Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Yeah, it is a little bit like they thought "okay, what does fans criticize the most about the MCU? Let's double down on that! Let's see, there were a lot of complains about how Black Widow was introduced in Iron Man 2, so let's do that with Wonder Woman, only, we need to make her even more inconsequential to the plot. And there, the hot tub vision machine, nobody liked how into the face the set-up for a future movie was there. Let's do this, too, but with an e-mail attachment and right in the middle of the climax to interrupt the flow of the movie instead of at some point in the second act. Oh, Marvel has a villain complain? No fear, we will give you the most annoying and most stupid villain ever! And then there is this thing about the lack of consequences and characters never dying permanently...let's demonstrate how right Marvel is by not only killing a main character when everyone knows that he will be back next movie, lets hint that he is still alive five minutes later."

And the same time they decided to discard everything which make the Marvel movies work...you know, like careful characterization and character development, layered storytelling, colour....

I'm sort of hesitant to heap that much praise on Marvel (it really depends on how good their movies are going forward from this point on, haven't seen Civil War yet), but I did say in my original review of the theatrical cut that the film is arguably more self-important than most marvel films despite having about as much or less to say and having a lot more problems, and I'd probably still stand by that position.

I do think that Bv S has a handful of moments that are on par or better than many scenes in other Marvel movies though, like the opening with Bruce and Clark's dream with his dad. It's scenes like that which show this movie could have easily been good or much better with just a few tweaks (I'm still yet to see the extended edition, I'll probably try and see it tomorrow or something so I can finally see how much of a difference the editing made).

edited 29th Jul '16 11:44:38 PM by wehrmacht

Yeah, Affleck as Batman is still really good and it's him that's making me anticipate the solo Batman films (especially if the first one is based on Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth, like the rumors are saying). But...there is such a thing as trying too hard. It's like the filmmakers saw the complaints that the MCU was too light and inconsequential and decided to go completely in the opposite direction and make everything super serious and super important and dramatic.

At some point, you just want to shake the characters and go "Lighten the fuck up!" It's Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy.

edited 30th Jul '16 6:56:18 AM by alliterator

I wouldn't even mind that if the movie would give me something to think about aside from "why doesn't this work at all?"

" Batman hears "Martha", flashbacks a bunch to his mom's death, and then jumps into atonement mode, and it's left to us, the audience, to figure out the intricacies of why that jump happened. And IMO that's terrible."

Yeah, is relie to much in hindsight, is awsome when you think about it but the movie dosent let that happen because Batman jump to quickly, "Im a friend of your son" also dosent help, meaing that Batman understand all the implicaion in the matter of seconds, it just shock back into your face.

" In BVS, however, the dream sequences all grind the action and story to a halt and are only there to say, "See how messed up Batman is?" which we already know. They aren't needed at all."

No, that would fall in show not tell and more important him drinking and taking pills means he IS DOWN fore serious instead of the whole "trauma for dead parent" which is used to justifiy him being Batman.

"my actual point was more that it would serve the movie better to pull all those things together in one scene, making the connection"

I dont know, for something seen os hints make intersting reading to conect them instead of having them in one scene, hell Civil war did the same with Zemo making is reveal more powerfull, while at the same time Stark revealing his memory was bad scene and to on the nose

"The only part of the Knightmare that works is Batman chained up and getting killed by Superman"

Yeah, I agree with you, they should jump stright into Super kiling Batman and that it.

"so let's do that with Wonder Woman, only, we need to make her even more inconsequential to the plot."

Consider she fight against Doomsday and save Bruce life is way more than Natasha who save mook while the real fight happen somewhere, also unlike Natasha Wonder women DO have a solo movie and we know more than her.

"they decided to discard everything which make the Marvel movies work...you know, like careful characterization and character development, layered storytelling, colour...."

Because Marvel have ALSO boch chararterization a couple of times: we stil dont know much of Natasha background as Hydra agent or why she was to atone as is more important how she feel with men around her: hapy with Steven,friendly with Hawkeye,fear of Hulk, or Thor boring personality, Scott entering a fight between two men AGAIN because he is a fanby, reducing Rhoedy to casualty of war FROM HIS OWN TEAM, or Wanda being karma houdini.

And dont get me wrong, I dislike thing from DCCU so far like Luthor being dissonace with the mood of the movie, the knightmare being to long or other stuff but lets put the two company to the same standar at least.

"At some point, you just want to shake the characters and go "Lighten the fuck up!" It's Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy. "

To be fair, they said this is darkest hour, maybe is too soon as second film but that critic is more for DC being rush that anything else.

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

Not everything is a complaint about to "show not tell." There is such a thing as too much showing. We get it, he's messed up. We don't need three (?) dream sequences to tell us that.

1) Black Widow was never a Hydra agent (unless you mean when she was working for SHIELD). She worked for the KGB and then sold her services to the highest bidder. We know this because she told us this. She explain bits of her backstory, both in Avengers and Age of Ultron, where we even got flashbacks to her time in the Red Room.
2) How she feels about the characters around her is part of her personality. It's called character interaction. Avengers did it well by paring up various characters and having their personalities either compliment each other (Tony and Bruce) or conflict with each other (Tony and Steve). Natasha is complicated because she's a spy, so she tailors what she says to make people at ease or to have them lower their guard (see: her scene with Loki).

The entire movie was the darkest hour? Yeah, that's also waaaay too long for a darkest hour to last.

"We don't need three (?) dream sequences to tell us that."

Three? the one with the bat and the other was vision(pointless pero it wasnt a dream)

"She worked for the KGB and then sold her services to the highest bidder. We know this because she told us this. She explain bits of her backstory, both in Avengers and Age of Ultron, where we even got flashbacks to her time in the Red Room. "

Maybe I mix with other adaptation but the point stand, all those point means nothing excep that she have a bad past, I could excuse if anything of that is reveal but otherwise it means little.

" Natasha is complicated because she's a spy, so she tailors what she says to make people at ease or to have them lower their guard (see: her scene with Loki)."

And yet as CHARARTER we have nothing aside of that little times like avenger or Age of Ultron, hell they could show something when the files go up in Winter Soldier, aside for her interaction she is the same spy in the first movie.

" Yeah, that's also waaaay too long for a darkest hour to last."

.....what?...that..dosent....anyway

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

The Art of BvS

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

The film opens with a dream sequence of him flying up with bats. Then there's the "mom's grave bursts open with a giant bat" dream. And then there's the Knightmare, which turns out to be a dream within a dream.

It's not just "a bad past." It's a past that she explains to other characters and the audience. We get to hear about it from her and even see bits of it in AOU.

We don't get much of her character because her character isn't the main character. We get a lot of Tony Stark and Steve Rogers because, again, they have their own movies to flesh out their backstories and characters. Black Widow hasn't had her own movie yet, but we still get bits and pieces of her backstory; way more than we get of Wonder Woman.

The Darkest Hour is a trope. It means the moment in a story in which things are darkest. It isn't meant to take up the entire story, only a portion of the story.

The very point of Black Widow is that her character is somewhat mysterious. The Winter Soldier did a whole story-arc with her which explores how she constantly reinvents herself to be what the situation demands her to be, how she realizes that going with Shield was in the end nothing but going with Hydra and how she gives up all her masks and secret identities in the end, ending at a place where she has to figure out what she actually is under all her masks.

Establishing a character doesn't mean that we need a complete biography, we just need enough to understand why they act the way they do.

The problem with the characterization of Superman is for example that he barely voices any opinion about anything, and when he does, he tends to get shut down. The problem with the characterization of Batman is that they constantly hint towards some event (or multiple ones) which changed him, but we don't know what kind of crime-fighter Batman was beforehand. And not knowing what changed him makes it difficult to understand why he changed.

" It's a past that she explains to other characters and the audience. We get to hear about it from her and even see bits of it in AOU."

No really, we know some cryptic reference about something to atone as member of KGB, we see some nightmarish scene in AOU, them whole "I cant have children because of them" which led to one of the most awkard scene in entire MCU and maybe one can tie her storyarc about chaning so much to ther past.....that it, with FOUR movies, that is what we have.

What we know of Diana in Bv S? get jade of the world and want to remain, have kill things like doomsday before and was in WWI

"Black Widow hasn't had her own movie yet"

...which is whole issue with Marvel, so far they reveal little from her, dosen have their own movie and they manage to fumble at times(Natasha/Bruce) so much for chararterization

"The Darkest Hour is a trope. It means the moment in a story in which things are darkest. It isn't meant to take up the entire story, only a portion of the story. "

And tropes are TOOLS, when they said Bv S is the darker of the trilogy is like deathly hollow who got dark really quick or revenge og the stih who go Dark downright FAST, in Bv S once Batman understand is wrong thing turn a change: andolini dies,Batman save Clark mother, Wonder woman come to save Bruce and Luthor is capture.

"The very point of Black Widow is that her character is somewhat mysterious"

Yeah but a mysterius chararter means nothing if their backstoru is not explore in some detail, otherwise matter very little, she is with Batman right now in having this cryptic background that others dosent know, problem is in almost five movies we know VERY little about it, it passing from mysterious to downright vague.

"The problem with the characterization of Superman is for example that he barely voices any opinion about anything, and when he does, he tends to get shut down"

Mostly because is chararter arc is trying to find the answer about it, he wander about a purpose ad have a lead of faith, even them humanity dosent trust him

"And not knowing what changed him makes it difficult to understand why he changed."

the answer is easy to that one: he fight 20 years in hellhole is gotham and he lost more that he gain, while he death of jason todd is the catalyst it dosent since to have a single moment more that fact that is vigilantie in a city that breed insanity

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

The majority of the audience doesn't even know who Jason Todd is. And did Batman fight that long in Gotham? From the way Clark talks it sounds like the Bat vigilante is a fairly new thing.

edited 31st Jul '16 12:50:35 AM by Swanpride

I doubt it.

Non Indicative Username

The audience know who is Robin and the "HAHA, THE JOKE IS ONE YOU" and Bruce look show something really bad happen.

Now, Clark was surprise for Batman(in part because he was outside of Metropolis for a long time) as everyone else react just fine., Batman have a long time but is like Nataha, mysterious

And there is dialog from Alfred "you are to old for die young...not for the lack of trying" and Bruce "How many stay good Alfred...how many?" which consider the high numbre of people going sane there...

edited 31st Jul '16 12:58:03 AM by unknowing

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

When looking at Batman's character arc, he starts on a dark path and goes darker as the story progresses, has a Heel Realization towards the end and looks to redeem himself. If it was a Batman solo movie who has already had a retold origin (parents death, training, becoming Batman, first villain) they might be able to pull off a Batman was starts on a "happy, optimistic" path, goes down a dark path, become darker as the story progresses, has a Heel Realization and becomes The Atoner. But the fact this is a shared movie with Superman makes it difficult to have that big of a swing, because the pre-"day the world met The Superman" elements would be divorced from the main story. Part of the reasons behind his anger is that an Alien Invasion makes everything he's worked for irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. As Alfred said "men fall from the sky, gods hurl thunderbolts, innocents die."

On Superman's end I do agree somewhat. He doesn't make any public statements in costume, and all the In-Universe media footage is talk show debates. I was interested in what he was going to say at the Senate Hearing but the bombing interrupted that. I think it would have been a cool moment to show camera phone footage of him talking and comforting someone he just saved in a very gentle, non-confrontational manner and the media is picking apart his exact words. The Jon Stewart cameo in the Ultimate Edition suggests that Superman said he didn't want to be viewed as representing the United States, and Stewarts monologue joking about how much he looks like Captain Patriotic.

I am honest here: I wasn't exactly armoured with the trailers. But there was one thing I was looking forward to, and that was Superman having to face a hearing and declaring himself in front of the world. I felt cheated when the bomb went off to a degree that I wasn't even shocked or sad about what happened, I was too busy seething that the movie wasn't cashing in on the promise from the trailer.

Yeah, I was dispaoint too, it was one of the weak point of the movie.

On the other hand after see Civil war kind did the same thing I just acept because this discussion goes againt the root of the genre so it was bound to happen

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

What has Civil war to do with anything? What kind of logic is that "yeah, that is a flaw, but another movie has a similar flaw, so it isn't a flaw"?

Never mind that the whole point of Civil War WAS that the conflict was unsolvable. It was supposed to show that both sides of the argument were kind of right, leaving the actual discussion to the audience - which worked, btw,

Nothing it was my opinion, is more about debate around superhero being acountable, which eventually are going to loss because they operate beyond laws, is part of the genre as whole.

With superman there is not way he would come good for it, I mean...what can they do apart of trust him and expect nothing bad come out it? banish from the planet? putting into a jail? there is nothing, the hearing is more taking between Super and the public but you CANT handle him acountable of anything byt his sheer power.

Civil war have a debate for their action...but they walk away in the best moment by having Wanda being put in house arrest, them Ross bitching Stark and so own, specially because Capitan dosent rise any point aside of "Im right" which Zemo nicele torn apart.

That is my point, but movie chiken out at the best moment and Throw away, instead of living with potencial scenario on how to deal with it, they bati away the whole thing, because they are comic book and that is what they do

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

I'm...not sure what you are complaining about anymore. Black Widow, again, gets far more backstory even in the first Avengers film than Wonder Woman does in BVS.

That's not what Tropes Are Tools means. Tropes Are Tools means that tropes aren't inherently good or bad, they are only good or bad in the way they are used. And Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows wasn't The Darkest Hour for the Harry Potter movies — again, it goes up and down, like most stories. The Darkest Hour is only supposed to take up a portion of the film, not the entire film or else you get a dark slog that's hard to watch.

And unknowing, I, too, tend to notice that you bring up Civil War or the MCU when trying to argue against the flaws in BVS, even when it doesn't make any sense. When your argument is "Yeah, but the MCU does that, too!" that's not really an argument.

It once again comes back to the "Does Superman enjoy what he does?" question. It doesn't feel like Superman wants to save people, it feels like he has to. Like he has these godlike powers and was told by Jor-El to be mankind's savior, and it's a burden he has to carry.

Because of that, he doesn't talk, he doesn't interact. He's essentially a benevolent force of nature, sweeping in, saving lives, and then bolting away. Really, the whole part of the media and the talk shows distrusting him and the whole "Is the world ready for the Superman?" theme hinges on just how inhuman Superman presents himself as. Which is pretty ironic, since this movie seems to have a better understanding that Superman is supposed to be human, at least when compared to Man of Steel.

edited 31st Jul '16 8:56:31 AM by Watchtower

Clark spent his 20s traveling the world and saving people. It was stated and show in Man of Steel that that's all he was doing for years before Zod showed up. The whole reason he comes into conflict with Batman is because Batman's methods are making fathers get brutally killed in prison. He cares about saving people. Just because he isn't walking around with a grin doesn't negate all the other stuff.

We know the issue with him is the world isn't giving him a reason to be happy. He's Clark trying to fill the shoes his two fathers left him, but in addition to that, he has to deal with all the bullshit opinions around him.

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

"Black Widow, again, gets far more backstory even in the first Avengers film than Wonder Woman does in BVS."

she wsa ntroduce in iron man 2 where she is incidencial to the plot but that is not my complain(after all is not a bad thing) but movies after that fill pretty much nothing of her backstory, we still know very little about her.

" Tropes Are Tools means that tropes aren't inherently good or bad, they are only good or bad in the way they are used."

Which is why your complain of darkest hour not lasting means little, is a trope and that can be play

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows wasn't The Darkest Hour for the Harry Potter movies — again, it goes up and down, like most stories. "

No, once it go dark it dosent get really up until the last part in hogwarts, is dark film and the darkest part.

" I, too, tend to notice that you bring up Civil War or the MCU when trying to argue against the flaws in BVS, even when it doesn't make any sense. When your argument is "Yeah, but the MCU does that, too!" that's not really an argument."

I tend to bring when I feel it no hold to the same standars of movies, but in this case is because I was responding to swanpride who was talking about it.

"We know the issue with him is the world isn't giving him a reason to be happy."

I think is more becaue he dosent know what to do as being superman dosent let him with manual instruction, so far the only he have to enjoy is because he is superman and is what expected for him.

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

I didn't mention Civil War at all, I only remarked how disappointed I was when the bomb went off in Batman v Superman. You were the one who brought up Civil War for whatever reason, so I answered you.

And I don't think that there is a double standard. Marvel gets as much flak for the hot tub vision machines as Warner gets for the press kid in the middle of the climax, Marvel got actually more flak for the way the introduced Black Widow then Warner gets for shoehorning Wonder Woman into the plot, aso. If anything, Marvel gets it worse, because the expectations are higher, if they are not perfect even a fairly good movie like Age of Ultron becomes controversial.

Again, that's not what Tropes Are Tools means. I wasn't saying that The Darkest Hour was inherently good or bad. It was saying that The Darkest Hour for BVS last way too long. That's not an instance of Tropes Are Tools. That's an instance of the trope being used incorrectly.

Watch the film again: there are moments of lightness, especially during the chase scenes and the scene where they escape on a dragon. The fact that it goes up and down in light and dark means that the entire movie is not The Darkest Hour.

edited 31st Jul '16 12:34:59 PM by alliterator