Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

"saying a guy shouldn't direct movies is kinda messed up to say."

While I feel sometimes coment like that can be a little bit out of place, I can see why someone would said it, like M shalayman

" I don't want Superman to get the bland treatment Thor was given, switching from a dance routine to CGI."

Sometimes I feel Thor would be better with a little treatment of Men of steel, instead they make him so down to earth it lost mystic(and that is why I like is scene in Avenger, it FEEL like god of thunder rather than a human with good hammer)

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

Nah, not even for Shyamalan. No matter how bad I think someone's art is, I'd never tell them to stop just because I personally can't appreciate their creation. I'd just stop looking at their art if it bothers me so much. Or, if I cared, I'd offer constructive criticism.

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

I don't think Zak Snyder should stop making movies entirely, but I don't find his sensibility is ideal for these stories. I love his visuals, and he's shown he can handle small-scale drama (Smallville, Lois in the tub) as well as big splashy action scenes. He just tends to over-commit— everything is so heightened, while pulling in opposite directions tonally, that it just doesn't mesh overall. It could work, though, and that's the thing. I'd like to see him get better, and with time I think he could, but I still wish he'd allow someone else to guide his hand when it comes to pacing and flow.

Cinematographers don't get nearly enough respect. Also— not the same thing, but related— being able to say 'I set the visual tone for an entire universe' ain't half-bad. Hell, that's what minted George Lucas's whole reputation, even if he didn't actually write or direct his best movies himself. If all this does somehow lead to Zak Snyder starting up the next Skywalker Ranch, that might be worth any gripes I've had.

edited 13th Nov '16 10:13:32 AM by Unsung

" I still wish he'd allow someone else to guide his hand when it comes to pacing and flow."

My thought ether, I think he handle well dialogue free scenes like Metropolis or batman in the dungeon, when I see the sheer scale of destruction Clark unleash and Bruce face I just get what scene try to tell me "this man just think in how that Alien have to die and die it will"

But the movie sure have is flaw and one of them is that it move superman too much to Point A to point B, I moment it feel the movie is manhandle him to certain path and dosent let him voice is thought except when is need it which make him dificult to actually know is problems

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

I'm fine with losing visual impact if we get a more coherent and well connected story and a more hopeful Superman.

I don't think Thor was bland in the first Thor film — Kenneth Branagh really did bring this big, epic feel to the Asgard scenes. Even in the New Mexico scenes, Thor was pretty good. For Thor: The Dark World...yeah. That one dropped the ball.

In which case, they should not be used. This is one of the downsides to a Snyder film: he packs his movies to the gills so that they are long, three hour epics and then, when the studio tells he can't do that, he has to cut out an hour. If a character literally does nothing before dying, then that character should be cut completely from a film. There should be no irrelevant characters, because every character should be relevant in some way. And, I'm sorry, but I don't think "pointlessly dying" is being relevant.

Even Shyamalan can make good films — I heard The Visit was great — and Snyder has made some good films, too, like Dawn of the Dead. But for that film, I think he didn't have as much leeway from the studio as he did with BVS — like a lot of other directors, the more freedom you give Snyder, the worse he becomes. The more you reign him in, the better the film is.

edited 13th Nov '16 8:02:20 AM by alliterator

"and a more hopeful Superman."

Your definition of hopefull about superman is diferent from our so I will move on

" Kenneth Branagh really did bring this big, epic feel to the Asgard scenes. Even in the New Mexico scenes, Thor was pretty good"

The new mexico part wasnt that good, as Thor goes for nordic inspared warrior to just some dude who is happy.

"There should be no irrelevant characters, because every character should be relevant in some way"

which again you seen missing the point, for us even if you do something dosent mean you are relevant, I used Strucker,Bartroc as example, they do something...but they dont really matter

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

It's quite clear you don't agree, but, again, those characters do matter. They do things which are relevant to the films: Strucker is there to bring in the Twins and the Scepter; Batroc is there fight with Captain America and then, later on, show he was actually hired by Nick Fury to steal the algorithm. That makes them both relevant characters.

