the bathroom). Was it a "blink and you'll miss it" moment? Or maybe it was kinda like Batman "killing" the Joker's goons when he blew up Axis Chemicals---yeah, I guess you can say "Batman killed", but you also kinda pretend he didn't. " It's interesting. It seems like a lot of people that liked MOS didn't like BvS and vice verse. I'll give it this its a bizarre situation I haven't seen very often. I thought it was too soon to be using a character like Doomsday but it wasn't because of any kind of reverence to the comics. He's a walking plot device so I didnt give a sh** how he was created or anything like that. He is a rare character ready made to kill superman in a brawl and there aren't many of them plus I just didn't feel like it was the right time to kill Superman. The build up could have been bigger all around and we hardly know who the character is. The cgi looked awful at times but there were some cool moments in the fight scenes. The death didn't have as much punch because it was too soon. You know he's coming back as soon as it happens and on top of that they do an Inception/X-men 3/League of Extraordinary Gentlemen style ending to reassure the normals that it's ok and he will be back. There was no long in story build up like in the comic. The Excalibur reference was a cool bit of forshadowing but it's not the same as making the death feel more important. Batman killed the Russian guy/KGBeast when he shot his flame thrower tank. He shot up a bunch of guys at the dock with his drone plane. He fired a grappling hook THROUGH a guy in the warehouse fight at the end. Some of those guys during the Batmobile chase have to be dead. It's more like situations where there's no way some of those guys could have survived. Am I mad about it? Eh...not really. Batmans killed before in comics and movies. I'd prefer a batman that doesn't kill but it's not a deal breaker for me. Snyder chose to have a batman that kills. That's cool with me. Especially since this is an angrier more jaded Batman. The only problem I have is...is this a recent thing (him killing) or has he been killing from the start? If he's always been killing or started killing because Joker killed Robin why the f*** is Joker still walking around breathing? Exploring that could have added another layer to Batmans character. After listening to a Max Landis clip and Oliver Harper's podcast I'm more convinced than ever that Snyder and Goyer genuinely don't like or are embarrassed by Superman. It goes beyond just doing it their way (which is fine). They seem to like destroying classic elements of the character. Snyder described putting Jimmy Olsen in the film so he could get shot in the head as "fun." Really? If you don't have any plans for him why not just leave him out all together?
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Apr 3, 2016 22:26:48 GMT -5
That was Jimmy getting shot in the head?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 3, 2016 22:33:53 GMT -5
Yep. They cut the dialogue saying who he is but I think he's got a name tag or press badge. He's credited as Jimmy Olsen at the end of the movie. He was a undercover CIA agent. Snyder confirmed it was Jimmy. Snyder originally wanted Jessie Eisenberg to play it because he thought it would be fun to see a famous actor as Jimmy getting killed that early. He thought it would shock the audience. Of course he decided to cast him as Luthor so plans were shifted. Luthor is based on Mark Zuckerberg and supposedly Max Landis who Eisenberg worked with on American Ultra. Snyder liked it as a way of making fun of Landis because Landis trashed Man of Steel.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 3, 2016 23:02:04 GMT -5
" Snyder described putting Jimmy Olsen in the film so he could get shot in the head as "fun."
Wow. Snyder really wants fans who don't already hate him to hate him, doesn't he?
|
|
|
Post by stargazer0118 on Apr 4, 2016 0:32:24 GMT -5
I saw it last night. I actually liked it better than MoS. That's because I knew what to expect this time. I expected a mindless, fun movie with nice visuals, and that's what it delivered. I doubt I would ever sit through the whole thing again. As a movie, it's a mess, but has some nice scenes. Mindless movie? Well I strongly disagree with that. I watched again today with my teen son (he's 15) and I loved it even more. He also liked it a lot and said it was a great movie. He knows about the bad reviews from the critics, and told me he simply doesn't understand it because the film he saw was really good. He also likes Marvel movies, but we both agreed this was better than Avengers 1. A lot better. He said BvS was so much more emotional and awesome. I agree with him. BvS gives me goosebumps several times during the film and moves me deeply. Like a friend on twitter said to me today when I asked her is she liked the movie she said this: "I loved it too. I don't get all the hate. A lot of people are missing the deeper meanings & being nitpicky."
