Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 68
  1. #1
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default How did they get it so wrong? BvS (may contain spoilers)

    I just came back from a showing of BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE. And I feel like the crush of critical commentary on this movie--before any of us got a chance to see it--was totally misleading. I kept waiting for all the bad shoes to drop (promised to drop by the reviews), but those shoes remained floating above my head.

    To talk about this I'll have to give away some things from the movie--but these were already in reviews--so know that there are spoilers ahead.



    I went into the movie knowing it wasn't going to be my movie, so I watched it as Snyder's movie and respected what he was trying to do. I think he succeeded for the most part.

    Now yes, the movie was a darker version of Superman and Batman. But everybody knew that, right? I can't believe anyone went into the cinema expecting a George Reeves movie. And this is not my Superman or my Batman. But a lot of fans were posting for the last couple of years on all the stuff leaked from the movie--and that darker version of the characters was something they openly admired. So the movie delivered what was expectd.

    Reviews had said the editing was a mess on this movie. I kept expecting the movie to go off the rails, but it never did. There's an elaborate plot but it's not any more elaborate than that in any of the Nolan Batman movies. And scenes flow naturally into each other. The one big mind-bender is one of Bruce's dreams--that's left unexplained. And I'm okay with that--not everything needs to be tied up with pink bows.

    This movie requires you to think. More so than MAN OF STEEL. You have to figure out how Bruce and Lex Luthor are plotting--but if you pay attention, you see how one plays with the other.

    The one scene that could have been longer and would please more people--I think--was the big battle near the end featuring the Trinity. This was good enough though it could have gone on much longer. I was wondering why WW doesn't use her lasso--which has to be more effective than a sword and shield. And then she was using her lasso--yet they never built up that part of the battle to my satisfaction.

    We're given some explanation as to why Bruce has become so morose and nearly nihilistic, but it's still something of a mystery. We have to assume there's a lot more that we don't see. However, I don't regard that as a flaw. Good movies push the viewer to fill in the blanks. The way I see it Bruce has PTSD--he's had it since his parents were killed--but the events of MOS revived it and he's going through the trauma all over again and sees no hope. His battle against crime seems futile to him.

    In a way, BVS makes up for the details not covered in MOS. We see more of the human cost in this one. So maybe we need another movie to show us exactly what Bruce Wayne has gone through in the last twenty years that has brought him to this crossroads.

    Supposedly Jimmy Olsen is killed off at the beginning of the movie. Yet the character is never named (while Jenny who was supposed to be Olsen is still alive)--and the guy who dies is a CIA agent. Which isn't a description of the Jimmy we know.

    A lot of reviews went on about how much Batman and/or Superman kill. It might be that Batman caused some deaths, but to be honest there was so much going on in those scenes it was hard to keep track. That didn't bother me. A lot of people die, but Batman and Superman are not responsible for those deaths (unless you use some abstract logic that ultimately by existing they cause death all around them). And I thought that BVS did a better job of showing the emotional impact of so much death--as compared with MAN OF STEEL which was often too distant from the death happening below the drama.

    I could have done without the 3D--which just makes the movie harder to watch for me (with my glasses). And the sound track while it sometimes recalled earlier Batman movies, seemed to be stealing from Wagner and Prokofiev--and it often seemed mismatched to what was unfolding on screen.

    I think that Snyder counts on comic fans bringing their knowledge of comics into the movie. Maybe he overestimates them. There are shout outs to hundreds of comics throughout the movie that you can pick up if you pay attention. The obvious ones like Dark Knight Returns and Death of Superman and the not so obvious like Must There Be a Superman.

    My insight into Lex Luthor (which might be totally my own imagination--but it helped me accept Jesse Eisenberg's weird version) is that he's the long hair Lex from the '90s. If you know those comics, then you know that long hair Lex seemed to be the son of Lex Luthor. And in the movie, Lex makes many references to his father (also called Lex--for whom LexCorp was named). But we know that long hair Lex turned out to be the older Lex--they saved his brain and transplanted it into a younger model. So that's how I looked at this version of Lex. His weird behaviour is partly older Lex trying to disguise his true self and partly the effect of having his brain transplanted into a younger body.

    One reason I don't understand the critic reviews is that this movie hangs together rather well as an artistic work. It might not be a Terrence Malick movie but neither is it Michael Bay. Some critics might be lukewarm about its story, but it's not lacking in craftmanship.

    Something in the end credits to watch for is the acknowledgements for so many comic writers, artists and editors. Respect.

  2. #2
    Incredible Member victorsage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    575

    Default

    I just think they tried to do to much with the time they had. Which is what I think people are annoyed by more then anything else. I mean yeah you got the "This sucks" crowd, but you'll always have those people.