What does Mercy Graves do before dying? What does Jimmy Olsen do before dying? It's not "Why should we care about these characters" (there can certainly be characters we don't care about), it's "Why is this character in this film? What do they contribute?"

I also don't think Tao Okamoto is famous enough to "fool" people into thinking that she will live. That works for someone like Drew Barrymore in Scream, but not for Okamoto, whose biggest movie was playing a secondary character in The Wolverine.

"Strucker is there to bring in the Twins and the Scepter; Batroc is there fight with Captain America and then, later on, show he was actually hired by Nick Fury to steal the algorithm. That makes them both relevant characters."

and yet Strucker is not need it to bring the twins and scepter and he can be replace with generic Hydra general(hell, a lot of fans where annoyed he was wasted as victim of Ultron) and Bartroc just bring and awsome but unecesary fight as the fact Fury hire those mercenary dosent make Bartroc necesary, in sort they have just nominal important which is typical of comic books

"What does Mercy Graves do before dying? What does Jimmy Olsen do before dying?"

she almost caught Bruce in the party and follow Luthor, Jimmy is there as CIA undercover agent, is all the role they were given and that is all it need, people are more pissed because they have nominal important that anything else

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

That's your opinion, fine. But, again, he does something. Just like Batroc does something. They are relevant by dint of the fact that they move the plot forward.

Her almost catching Bruce could have been cut without anything being different.

That's who he is, not what he does. What he does is: get caught, then die. And, honestly, I don't understand why. To build up the threat of a warlord? To make it seem like Lois Lane is in real danger? Neither of those things are going to happen, because we know Lois isn't going to die and the warlord is a minor character at best.

Perhaps if Jimmy had lived and then Lois had tried using him as a contact later on to learn more about Lex's smear campaign against Superman, that might have been something. But you could literally cut those two characters out of the movie and nothing would change at all. The plot moves forward in spite of them, not because of them.

edited 13th Nov '16 8:46:55 AM by alliterator

"That's your opinion, fine. But, again, he does something. Just like Batroc does something. They are relevant by dint of the fact that they move the plot forward. "

that dosent mean they are relevant, just that they have some moment or two, remove strucker and the twins and the scept plays the same, Bartroc dosent move much the plot forward as he just have a useless fight with Cap

" I don't understand why. To build up the threat of a warlord? To make it seem like Lois Lane is in real danger? "

to set the CIA was there meaning the goverment used Lois so she have someone who turn for answers about what happen and set her subplot, no the best subtplot in the world but one nonetheless

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

About the lead wheelchair.

Was it ever mentioned that DCEU!Superman couldn't see through lead? Because if not, it's just another bullet to the long list on why the plot falls flat on its face.

Yes it's assumed that Superman can't X-ray vision through lead, but why go on an assumption? And if you're going to, why not go further and include freeze breath? Not helping is the fact they bothered showing that Kryptonite is harmful to a Kryptonian when Luthor was able to use it to dissect Zod's corpse

Lois and a few others mentioned it in the Ultimate Edition.

Batman even had Lead smoke grenades so Superman couldn't see through it.

Batman Ninja more like Batman's Bizarre Adventure

Those were before the Capitol scene, yes?

And seriously, a plot point like that wasn't in the Theatrical release? This is getting fucking ridiculous now

I'm not sure I have to watch the movie again to tell if it was before the Capitol scene.

Batman Ninja more like Batman's Bizarre Adventure

Nowhere in the extended edition is mentioned that Superman can't see through lead until the scene in which Lois gets the information that the wheelchair was made out of lead. Then she is standing there whispering to herself that this is the reason why Superman couldn't see the bomb. But no, the rules is not established beforehand, nor is clarified how Lex even knows that Superman can look through buildings in the first place (the only thing the world has seen is his ability to crash people into buildings and shoot lasers our of his eyes) or how it is possible to fool his gaze.

No version of Superman can see through lead. It's the same reason as why you wear a lead apron with dental x-rays. X-rays don't go through lead. So, Superman's x-ray vision(however the heck it's supposed to work, it can't literally be x-rays, but it's often portrayed like literal x-rays even though that makes no sense) can't see through lead.

There's this reluctance to say the words 'X-ray vision' or 'lead shielding' in the movie, as if that's too unrealistic or comic-book a notion. But if those are the visuals you're using, and that's the rationalization you want to make, you kind of need to say it. We'll forgive you, movie, it's Superman.

edited 16th Nov '16 12:36:43 PM by Unsung

What's funny is that Clark has already used x-ray vision. So, why no just say it? Well, in a natural manner. Have we heard anyone say "heat vision"? That gets used a lot.

Again. It's not a Superman thing; it's a real-life scientific thing. X-rays can't penetrate lead. Most forms of radiation can't.

Anyone that's ever gotten an X-ray should know this. The movie doesn't need to explain that more than it already did.

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

Again: you don't need to take it so personally every time anyone makes the most minor criticism of the movie.

The movie doesn't need to explain what X-rays are or how they work, everybody knows they can't penetrate lead, but if the guy has X-ray vision, then just say the words. There's no need to dance around and be coy about it. No one will begrudge the movie the three seconds it would take to say that 'this wheelchair is constructed of a lead alloy (or lead fibres suspended in polymer or whatever) that will thwart the Superman's X-Ray Vision!'

edited 16th Nov '16 12:49:47 PM by Unsung

the point os not about lead is thathow other know Superman can see thought objects, I mean I can get if Luthor get it for investigate Super but that never present itself so it feels.....weird

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

Offscreen, Clark and/or Lois wrote an article detailing all of Superman's powers. Because reasons.

I state everything as matter-of-factly as possible to get rid of people reading into my posts too much. I'm not "taking it personally", I'm just stating a fact. I don't see any reason to let "minor criticisms" slide when they're explained in the film or are otherwise obvious. The best kind of minor criticism is the kind like "If there aren't any other Kryptonians on the planet, why does superman's costume in Bv S look different from the one in Man of Steel?" That one I still haven't thought up a defense for.

And the movie doesn't dance around it. It doesn't even mention his vision until that point. It's not something they were trying to avoid saying, nor was it something they really wanted to say.

Also, take into account who delivered the line: Lois. She's not going to say, "X-rays can't penetrate lead. They know he uses X-ray vision!" All she said was "He couldn't stop it... he couldn't see it" and then runs off.

edited 16th Nov '16 1:07:09 PM by Cruherrx

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

This is more about what the audience has to work with, rather than what people know in-universe. We can't really know what the upper limits of Superman's powers are in the movie until we're told or see it for ourselves. I don't have any trouble believing that Lex Luthor knows Superman has X-ray vision, or that he could hide a bomb from him. We're good, there. But I feel like this is a major plot point that's just being glossed over. It's easily inferred, but it's the kind of thing that would be better if was unequivocal.

I don't know how else to describe it, from a production standpoint. Avoiding saying 'X-ray vision' because they already know it seems like avoiding using the words 'superstrength' or 'flying'. Yes, they know, but that gives them more reason to talk about the abilities out loud, not less. It becomes a natural part of speech.

edited 16th Nov '16 1:11:07 PM by Unsung

It's not a major plot point though. Superman makes it clear that he didn't even think to look for it. It's a minor plot point that plays further into Lex's conspiracy, and is a way to show that he's many steps ahead of everyone else. If Superman had been overly cautious and untrusting, he would've scanned the room and not seen the bomb; if Superman is willing to trust everything is on the up and up, then it won't even matter.

The lead in the bullet and the wheelchair is Lois' smoking gun, if you recall.

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