Is Ben Affleck ever getting his own, standalone Batman movie?
Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
I would like to see a Batfleck movie. Maybe some of the more fantastical villains such as Man-bat or Clayface could make an appearance.
I was kind of disappointed when I first saw the Batmobile in BvS exhibited some of the Frank Miller "tank" influence. But after actually seeing it in action in the movie, I don't mind it so much.
Kor
I was kind of disappointed when I first saw the Batmobile in BvS exhibited some of the Frank Miller "tank" influence. But after actually seeing it in action in the movie, I don't mind it so much.
Kor
Yeah a superhero movie featuring those three characters should definitely be more than just watchable or "better than what the critics say." It should be, you know, epic and amazing.
I was watching the first Avengers movie on TV the other night and I have to say I'm still impressed with how well Marvel did with that film (IMO). They successfully integrated a lot of characters and they also put a lot of humor into the story (Hulk is the possibly the most amusing character in the movie, and that takes a bit of doing 
).
).
I'm a bit bemused by some of the complaints I see about BvS.
Like, the plot being "convoluted." What? The plot moved more or less point by point through some pretty simple and clearly-explained beats. There was maybe a loose thread here or there that wants more explaining and some fanboy references that will have gone over a general audience's head, but that's not the same thing as the plot being "convoluted."
"It wasn't thrilling." I don't know what movie people are watching, sometimes. Say what you will about Snyder, but his filmed superhero showdows are like mainlining optical awesome for me; vastly more kinetic, visually easier to follow and ultimately more consequential-seeming than anything the MCU does. The Batman vs. Superman fight in this movie is the kind of thing comic fans used to have wet dreams about in the dark and shameful hours of the night (or maybe that was just me
), never daring to think they'd actually be realized cinematically. Now here they are and... "meh"? Really?
"It needs a brighter tone." Why, FFS? We don't have enough safe, cookie-cutter Superman-the-Boy-Scout stories in the can? The MCU isn't churning out half a dozen movies a year with a "bright tone"? Snyder is hooking into the gritty superhero ethos of the late eighties and early nineties and adapting that tone -- which could veer incredibly cheesy -- with a surprising amount of grace and intelligence. No, it doesn't need a "brighter tone." Everything on the big screen doesn't need to be the bloody MCU, some variety is a good thing.
I mean, to each their own, it just doesn't seem to me to be any sort of mystery as to why Snyder's movies are successful and making stacks of money. But then I was just as bemused by all the Man of Steel "disappointment."
Like, the plot being "convoluted." What? The plot moved more or less point by point through some pretty simple and clearly-explained beats. There was maybe a loose thread here or there that wants more explaining and some fanboy references that will have gone over a general audience's head, but that's not the same thing as the plot being "convoluted."
"It wasn't thrilling." I don't know what movie people are watching, sometimes. Say what you will about Snyder, but his filmed superhero showdows are like mainlining optical awesome for me; vastly more kinetic, visually easier to follow and ultimately more consequential-seeming than anything the MCU does. The Batman vs. Superman fight in this movie is the kind of thing comic fans used to have wet dreams about in the dark and shameful hours of the night (or maybe that was just me
), never daring to think they'd actually be realized cinematically. Now here they are and... "meh"? Really? "It needs a brighter tone." Why, FFS? We don't have enough safe, cookie-cutter Superman-the-Boy-Scout stories in the can? The MCU isn't churning out half a dozen movies a year with a "bright tone"? Snyder is hooking into the gritty superhero ethos of the late eighties and early nineties and adapting that tone -- which could veer incredibly cheesy -- with a surprising amount of grace and intelligence. No, it doesn't need a "brighter tone." Everything on the big screen doesn't need to be the bloody MCU, some variety is a good thing.
I mean, to each their own, it just doesn't seem to me to be any sort of mystery as to why Snyder's movies are successful and making stacks of money. But then I was just as bemused by all the Man of Steel "disappointment."
I'm a bit bemused by some of the complaints I see about BvS.
Like, the plot being "convoluted." What? The plot moved more or less point by point through some pretty simple and clearly-explained beats. There was maybe a loose thread here or there that wants more explaining and some fanboy references that will have gone over a general audience's head, but that's not the same thing as the plot being "convoluted."
"It wasn't thrilling." I don't know what movie people are watching, sometimes. Say what you will about Snyder, but his filmed superhero showdows are like mainlining optical awesome for me; vastly more kinetic, visually easier to follow and ultimately more consequential-seeming than anything the MCU does. The Batman vs. Superman fight in this movie is the kind of thing comic fans used to have wet dreams about in the dark and shameful hours of the night (or maybe that was just me
"It needs a brighter tone." Why, FFS? We don't have enough safe, cookie-cutter Superman-the-Boy-Scout stories in the can? The MCU isn't churning out half a dozen movies a year with a "bright tone"? Snyder is hooking into the gritty superhero ethos of the late eighties and early nineties and adapting that tone -- which could veer incredibly cheesy -- with a surprising amount of grace and intelligence. No, it doesn't need a "brighter tone." Everything on the big screen doesn't need to be the bloody MCU, some variety is a good thing.
I mean, to each their own, it just doesn't seem to me to be any sort of mystery as to why Snyder's movies are successful and making stacks of money. But then I was just as bemused by all the Man of Steel "disappointment."
+1
I'm a bit bemused by some of the complaints I see about BvS.
Like, the plot being "convoluted." What? The plot moved more or less point by point through some pretty simple and clearly-explained beats. There was maybe a loose thread here or there that wants more explaining and some fanboy references that will have gone over a general audience's head, but that's not the same thing as the plot being "convoluted."
"It wasn't thrilling." I don't know what movie people are watching, sometimes. Say what you will about Snyder, but his filmed superhero showdows are like mainlining optical awesome for me; vastly more kinetic, visually easier to follow and ultimately more consequential-seeming than anything the MCU does. The Batman vs. Superman fight in this movie is the kind of thing comic fans used to have wet dreams about in the dark and shameful hours of the night (or maybe that was just me
"It needs a brighter tone." Why, FFS? We don't have enough safe, cookie-cutter Superman-the-Boy-Scout stories in the can? The MCU isn't churning out half a dozen movies a year with a "bright tone"? Snyder is hooking into the gritty superhero ethos of the late eighties and early nineties and adapting that tone -- which could veer incredibly cheesy -- with a surprising amount of grace and intelligence. No, it doesn't need a "brighter tone." Everything on the big screen doesn't need to be the bloody MCU, some variety is a good thing.
I mean, to each their own, it just doesn't seem to me to be any sort of mystery as to why Snyder's movies are successful and making stacks of money. But then I was just as bemused by all the Man of Steel "disappointment."
I completely agree when it comes to MOS, but for me BvS was just a dull slog that lacked much of the poetry and grandeur of that first movie (replaced instead by lots of dull investigations and politics and pretentious speechifying about gods). And by the time we finally got to the big fight I frankly had a hard time caring that much anymore-- especially given how incredibly forced their entire conflict felt to begin with.
Just saw it the second time.
Loads of spoilery speculation.
More I see this movie, the more I find. I'll probably see it in the theater a third time.
Loads of spoilery speculation.
Yeah, they are definitely opening it up for Lex Sr in a future film. Dropped hint after hint about that one. One interesting moment is when Baby Lex phones someone that the Bat Signal is in play. Could have been his security team - but honestly, why would he when they were supposed to be 'somewhere he didn't know' guarding Martha Kent. Pretty sure that was Daddy.
The 'dream sequence' clearly isn't that - and I forgot how explicit they were with the parademons. What looks like nuclear blasts are instead hell pits of Apokolips all throughout the landscape. And while its hard to tell physically if that's the flash, its pretty clear that its a JLAer. Oh, and when Batfleck 'wakes' from the vision there's papers swirling all in the air. DEFINITELY not a dream sequence.
Honestly, this is a far higher level of storytelling than Marvel, which pretty much slapped you in the face with any foreshadowing it was doing.
And Clark's arc and his continued relationship with his father and Lois is actually quite strong in this movie. The storytelling about Pa Kent and the drowning stallions was strong, and Clark continues to find his humanity from his father. His answer as to why be a good man is the same as his dad's. He loves a woman that's his whole world. That tying back to the vision he had was ominous, where its Lane's death that causes Superman to go bad. Just a tad more powerful than a new form of kryptonite IMO.
As to criticisms of Lois, she saves Superman from Batman, and she saves Superman again from the kryptonite spear. And of course she's the reason Superman is willing to be in a world that has so much darkness in it. Her investigaton of the deaths in the desert explain Luthor's machinations, even if the bombing of the capital seems to end that prematurely.That's a pretty strong arc for the non-powered love interest. She's more capable than any superhero squeeze outside Agent Carter.
The 'dream sequence' clearly isn't that - and I forgot how explicit they were with the parademons. What looks like nuclear blasts are instead hell pits of Apokolips all throughout the landscape. And while its hard to tell physically if that's the flash, its pretty clear that its a JLAer. Oh, and when Batfleck 'wakes' from the vision there's papers swirling all in the air. DEFINITELY not a dream sequence.
Honestly, this is a far higher level of storytelling than Marvel, which pretty much slapped you in the face with any foreshadowing it was doing.
And Clark's arc and his continued relationship with his father and Lois is actually quite strong in this movie. The storytelling about Pa Kent and the drowning stallions was strong, and Clark continues to find his humanity from his father. His answer as to why be a good man is the same as his dad's. He loves a woman that's his whole world. That tying back to the vision he had was ominous, where its Lane's death that causes Superman to go bad. Just a tad more powerful than a new form of kryptonite IMO.
As to criticisms of Lois, she saves Superman from Batman, and she saves Superman again from the kryptonite spear. And of course she's the reason Superman is willing to be in a world that has so much darkness in it. Her investigaton of the deaths in the desert explain Luthor's machinations, even if the bombing of the capital seems to end that prematurely.That's a pretty strong arc for the non-powered love interest. She's more capable than any superhero squeeze outside Agent Carter.
More I see this movie, the more I find. I'll probably see it in the theater a third time.
I liked how close the parademons were to their comic book incarnation. Regarding the Flash in the dream sequence, I think that his scene was actually after the actual "dream". The sequence is obviously something communicating to Batman about the future.
Why is the first line of defense for most people to compare to the MCU instead of looking at the movie as its own?
Nobody ever complained about the Nolan movies being dark. Dark isn't bad. It just seems to have cropped up regarding Syder's awful take on Superman. Who can surely live and react to a darker world. But shouldn't himself be so caught up in it himself.
Defend the movie without attacking other movies. The points will be better made that way.
And totally forgot to add to the very strange comment about there being too many Superman-the-boy-scout stories in the can.... are there also too many Aquaman-gets-powers-from-water stories so we should now deviate? Should Punisher sell more girl guide cookies since we've seen him kill so much? Should Spider-Man stab more people in the eyes to drum up interest?
There's a reason people have enjoyed these characters and who they are for decades.
There's a reason people have enjoyed these characters and who they are for decades.
The people who made the Turkish Airlines commercial get Superman and Metropolis better than Snyder.
