DC Extended Universe (POST NO SPOILERS HERE!)

[Sacred Knight]

You know, I know Erza Miller's depiction of Barry Allen is radically unlike anything we've seen from the character before. But from what I've seen his performance is such that I honestly am getting close to saying it SHOULD become his norm, comics and everywhere else (outside the already existing series).

[Frontier]

You know, I know Erza Miller's depiction of Barry Allen is radically unlike anything we've seen from the character before. But from what I've seen his performance is such that I honestly am getting close to saying it SHOULD become his norm, comics and everywhere else (outside the already existing series).

I dunno, I think Miller's Flash will probably be fun but I don't need him to be this young and spastic kid with super-speed in other incarnations unless he's Kid Flash.

But then again I prefer a seasoned, adult, Flash.

[Bossace]

Ben joking about sexual assault in that interview is so uncomfortable uncalled for and awkward. The other cast members just look totally taken back that he said that.

http://comicbook.com/dc/2017/11/16/j...oke-gal-gadot/

[Lightning Rider]

A two-second throwaway line does not a fully fleshed out character make.



And yet we don't see how he tracked them down, when he did so, how he could have possibly known they'd be out there, or even his initial reaction to finding out their existence. Again, this movie leaves the audience grasping for a lot.



If his father was abusive, then he wasn't all that benevolent, was he. And again, all the film does is throw in a two-second line with nothing else to even suggest that Luthor is projecting his feelings about his father onto Superman. And what's more is that the line itself makes it seem more like Luthor blames the fact of his abuse on others, and not oh I dont know, the guy who actually abused him. So, again, the movie leaves this incredibly vague with pretty much no clarification or flushing out of Luthor's motives. That is not a well-written character. There's a reason Luthor is one of the more disliked parts of the movie.



You said that we never have anything more than simple xenophobia and ego as an explanation of comic book Luthor's motivations. I gave you three examples of why that's not true. Regardless of whether you like them or not, those origins serve as vehicles to explain and showcase Luthor's hatred and xenophobia, so that he's not just a one-note character who hates for no reason.

Look, I understand. I was disappointed in the critical reaction to BvS too. I wanted it to be good. I wanted all the critics to love it. But the fact that they didn't doesn't mean that they're biased or that they don't have taste or that it went over their heads. It didn't. They just didn't like it, because they just didn't like it. And, unfortunately, they weren't the only ones.

Several lines which accentuate others in the film can give someone a valid motivation.

Not sure why his methods for tracking them down have anything to do with his motivations.

His motivations could have used more time, but they're not really unclear. They're scattered throughout the film and yes, you have to construct them, but if you're not paying attention and miss entire conversations in the dialogue, then you're not going to walk away with a complete picture, and that's on you.

It's also not the reason he was disliked, people didn't like Eisenberg's annoying twitchiness and wanted a masculine STAS type of Lex.

I don't need to retread the point of your origin examples because they're unimportant in understanding Lex as a character in the comics. Those origins aren't revisited nor emphasized because Lex is who he is largely independent of Superman and projects his ideologies onto him.

There are reviews that explicitly reveal biases in terms of tone and pre-conceived notions about appropriate character choices. When I'm talking about those, I'm being particular. The movies had problems, sure, but critics carry their own biases into movies and there's nothing wrong with pointing that out. But, most important of all in our exchange, the movies are not incoherent so long as you don't somehow miss entire lines of dialogue establishing motive and the like.

[Lightning Rider]

You know, I know Erza Miller's depiction of Barry Allen is radically unlike anything we've seen from the character before. But from what I've seen his performance is such that I honestly am getting close to saying it SHOULD become his norm, comics and everywhere else (outside the already existing series).

I wouldn't say it's radically unlike, from what I've seen. He has the awkward nerd part down and the fanboy part down, but it's just interpreted in a very youthful way. I'm tired of the "Flash as comic relief" trope so while I can tolerate it in the film I don't want it to become the standard. Barry was always a stiff and Wally was sarcastic in his wit, not goofy. The Timmverse made a whole generation of people think Flash was a clown.

[Frontier]

Ben joking about sexual assault in that interview is so uncomfortable uncalled for and awkward. The other cast members just look totally taken back that he said that.

http://comicbook.com/dc/2017/11/16/j...oke-gal-gadot/

Dang it Ben...

I'm going to be really surprised if we get much more with him as Batman after this.

[Lightning Rider]

Dang it Ben...

I'm going to be really surprised if we get much more with him as Batman after this.

lmao what the hell Ben. Poorly form. But not so terrible that it will go viral I'm thinking.

At least the fan reactions in that video are great. Even on Batfleck himself. "Give me Ben Affleck, or give me death."

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Several lines which accentuate others in the film can give someone a valid motivation.

That's the thing, its not several lines or even whole dialogues. Its one or two lines that really shed light on why Lex is the way he is.

Not sure why his methods for tracking them down have anything to do with his motivations.

Its just the general lack of information surrounding all of that. Lex just happens to have secret dossier files about all these characters that end up forming the JL. How convenient. Its comes across as exactly what it is: a device to rush into the JL movie.

His motivations could have used more time, but they're not really unclear. They're scattered throughout the film and yes, you have to construct them, but if you're not paying attention and miss entire conversations in the dialogue, then you're not going to walk away with a complete picture, and that's on you.

No, its not on the audience. Filmmakers have one job: to tell a story. If they can't do that clearly (and make no mistake, BvS is anything but clear) or concisely or in a way that makes sense to the audience, then they've failed to do their job

It's also not the reason he was disliked, people didn't like Eisenberg's annoying twitchiness and wanted a masculine STAS type of Lex.

They just didn't like Luthor generally as a character. There were many reasons why. Eisenberg did the best with what he was given.

I don't need to retread the point of your origin examples because they're unimportant in understanding Lex as a character in the comics. Those origins aren't revisited nor emphasized because Lex is who he is largely independent of Superman and projects his ideologies onto him.

They kinda are. A lot of the time, his humble beginnings are used as a way to bolster his reputation as a "self-made man," which only exacerbates why he hates Superman (a guy who was born with it all).

There are reviews that explicitly reveal biases in terms of tone and pre-conceived notions about appropriate character choices. When I'm talking about those, I'm being particular. The movies had problems, sure, but critics carry their own biases into movies and there's nothing wrong with pointing that out. But, most important of all in our exchange, the movies are not incoherent so long as you don't somehow miss entire lines of dialogue establishing motive and the like.

The only bias I've seen in reviews is a bias for movies that effectively communicate their themes and developments. The reason critics use Marvel as an example is because Marvel has been able to do that for the majority of their films. Plus, the whole Marvel bias theory falls apart when we also take into account that several Marvel TV programs have been slammed with bad reviews as well.

And, lastly, when a movie is to the point where someone watching it can get lost so easily, by missing one word or one line of dialogue, then that means the movie is not coherent. It means that its anything but.

[Lightning Rider]

That's the thing, its not several lines or even whole dialogues. Its one or two lines that really shed light on why Lex is the way he is.



Its just the general lack of information surrounding all of that. Lex just happens to have secret dossier files about all these characters that end up forming the JL. How convenient. Its comes across as exactly what it is: a device to rush into the JL movie.



No, its not on the audience. Filmmakers have one job: to tell a story. If they can't do that clearly (and make no mistake, BvS is anything but clear) or concisely or in a way that makes sense to the audience, then they've failed to do their job



They just didn't like Luthor generally as a character. There were many reasons why. Eisenberg did the best with what he was given.



They kinda are. A lot of the time, his humble beginnings are used as a way to bolster his reputation as a "self-made man," which only exacerbates why he hates Superman (a guy who was born with it all).



The only bias I've seen in reviews is a bias for movies that effectively communicate their themes and developments. The reason critics use Marvel as an example is because Marvel has been able to do that for the majority of their films. Plus, the whole Marvel bias theory falls apart when we also take into account that several Marvel TV programs have been slammed with bad reviews as well.

And, lastly, when a movie is to the point where someone watching it can get lost so easily, by missing one word or one line of dialogue, then that means the movie is not coherent. It means that its anything but.

It's about 3 lines, that's several.

The audience does not need to be spoonfed Lex's espionage adventures.

If you outright can't hear several lines of dialogue, the filmmaker can't do much more there. It's on you.

Lex's persona is not defined by the numerous origins you mentioned. They're not revisited or held as important events because his persona comes from a broader set of circumstances that don't depend on singular events. Lex's "origin story" isn't tied as concretely as most.

I've already posted a concrete list of reviewers who explicitly state that certain tones are appropriate for the genre, and completely gloss over flaws in Marvel films that exist in DC films. Thor and Ant-Man's generic arcs and the urban destruction in Avengers and Iron Man 3's completely awful handling of the villain, the bathos that infects all of it, it's all forgiven because "fun!" Batman and Logan can be dark but god forbid Superman doesn't change in a phone-booth or isn't "hokey". Those are literal quotes from reviews I find distort the critic's fair analysis of the film.

Who knows what else you missed in that movie? There's almost nothing at all difficult to follow in the film unless you're not paying attention. A viewer not being able to figure out why Superman and Batman are fighting is frankly stupid or not paying attention.

[Clark_Kent]

I just can’t take the opinions of someone who says “the only people who didn’t like Ghostbusters are the ones who were opposed to it from the start because of an all female cast” seriously.

Maybe people didn’t like it because it wasn’t funny?

The message I’m getting here is “critics were biased against Ghostbusters”, but “not biased against DC in any way, shape, or form. Makes sense, especially since critics “aren’t biased”, right?

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

I just can’t take the opinions of someone who says “the only people who didn’t like Ghostbusters are the ones who were opposed to it from the start because of an all female cast” seriously.

Maybe people didn’t like it because it wasn’t funny?

The message I’m getting here is “critics were biased against Ghostbusters”, but “not biased against DC in any way, shape, or form. Makes sense, especially since critics “aren’t biased”, right?

Except critics weren't biased against Ghostbusters. It actually got good reviews.

[Vanguard-01]

Sooooo......that whole issue with the Amazons wearing skimpy outfits in Justice League? Turns out THAT, and several other instances of Diana being overly sexualized, was actually the work of none other than Mr. Joss "I'm Such A Great Feminist" Whedon!



Now, sure, I'm sure Snyder did some sexualizing, but this is just appalling! I kinda hope WB reconsiders letting Whedon do the Batgirl movie now.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

It's about 3 lines, that's several.

That take up about 30 seconds of a film that's well over two hours.

The audience does not need to be spoonfed Lex's espionage adventures.

Yes, because providing any sort of basic insight is the equivalent of spoon-feeding.

If you outright can't hear several lines of dialogue, the filmmaker can't do much more there. It's on you.

When they're barely noticeable and buried from jumping from scene to scene? Nah. That's not on me. That's on the filmmaker.

Lex's persona is not defined by the numerous origins you mentioned. They're not revisited or held as important events because his persona comes from a broader set of circumstances that don't depend on singular events. Lex's "origin story" isn't tied as concretely as most.

Except Lex's backstory, namely the fact of him being from Smallville as well, has been referenced numerous times as something that sort of "binds" him and Superman together, both in current continuity and in Pre-Crisis canon.

I've already posted a concrete list of reviewers who explicitly state that certain tones are appropriate for the genre, and completely gloss over flaws in Marvel films that exist in DC films. Thor and Ant-Man's generic arcs and the urban destruction in Avengers and Iron Man 3's completely awful handling of the villain, the bathos that infects all of it, it's all forgiven because "fun!" Batman and Logan can be dark but god forbid Superman doesn't change in a phone-booth or isn't "hokey". Those are literal quotes from reviews I find distort the critic's fair analysis of the film.

Nobody is saying MCU films are perfect. In most of those cases, however, there were other elements of the film that compensated for their faults. Yes, Iron Man 3's villain was awful and there were major plot holes. I am one of its most vocal critics. But, overall, it was still a better viewing experience than BvS. And you may think Thor and Ant-Man's arcs are generic, but at least they succeed at telling an arc. They don't simply come off as a random collection of moments strung together haphazardly.

Who knows what else you missed in that movie? There's almost nothing at all difficult to follow in the film unless you're not paying attention. A viewer not being able to figure out why Superman and Batman are fighting is frankly stupid or not paying attention.

I mean, are we really at the point of calling people stupid for not liking a movie? And I don't think its that they factually couldn't decipher the reasons that Snyder put forth. Its more so, they thought the reasons for initiating the conflict between Batman and Superman were rushed, thin justifications and the central conflict of the film therefore felt unearned.

[Clark_Kent]

Sooooo......that whole issue with the Amazons wearing skimpy outfits in Justice League? Turns out THAT, and several other instances of Diana being overly sexualized, was actually the work of none other than Mr. Joss "I'm Such A Great Feminist" Whedon!



Now, sure, I'm sure Snyder did some sexualizing, but this is just appalling! I kinda hope WB reconsiders letting Whedon do the Batgirl movie now.

It’s appalling that Snyder treats women this way! It’s sickening! What a pig!

Oh, wait....
A83771BE-82BF-4ABC-B20C-65C1F7EE18A4.jpg

[Clark_Kent]

That take up about 30 seconds of a film that's well over two hours.



Yes, because providing any sort of basic insight is the equivalent of spoon-feeding.



When they're barely noticeable and buried from jumping from scene to scene? Nah. That's not on me. That's on the filmmaker.



Except Lex's backstory, namely the fact of him being from Smallville as well, has been referenced numerous times as something that sort of "binds" him and Superman together, both in current continuity and in Pre-Crisis canon.



Nobody is saying MCU films are perfect. In most of those cases, however, there were other elements of the film that compensated for their faults. Yes, Iron Man 3's villain was awful and there were major plot holes. I am one of its most vocal critics. But, overall, it was still a better viewing experience than BvS. And you may think Thor and Ant-Man's arcs are generic, but at least they succeed at telling an arc. They don't simply come off as a random collection of moments strung together haphazardly.



I mean, are we really at the point of calling people stupid for not liking a movie? And I don't think its that they factually couldn't decipher the reasons that Snyder put forth. Its more so, they thought the reasons for initiating the conflict between Batman and Superman were rushed, thin justifications and the central conflict of the film therefore felt unearned.

Are we really at the point of calling people sexist for not liking Ghostbusters? Cause, that’s what you did earlier.

Maybe everyone should agree to disagree & move on?