Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Sure, he expresses himself with tons of slo-mo shots, very artful compositions, disturbing dream sequences, and extended sequences of violence that mainly revolve focus on people punching and throwing each other, with some monsters thrown in for good measure. BvS is a more recognizably Zack Snyder movie than any MCU movie is for its directors, partly because Snyder, along with Bay, is one of the most distinctive tentpole action directors working. All this is fairly indisputable.
However, unusually distinctive visuals are not the only metric of "real movies", to use your term. You say Snyder takes his films seriously, but shouldn't that extend to character motivations as well as striking images? I have no idea what he was going for with Luthor. He's a guy who's obviously deeply odd and highly mannered, and puts candy in government officials' mouths (huh?), yet said official also respects him enough to hand him an alien spaceship? Why, because he's a genius of some kind? But the movie clearly states it was his father who went from rags to riches, not him; we have no idea what his specialty is at all.
That's not even the biggest issue with the character, however. He wants to torment and/or kill Superman because... he doesn't think anyone should be that powerful - I think? But in his last scene, he warns that there are more and bigger alien threats coming. How long has he known that? Does he think the world is safer with Superman dead before said threats arrive? And what was he planning to do with Doomsday if it did kill Superman without being killed in the process? Did he have enough Kryptonite to put it down, or did he think unleashing an unstoppable monster was worth killing Superman over, and that he'd figure out what to do with it later? And why not wait to see if Batman killed Superman before cooking Doomsday? What was the rush?
MCU movie villains have been fairly criticized for being one-note and banal, but I could easily tell you what each of their plans and motivations where, despite not having seen several of the movies in years. But I saw BvS yesterday, and I have no idea what its villain was up to. It may be a "real movie", whatever that means, but it definitely isn't a good one.
Documentaries.
"Grimdark" was a notable period in superhero comics, and I'd argue it's legitimate to bring that kind of story to the big screen for at least a couple of movies.
Which is true of every time Superman has taken life.
Evidence that Snyder has actually considered Superman's moral position. Does the "real" Superman stop every one of the thousands of murders that happen every day?
Yup.
I wonder if you could explain that. I think X-Men is the best superhero movie I've seen. It's the most involving and believable in terms of human emotion (Wolverine/Rogue, Magneto to a lesser extent).
Is it sad that I saw this for the third time this weekend? I actually appreciate Eisenberg's take on Luthor more after the third time, though the odd, undermining acting tics still annoyed me. But there was a coldness, darkness there behind the eyes and I did enjoy some of his exchanges with Senator Finch, Lois, and Superman.
And I still loved the Batman action scenes and the big battle at the end. That's not saying the film is perfect, from from it, but it is good, or good enough.
And I still loved the Batman action scenes and the big battle at the end. That's not saying the film is perfect, from from it, but it is good, or good enough.
Fat Pratt is best Pratt.I just remembered that Disney owns Indiana Jones now. Captain America and Indiana Jones can have an adventure together!
For all we know, Battfleck could very well work despite Snyder, not because of him.
There's really no way of knowing.
You mean yet
.
Snyder who shot the actual footage, directed the actual actor, picked the costume and set designs, and oversaw the edit (if he didn't do it himself, not sure)? Nothing to do with the end result, I'm sure.
EDIT: And of course Snyder cast the guy as well.
Last edited:
Now you know what George Lucas had to put up with.
Except for one thing. Snyder is using this as an excuse for why Superman can't just go find Martha himself...even though he does keep tabs on these things at other times, otherwise Lois would be dead three times over. So it's good enough for Lois, but not Martha.
In the talk about how the DCCU needs to change its style, I look to the Transformers franchise:
TF1 $710M. TF2 $836M. TF3 $1.12B. TF4 $1.10B.
TF1 57% RT. TF2 19%. TF3 35%. TF4 18%.
Now, TF2 was critically and internet-ally reviled. Did they change anything for 3? Not really. And look how much more it made. TF4 was even more reviled than 2, but it did just a smidge less than its predecessor. And they're not changing #$%. They're actually doubling down with an entire new franchise of movies and spin-offs. Money talks.
TF1 $710M. TF2 $836M. TF3 $1.12B. TF4 $1.10B.
TF1 57% RT. TF2 19%. TF3 35%. TF4 18%.
Now, TF2 was critically and internet-ally reviled. Did they change anything for 3? Not really. And look how much more it made. TF4 was even more reviled than 2, but it did just a smidge less than its predecessor. And they're not changing #$%. They're actually doubling down with an entire new franchise of movies and spin-offs. Money talks.
The quality of the movies has progressively gone down, while the profits went up, big time.In the talk about how the DCCU needs to change its style, I look to the Transformers franchise:
TF1 $710M. TF2 $836M. TF3 $1.12B. TF4 $1.10B.
TF1 57% RT. TF2 19%. TF3 35%. TF4 18%.
Now, TF2 was critically and internet-ally reviled. Did they change anything for 3? Not really. And look how much more it made. TF4 was even more reviled than 2, but it did just a smidge less than its predecessor. And they're not changing #$%. They're actually doubling down with an entire new franchise of movies and spin-offs. Money talks.
Almost as if we live in the world where people enjoy spending their hard earned money on shit. Myself included.
Paramount found a way of making huge bucks off of pure cinematic diarrhoea.
Profitability IS the quality they seek in their products, therefore Transformers movies are definitely improving.Ah, but quality is subjective.
I'll watch the shit out of that Bumblebee spinoff movie. Pun intended.
I'll most likely hate it, too. And come back for more.
Is this real life?
Yep, and usually when they do (certainly when it's happened anytime in the last 30 or so years), it's always been for actual, compelling reasons which affect him for a long, long time. Not utterly ignored thirty seconds after it happens because the writers didn't understand the characters at all, as they've shown time and time again just in the these two movies.
Last edited: