OK
Who is Jack?
Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Who is Jack?
For a moment I thought he said Dad too, but I realized pretty quickly he was saying Jack. I kind of wish the sound would be mixed a little differently in some new movies, so the dialog is more clear.
Jack is obviously some honcho at the Wayne Financial offices in Metropolis.
Kor
Jack is obviously some honcho at the Wayne Financial offices in Metropolis.
Kor
That is totally unbelievable. That is not how Batman operates. He's both driven and logical. That's what makes him who he is. He has a passion to fight crime and he executes that passion in a deeply methodical, intelligent, calculating way. Remember, that passion was born when he was a preteen, and he spent over a decade training and studying relentlessly in order to become Batman. This is a man whose drive and obsession compel him to take more care, not less.
As I've been saying, it's not about what he feels, it's about what he knows. He's not going to abandon 20 years of detective training and fail to research his target just because he's mad, because he's always mad. If he let his emotions make him reckless, he wouldn't have survived anywhere near 20 years as Batman.
So the point is not about whether Batman was willing to listen going into the fight. The point is that he should have known already.
http://variety.com/2016/film/box-office/batman-v-superman-reviews-critics-box-office-1201740022/
Quote:
Quote:
"The [box office] results are a devastating rebuke to the power of mainstream American critics at a time when many newspapers have already outsourced their reviews to wire services and the rise of bloggers has de-professionalized the practice of assessing a film’s attributes and demerits."
Exactly. Gone are the days when powerful critics like Siskel, Ebert, Pauline Kael and others could destroy any film at their whim.
@Christopher , this is all coming back to what so many others have been emphasizing...you haven't seen the film.
Far be it from me to be the film's biggest defender, but the Martha moment wasn't bad. That Batman was so driven to kill Superman and allowed himself to be manipulated to that end was Batman not being true to himself. The Martha moment was about Batman coming to his senses about what he was doing and why.
Far be it from me to be the film's biggest defender, but the Martha moment wasn't bad. That Batman was so driven to kill Superman and allowed himself to be manipulated to that end was Batman not being true to himself. The Martha moment was about Batman coming to his senses about what he was doing and why.
For you. If you had seen it. Which you have not.
I think it's also worth noting that Superman knows Batman is about to kill him and his concern is "save Martha".
Most important of all, the mention of Martha triggered a flashback to Batman's origin. Batman has few weaknesses, but triggering a flashback to his origin is one of them.
OK
An employee who waited for his boss to give the order to leave the building made of glass
I skipped a few pages, so this might have already posted, but just in case. Zack Snyder has said that the device Cyborg's father used to create him was a Mother Box.
I didn't think Mother Box specifically, but I was wondering if it was some kind of alien tech.
EDIT:
The movie set the record for biggest Friday-to-Sunday box office drop of any modern superhero movie, with it going down 55%. For a reference Fantastic Four only went down 48%, although I'm thinking it probably started a lot lower in the first place.
I didn't think Mother Box specifically, but I was wondering if it was some kind of alien tech.
EDIT:
The movie set the record for biggest Friday-to-Sunday box office drop of any modern superhero movie, with it going down 55%. For a reference Fantastic Four only went down 48%, although I'm thinking it probably started a lot lower in the first place.
Last edited:
You don't always have to experience something firsthand to see its flaws. You can read a script and tell whether the story makes sense without needing to watch it. You can evaluate the logic behind a plot point without needing to see it enacted. Sure, sometimes a talented enough director can sell a bad plot device well enough to make it play well in the moment, but that doesn't mean it isn't objectively flawed.
Film can be a visceral experience defined by reactions in the moment, but it can also be legitimately subjected to critical analysis of their structure, story logic, and the rest. The problem is that many filmmakers today are concerned exclusively with the former and couldn't care less about the latter. And I've seen enough of Snyder's work to know that he's emphatically in that category.
And frankly that's probably why this movie is doing better with movie audiences than with critics. It's not because the critics are unfair or dishonest. It's because the movie industry has spent a long time selecting for audiences who like the increasingly narrow range of stuff it puts out, stuff that's more about visceral experience than the deeper substance that critics are trained to look for.
