Started By
Message

re: Obtuse Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice TD review thread (SPOILERS p5+)

Posted on 3/26/16 at 6:25 pm to
Posted by jeff5891
Member since Aug 2011
15964 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 6:25 pm to
quote:

They're subjective, like the look and campiness of certain things




campy like how sukerpunch was campy?
Posted by Uncle Stu
#AlbinoLivesMatter
Member since Aug 2004
33867 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 6:25 pm to
Just got out, that was pretty fricking bad

and I am not a comic book guy. The last time I purchased or read a comic was the late 80's. I still thouroughly enjoy the movies, feature length cartoons and all the animated series. I do have some framework of how things Marvel and DC are supposed to be, but have no predisposition as to how loyal the movies are to the source material, I just want to be entertained.

and I really wasnt entertained very much

You cant understate how bad this first part was edited together. We've all seen stories flip between present/past or present/future utilizing good film editing techniques that made it easy to follow and not get lost. They failed miserably at this, trying to simultaneously flip congruent storylines back and forth between two protagonists. It was so disjointed and clunky, I felt like a tennis ball trapped in a dryer.

The dream sequences were so unnecessary, I think they were only there because the studio or director just wanted visual filler. And who in the frick was the half man-half red robot guy trapped in the vortex? It completely distracted me from following the next series of unconnected events.

And Luthor....geesh. I know that performance was such a detraction from the lore and source material, but even then I could've accepted this wacky criminal guy if I had one fricking clue what his motivation was. Even though the words came out his garbled mouth, I still didnt believe or truly understand what in the frick Luthor was trying to accomplish. It made no sense

Holly Hunter was......not good, once again, terrible dialogue and she did nothing to carry it through.

the whole Martha thing and the green spear was so contrived and really a manifestation of piss poor dialogue, shame on whomever wrote that. There were about 100 other ways to convey that sequence of events, and you chose the stupidest dialogue ever to get from A to B

I thought it succeeded in a few things. I really felt Bruce's sense of "power left unchecked" is a huge problem for him. That portrayed well. I also thought there were a few scenes that really did a good job of showing how "small" Superman could feel at times compared to the rest of the world.

And maybe I didnt realize this, but are Gotham and Metropolis supposed to be separated by a creek? I was unaware that the two were like DFW

Towards the end, I guess the action and fight sequences were pretty good overall...Just dont know what the frick was going on the first hour and half before we got there. Maybe this was by design, because this movie needs like 10 re-watches just to make the first 2/3rds of the movie make any sense.
This post was edited on 3/26/16 at 6:29 pm
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
120445 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 6:33 pm to
quote:

And Luthor....geesh. I know that performance was such a detraction from the lore and source material, but even then I could've accepted this wacky criminal guy if I had one fricking clue what his motivation was. Even though the words came out his garbled mouth, I still didnt believe or truly understand what in the frick Luthor was trying to accomplish. It made no sense


Yeah, no insult highjack here, but can anyone explain Luthor's motives to me? Going into it, I thought that Luthor saw himself as the hero to destroy Superman and saw him as a threat due to what he did to Metropolis and really his property. Superman probably destroyed a ton of it.

I thought that he and Batman were going to have the same dream which lead to the corny line "The Red Capes are coming". Which would have made sense if Batman wasn't willing to fully go through what Luthor was asking of him, in killing Superman. I thought Luthor had some horrifying ulterior motive that he blackmails Batman into killing Superman for him, but that doesn't happen.

Luthor made no sense to me, and I'd honestly like for someone to explain it to me.
Posted by 1999
Where I be
Member since Oct 2009
33655 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 6:35 pm to
He just really dislikes superman is all I can figure. Towards the end though I wonder if darkseid is pulling his strings?
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
115493 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 7:33 pm to
Gotham and Metropolis are in close proximity.
Posted by Esquire
Chiraq
Member since Apr 2014
14827 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 8:23 pm to
quote:

And maybe I didnt realize this, but are Gotham and Metropolis supposed to be separated by a creek? I was unaware that the two were like DFW


They are too close. Why are they so close?
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
120445 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 8:28 pm to
I really do like the concept of New York being Metropolis and Chicago being Gotham. It just really works from how I see it.
Posted by Fewer Kilometers
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2007
38447 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 8:29 pm to
quote:

And maybe I didnt realize this, but are Gotham and Metropolis supposed to be separated by a creek? I was unaware that the two were like DFW


quote:

They are too close. Why are they so close?


That's something from DC's Bronze Age, Metropolis and Gotham separated by a bridge.

Some creators thought of Gotham and Metropolis as New York City divided in two.

The two cities being next to each other isn't a Snyder thing, it's something from DC's past.
This post was edited on 3/26/16 at 8:30 pm
Posted by abellsujr
Member since Apr 2014
38455 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 8:30 pm to
quote:

And maybe I didnt realize this, but are Gotham and Metropolis supposed to be separated by a creek? I was unaware that the two were like DFW
DFW is separated by Arlington. They're more like San Francisco and Oakland.
quote:

director Zack Snyder said that one of the biggest steps he was taking away from comics canon in Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice involves geography. “The big rule that we broke is that we put Gotham and Metropolis right next to each other,” Snyder says. “It made sense to us and worked for our story that they were kind of sister cities across a big bay. It’s like Oakland and San Francisco, kind of.”
LINK
This post was edited on 3/26/16 at 8:33 pm
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
120445 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 8:31 pm to
quote:

That's something from DC's Bronze Age, Metropolis and Gotham separated by a bridge.

Some creators thought of Gotham and Metropolis as New York City divided in two.

The two cities being next to each other isn't a Snyder thing, it's something from DC's past.


Yeah, it's clearly a Nolan thing, but I really like what he did there and wish they'd continue with that direction going forward.
Posted by Esquire
Chiraq
Member since Apr 2014
14827 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 8:32 pm to
They are so close it kind of makes Batman look like a dick for not protecting Metropolis from crime as well. In his defense, I'm sure there is a toll bridge in between and that would get expensive.
Posted by Uncle Stu
#AlbinoLivesMatter
Member since Aug 2004
33867 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 8:32 pm to
quote:

The two cities being next to each other isn't a Snyder thing, it's something from DC's past.


ah...got it
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
120445 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 8:32 pm to
quote:

DFW is separated by Arlington. They're more like San Francisco and Oakland.


I live here, and I'd go far to say there is really no separation between them. It's just a massive city with different neighborhoods.
This post was edited on 3/26/16 at 9:41 pm
Posted by Napoleon
Kenna
Member since Dec 2007
74297 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 8:41 pm to
quote:

And maybe I didnt realize this, but are Gotham and Metropolis supposed to be separated by a creek? I was unaware that the two were like DFW



This post was edited on 3/26/16 at 8:42 pm
Posted by Gen Satterfield
Texarkana
Member since Feb 2016
239 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 9:32 pm to
I wasn't a big fan of Jessie Eisenberg as Luthor. He seemed like an annoying little twerp. That is not the way I would expect a major Superman villian to be portrayed. I'm down to give him another shot in the Justice League movie, but he has to act more like Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor.

Ben Affleck was a solid Batman. Much better than I had anticipated. Happy he kicked Superman's arse.

Question. Superman is not dead. I saw the dirt rise at the end of the movie and he is in Justice League. But, how does that happen? Or did I miss something in the movie?
Posted by Byron Bojangles III
Member since Nov 2012
52308 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 9:43 pm to
quote:

But, how does that happen? Or did I miss something in the movie?


I'm guessing they go the "he was in a deep coma" route.
Posted by Fewer Kilometers
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2007
38447 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 9:45 pm to
quote:

Question. Superman is not dead. I saw the dirt rise at the end of the movie and he is in Justice League. But, how does that happen? Or did I miss something in the movie?


In the comics we had a convoluted extended series that included Superman in a Kryptonian regeneration matrix. They didn't do that in this film, but after they showed him as a corpse in space who regenerated from the sun, my guess is that this movie superman is just very unkillable.
Posted by Gary Busey
Member since Dec 2014
33277 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 9:54 pm to
Just got back. I loved it. Emotional; intense; different.

I guess I'm in the minority that liked Jesse Eisenberg's Luthor. Instead of going the mainstream business-suit attired depiction, they go with a strange psychotic mad man who still has the brains to take on an all powerful alien. I went in thinking it would be terrible, but was really shocked.

Guess I'm also in the minority for the movie in general. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I grew up watching the old Superman movies, but still liked this one.
This post was edited on 3/26/16 at 9:55 pm
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
120445 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 10:01 pm to
quote:

I loved it. Emotional


I don't understand this at all. You might as well munch on cow dung and say it has a sugary taste. It's bitter shite and there's not an emotional scene in it, save for the ones that the movie directly tells you to be emotional. That's literally it. It's like someone telling me "Grave of the Fireflies" was the most joyful movie they've ever seen. It's just such the opposite of what the movie is.

quote:

I guess I'm in the minority that liked Jesse Eisenberg's Luthor. Instead of going the mainstream business-suit attired depiction, they go with a strange psychotic mad man who still has the brains to take on an all powerful alien. I went in thinking it would be terrible, but was really shocked.



Which he's really Mark Zuckerberg meets the Riddler. There is nothing of Luthor's actual character that is in Eisenberg's performance.
This post was edited on 3/26/16 at 10:02 pm
Posted by RLDSC FAN
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Member since Nov 2008
60102 posts
Posted on 3/26/16 at 10:03 pm to
Theres a lot of people that enjoy the film dude, just accept it.
Jump to page
Page First 21 22 23 24 25 ... 74
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 23 of 74Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram