But it was so kewl...
Just kidding. But I did like the movie. The video game was better.
Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
But it was so kewl...
Just kidding. But I did like the movie. The video game was better.
A very well done fanfilm. It's an adaptation of Sam's Story, one of my favorite Superman stories.
It's those last 17 minutes that get you!
Sorry, Ben. Just because grimdark turned into a (rather pointless) buzzword does not mean the film wasn't judged on its execution.
This should provide some interesting discussions.
http://screenrant.com/dceu-movies-superman-trump-brexit/
http://screenrant.com/dceu-movies-superman-trump-brexit/
If you're in denial, true. Otherwise his narratives are awful and he has trouble telling a story.
Sure, Snyder apologists can easily say Batman's dream makes sense in this movie. But it doesn't. And they can also say Lois Lane's roles in both movies made sense. But they mostly don't. And Snyder apologists can say it makes perfect sense to have Gotham and Metropolis separated by a river. But that REALLY doesn't either.
And we can go on and on before we ever have to bring up the characters.
But this isn't a point by point dissection, it's been done to death. The point is, the problem isn't with thr viewer, as you're trying to blame. It's what's on screen.
He takes pieces from multiple stories that LOOK cool. And tries to smash them together. Not understanding what made them work in the first place. Only that they looked great to him.
See Watchmen for all the proof necessary of this. He (mostly) didn't get that story either, and it's not like there's a lifelong adherence to those "sanitized" characters.
Like the movie all you want, it's awesome there are fans of it. But don't dismiss the detractors by basically saying it's all in their heads. It's a pretty ignorant approach to take.
Last edited:
It's weird, I often find myself in denial of outright bullshit.
It seems your explanation of how it doesn't make sense got deleted somewhere along the way. An oversight, perhaps?
And I'm mostly not seeing any specifics again. That's twice in a row. Just bad luck, I guess!
We sometimes call that kind of thing "being true to the comics" or alternatively "consistency with the source material". But we wouldn't want that, would we? Not if it gets in the way of the agenda, surely.
Yes, you can obviously go on and on making lazy accusations with no substance and no evidence backing them up. You seem to be good at that sort of thing.
For one thing, I don't think he was the writer, I heard he had a different job, but I can't put my finger on it right now. Anyway, he doesn't have any "trouble telling a story", if such a thing is defined in the obvious way implied by words and their definitions. The problem would seem to be that you object to the story. Therefore, his "trouble" was that he failed to win you over. But then again, a lot of people have gotten in that kind of "trouble", haven't they?
Yeah, sure he didn't. Someone said it, therefore it must be true. It's like whenever someone says "you just don't get it", it's always true! (Mostly.) Not at all bullshit or anything like that.
Gotham and Metropolis have never been that close in the comics, either......
They were neighbor cities in the Silver Age. Gotham in Jersey and Metropolis in Delaware.
Don't dismiss the detractors like they dismiss any positive view of Snyder and his work?
Kinda hypocritical, don't you think?
They were neighbor cities in the Silver Age. Gotham in Jersey and Metropolis in Delaware.
The movie didn't use silver age source material.
“The big rule that we broke is that we put Gotham and Metropolis right next to each other,” Snyder says. “It made sense to us and worked for our story that they were kind of sister cities across a big bay. It’s like Oakland and San Francisco, kind of.”
https://www.wired.com/2015/07/dawn-of-justice-gotham-metropolis/
It's not the fact they're neighbors (and the movie puts them even closer to each other) that's the problem, it's how it works in the context of the movie. Why would Superman let things get that bad if he can see (without his super vision!) everything happening so easily? For the easiest example.
Nobody took away the positive. It's easy to see why people enjoyed the movie. But there has to be an understanding that there are legitimate reasons to dislike it as well, and not all of them simply made up.
I don't see that as a problem in BvS, since Superman's a relatively recent arrival in that world and Batman's only just come out of retirement, it seems. And we aren't really shown that much of what Gotham is like in the DCEU. The problem is that Superman himself is such an aloof, ill-defined figure in the film. Snyder shows him saving a bunch of big objects, but has no interest in showing him helping people and makes him pretty useless at it.
Superman's been around for nearly two years in Metropolis by this point though.
And there's nothing to suggest Batman was retired and recently came back. Alfred would've brought that up if it were so, and Clark would've mentioned it.
Frankly, if that had been made more clear that Batman had been gone for a while (and was his usual self before he "retired") and it was only now that he'd come back that he became more vicious it would've made for better characterization. Instead of Clark asking Bruce about Batman like he's a new vigilante (or Clark someone never knew about the guy til now) we could get some character building where Clark wonders if this is a copycat who acts more brutally than the original Batman was.
And there's nothing to suggest Batman was retired and recently came back. Alfred would've brought that up if it were so, and Clark would've mentioned it.
Frankly, if that had been made more clear that Batman had been gone for a while (and was his usual self before he "retired") and it was only now that he'd come back that he became more vicious it would've made for better characterization. Instead of Clark asking Bruce about Batman like he's a new vigilante (or Clark someone never knew about the guy til now) we could get some character building where Clark wonders if this is a copycat who acts more brutally than the original Batman was.
That was what the advance publicity for the film indicated, as I recall -- that this was an older, Dark Knight Returns-inspired Batman who had retired (perhaps after the death of Robin) but been drawn back into being Batman as a response to the destruction of Metropolis. I didn't notice that the information was left out of the final cut -- though it doesn't surprise me, given that it felt like it was just a recap of a longer story. (Maybe it's in the extended Blu-Ray cut?)
Just like MOS. People were debating that movie right up till BvS came out.
It's a tough situation. The DCEU movies get remembered and constantly debated for being divisive. The MCU movies are mostly flash in the pan, because so many come out back to back and have formula that makes them all look and feel the same. The XCU movies inspire no discussions and are forgotten as soon as they're out of theaters. Sony's plan for a Spider-Man shared universe died before it even got off the ground.
Funny, what MCU movie I feel like watching really depends on my mood, since I find them so diverse in style. I guess that's because it's a matter of opinion, not fact.....