Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Did you read my post at all?? 0.5% of movies PER YEAR make $1 billion if you just use the USA numbers alone. In 2015, it was .83%!! I said it is becoming more common and WHY, but it is not yet.
Only 5 of the top 24 are superhero movies: 3 Marvel, 2 DC. 20.8%. If BvS had made the list, that would've been rare too.
Let's not forget that two of them were Batman movies.
I think the whole point here is perception is laboring mightily hard to become reality(certain pro-Marvel sites being the flag bearers of bias), ie: BvS a failure, not meeting expectations. When so far the numbers don't show that.
I thought you were retired.
Clearly: mightilyHow does perception labor?
He's as much the "real" Superman as the one that executed Zod & company since the New 52 reboot.
And FWIW he did guest-star in a couple of Justice Society stories. And besides who really cares about what continuity he comes from? Obviously considering the state of things and the time jump it's going to be an Elseworlds tale, but you haven't said anything about the character of Superman there and that despite his code he's not shown as always saving the day or always right no matter what.Okay, but aside from the camera how? And especially once he was revealed as a CIA agent and then unceremoniously killed off?
The "rights situation permitted"? Batman and Superman have been in the same continuity since 1940. Historically speaking, "mixing" them never proved to be a bad idea. It seems to have done a lot for the reputation of a certain 1986 comic, for example... and the various cartoons in which they both appear are not exactly reviled, are they?
Please.
Lazy hyperbole isn't helping your credibility.
Last edited:
DC cares, I guess. They do stuff like that to be able to "play" with a character while preserving their brand.
But hey, if there are people out there making Superman stories that don't conform to type and don't resort to having him kill anyone, good for them. I'm sure not literally all of the comic book stories conform to the "Superman must always be correct and victorious" template -- I was just commenting that enough of them do that it's become a standard fan expectation for a "good" Superman story, as Kai made clear, and that that's not a desirable thing for the movies to do.
I thought he said his name at one point. Didn't he?
Credibility? BvS has a Metacritic score of 44.Please.
Lazy hyperbole isn't helping your credibility.
So the notion that BvS is significantly worse than every MCU movie to date isn't an oddball opinion (to which I am admittedly no stranger), it's the critical consensus.
Oh, I can elaborate!
Interesting/appealing/charismatic protagonists?
Thor TDW: Yes
BvS: No
A story that scans and a villain whose motivations make sense?
Thor TDW: Yes
BvS: No
Fun, exciting action?
Thor TDW: Yes
BvS: No
Non-absurdly long running time?
Thor TDW: Yes
BvS: No
A flying alien in a red cape I'd like to see at my next barbecue party?
Thor TDW: Yes
BvS: No
Philosophical ideas/subtext worth a damn?
Thor TDW: No
BvS: No
A lack of sequel bait in which someone sits in a quiet room and frowns while watching grainy videos?
Thor TDW: Yes
BvS: No
If I were given a blu-ray of the movie for free, would I ever watch it again?
Thor TDW: Yes
BvS: Oh, Zeus, No!
^ I liked BvS and Thor 2 is my second-least-favourite MCU movie (still liked it) but that post made me laugh.
None of what Gaith alleges about Thor: TDW was true of that movie as far as I'm concerned, except possibly the running time.
Marvel is a sausage factory at this point; the only movie based on their characters that has been remarkable in recent times was Deadpool. I'd rather watch anything that Snyder does - at least he makes real movies.
Marvel is a sausage factory at this point; the only movie based on their characters that has been remarkable in recent times was Deadpool. I'd rather watch anything that Snyder does - at least he makes real movies.
Last edited:
it's the critical consensus.
...That just means other people are doing it too. I wasn't trying to imply that your point of view is some special, unique snowflake.
But why should the idea be defended on its own merits, when we can just play "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" and ask the hive-mind what the answer should be?
Interesting/appealing/charismatic protagonists?
Thor TDW: Yes
BvS: No
A story that scans and a villain whose motivations make sense?
Thor TDW: Yes
BvS: No
Fun, exciting action?
Thor TDW: Yes
BvS: No
Non-absurdly long running time?
Thor TDW: Yes
BvS: No
A flying alien in a red cape I'd like to see at my next barbecue party?
Thor TDW: Yes
BvS: No
Philosophical ideas/subtext worth a damn?
Thor TDW: No
BvS: No
A lack of sequel bait in which someone sits in a quiet room and frowns while watching grainy videos?
Thor TDW: Yes
BvS: No
If I were given a blu-ray of the movie for free, would I ever watch it again?
Thor TDW: Yes
BvS: Oh, Zeus, No!
What's funny is that you don't seem to realize whose case you're making here.
It occurs to me that for all my problems with it, it's one of the few Superhero films that represents a 'here and now' sensibility and actually has something to say (even if I don't entirely agree with everything it says) - this is what a Clark Kent raised in the 1980s and 1990s would actually be like, this is what the media business is like etc.
What is this inability of certain fans to admit that maybe a movie just wasn't very good? And to throw ridiculous shade at the other side's movies. Marvel and DC sides both do this. Just stop, be more mature, and enjoy what you enjoy.
Batman v Superman wasn't a very well made movie.That doesn't mean you can't like it or find parts of it you loved. I loved Xmen when it first came out, but looking at it now, its a bad movie.But I wanted my entire childhood to see an Xmen live action movie so I didn't care, though I don't take it personally if someone points out it's flaws. If they made a live action Under the Hood or Teen Titans or Young Justice movie, I'd love it and watch it multiple times even if it was the worst thing ever filmed. But I'd laugh and admit it was terrible. There's this weird inability for some fans to do that.
Zach Snyder makes very pretty looking movies, but so does Michael Bay.
Batman v Superman wasn't a very well made movie.That doesn't mean you can't like it or find parts of it you loved. I loved Xmen when it first came out, but looking at it now, its a bad movie.But I wanted my entire childhood to see an Xmen live action movie so I didn't care, though I don't take it personally if someone points out it's flaws. If they made a live action Under the Hood or Teen Titans or Young Justice movie, I'd love it and watch it multiple times even if it was the worst thing ever filmed. But I'd laugh and admit it was terrible. There's this weird inability for some fans to do that.
Zach Snyder makes very pretty looking movies, but so does Michael Bay.
In fact, BvS is a very well-made movie.
The meaning of context, like most else, is a matter of interpretation and taste. I've read and seen what you've read and seen and I don't find your interpretation of these things at all persuasive. Again, simply because you don't like something doesn't mean it's a failure in any important respect.
What's for "dorks," as you put it, is fans arguing points like these from the stance "Superman doesn't/wouldn't do that" or "that's not true to Superman" rather than just stating the truth: "I don't like it when Superman does that" - "that" being things that he's done before and will do again.
That would save so much conflict.
Same's true for "That's not 'Star Trek!'" and every other kind of reflexive, privileged nonsense.
BvS is going to pass the 800 million dollar threshold that Warners has set for success within the next few days. It'll be interesting to see how much gravy gets ladled on top of that in the next month or so.
The meaning of context, like most else, is a matter of interpretation and taste. I've read and seen what you've read and seen and I don't find your interpretation of these things at all persuasive. Again, simply because you don't like something doesn't mean it's a failure in any important respect.
What's for "dorks," as you put it, is fans arguing points like these from the stance "Superman doesn't/wouldn't do that" or "that's not true to Superman" rather than just stating the truth: "I don't like it when Superman does that" - "that" being things that he's done before and will do again.
That would save so much conflict.
Same's true for "That's not 'Star Trek!'" and every other kind of reflexive, privileged nonsense.
BvS is going to pass the 800 million dollar threshold that Warners has set for success within the next few days. It'll be interesting to see how much gravy gets ladled on top of that in the next month or so.
Last edited:
Define a real movie.
You are presuming a degree of objectivity where none exists. I am well enough prepared to admit it wasn't an excellent movie (I didn't grade it as "excellent") but I do consider it a good movie, with moments of very good. A bad movie, to me, is something like Ecks v Severs, Highlander II, any number of movies from my teen years (late 70s/early 80s)...
I don't begrudge anyone from disliking, even hating, B v S. What I do find annoying is A) the notion that anyone who does like the movie "doesn't understand the 'real Superman' (patent pending)" and B) that just because something is not to one's liking (e.g. a take on a character like Superman that doesn't match one's expectations), it is illegitimate on its face.
When I first heard Starbuck in the (relatively) recent BSG was going to be a woman instead of a man, I didn't know if I would like that take on the character. I wasn't offended by the idea, but it didn't seem all that necessary either. In the end, I liked it, but even if I hadn't, I would not have considered it illegitimate of the show's creators to make the attempt.
Ultimately, the audience/viewer/reader/listener is owed NOTHING by an artist (in the broadest category of the term), other than the experience itself (movie, concert, museum display, novel, etc.) in exchange for the price of admission/purchase. That goes both ways, of course, as the creators are not entitled to approval by the audience. What is bothersome, at least to me (can't speak for the others), is the idea that doing something that doesn't meet one's expectations is illegitimate. And there is MUCH of that kind of attitude being expressed online (and probably in print).