I did a quick google search; she had 3 lines. in 2.5 hours of movie. Honestly can't tell you what the other two were, although did remember this one once you said it. And she had 17 more lines as Diana, for 20 lines in the movie. A tic under 7 minutes of screen time, most of it silent (avoiding Bruce, standing on a plane, fighting). And Superhero films are rarely a good spot for Bechdel test, but she didn't do so hot, pretty much only spoke to Batman (or possibly to Lois, but about Superman, maybe that was one of the other two?). To be fair, Lois failed that too as far as I can recall, so it wasn't a wonder woman thing.
And again, not attacking her, was glad to see her in it and liked what she brought to it. Just don't understand the amount of gushing over it, or the comments about her saving or elevating the movie. She had an extended cameo. Wish it was more, but hard for me to say she saved the movie when she was barely in it.
Honestly, movie was kinda a mess. If they were determined to go with Doomsday, wish they'd committed to it more and done something more faithful to that line of comics. Instead of the 'versus batman' thing, would have rather kept the doubt about superman, can even have batman lead it, but have superman lay it all out there against doomsday as his answer. Instead, he was kinda wasted as a C plot at the end of the movie because they needed someone else to smash around for 90 seconds.
They burned off one of the most famous Superman storylines as 'hulk smash' filler at the end of a sloppy film...
If you've read the script, then you know that it triggered a flashback to his origin, and that trumps anything that you've said.
This movie has Batman, nobody can stop him, not even a critic. If this was another superhero movie, say, oh, I dunno, let's randomly pick a Fantastic Four reboot, something tells me the critical opinion would be taken more into consideration.
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice
Grade: B-
Lex Luthor for reasons mostly unknown wants Batman and Superman to fight and manipulates things in order for it to happen.... Even though Batman seems already intent on doing it anyway. Superman's kinda down. Wonder Woman and Doomsday also appear. Special cameos by Aquaman, The Flash and Cyborg.
Okay, let's deal with this:
I've always been more of a DC fan. Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman they've always appealed to me more than Marvel's line-up which, before the MCU, always seemed to be more "The X-Men", "Spider-Man" and these other guys. This was always more when it came to comics and maybe even cartoons and such while growing up; I liked DC because the heroes were more "larger than life" and ultimate fantasies of justice., Marvel spending more time with characters and stories which, to their credit, they do well and it works well.
8/9 years ago, whatever it was, when Iron Man came out and the notion of a shared comic-book cinematic universe came around I was dubious considering Marvel didn't have control over their larger properties. Iron Man starring Robert Downey, Jr.? I didn't go into it optimistically and came out really looking forward to what Marvel had up its sleeve as it moved forward and to date Marvel has yet to let me down when it comes to their movies; even when it comes to characters or properties I was seriously dubious on. (Like Thor and Guardians of the Galaxy.)
So, as the Marvel Cinematic Universe took traction and started raking in the dough I really look forward to seeing DC do the same thing, afterall, one studio had control over all of the characters so they wouldn't have to resort to using B-list DC properties. I figured the Nolan Batman movies wouldn't be part of it and there'd be something of a "reboot" as those movies ran their course and when "Man of Steel" came out to launch a DC cinematic-universe a few years ago I was pumped. Though tempered somewhat by Zach Snyder being a creative head in the process.
Man of Steel was.... okay. But it was too tempered, tame and sort-of gloomy. It didn't feel like Superman with the washed out colors and his over serious tone, look and overall demeanor. To speak nothing of the levels of destruction caused during the big battle (which, kudos to Metropolis for turning around several blocks of their Downtown into a memorial inside a couple of years when it took over a decade for New York City to even begin the memorial and reconstruction at Ground Zero.) I'm one of few who had no problem with Superman killing Zod, I'm a firm believer in the "Superman doesn't kill" idea because that's just how good of a person he's supposed to be. But him killing Zod struck me as him having to be pushed to, and past, that point in a circumstance of utter desperation in order to come to that conclusion. To not kill, even if it'd be legally and morally justified, I was more bothered by all of the collateral damage that would have been caused by Superman's fight with Zod, he seemed to be doing little to nothing to take the fight away from Metropolis' core and too, I dunno, an uninhabited island that happens to lay in the bay between Metropolis and Gotham. Because, yeah a thriving, low-crime city is just across a body of water from a crime-ridden hell-hole with some of the worst criminals imaginable. .... But I digress.
So, I left MoS unhopeful and letdown. It wasn't a take of Superman I really liked more because he didn't *feel* like Superman in his behavior and actions. He was just too grim! The man was supposed to the embodiment of optimism. Instead he's a walking ad for high-strength antidepressants.
As more and more info came out about Batman v. Superman the less and less thrilled I became to the point of anger because it seems like DC is going in a different direction than Marvel. Why they look at the billions in success Marvel is having with the look and tones of their movies they decided to go with movies that look this bland, washed out, grim and just... serious. Is beyond me. The Marvel movies have good moments of humor and levity in them, I think BvS made me sort of sniff-laugh once or twice, but no real, humor. This movie is practically a drama. It's way more serious than it needs to be.
Now, arguably, any movie dealing with Batman should be a bit serious and grim more than humorous, but considering Superman and Wonder Woman are also in this movie I think it could have given us a touch more levity.
So let's get down to it.
Batman v. Superman: First of all, I've never been a fan of this notion or concept, of the two in a fight; simply because it makes very little sense and, story-wise, you have to invent not only a reason for these two to fight but you have to invent a way for Batman to have any chance at all which means either overpowering Batman by some means or depowering Superman by some means, usually Kryptonite or perhaps "red sunlight."
So doing this automatically makes the fight invalid since it pretty much gives Batman a handicap since, "realistically" he'd get his clock cleaned without Superman even having to try. So, this movie already does that by having Batman get a hold of Kryptonite and using it to depower Superman.
In any verses "battle" between the two of them it always seemed to me it'd more be a battle of their methodology and manner in which they fight crime/save the world. Superman acting as a hero who does his best to do any harm, Batman a vigilante with no qualms about beating people to within an inch of their life. Superman wants to be a symbol of hope, Batman a symbol of fear. That there should be their conflict, their ideologies, and as they clash they come across a common foe and they find that both methods have merits or that, at least, strength in numbers are better. They work together, and they are friends because, in the end, they're on the same side of the law and, to be honest, Batman has to put up with a lot more shit in Gotham so he needs to be a bit more brutal.
This movie spends a LOT of time with Batman brooding over wanting to take Superman down, seeing him as someone with too much power who cannot be trusted, but once they fight they eventually come to the conclusion they're on the same side to fight a common foe and all of the sudden Batman calls Superman his "friend" even though just 20-30 minutes earlier (for him) he was moments away from killing him and had made it his life's ambition for the last however long to kill this person. But, hey, their mothers have the same first name so now they can be BFFs.
The movie doesn't entirely "earn" the "friendship" between the two as it comes in too late and doesn't last long. Their battle should have been closer to the middle of this movie and then they realize they're on the same side and need to work together for a larger good. For me, the fun isn't in them fighting, the fun is them deciding to be friends and to *be* friends. After befriending one another for the scantest of reasons they trade a couple of quips with one another like they've been friends for years. It's not entirely earned.
Another big problem with this movie is the use of Lex Luthor, who's treated pretty much as bargain-basement Joker. Not the cold, genius, calculating brilliant man who thinks everything he's doing and wants to do is for good and Superman is in his way, we get a whack job who just wants to do evil things because he's sorta evil.
I can get behind the notion of Luthor being "younger" than commonly seen if we want to take the notion of Lex being a digital/internet-age "new money" billionaire, but the depiction of him here is silly and not at all entertaining. He doesn't make sense and, really, it's hard to believe he'd be such a respected or looked up on billionaire.
On great, but underused, part of this movie is Gal Gadot ad Diana Prince/Wonder Woman. We don't see a whole lot of her or hear her much but seeing her appear in the WW garb in the final battle was a great moment that I did love. It's too bad we didn't get a whole lot of seeing her fight or really using her lasso (we literally cut away from her at one moment using her shield/sword to fight with and then when we next see her less than a minute later she's using her lasso.) Gal Gadot still doesn't entirely strike me as having the entire physical "look" of WW -she still seems a bit thin to me" but she did seem to have the presence and look (in acting) of it to pull it off. I look forward to her solo movie.
Ben Affleck does okay as Bruce/Batman. Better than I think anyone would have thought a year or more ago, but he does pretty good here both as Bruce and Bats, the movie has him wear a "Mission Impossible II" style voice modulator on his neck to give him a "Batman voice" and it works well here in giving Affleck a deeper voice and near-growl to his voice without sounding like he's gargling turpentine and sand while getting a proctology exam as was the case with Bale.