  3. #3
    Astonishing Member Francisco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,068

    Default

    Completely agree with your assessment. I need to watch it again. So much going on. lol.

  4. #4
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    19,547

    Default

    My wife and I just saw it today.

    It wasnt half as bad as I was expecting. But then, I was expecting it to be pretty f**kin' terrible.

    Now, me, I liked Man of Steel. Sure, it had some weak points, especially Johnathan's death via tornado, but all in all I liked the film quite a bit. But then, I like my Superman a little more rough and tumble than many, and have come to accept that Superman killing Zod has more than enough precedent to be considered a viable aspect of the character's journey.

    This film.....

    Spoilers to follow, just to warn ya'll.

    Okay, Affleck made a decent Batman. I figured he would, Batman's an easy role to play; all you need is to brood and speak in a gravely voice and you got it down. And Affleck didnt even have to do half of that since he had that voice modulator in the suit (which was a nice touch, I must say). I liked how....comic book-y Batman felt here, as opposed to the Nolan films that were much more grounded. This Batman felt more like a guy who could exist in a world of super humans. And I liked the position they put Batman in; the fear of the unstoppable alien from beyond....its a fitting mentality to have for the obsessive compulsive control freak that is Batman.

    The body count Batman ran up though, that was a surprise. Im not....against....a Batman who kills....exactly.....but Im not sure how I feel about it either. I mean, he was pretty liberal with the lethal force, way moreso than I would have liked....but Batman not killing at all has never quite sat right with me either. So...it is what it is.

    Cavill was great, of course. Easily my favorite Superman. I wish Snyder and Cavill had done more to make Clark look and sound different from Superman, but I dealt with that throughout post-Crisis, so if I could overlook it for twenty years I can overlook it here too. Not like there was a ton of Clark stuff anyway.

    One thing I did dislike was the emphasis on Clark's relationships. During Batman's Apokolips dream, Clark says that "She was my world" before killing Bruce. Now, the plot of the story leads me to believe he was talking about Martha; given Lex's manipulations, I think the idea was that if Martha died, Clark would blame Bruce for it and that would lead him to side with Darkseid. But there's a lot of emphasis put on Lois, and Clark's dependence on her as well, to the point that the dream sequence could have been about either. And I disagree with it either way; Superman is not so mentally fragile that he'd go crazy or evil because someone he loves dies. Kill the person who murdered Lois or Martha? Maybe, I could see this guy doing that, but giving the world to Darkseid? A billion times no.

    Eisnenberg...however its spelled....gave a strong performance but I dont recognize the character. Whoever that was, it didnt seem like Lex Luthor. Im trying to reconcile that in my mind by assuming that Lex is already feeling Darkseid's influence and it's driven him a little insane. But despite the guy doing a fine job with the role, I feel like Snyder took the character in the wrong direction.

    The highlight, for both my wife and I, was Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman. She was pretty much perfect for the role and I liked almost everything they did with her, right from the start.

    Also, that Mother Box during Cyborg's origin scene? Badass as hell.

    I think the editing was a little rocky, sometimes on purpose (mostly the dream stuff), but not nearly as bad as people made it out to be. And there was way more Batman in the film than I would have liked, but I wanted Man of Steel 2, not this, so even a cameo would have been too much. All in all, I think the film was solid; at least a C, maybe a B.

    Also not surprised by the ending. Doomsday man, what else did people expect?
    "We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."

    ~ Black Panther.

  5. #5
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    19,547

    Default

    Oh, as for the lethal force thing, I dont recall Superman actually killing anyone here except for Doomsday, but since Doomsday was a reanimated Zod I dont think it counts.

    But Batman? Dude, he gunned down lots of people. During the car chase, I think you could argue that a lot of the people involved just got badly injured, but at least a few people died during that scene, and later on when he's in his plane and gunning down people, there were most definitely dead people.
    "We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."

    ~ Black Panther.

  6. #6
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    For the most part I didn't feel like they tried to cram in too much stuff. The movie actually goes rather slow most of the time--a lot like THE DARK KNIGHT--in order to put all the pieces in play and set up the plot. Now you can argue whether the movie needs that plot--but like the Nolan movies, I think Snyder was trying to give something that the critics can chew on. Some critics seem to want comic book movies that pose philosophical questions. And I think the movie took its time setting up those philosophical questions--to give itself some legitimacy with the art crowd.

    The most crammed in thing is the Lexcorp files on metahumans--but it still fits within the flow of the plot. It's only crammed in from the perspective of a fan who knows 1) the movie was edited down and 2) that stuff has to be there to set up the Justice League movie. But when I look at in terms of the movie's structure (ignoring my outside knowledge) then it fits.

    I think that DC/WB should have provided some kind of pre-movie short or an online webisode which would be an extended edtion of the Lexcorp files.

    Yeah, I kinda figured that Batman was maybe killing people in his Batmobile or his Batwing but in the confusion it's hard to see if anyone is really getting killed. And as far as I knew they were all the bad guys--already guys who were killers and out to kill Batman and everyone else. Not that old school Batman would do that--but the whole premise of the movie rests on this idea that we have a post-Dark Knight Returns style Bruce who has given up on his original mission and has now become a vigilante (which is the whole point that Clark is on about). So if you accept that premise--i.e. the director's vision--then it fits within the paradigm of the movie.

    The point where it gets good for me on a personal level--where I'm not just evaluating the movie as the director's art, but enjoying the movie for my own sake--is after the fight between Batman and Superman. This is a spoiler.

    Once Bruce comes to the realization that he's been played, the relationship between Bruce, Clark and Diana comes together and the rest of the movie is simply bittersweet pleasure.

    It takes a long time to get to that point. But that's the pay-off.

    And one of the great genius things in this movie is the Martha connection. For nearly 70 years, it's been an odd thing that both Bruce and Clark have a mother with the same name. I've never seen anyone use that for any benefit. But in this movie it is a pivotal element. It's like as a fan I've ignored it for so long that I didn't realize the power of that name. That was one of my Wow moments in the movie.

    I do feel there needs to be a MAN OF STEEL 2 (just not with that title) from Snyder. The arc that he began in MAN OF STEEL and continues in this one has not yet been resolved. And only Snyder can honestly complete that arc.
    Last edited by Jim Kelly; 03-28-2016 at 06:36 PM.

  7. #7
    Extraordinary Member Prime's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,042

    Default

    How are they going to explain Clark Kent when Superman revives?

  8. #8
    Astonishing Member Stanlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    4,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prime View Post
    How are they going to explain Clark Kent when Superman revives?
    Probably something similar to the books. There was sooooooooooooooooooooooooo much damage it could be months before they sift through all the rubble. He could have amnesia or something that doesn't require a lot of verification.

  9. #9
    Extraordinary Member Prime's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanlos View Post
    Probably something similar to the books. There was sooooooooooooooooooooooooo much damage it could be months before they sift through all the rubble. He could have amnesia or something that doesn't require a lot of verification.
    There was a funeral...with his body in it....and people saw it.

  10. #10
    Astonishing Member Francisco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,068

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prime View Post
    How are they going to explain Clark Kent when Superman revives?
    They shouldn't... Clark is no more.

  11. #11
    Astonishing Member Johnny Thunders!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    WGBS
    Posts
    2,535

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    For the most part I didn't feel like they tried to cram in too much stuff. The movie actually goes rather slow most of the time--a lot like THE DARK KNIGHT--in order to put all the pieces in play and set up the plot. Now you can argue whether the movie needs that plot--but like the Nolan movies, I think Snyder was trying to give something that the critics can chew on. Some critics seem to want comic book movies that pose philosophical questions. And I think the movie took its time setting up those philosophical questions--to give itself some legitimacy with the art crowd.

    The most crammed in thing is the Lexcorp files on metahumans--but it still fits within the flow of the plot. It's only crammed in from the perspective of a fan who knows 1) the movie was edited down and 2) that stuff has to be there to set up the Justice League movie. But when I look at in terms of the movie's structure (ignoring my outside knowledge) then it fits.

    I think that DC/WB should have provided some kind of pre-movie short or an online webisode which would be an extended edtion of the Lexcorp files.

    Yeah, I kinda figured that Batman was maybe killing people in his Batmobile or his Batwing but in the confusion it's hard to see if anyone is really getting killed. And as far as I knew they were all the bad guys--already guys who were killers and out to kill Batman and everyone else. Not that old school Batman would do that--but the whole premise of the movie rests on this idea that we have a post-Dark Knight Returns style Bruce who has given up on his original mission and has now become a vigilante (which is the whole point that Clark is on about). So if you accept that premise--i.e. the director's vision--then it fits within the paradigm of the movie.

    The point where it gets good for me on a personal level--where I'm not just evaluating the movie as the director's art, but enjoying the movie for my own sake--is after the fight between Batman and Superman. This is a spoiler.

    Once Bruce comes to the realization that he's been played, the relationship between Bruce, Clark and Diana comes together and the rest of the movie is simply bittersweet pleasure.

    It takes a long time to get to that point. But that's the pay-off.

    And one of the great genius things in this movie is the Martha connection. For nearly 70 years, it's been an odd thing that both Bruce and Clark have a mother with the same name. I've never seen anyone use that for any benefit. But in this movie it is a pivotal element. It's like as a fan I've ignored it for so long that I didn't realize the power of that name. That was one of my Wow moments in the movie.

