• 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
That Hillary Clinton movie that supposedly showed that the democratic party is pushing to bring back slavery will probably sweep the razzies anyway.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

No but seriously, it's a terrible movie and yet there's no reason why some people can't make fun of it while some people can still enjoy it.
 
So these awards are not about whether one movie is really good or one is really bad. It's all about preference
When are opinions about whether a movie is good or bad anything else except preference, and likewise for any piece of literature? Welcome to the world of literary criticism, or in other words the day after the first piece of literature in human history, some time before 335 BCE.
 
I rewatched it this morning. Looked awesome on my (relatively) new projector. Was very entertaining (I like it more each time I see it). But I'll never watch the theatrical version again (unless I have to do a comparison--can't imagine why). Not all extended/director cuts are better than the theatrical, but this one certainly is.
 
So these awards are not about whether one movie is really good or one is really bad. It's all about preference, which makes the whole awards scene irrelevant. I don't see how I'm supposed to view the Golden Razzies as an "accurate" take on the quality of "Batman v. Superman" or any other film it has nominated, along with the Golden Globes, the Oscars, the BAFTAs, the SAG Awards, the DG awards, the National Board of Review, etc. All of these are nothing more than popularity contests.

And considering that the "Transformers" films have been box office hits since the first one in the franchise, I guess I don't have to blindly accept the views of the general public on which films are actually good and which ones are not. Nor do I have to blindly accept the views of the media, as well.

They're not supposed to be any more accurate about the worst films than the Oscars are about the best. They're really about listing big name movies that were disappointments (supposedly) for one reason or another. And while a lot of crap does get nominated there are often memorable films as well, and even occasionally a movie gets nominated for both an Oscar and a Razzie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Raspberry_Award_for_Worst_Picture#1980s
 
When I first saw this movie I disliked it because it wasn't the movie I wanted. When I rewatched it, I watched it as the movie it is, not the movie I wanted it to be, and enjoyed it far more. Having said that it has some serious problems with pacing, editing, the theatrical cut doesn't even make sense, and why does Batman have psychic powers??
 
I figured it was more something seeping into his subconscious thanks to the Flash bending reality with his time travel or something.

That still feels like Batman has a power - he is attuned to the universe of something. The whole appeal of Batman is that he has no powers... so giving him any kind of abilities is a bad idea...
 
Does anyone else think it's time that the opinion poll atop this thread should be reposted given that it refers to the theatrical cut and there's now an alternative version out there?
On the subject of award ceremonies is that it seems (and I'm sure someone will set me straight on this) that the only films that seem to be nominated - at least for the big awards - are all released no sooner than autumn? In the UK there have been instances where films have been nominated for the BAFTAs that had yet to be released in the UK. I believe that was cynically designed to attract more big-name American stars to attend the ceremony.
By the way the most awkward moment in an awards show? Many moons ago the BAFTAs film & TV awards were combined like the Golden Globes and the late Tony Curtis was going to be awarded I think with a lifetime achievement award. And one of the nominees for best documentary featured a clip of Jamie-Lee Curtis talking about her parents marriage. Ouch I squirmed, imagine how he must have felt seeing his daughter up on the big screen talking about him if only for a minute or so.
 
When I first saw this movie I disliked it because it wasn't the movie I wanted. When I rewatched it, I watched it as the movie it is, not the movie I wanted it to be, and enjoyed it far more. Having said that it has some serious problems with pacing, editing, the theatrical cut doesn't even make sense, and why does Batman have psychic powers??

I figured it was more something seeping into his subconscious thanks to the Flash bending reality with his time travel or something.

That still feels like Batman has a power - he is attuned to the universe of something. The whole appeal of Batman is that he has no powers... so giving him any kind of abilities is a bad idea...

I like to think it's a side-effect of being next to the Flash while he's time traveling at you. It could happen to anybody, not just Batman.
I don't think that had anything to do with Batman, it was purely The Flash sending a message back in time. I'm pretty sure it's going to be explained in the Justice League.
I just watched this for the first time since I saw it in theaters, and I still really enjoyed it.
It's not a perfect movie by any stretch, but for me the good still outweighs the bad. I think it's biggest issue was just that it rushed into things a bit too quickly, and tried to do too much in one movie.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top