Alfred is okay, he seemed a bit too... "close in age" to Batman for me to see him as Bruce's life-long butler/caretaker. Looking at the age of the two actors there's "only" 24 years in age difference between the two, meaning Alfred started butlering and eventually became a surrogate father while in his early 30s.
Also think Batman's age over Superman is maybe a bit much, I like more the notion of them being "closer in age" but I also don't like that Superman himself didn't take on his Super career (or even *a*) career until he was in his 30s.
Amy Adams is decent as Lois Lane and also scantly clad in a bathtub and has red hair so, win.
Other than that, pretty much everyone in this movie is pretty much sleepwalking in it, like they were all forced to drink a bottle of Robotussin before filming. The movie and at this point the entire DC-CU has no sense of wonder or fun. It's taking itself way too damn seriously and it just isn't fun to watch. There's good action in it but that's almost it, and even that has plenty of problems in it. The movie still seems to take little regard for any collateral damage that may occur during these attacks (Uh.... Metropolis's downtown sector is completely vacant after business hours.... There's an entire section of Gotham full of abandoned warehouses, and there's this huge piece of real estate between two major cities that's just totally unused.)
... And as much as we can blame and harp on Superman in the previous movie when it comes to the damage he caused, in the end, he still saved the world. You'd think Batman and those against Superman -including a man crippled during the attack- would have realized that without Superman the entire planet would have been destroyed. So I think he can get a pass for destroying some buildings and even the deaths and injuries caused during the fight. The "World Engine" probably caused more deaths/injuries that the damages from the Supes/Zod fight.
Again, the movie is okay. I din't entirely hate it, I kind-of liked it but that's about it. Nothing motivates me here, nothing makes me feel like I've finally seen Superman on the big-screen like I want to see him and, really, nothing really makes me look forward to further entries into the DC-CU or a JLA movie. I mean, I'll see them, but as the MCU movies wore on I was excited to see the next solo-entry, to see Avengers, to see the Phase 2 movies, to see Avengers 2, excited to see Phase 3 and the Avengers 3/4.
Those movies are *fun* they're positive. They're still able to have conflict and seriousness and stakes and even different looks to them that suit the character without going into camp.
The DC movies? They're there. Little moves me to want to see this movie or even own its BD. There's just not enough fun and enjoyment here. It's like a good biopic or "based on a true story" type movie that's good a good serious tone and look (washed out colors! yay!) that you watch once and say, "it was good." and then maybe catch it on cable in a few years or see it on Netflix in a few years and maybe give it a rewatch because, what else are you going to do?
Where's the fun and wonder? I can watch Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Avengers, any of them right now and love the action and humor in it. The levity. Tony rolling his eyes at Captain America recognizing a "Wizard of Oz" reference or any of his snark and wit, or trying to goad a Hulk-out from Banner.
The fun moment in Man of Steel? Uhhh..... When Pa Kent tells Clark to go ahead a let a bunch of grad-schools in a bus drown next time? No, that's not right.
The fun moment in this movie? Bruce's Inception-like dream-within-a-dream with a cameo appearance that makes no sense unless you pay very close attention and wait for the entire series of stories for the DC-MU to play out? Nah... Not it either.
Seriously, coming up empty here, folks.
Oh well, Amy Adams nude in a bathtub. I'll take that.
Ugh... And I so wanted a great, awesome, DC-MU series of movies. Fun movies fully using these characters to their best but, alas, we're not getting it and the comic-book movie trend is wearing out so how long before I get to see a big-screen Superman right? Again, here, Batman was okay. Batman I get is sort of darker and doesn't need humor.
But fucking Superman?!
Uggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Go to hell Zach Snyder.
And with the business this movie is doing WB is unlikely to see their faults unless they take the poor reviews somewhat to heart and maybe change their tones and make the future movies in color.
Grade: B-
Lex Luthor for reasons mostly unknown wants Batman and Superman to fight and manipulates things in order for it to happen.... Even though Batman seems already intent on doing it anyway. Superman's kinda down. Wonder Woman and Doomsday also appear. Special cameos by Aquaman, The Flash and Cyborg.
Okay, let's deal with this:
I've always been more of a DC fan. Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman they've always appealed to me more than Marvel's line-up which, before the MCU, always seemed to be more "The X-Men", "Spider-Man" and these other guys. This was always more when it came to comics and maybe even cartoons and such while growing up; I liked DC because the heroes were more "larger than life" and ultimate fantasies of justice., Marvel spending more time with characters and stories which, to their credit, they do well and it works well.
8/9 years ago, whatever it was, when Iron Man came out and the notion of a shared comic-book cinematic universe came around I was dubious considering Marvel didn't have control over their larger properties. Iron Man starring Robert Downey, Jr.? I didn't go into it optimistically and came out really looking forward to what Marvel had up its sleeve as it moved forward and to date Marvel has yet to let me down when it comes to their movies; even when it comes to characters or properties I was seriously dubious on. (Like Thor and Guardians of the Galaxy.)
So, as the Marvel Cinematic Universe took traction and started raking in the dough I really look forward to seeing DC do the same thing, afterall, one studio had control over all of the characters so they wouldn't have to resort to using B-list DC properties. I figured the Nolan Batman movies wouldn't be part of it and there'd be something of a "reboot" as those movies ran their course and when "Man of Steel" came out to launch a DC cinematic-universe a few years ago I was pumped. Though tempered somewhat by Zach Snyder being a creative head in the process.
Man of Steel was.... okay. But it was too tempered, tame and sort-of gloomy. It didn't feel like Superman with the washed out colors and his over serious tone, look and overall demeanor. To speak nothing of the levels of destruction caused during the big battle (which, kudos to Metropolis for turning around several blocks of their Downtown into a memorial inside a couple of years when it took over a decade for New York City to even begin the memorial and reconstruction at Ground Zero.) I'm one of few who had no problem with Superman killing Zod, I'm a firm believer in the "Superman doesn't kill" idea because that's just how good of a person he's supposed to be. But him killing Zod struck me as him having to be pushed to, and past, that point in a circumstance of utter desperation in order to come to that conclusion. To not kill, even if it'd be legally and morally justified, I was more bothered by all of the collateral damage that would have been caused by Superman's fight with Zod, he seemed to be doing little to nothing to take the fight away from Metropolis' core and too, I dunno, an uninhabited island that happens to lay in the bay between Metropolis and Gotham. Because, yeah a thriving, low-crime city is just across a body of water from a crime-ridden hell-hole with some of the worst criminals imaginable. .... But I digress.
So, I left MoS unhopeful and letdown. It wasn't a take of Superman I really liked more because he didn't *feel* like Superman in his behavior and actions. He was just too grim! The man was supposed to the embodiment of optimism. Instead he's a walking ad for high-strength antidepressants.
As more and more info came out about Batman v. Superman the less and less thrilled I became to the point of anger because it seems like DC is going in a different direction than Marvel. Why they look at the billions in success Marvel is having with the look and tones of their movies they decided to go with movies that look this bland, washed out, grim and just... serious. Is beyond me. The Marvel movies have good moments of humor and levity in them, I think BvS made me sort of sniff-laugh once or twice, but no real, humor. This movie is practically a drama. It's way more serious than it needs to be.
Now, arguably, any movie dealing with Batman should be a bit serious and grim more than humorous, but considering Superman and Wonder Woman are also in this movie I think it could have given us a touch more levity.
So let's get down to it.
Batman v. Superman: First of all, I've never been a fan of this notion or concept, of the two in a fight; simply because it makes very little sense and, story-wise, you have to invent not only a reason for these two to fight but you have to invent a way for Batman to have any chance at all which means either overpowering Batman by some means or depowering Superman by some means, usually Kryptonite or perhaps "red sunlight."
So doing this automatically makes the fight invalid since it pretty much gives Batman a handicap since, "realistically" he'd get his clock cleaned without Superman even having to try. So, this movie already does that by having Batman get a hold of Kryptonite and using it to depower Superman.
In any verses "battle" between the two of them it always seemed to me it'd more be a battle of their methodology and manner in which they fight crime/save the world. Superman acting as a hero who does his best to do any harm, Batman a vigilante with no qualms about beating people to within an inch of their life. Superman wants to be a symbol of hope, Batman a symbol of fear. That there should be their conflict, their ideologies, and as they clash they come across a common foe and they find that both methods have merits or that, at least, strength in numbers are better. They work together, and they are friends because, in the end, they're on the same side of the law and, to be honest, Batman has to put up with a lot more shit in Gotham so he needs to be a bit more brutal.
This movie spends a LOT of time with Batman brooding over wanting to take Superman down, seeing him as someone with too much power who cannot be trusted, but once they fight they eventually come to the conclusion they're on the same side to fight a common foe and all of the sudden Batman calls Superman his "friend" even though just 20-30 minutes earlier (for him) he was moments away from killing him and had made it his life's ambition for the last however long to kill this person. But, hey, their mothers have the same first name so now they can be BFFs.
The movie doesn't entirely "earn" the "friendship" between the two as it comes in too late and doesn't last long. Their battle should have been closer to the middle of this movie and then they realize they're on the same side and need to work together for a larger good. For me, the fun isn't in them fighting, the fun is them deciding to be friends and to *be* friends. After befriending one another for the scantest of reasons they trade a couple of quips with one another like they've been friends for years. It's not entirely earned.
Another big problem with this movie is the use of Lex Luthor, who's treated pretty much as bargain-basement Joker. Not the cold, genius, calculating brilliant man who thinks everything he's doing and wants to do is for good and Superman is in his way, we get a whack job who just wants to do evil things because he's sorta evil.
I can get behind the notion of Luthor being "younger" than commonly seen if we want to take the notion of Lex being a digital/internet-age "new money" billionaire, but the depiction of him here is silly and not at all entertaining. He doesn't make sense and, really, it's hard to believe he'd be such a respected or looked up on billionaire.
On great, but underused, part of this movie is Gal Gadot ad Diana Prince/Wonder Woman. We don't see a whole lot of her or hear her much but seeing her appear in the WW garb in the final battle was a great moment that I did love. It's too bad we didn't get a whole lot of seeing her fight or really using her lasso (we literally cut away from her at one moment using her shield/sword to fight with and then when we next see her less than a minute later she's using her lasso.) Gal Gadot still doesn't entirely strike me as having the entire physical "look" of WW -she still seems a bit thin to me" but she did seem to have the presence and look (in acting) of it to pull it off. I look forward to her solo movie.
Ben Affleck does okay as Bruce/Batman. Better than I think anyone would have thought a year or more ago, but he does pretty good here both as Bruce and Bats, the movie has him wear a "Mission Impossible II" style voice modulator on his neck to give him a "Batman voice" and it works well here in giving Affleck a deeper voice and near-growl to his voice without sounding like he's gargling turpentine and sand while getting a proctology exam as was the case with Bale.
Alfred is okay, he seemed a bit too... "close in age" to Batman for me to see him as Bruce's life-long butler/caretaker. Looking at the age of the two actors there's "only" 24 years in age difference between the two, meaning Alfred started butlering and eventually became a surrogate father while in his early 30s.
Also think Batman's age over Superman is maybe a bit much, I like more the notion of them being "closer in age" but I also don't like that Superman himself didn't take on his Super career (or even *a*) career until he was in his 30s.
Amy Adams is decent as Lois Lane and also scantly clad in a bathtub and has red hair so, win.
Other than that, pretty much everyone in this movie is pretty much sleepwalking in it, like they were all forced to drink a bottle of Robotussin before filming. The movie and at this point the entire DC-CU has no sense of wonder or fun. It's taking itself way too damn seriously and it just isn't fun to watch. There's good action in it but that's almost it, and even that has plenty of problems in it. The movie still seems to take little regard for any collateral damage that may occur during these attacks (Uh.... Metropolis's downtown sector is completely vacant after business hours.... There's an entire section of Gotham full of abandoned warehouses, and there's this huge piece of real estate between two major cities that's just totally unused.)
... And as much as we can blame and harp on Superman in the previous movie when it comes to the damage he caused, in the end, he still saved the world. You'd think Batman and those against Superman -including a man crippled during the attack- would have realized that without Superman the entire planet would have been destroyed. So I think he can get a pass for destroying some buildings and even the deaths and injuries caused during the fight. The "World Engine" probably caused more deaths/injuries that the damages from the Supes/Zod fight.
Again, the movie is okay. I din't entirely hate it, I kind-of liked it but that's about it. Nothing motivates me here, nothing makes me feel like I've finally seen Superman on the big-screen like I want to see him and, really, nothing really makes me look forward to further entries into the DC-CU or a JLA movie. I mean, I'll see them, but as the MCU movies wore on I was excited to see the next solo-entry, to see Avengers, to see the Phase 2 movies, to see Avengers 2, excited to see Phase 3 and the Avengers 3/4.
Those movies are *fun* they're positive. They're still able to have conflict and seriousness and stakes and even different looks to them that suit the character without going into camp.
The DC movies? They're there. Little moves me to want to see this movie or even own its BD. There's just not enough fun and enjoyment here. It's like a good biopic or "based on a true story" type movie that's good a good serious tone and look (washed out colors! yay!) that you watch once and say, "it was good." and then maybe catch it on cable in a few years or see it on Netflix in a few years and maybe give it a rewatch because, what else are you going to do?
Where's the fun and wonder? I can watch Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Avengers, any of them right now and love the action and humor in it. The levity. Tony rolling his eyes at Captain America recognizing a "Wizard of Oz" reference or any of his snark and wit, or trying to goad a Hulk-out from Banner.
The fun moment in Man of Steel? Uhhh..... When Pa Kent tells Clark to go ahead a let a bunch of grad-schools in a bus drown next time? No, that's not right.
The fun moment in this movie? Bruce's Inception-like dream-within-a-dream with a cameo appearance that makes no sense unless you pay very close attention and wait for the entire series of stories for the DC-MU to play out? Nah... Not it either.
Seriously, coming up empty here, folks.
Oh well, Amy Adams nude in a bathtub. I'll take that.
Ugh... And I so wanted a great, awesome, DC-MU series of movies. Fun movies fully using these characters to their best but, alas, we're not getting it and the comic-book movie trend is wearing out so how long before I get to see a big-screen Superman right? Again, here, Batman was okay. Batman I get is sort of darker and doesn't need humor.
But fucking Superman?!
Uggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Go to hell Zach Snyder.
And with the business this movie is doing WB is unlikely to see their faults unless they take the poor reviews somewhat to heart and maybe change their tones and make the future movies in color.
A few questions to those who may have answers...
Since when does Clark ever refer to his mother as Martha anyway? Especially to a someone who has never heard of her before?
Unless I'm forgetting it, why does the Kryptonian ship now have fingerprint recognition when it didn't before? How come it tried to kill Clark and Lois but invited Lex to be it's new boss?
Why did Lex need to add his blood to the Doomsday mix? Wouldn't being part human make him weaker than Superman? How did Lex plan to control Doomsday? His plan is to kill Superman with a being that is much more dangerous and out of control?
I have more, but that'll do for now.
Since when does Clark ever refer to his mother as Martha anyway? Especially to a someone who has never heard of her before?
Unless I'm forgetting it, why does the Kryptonian ship now have fingerprint recognition when it didn't before? How come it tried to kill Clark and Lois but invited Lex to be it's new boss?
Why did Lex need to add his blood to the Doomsday mix? Wouldn't being part human make him weaker than Superman? How did Lex plan to control Doomsday? His plan is to kill Superman with a being that is much more dangerous and out of control?
I have more, but that'll do for now.
The answer is: "SHUT UP LOOK OVER THERE!!!!"
I wondered about the fingerprint thing too, mostly why the vastly more advanced Kryptonian technology relies on simple fingerprint security that can be so easily duped? I mean, is this that much different than me photo-copying someone's finger prints and then using them on a fingerprint lock?
Why didn't he Kryptonian lock say, "Uhhh... Yeah. This is totally dead skin you've just stuck to your own fingers, your body temperature, pulse rate, and blood pressure are not that of Kryptonian, your voice is not recognized by our system and, oh, we can totally see you and clearly don't belong here; so we're going to deploy the murder-bots and force you to leave. You may either do so or become liquefied."
The part I didn't get was how he used Zod's fingerprints to get in but then later the ship is calling him "Alexander Luthor". Shouldn't it be calling him Zod?
Well you know, that's how this Batman operates. And it totally works in the context of the film. A context that you cannot accurately know until (as other's have pointed out) you actually see the film.