• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion

Grade the movie...

  • Total voters
    224
dodge said:
^^
Sadly, no.
Click to expand...
:wah::scream::mad: :lol:

Not a big deal. Unless it showed at my local IMAX I'm only missing half the experience. My screen size is 64" diagonal (so not huge in relative viewing angle like the cinema) but, apart from IMAX screening rooms, no local cinema has better sound than I do (most have significantly worse). And to me, a smaller image with better sound is better than the reverse.
 
A four-person panel from Collider discuss the extended cut and (mostly) agree it's much better than the theatrical:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
I just looked up the run time for the theatrical and extended cuts. Extended is 30 minutes longer, making it 3 hours long. Why didn't they release this version in theaters, I wonder? It's the superior cut of the film and fills in a lot of the gaps that people had with the theatrical.
 
STEPhon IT said:
Its not a television show, it's a movie. The film should be tight, and with a good editor and director, the story and plots should be to the point, but I just can't see why explanations for things, plotlines and characters couldn't have been developed in the theatrical cut. There are too many films I can point to which were at a decent length and were great and never needed these excuses.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of this comes down to the theatrical releases empasizing action and spectacle over story and character, so once it comes time to cut stuff out they cut out the slower moving character and story scenes, so they can leave in the action and spectacle. Once they have the opportunity to do an extended version that doesn't necessarily have to fit the theatrical style, they are then able to go back and put back in those cut story and character scenes.
It's like the filmmaker along with the studio, not you JD, has to create reasons to avoid the fact they made a bad movie.
Click to expand...
I don't really see anybody trying to avoid the fact that they made a bad movie, they are just taking advantage of the opportunity to improve the movie. Just because something can be improved, doesn't mean it started out bad.
I'm wondering if some who didn't like the film will think differently after those extended stuff? Would critics reactions will favor if the film was even longer???
Click to expand...
If the extended edition adds back in scenes that fix the problems people had with the theatrical release, then yeah it probably will have a better reaction.
 
M.A.C.O. said:
I just looked up the run time for the theatrical and extended cuts. Extended is 30 minutes longer, making it 3 hours long. Why didn't they release this version in theaters, I wonder? It's the superior cut of the film and fills in a lot of the gaps that people had with the theatrical.
Click to expand...
Even better question: why didn't they write a tight two-hour movie instead of a cluttered three-hour one? Each of the four pre-Avengers MCU movies was about two hours even, and none have so far exceeded 2:30 (not counting five minutes of end credits). Raiders of the Lost Ark is 1:55. The Wrath of Khan, 1:53. Hell, Casablanca is only 1:42.

Movies generally don't end up being three hours by accident. Filmmakers are fairly savvy about scripts' page-to-minute ratios, and goodness knows the studios have the money to record and edit table read to time things out. Heck, combine that with the storyboards that are being drawn anyway, and you can pretty much preview your own movie. That the studio apparently didn't demand a page one rewrite when Snyder and Co. presented their three-hour script was an, if not the, early problem.
 
Gaith said:
Even better question: why didn't they write a tight two-hour movie instead of a cluttered three-hour one? Each of the four pre-Avengers MCU movies was about two hours even, and none have so far exceeded 2:30 (not counting five minutes of end credits). Raiders of the Lost Ark is 1:55. The Wrath of Khan, 1:53. Hell, Casablanca is only 1:42.

Movies generally don't end up being three hours by accident. Filmmakers are fairly savvy about scripts' page-to-minute ratios, and goodness knows the studios have the money to record and edit table read to time things out. Heck, combine that with the storyboards that are being drawn anyway, and you can pretty much preview your own movie. That the studio apparently didn't demand a page one rewrite when Snyder and Co. presented their three-hour script was an, if not the, early problem.
Click to expand...
I read the original cut of BvS was 4 hours. Snyder trimmed it down to 2.5 for the theatrical. Why would anyone shoot a movie that long? Unless your James Cameron or Peter Jackson.
 
ichab said:
D.C should do a rebuttal with Aquaman and Cyborg catching a flick titled

CAPTAIN MEATHEAD : UN-CIVIL WAR. Tagline: More fights, More shaky cam, Less Thinking
Click to expand...
Or have two characters talk about CACW being yawn inducing. Say something to the effect of "55 years of publication and The House of Ideas is still cranking out hero vs hero stories. Could they be anymore one note? Also, how are any of the heroes allies after the hundreds of times they've come to blows against one another?"

I'd chuckle at that.
 
So I decided to watch the Ultimate Cut today. While I was kind of meh on the theatrical cut, I do think the Ultimate Cut is a better movie. A good movie? I'm still not entirely sure, but I liked it more. I'm not sure if that's faint praise or not. The new scenes really do add more character motivation, especially for Clark, and it's more believable why Clark went after Batman. Lex's plan also is more well defined and actually makes sense, at least within the movie. Scenes flowed a little bit better from one to the next, and it's easy to see why Synder was upset that this wasn't the version that was initially released. Now does it change the dark brooding tone? No. Is Superman still a little too morose for my taste? Yes. If you thought the "Martha" moment was dumb, well it's still there. And more than before, those Justice League setup scenes stick out as being really unnecessary. Even though the movie flows better, they still stop the narrative progress of the movie to a grinding halt.

Like I said, overall it's the best version. Maybe my meh is now "not bad." But I still think there is better live action Batman vs Superman out there in an alternate reality.
 
M.A.C.O. said:
Or have two characters talk about CACW being yawn inducing. Say something to the effect of "55 years of publication and The House of Ideas is still cranking out hero vs hero stories. Could they be anymore one note? Also, how are any of the heroes allies after the hundreds of times they've come to blows against one another?"

I'd chuckle at that.
Click to expand...
Now that you mention it, it's quite hypocritical for marvel to make an issue of Batman and Superman getting together right after a big fight. Consider in Avengers one Ironman fought Thor, Thor fought Incredible Hulk and Ironman and Captain America were arguing with each other through the whole movie yet they all got together and fought as allies at the end. Incredible.
 
Chekov's Phaser said:
So I decided to watch the Ultimate Cut today. While I was kind of meh on the theatrical cut, I do think the Ultimate Cut is a better movie. A good movie? I'm still not entirely sure, but I liked it more. I'm not sure if that's faint praise or not. The new scenes really do add more character motivation, especially for Clark, and it's more believable why Clark went after Batman. Lex's plan also is more well defined and actually makes sense, at least within the movie. Scenes flowed a little bit better from one to the next, and it's easy to see why Synder was upset that this wasn't the version that was initially released. Now does it change the dark brooding tone? No. Is Superman still a little too morose for my taste? Yes. If you thought the "Martha" moment was dumb, well it's still there. And more than before, those Justice League setup scenes stick out as being really unnecessary. Even though the movie flows better, they still stop the narrative progress of the movie to a grinding halt.

Like I said, overall it's the best version. Maybe my meh is now "not bad." But I still think there is better live action Batman vs Superman out there in an alternate reality.
Click to expand...
I honestly thought some of those added scenes were unnecessary and redundant. Didn't need the extra scene with clark and his mother nor all that added stuff in the desert at the beginning. Did enjoy the added bit with clark talking to that criminals widow outside the prison but didnt see the need for watching how the murder went down.
 
Chekov's Phaser said:
While I was kind of meh on the theatrical cut, I do think the Ultimate Cut is a better movie. A good movie? I'm still not entirely sure, but I liked it more. I'm not sure if that's faint praise or not.
Click to expand...
If you have to ask if the longer cut is even itself good... yeah, that's faint praise. ;)
 
I don't understand how are people talking about seeing the Ultimate Cut? It doesn't come out for three weeks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top