- 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
Posted on 3/26/16 at 6:25 pm to TK421
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.
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 on 3/26/16 at 6:33 pm to Uncle Stu
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 on 3/26/16 at 6:35 pm to OMLandshark
He just really dislikes superman is all I can figure. Towards the end though I wonder if darkseid is pulling his strings?
Posted on 3/26/16 at 7:33 pm to Uncle Stu
Gotham and Metropolis are in close proximity.
Posted on 3/26/16 at 8:23 pm to Uncle Stu
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 on 3/26/16 at 8:28 pm to Esquire
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 on 3/26/16 at 8:29 pm to Esquire
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 on 3/26/16 at 8:30 pm to Uncle Stu
quote:DFW is separated by Arlington.
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:LINK
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.”
This post was edited on 3/26/16 at 8:33 pm
Posted on 3/26/16 at 8:31 pm to Fewer Kilometers
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 on 3/26/16 at 8:32 pm to OMLandshark
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 on 3/26/16 at 8:32 pm to Fewer Kilometers
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 on 3/26/16 at 8:32 pm to abellsujr
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 on 3/26/16 at 8:41 pm to Uncle Stu
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 on 3/26/16 at 9:32 pm to udtiger
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?
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 on 3/26/16 at 9:43 pm to Gen Satterfield
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 on 3/26/16 at 9:45 pm to Gen Satterfield
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 on 3/26/16 at 9:54 pm to Gen Satterfield
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.
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 on 3/26/16 at 10:01 pm to Gary Busey
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 on 3/26/16 at 10:03 pm to OMLandshark
Theres a lot of people that enjoy the film dude, just accept it.
Popular
Back to top


0