    I do feel there needs to be a MAN OF STEEL 2 (just not with that title) from Snyder. The arc that he began in MAN OF STEEL and continues in this one has not yet been resolved. And only Snyder can honestly complete that arc.
    I still haven't seen it, but I'm the kind of guy that had to read "novelizations" or read Mad Magazine before I saw most moves. This post above is going to end up on Debra Snyders Facebook page. I feel like, it's going be a Zack Snyder movie, like a ton of great comics, you can focus on what you want and enjoy it for what it is... I don't know if critics dismiss the idea of serious comic book movies. I read plenty of glowing reviews for Watchmen, oh and Nolan Batman. I suspected the ending but couldn't believe it really would happen on screen. DC is going to release a ton of trades from that era and Jurgens is on Action. That sounds like a company working together. So still, will the next Superman movie be Kingdom Come? All Star Superman? Maybe it will be Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow. It's all possible.
    Last edited by Johnny Thunders!; 03-28-2016 at 07:44 PM.

  12. #12
    Astonishing Member Stanlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    4,167

    Default

    I often disagree with the Rotten Tomatoes numbers (I love AEON FLUX) but one criticism of the film I think is totally valid is the structural/narrative issues of the film. Particularly in that first hour. I feel the film's length would not have been a problem if they had firmed up the script and if the narrative made sense. Had they left out all of the dream sequences (the giant bat, the bats lifting little Bruce (as he related the series of events to . . . ??? A therapist in a session that wasn't include?), the giant zombie bat coming out of the crypt, the INJUSTICE-by-way-of-Darkseid-resurrection-setup dream, and Flash's visit from the future) and instead let us spend more time with Superman that would have helped a lot. But more than that, they should have either limited Lex's role to creating DD as WTF would logically conclude that Superman is the culprit behind the deaths of people who were shot? You could tell there were multiple screenwriters (I suspect that there was more than the two listed). I still enjoyed it for its historical significance, the yumminess of Henry Cavill (my vote is that Superman themed sweats be the official new costume as GD!), the also-yumminess of Affleck's very effective Batman (not a fan of the clunker armour suit and its awful clonker boots though), and the mindblowing awesome-taculousness of Wonder Woman along with the stellar sound design. Those are all big pluses--there was plenty of good stuff.

    But the core and most important part is the STORY. Better editing would have greatly benefited the film and eliminated the horrible imbalances and disconnects the final product. There was a spectacular story inside crying to get out. But the finished product collectively was just okay to good.

    I feel like the ULTIMATE CUT will fill in some blanks but I am scared that it is not going to fix the Superman/Threat/Senate story much if at all. Going to hope though
    Last edited by Stanlos; 03-28-2016 at 07:56 PM.

  13. #13
    Incredible Member victorsage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    575

    Default

    I think they should have waited with Doomsday. It seemed early for that, at least for me. The great thing about the original book was that Doomsday really was just this unbeatable force. JL members getting taken down left and right, until the only person who could stand against him was the world's greatest hero. We then got to watch as Clark lived up to his ideals, and sacrificed everything to save the planet, and the people he loved. Him dying in Lois's arms was like seeing behind the scene when a family realizes a loved one has died in the line of duty. You know they gave up everything to do what they believed in, but it doesn't stop the raw emotion from coming out from their loved ones, because the one they lost is gone.

    That really touched a lot of people at the time. It was like watching D-Day or something.

    For me I think this Doomsday v Superman fight was just rushed.

  14. #14
    Astonishing Member Stanlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    4,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prime View Post
    There was a funeral...with his body in it....and people saw it.
    That was a just a construction worker with a strong resemblance to Clark.

    Or a twin brother showed up with news that Clark was adopted and that is why he was acting all weird and missing time and such.

    They could do something contrived that only vaguely connects (repeating the Bullets=Superman killed them) the dots

  15. #15
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    We never saw that much of Clark's funeral service. I don't think it was established that it was an open casket service.

    Most funerals, these days, are closed casket--even when the body is intact. The newspaper announcement of Kent's death went by so fast that I didn't have time to read it--but I figured he was presumed dead in the carnage that hit Washington. In which event they'd have had to identify people by their DNA--so it would be easy to mis-identify Clark. Anyway, that would be the cover story that Lois fed to the Daily Planet.

    I can accept that some critics just didn't like the movie. That's fair. What didn't make sense for me, as I watched the movie, was the reasons that some of those critics gave--including the CBR review. Those reasons were off base and inconsistent.

    For instance, BATMAN BEGINS is all over the place, going back and forth in time for the first third of the movie. The progression in that movie is much harder to track--however, I don't think many would say that's a negative. The sequence of events is much easier to follow in BVS--and when something is a flashback you know it's a flashback.

    It seems to me that some critics must have worked backwards--deciding first that the movie was bad and then trying to formulate some theory for why it was bad.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •