Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Really? much of the critic I have seen range from "it should be funny/too dark" "No my superman/Batman/Lex" to "Symbolism is hollow"(I this point it have become it itself a hollow stament because they never said why, it just because) to the always charmin "is hack story and everyone who liked is deluted or fanboy"

I my case I like when a movie propose something and sell to me, the scene in the city make understand why Batman hate super and the sheer power it have, same with Batman being scary(something no other adaption manage to do, reducing him to a super ninja) and that it manage to asert some idenity like for example Martha telling Clark that he should doing stuff for his own, not for some weird complex about "Owing" people trust, or the whole thing about him not being a god, even Batman desend intrigue me a lot.

that dosent mean the movie dosent have Flaws but to compare that to phamton manace in "people who siad is bad have reason, those who defended not" feel...manipulative at best.

edited 28th Jul '16 3:21:27 PM by unknowing

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

Was this movie trying to deconstruct the Batman vs. Superman fight? That if Clark is a good guy and isn't willing to seriously hurt/kill Batman, but Batman has kryptonite and wants to hurt/kill Superman, then Batman will win the fight. Except that may not have been a smart move for Batman, because if Superman ever goes off the deep end(not likely) or gets mind controlled, he will now see Batman as a potential threat. Bruce may want to be careful about letting on that he shouldn't be underestimated. Even having a round two might not be as easy of a win. If Clark knows about kryptonite and knows to avoid it from Batman, he can keep his distance, destroy it, and then just pick Batman up. And not let go untill Bruce decides to quit fighting. Because he has to pee.

edited 28th Jul '16 4:52:03 PM by bookworm6390

Really? Because most of the criticisms I see of BVS have been "It's plot is incoherent," "It's pacing is atrocious," and "It's characters are unlikable."

Also "Luthor acts like his BFF Joker."

Non Indicative Username

Yeah, which is why the reaction to the Justice League trailer wasn't "Look, it's fun and its got jokes just like Marvel, yay" for virtually everyone who disliked and hated BvS.

Oh wait.

edited 28th Jul '16 5:53:29 PM by Ekuran

I was glad to read Chris Terrio's pre-Bv S interview where he said JL would be different in tone from Man of Steel and Bv S. As much as I love soul-crushing darkness, I also would like a story where Batman just fucks shit up because he's Batman. Where Superman punches things and they explode because he's Superman. Where Wonder Woman does Wonder Woman things.

But I don't want that to be the constant tone of the DCEU either. It's good to have variety. I don't want the DC to become the MCU; variety is the spice of life. People can keep their MCU-style movies, while I can watch my DCEU-style movies. Everybody happy. I'll never get why people want the DCEU to be the MCU.

"If you weren't so crazy I'd think you were insane."

What will keep BvS alive for a long time is its potential, more so than its end result. Even back for the theatrical edition many critics said something to the effect of "There's a great film in here somewhere."

I once again come back to "Martha." The more I think about it, the more it infuriates me. It is, without a doubt in my mind, the single most important development in the entire movie. It is the grand pivotal point of Batman's character arc, the point where he realizes the error of his ways and transforms from what he was throughout the movie to what he will be in JL and beyond. And it's rushed, glossed over so quickly and messily that there are at least two reasonable interpretations one could make, possibly because they might've jumped back and forth on it themselves. The rushing aspect should be its greatest sin, because the idea that this three-hour movie needs more time is ludicrous, but it was always going to be flawed so long as it's Superman who says the line.

"Martha" is a microcosm of this entire film to me. If done right, it could be a work of genius, a piece of trivia transformed into a powerful bond between the two greatest superheroes ever made. But it doesn't really work. It has good ideas and intentions, and it gets around the ballpark, but it makes several missteps that keep it from hitting that bulls-eye. Its potential feels so much greater than its end result, and its that feeling of disappointment that hurts me more than anything else.

I've felt they could've done the same thing without the weirdness of "their mothers' names are the same" by having Lois shield Clark from Bruce's spear and her stance reminding him of his mother shielding her family. Same effect, Bruce realizing he's become the killer now, thematic parallel, much less Narm potential.

And maybe that would fix "why isn't Clark telling Bruce the truth at every possible opening". Because if Martha is no longer the catalyst, then the film can openly show Batman ignoring Sup telling him about his mother's peril, and thus not base itself on misunderstanding.

edited 28th Jul '16 6:51:43 PM by Tuckerscreator

Here's the thing: I don't think that's what the movie was going for. If Batman is supposed to see himself as Joe Chill, then why is Joe Chill practically absent?

The way I've come to understand it, Batman instead sees himself as Superman. Or, rather, he sees Superman as his childhood self, helpless as his mother faces death. Hence why the "Martha" connection is made so apparent: be it Wayne or Kent, Batman now has his chance to save Martha.

Now, this particular interpretation only came as I was thinking of how this would be rewritten, because the scene as it is sucks. The comparison to Joe Chill is a more recognizable He Who Fights Monsters twist, helped out by Superman taking Thomas Wayne's "place" in saying "Martha". Such is the big problem of the scene: the revelation that it hinges on is muddied.

So, Bruce realized that he and Supes weren't any different in the orphan department? Does Batman even know that Clark is Happily Adopted? I can't wait for Batman to inevitably meet Clark again after Clark wakes up from that " healing coma".

So you've read the reaction of virtually everyone who disliked BVS to the new trailer? Wow, that's some reading right there. I mean, I read some reactions and they were all pretty bad ones or neutral, saying that while this trailer looked okay, they weren't confident at all that the movie would be any better than BVS. Because, get this, trailers are not indicative of the quality of a movie.

edited 28th Jul '16 8:17:06 PM by alliterator

Please, we all know the best Justice League movie.

edited 28th Jul '16 8:30:01 PM by flameboy21th

Non Indicative Username

I felt that what they did to Green Lantern was rather unjust (heh) though. I mean, it's understandable for Aquaman to be the Butt-Monkey of Superman's jokes, but GL could've been depicted as being able to form constructs without needing existing pieces as the other Master Builders did.

That's what you get for the CGI suit.

edited 28th Jul '16 9:08:53 PM by flameboy21th

Non Indicative Username

Everyone Hates Hal.

http://imgur.com/a/9HQUW Much more practical. Never understood why Batman left his mouth exposed.

Ok, who let Light Yagami in here?

So he doesn't look like Black Panther?

Non Indicative Username

I've wondered about that too.

How BVS Should've Ended: Batman gets punched once in the jaw by Superman and drops immediately.

It is really selective to claim that the main criticism again the movie is "it is too dark" especially since most reviewers are very clear that the darkness in itself is not the problem. The problem is that the movie takes itself VERY seriously for having such a goofy plot overall.

Other criticisms are: The editing is atrocious (though slightly better in the extended plot), the sound mixing makes the actually fairly good soundtrack overbearing, the plot is convoluted and full of contradictions once you think about it, Batman and Superman have no real reason to fight each other and are both acting like giant hypocrites, which makes them very unlikable, Lex Luther is annoying (popular example is the Jolly Ranger scene), Lois Lane is only there to get rescues and the movie struggles to make her relevant otherwise and the congress blew up too early because we actually wanted to hear what Superman has to say about the issues which are discussed in the movie.

And those are just the points on the top of my mind which have all been brought up here at one point or another.

Usually the other issues with the films are preceded by "The dark colors and lack of humor is not the problem...", which pretty well informs what the most common and pervasive complaint is. I'll admit, if the films were more playful audiences would probably be more forgiving of its flaws, but then again a lot of people are critical of the Marvel movies for being too playful, fun and even colorful at the expense of telling a serious story.

Funny thing too, all the talk of how Justice League is more colorful... it really isn't. The color scheme is still very much earth tones and muted shades. Just look at the tavern and Barry's hideout. There are splashes of color here and there (Barry has a neon skull on a monitor in his hideout, possibly a Suicide Squad reference), but the previous films had it as well. The line-up promo picture was certainly brighter, as well as Wonder Woman's costume in her film trailer, but the default look of the DCEU is still rooted in muted colors.

No, it informs you which strawman argument the defenders of the movie like to use.

Also, the problem is not that it is a good story which is told in a flawed way, but that the movie pretends to tell a deep story when there is actually not a lot there. Marvel does btw often the opposite, telling a very deep and layered story in a movie which also happens to work as a colourful superhero romp. Those are the best of the movies they offer.

edited 28th Jul '16 11:56:11 PM by Swanpride

"People can keep their MCU-style movies, while I can watch my DCEU-style movies. Everybody happy. I'll never get why people want the DCEU to be the MCU."

I have to disagree with you in this one: Marvel have being shifting diferent tone of late and even the Russo said there shoudnt be a "typical" Marvel movie, which is cool consider they have done two of most serious movie so far, Winter Soldier(that on his own is one of the best movie so far) and Civil war(which it try and fail a lot into the whole "Make two side sympathic")

""Martha" is a microcosm of this entire film to me. If done right, it could be a work of genius, a piece of trivia transformed into a powerful bond between the two greatest superheroes ever made. But it doesn't really work."

If I have to said why, I will said Martha moment is one of the biggest frige brillance ever which is downfall: in hindsight is actually a pretty good moment because it show that Clark is person, with a mother he loves and care and not this alien menace that come out of notwhere, that is the point: Superman was good, men are good.

"Same effect, Bruce realizing he's become the killer now, thematic parallel, much less Narm potential."

the issue is more lenght, Bruce change WAY to far with instrospection which make the whole thing have a "wait what?" and whatever intent the director have its lost there.

"Everyone Hates Hal. "

And everyone should hate him

"It is really selective to claim that the main criticism again the movie is "it is too dark" especially since most reviewers are very clear that the darkness in itself is not the problem. The problem is that the movie takes itself VERY seriously for having such a goofy plot overall."

Which is weird because "taking himself to seriously" have come from you only: people said the tone is to dark for a superhero movie, they rip off batman dark knight, that they should be more like Marvel and being about awsome hero being awsome, but "It take to seriously" no

and yes al that have been discuss mostly because EVERYTHING about the movie have been discuss at some point or another, even pointless thing like "why super didnt save the family at that house" but much of that wasnt frame into those point.

So yeah, "we see the point but you guy said is perfect" is not a really sumary of the whole thing

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

A strawman is using a false claim from one side of an argument in order to disprove what the entire side stands for. It's certainly not a strawman to say arguments like "Why doesn't Superman smile" is a prevalent complaint from those who don't like the films, worded in one way or the other. Hell, one of the more famous videos is the strawman "What if Man of Steel was in color?" and that sparked a LONG debate on this forum.

Thing is those complaints should be the easiest to get past. Color is either there or it isn't. Superman either smiles or he doesn't. It's always the more complicated plot discussions that get ignored in favor of the "dark vs. light" debates.

A strawman argument is also focussing on one part of criticism while deliberately ignoring other points because the one point is easy to disprove or to dismiss.

edited 29th Jul '16 2:42:21 AM by Swanpride

Being different from a typical film is one thing. I would like the DCAU to go from period pieces to action sets to hell, a heist film or some other niche approach while doing its own thing. Wonder Woman seems to be trying that, casting Diana in the moral ambiguity of the First World War (unlike the second where the lines between good and evil were much more clear).

The problem is pacing, bloat, a ridiculous plan, and other things that would have been the same regardless of director or tone.