- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Obtuse Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice TD review thread (SPOILERS p5+)
Posted on 4/18/16 at 4:17 pm to LNCHBOX
Posted on 4/18/16 at 4:17 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
The bottom line is you have been extremely vocal in your support of this movie and constantly defend it. Stop telling me you don't of that, because you have been. The proof is right there in you post history. I don't care that you do it, but stop acting like you don't do it. That's all.
I never claimed that I haven't been defending the movie. You can drop the "stop telling me that" shite because I haven't said it once. You decided to name me as "the issue" with this thread because I was defending it instead of being on the side that dislikes the movie. If I had joined up with Freaxsen and Abellsujr you'd have no problem with me. But since I have a different opinion than you I'm the problem with the thread. You're transparent.
1
Posted on 4/18/16 at 4:23 pm to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
You decided to name me as "the issue"
You have been the worst offender, sorry not sorry.
quote:
If I had joined up with Freaxsen and Abellsujr you'd have no problem with me. But since I have a different opinion than you I'm the problem with the thread.
If you had done that, what exactly would I have to complain about? That's a ridiculous statement.
It has nothing to do with your opinion, it's how you present it.
quote:
You're transparent.
Great, doesn't change that you've been the loudest supporter of a mediocre (yes this movie was mediocre, cry about it) movie and now you're acting like a cry baby when I point it out.
Posted on 4/18/16 at 4:27 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:Then you haven't read the thread.
You have been the worst offender, sorry not sorry.
Posted on 4/18/16 at 4:29 pm to LNCHBOX
Y'all are all looking ridiculous in this thread 
Posted on 4/18/16 at 4:34 pm to Fewer Kilometers
No, I didn't.
First off, I didn't say I was a fan, I said I know who he is. Second, Scoot McNairy and Michael Cassidy are both in the movie. I've seen both in many things and I momentarily mixed them up. That's all. Sorry for not recalling exactly which role each played a week after I saw it.
I was not quoting an internet rumor and the guts of what I said still stands even though I got the two actors names wrong.
At the end of the day is it true that Snyder had an unnamed Jimmy Olsen shot in the face at the start of the movie? Yes? Did he say that there was no room for the character even though he has completely made up ones like Jenny that serve no purpose to the story? Yes?
Then how is it fake outrage to say that considering those facts it's an example of Snyder not caring about the source material and simultaneously showing disdain towards the built in fanbase to do something like that?
I would feel the same way if any director adapted a work and treated a well known side character in that manner. It would be like if a director had decided to shoot an unnamed Dick Grayson in the face at the start of Batman 2 after not having him in the first film and instead having a teenage acrobat named Denise do nothing of importance in both flicks.
First off, I didn't say I was a fan, I said I know who he is. Second, Scoot McNairy and Michael Cassidy are both in the movie. I've seen both in many things and I momentarily mixed them up. That's all. Sorry for not recalling exactly which role each played a week after I saw it.
I was not quoting an internet rumor and the guts of what I said still stands even though I got the two actors names wrong.
At the end of the day is it true that Snyder had an unnamed Jimmy Olsen shot in the face at the start of the movie? Yes? Did he say that there was no room for the character even though he has completely made up ones like Jenny that serve no purpose to the story? Yes?
Then how is it fake outrage to say that considering those facts it's an example of Snyder not caring about the source material and simultaneously showing disdain towards the built in fanbase to do something like that?
I would feel the same way if any director adapted a work and treated a well known side character in that manner. It would be like if a director had decided to shoot an unnamed Dick Grayson in the face at the start of Batman 2 after not having him in the first film and instead having a teenage acrobat named Denise do nothing of importance in both flicks.
This post was edited on 4/18/16 at 4:50 pm
Posted on 4/18/16 at 5:12 pm to Dr RC
Is this bickering still going on? Jeez 
I saw this movie after reading the initial reviews, and I was pleasantly surprised. It's a pretty good movie. It is not a masterpiece, but I'm totally fine with DC continuing to build on what they have going.
Superman: Cavill seems bland, but he's also playing an intentionally vanilla Superman. The character seemed to be walking on eggshells trying not to offend people due to his power (and the fallout from the Zod incident), and was still being griped at.
Cavill definitely looks the part, and he's suitably powered going forward (assuming they revive him) to continue to fill the role.
Batman: Affleck nails the role, and this is a great Batman. He definitely looks the part, and the film does a great job of capturing the character (bat-killing aside).
Wonder Woman: very intriguing move. Gadot is classy and exotic, and she wore the costume well. I've got hope that this character will become a mainstay.
Hints going forward: they seeded the field with Flash (and gave us a brief glimpse into his power), a quick show of Aquaman (what does he do? I'm really curious), and Cyborg. They threw heavy hints at Darkseid, and that would be a gigantic waste to not eventually pursue.
DC's behind the pace that Marvel has set, so no matter what they portray, they won't be the first to put it on screen, Marvel has already done that. Avengers was the first big mega hero movie, so this (and JLA) will always be "not as fresh". But they're really still just setting the table, and the film has made a good deal of money (it's not a giant flop). Let's see what they do from here; Suicide Squad looks to be entertaining.
I saw this movie after reading the initial reviews, and I was pleasantly surprised. It's a pretty good movie. It is not a masterpiece, but I'm totally fine with DC continuing to build on what they have going.
Superman: Cavill seems bland, but he's also playing an intentionally vanilla Superman. The character seemed to be walking on eggshells trying not to offend people due to his power (and the fallout from the Zod incident), and was still being griped at.
Cavill definitely looks the part, and he's suitably powered going forward (assuming they revive him) to continue to fill the role.
Batman: Affleck nails the role, and this is a great Batman. He definitely looks the part, and the film does a great job of capturing the character (bat-killing aside).
Wonder Woman: very intriguing move. Gadot is classy and exotic, and she wore the costume well. I've got hope that this character will become a mainstay.
Hints going forward: they seeded the field with Flash (and gave us a brief glimpse into his power), a quick show of Aquaman (what does he do? I'm really curious), and Cyborg. They threw heavy hints at Darkseid, and that would be a gigantic waste to not eventually pursue.
DC's behind the pace that Marvel has set, so no matter what they portray, they won't be the first to put it on screen, Marvel has already done that. Avengers was the first big mega hero movie, so this (and JLA) will always be "not as fresh". But they're really still just setting the table, and the film has made a good deal of money (it's not a giant flop). Let's see what they do from here; Suicide Squad looks to be entertaining.
Posted on 4/18/16 at 5:37 pm to Scoob
Agree with all of that
Posted on 4/19/16 at 12:36 pm to Old Sarge
Another observation regarding the BvS complaints: the introduction of too many new hero characters; Batman, Wonder Woman, the others (Aquaman, Flash, Cyborg).
My take: we KNOW who Batman is. Exact copy or not, we just finished with Nolan's trilogy, we've had a stack of Batman movies in the past starting with Burton's film, there are lots of cartoons, etc. Everyone, except maybe the extremely casual soccer mom, knows who Batman is, that he doesn't have any special powers beyond what his billions can buy him (the Batmobile etc), and that he can exist in the same world as Superman. We don't need a standalone Affleck Batman movie to introduce the character, we just need some bare guidelines (how does he fit into this world). That was done in the opening of the movie.
Marvel is doing this with Spiderman; it's not the current Sony character, but I'm pretty sure we will all know exactly who he is.
Wonder Woman- this is kind of iffy, either way. Marvel has introduced a lot of heroes as second-tier parts in other movies; Iron Man gave us Nick Fury and SHIELD, Iron Man 2 gave us Black Widow and War Machine, Thor gave us Hawkeye, etc. These have all continued to other films.
Now, Wonder Woman (SHOULD) be bigger and more important than those characters, but she is getting her own movie down the road. Her role in this film isn't any bigger than Hulk's in Avengers, and Hulk could easily have been introduced without the previous Hulk movies (it wasn't Ruffalo until Avengers). In fact, had they made and released the first Hulk film (the intro to his origins) after Avengers, it probably would have made more money than it ended up making.
Same could be said for Wonder Woman- the standalone movie, now that the character has been introduced, might make a lot more money than had it been done before BvS.
The other cameos- they are no different than the post-credit scenes from the Marvel movies, and I, at least, am glad that it wasn't done that way. I'm pretty much done with having to sit through credits for a 1 minute teaser. It was cute and original at one time, it's annoying now.
My take: we KNOW who Batman is. Exact copy or not, we just finished with Nolan's trilogy, we've had a stack of Batman movies in the past starting with Burton's film, there are lots of cartoons, etc. Everyone, except maybe the extremely casual soccer mom, knows who Batman is, that he doesn't have any special powers beyond what his billions can buy him (the Batmobile etc), and that he can exist in the same world as Superman. We don't need a standalone Affleck Batman movie to introduce the character, we just need some bare guidelines (how does he fit into this world). That was done in the opening of the movie.
Marvel is doing this with Spiderman; it's not the current Sony character, but I'm pretty sure we will all know exactly who he is.
Wonder Woman- this is kind of iffy, either way. Marvel has introduced a lot of heroes as second-tier parts in other movies; Iron Man gave us Nick Fury and SHIELD, Iron Man 2 gave us Black Widow and War Machine, Thor gave us Hawkeye, etc. These have all continued to other films.
Now, Wonder Woman (SHOULD) be bigger and more important than those characters, but she is getting her own movie down the road. Her role in this film isn't any bigger than Hulk's in Avengers, and Hulk could easily have been introduced without the previous Hulk movies (it wasn't Ruffalo until Avengers). In fact, had they made and released the first Hulk film (the intro to his origins) after Avengers, it probably would have made more money than it ended up making.
Same could be said for Wonder Woman- the standalone movie, now that the character has been introduced, might make a lot more money than had it been done before BvS.
The other cameos- they are no different than the post-credit scenes from the Marvel movies, and I, at least, am glad that it wasn't done that way. I'm pretty much done with having to sit through credits for a 1 minute teaser. It was cute and original at one time, it's annoying now.
Posted on 4/19/16 at 1:20 pm to Scoob
quote:
he doesn't have any special powers beyond what his billions can buy him (the Batmobile etc)
You could argue that he has a unique and elevated sense of anger and passion for justice driven by the traumatizing event of watching his parents murder. Normal men with extraordinary drives and passion have accomplished "super" things in this world
Iron man is similar I guess. He is brilliant and a genius.....and ever since seeing first hand in Afghanistan the impact of his weapons technology on a human he cared about(the scientist that saved his life but died in their escape). He now has a strong passion for defending the weak and undoing some of the evil in the world that he still feels personally responsible for empowering with his weapons.
Posted on 4/19/16 at 2:12 pm to Old Sarge
Batman and Iron Man are very similar, with one major exception (and this has major effects to the tone of the movie universe):
Bruce Wayne is secretive and reclusive, Tony Stark is outgoing and open about things.
Stark announced "I am Iron Man" at the end of the 1st movie, and it's public knowledge. He puts on public shows, and one would assume has a strong marketing campaign; imagine commercials that are a combination of the Samsung Galaxy or Apple iPhone ads, combined with the US Military ads. The public would be very aware of who he is, probably as much or more than we hear of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. He has the tech, and he's supplementing the government in protecting us, the general public, from terrorism (and bizarre alien invaders). He's like the ultimate 2nd Amendment proponent- instead of carrying a concealed compact 9mm as a deterrent, he has the Iron Man suit. Heck, the senate hearings we saw sounded similar to the Right To Bear Arms debates.
Since he's already got the media campaign, it makes sense that he'd be the point for the rest of the Avengers regarding public info. He'd be the source that gives us public info on Thor (he's not really a true god and doesn't demand worship, he's here to help, etc). Even the ones who don't release their ID (Black Widow, who is really just an agent, Falcon, etc)... "they're with me, working alongside me, to help the world".
All of this would contribute to a less frazzled general populace whenever someone appears on the scene, and thus, a less dark movie.
Wayne hasn't done shite openly regarding Batman, Superman or the rest. Thus, Batman is a frightening dark figure that is terrorizing criminals, Superman is an abstract, immensely powerful figure that nobody really seems to understand, etc.
We see the potential fallout for Stark realized in Iron Man 3 when his home gets destroyed (something Batman doesn't want to worry about), but the point remains: in Marvel, the public knows who these guys are, generally; and in DC, they don't.
edit to add-
Regarding Tony Stark being the one who controls media perception of the Avengers:
This should be considered during Civil War. If Stark is the public face of the hero group, he would be the logical choice to approach, when trying to reign them in.
If he's not on board, you'd have a major media campaign resisting the government's "intrusive" and "repressive" efforts, which could effect political careers. He also has the offscreen ability to tarnish any of the other hero's images publically, and we might see that with regards to Cap in this film.
Bruce Wayne is secretive and reclusive, Tony Stark is outgoing and open about things.
Stark announced "I am Iron Man" at the end of the 1st movie, and it's public knowledge. He puts on public shows, and one would assume has a strong marketing campaign; imagine commercials that are a combination of the Samsung Galaxy or Apple iPhone ads, combined with the US Military ads. The public would be very aware of who he is, probably as much or more than we hear of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. He has the tech, and he's supplementing the government in protecting us, the general public, from terrorism (and bizarre alien invaders). He's like the ultimate 2nd Amendment proponent- instead of carrying a concealed compact 9mm as a deterrent, he has the Iron Man suit. Heck, the senate hearings we saw sounded similar to the Right To Bear Arms debates.
Since he's already got the media campaign, it makes sense that he'd be the point for the rest of the Avengers regarding public info. He'd be the source that gives us public info on Thor (he's not really a true god and doesn't demand worship, he's here to help, etc). Even the ones who don't release their ID (Black Widow, who is really just an agent, Falcon, etc)... "they're with me, working alongside me, to help the world".
All of this would contribute to a less frazzled general populace whenever someone appears on the scene, and thus, a less dark movie.
Wayne hasn't done shite openly regarding Batman, Superman or the rest. Thus, Batman is a frightening dark figure that is terrorizing criminals, Superman is an abstract, immensely powerful figure that nobody really seems to understand, etc.
We see the potential fallout for Stark realized in Iron Man 3 when his home gets destroyed (something Batman doesn't want to worry about), but the point remains: in Marvel, the public knows who these guys are, generally; and in DC, they don't.
edit to add-
Regarding Tony Stark being the one who controls media perception of the Avengers:
This should be considered during Civil War. If Stark is the public face of the hero group, he would be the logical choice to approach, when trying to reign them in.
If he's not on board, you'd have a major media campaign resisting the government's "intrusive" and "repressive" efforts, which could effect political careers. He also has the offscreen ability to tarnish any of the other hero's images publically, and we might see that with regards to Cap in this film.
This post was edited on 4/19/16 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 5/9/16 at 8:14 pm to abellsujr
How much better is this thread now that you guys have seen it's direct competition?
Posted on 5/9/16 at 11:17 pm to stuckintexas
Can someone please remind me why Zack Snyder and David Goyer aren't fired yet? I think it may be worth the 100 million hit to start filming again a few months from now with a competent filmmaker.
Captain America in its second week will beat Batman v Superman for its total box office gross. Imagine 10 years ago hearing that Iron Man vs Captain America would nearly double the box office gross of Batman vs Superman.
Holy shite. Snyder should be fired immediately if they have any chance of salvaging this universe.
Captain America in its second week will beat Batman v Superman for its total box office gross. Imagine 10 years ago hearing that Iron Man vs Captain America would nearly double the box office gross of Batman vs Superman.
Holy shite. Snyder should be fired immediately if they have any chance of salvaging this universe.
This post was edited on 5/9/16 at 11:23 pm
Posted on 5/10/16 at 5:54 am to OMLandshark
Let it go, they're already filming so you'll have to wait until after JL to see if they can him. It is what it is.
Posted on 6/20/16 at 12:37 pm to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
Everyone has been predicting doom for this movie since the start. As soon as it has one bad day, we'll get the "AH HA! I told you so" posts.
Prepare yourself for the "Warner panics as BvS takes three more weeks than Avengers to reach a billion in ticket sales" articles.
Page 74 of 74
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News