And after a second viewing, I can't help but to agree completely with her. Honestly, I don't have any problems with this film. Not big/real ones. And I have to say that I love both Superman and Batman in this film very much. I feel their pain, because they are actually hurting very much during this movie. No this movie is not for little kids at all. This is for people willing to open their minds a little and realize our heroes have lost their way or lost hope in humanity. Yes Superman looks sad and depressed a lot in this movie, but what else can you expect when so many think you are doing more damage than good? They even ask: Must there be a Superman? (Does the world need Superman?) Notice the similarity with Superman Returns? I do, and I like it. Superman is truly confused and isn't sure if what he is doing has any real meaning in the world. I think Snyder and co. explore this idea even better than in SR, and I love SR. But then at the end when Superman knows he might die, he tells Lois this is his world and she is his world (like Pa Kent said about Martha). And he gives a subtle smile to Lois, kisses her and leaves to confront and hopefully kill Doomsday. I was already crying by this moment. And I know others who cried too, so I don't feel alone, haha.. If this is not moving stuff that makes you care for Superman then I'm sorry but I don't know what to tell you. There is also the scene when Lex show the picture of a captured Martha to Supes. We see Superman in despair for his mom. No he doesn't yell NO! But he is clearly very emotional and worried for Martha. I like how commanding Cavill's voice is. I never thought I'd say that, but I like him as Superman a lot in this film. He is so majestic and powerful, but still uses his power for good, even tho some people insist in attacking him and stuff. My heart feels for him. And there is also Batman. He is also hurting. He is in fact a broken version of the character. And we see him doing bad things we aren't used to, but we are told why. I think it was really cool to see a Batman completely loose. This Batman is the Batman the Justice League needs and deserves. Bale's Batman would never last with those poor fighting skills honestly. Affleck's Batman would destroy Bale's and any other in less than 5 minutes.. Now, I've never been a big Batman fan, but Affleck got me really interested in his version. His emotional arc and redemption was powerful to me. I care about him like I never cared for Batman on live action before. I love how Batman and Superman help each other at the end and realize they are not the real enemy. They unite to fight for humanity and to save the world. Even when Clark dies, Bruce tells Diana that he failed Superman in life, but he won't in death. I thought that was beautiful and inspirational. And then his speech about fighting for good and rebuilding the world. I loved it. Let's remember he didn't kill Lex or brand him. He could have but didn't. Maybe he is really changing thanks to Superman. So yeah, I simply can't understand how someone can say this film was a mindless action flick. It boggles my mind. I think this film is really good and I loved how it explored big questions about humans, power and pain. When a film makes me cry and think like this one, and it also manages to impress me visually with amazing action and imagery, well it did its job well. I even want to go find my Superman comics that I haven't read in a few years. And I also want to read some good Batman ones. I like him in the JL cartoons from the 90s, but I never liked him more than in BvS. Well that's my humble opinion. I don't want to fight with anyone, but I just feel the need to explain why I love this movie. All those scenes at the end with Clark/Superman dead and Lois and Martha Kent, and Bruce. And Superman's coffin and the music, the people crying, etc.. I really like it. It moves me and can't help but feel the tears coming down my face. I know I'm not alone. That somehow makes me feel better, lol.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer0118 on Apr 4, 2016 0:45:19 GMT -5
Also, wanted to share this video that I found yesterday. This man gives his opinion on why he ended up loving BvS. I agreed with his reasons and insights completely. Please check it out, it's worth it. Batman v Superman: How I surprised myself & fell in love with this film www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKRmMQaLZz8
|
|