Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice movie thread for your reading pleasure 2 2

[Thawk]

Flash looks like a homeless person. What horrible casting.

 

I have to say I think I'm pretty gracious when it comes to casting - and I can't agree more. Going to try and keep an open mind, but the few shots we got - he looks terrible - like a teenager who can't grow a beard yet but REALLY wants to.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Thawk

[Bosco685]

Ed Wood was very efficient with his camera time.

 

'Ed Wood never saw a scene he didn't love. He loved them all!'

 

 

[Cat-Man_America]

And for those who say the 'director's cut' might close many of the holes, I totally agree with you. But that doesn't make the critics (or anyone else) wrong (or shills or marvel sheep) for disliking the movie they saw. Of course some might be sheep, and some may revel in piling on failures, but honestly most people don't have any other agenda, other than they wished they saw a better movie.

 

You're definitely not a Marvel zombie or in on some fantasy destruction scheme against DC/Warner just because you didn't appreciate the movie (all or in part). A different message is conveyed, though, when rallying against a movie never viewed or making it out to be a bust repeatedly when the box office results and viewer feedback says otherwise. I've noted a few times myself this is not a flawless film. And although the fanboy breadcrumbs are really cool throughout, there are those that go over your head until you understand the backstory.

 

Some critic noting he perceived homoerotic images from the fight scene (seriously?) or that Batman could never fight Superman and survive have some experience limitations. One is sexual in nature, and the other is lack of awareness Batman and Superman have fought before.

 

10 Best Batman v Superman Fights In DC Comic Books

 

I do look forward to the Ultimate Edition. Though even with that, it will not be the full four hours Zack Snyder now admitted made up the complete film.

 

By the way, how does a director go overboard on shooting scenes that extensive and the studio not pulling it back? All that extra footage had to cost location and actor time.

 

We're in complete agreement about the earlier Superman treatments. The Fleischer/Paramount cartoons of the 1940's brilliantly captured the essence of the character. Even the tightly budgeted television series of the 1950's featuring George Reeves (first season, with darker more pulp-like plots) did a fairly good job of establishing the hero's virtues and values.

 

 

Unfortunately, there are still a few folks who find it odd when someone dares to participate in a frank discussion of the new film who hasn't seen it. I get it, and technically one shouldn't find fault with a movie they haven't seen. Certainly one can't discuss or debate the justification for scenes they haven't seen. That's why I've tried to take the approach of criticizing only those things which are widely known or readily apparent about the production, ...those things which warned me off in the first place (like MoS).

 

In fairness to folks who have seen BvS and like it, my impressions are based on readily available information about this film (production costs, marketing, BO expectations, etc.) and the current franchise as a whole. Any perceived negativism is from other sources or my earlier impressions based on MoS; I'm merely the messenger. As always, other's mileage may vary. If you disagree with these assessments as is your right, please respect the sources even if you don't respect my POV.

 

My problem with the modern Superman is his unheroic portrayal. From the first movie, I felt that this Superman was not a dependable hero with a clear moral compass. Forget all the nauseating born again Christ symbolism. His constant reflections may have convinced some that Supe's character was deeper, more adult or perhaps humanizing, but it never rang true for me. Who needs to see classic fictional heroes in need of psychiatric counceling? Who actually found credible Kevin Costner's scenery chewing death scene as Pa Kent with the slo-mo Wizard of Oz tornado? Who enjoyed the vapid treatment of theoretically empowered women (including military officers whose apparent reason for being on screen is to drool over Superman)?

Note : Even the 50's era Phyllis Coates as Lois was provided a more businesslike portrayal of her character.

 

These things and more turned me completely off as a viewer and persuaded me to avoid the first run release of the overblown Thrilla in Manilla hyped BvS sequel starring Ben Affleck (undoubtably he took home a huge paycheck).

My rationale is actually quite simple: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

Nevertheless, I'll force myself to sit through this dystopian orgy, but only Zack Snyder's director's cut! I prefer evaluating the unedited vision rather than it's current arguably muddled incarnation. Since so much has been said in support of the tragically under-appreciated Mr. Snyder and his deconstruction of the Superman mythos, I'll pledge here and now to sit through the R or unrated version when Mr. Snyder deigns to release his glorious final cut for adult audience consumption. That should clearly satisfy those who have problems rationalizing anyone taking a principled stand against the new interpretation of Superman.

 

Yes, I know, it's only a movie.

 

You asked: "By the way, how does a director go overboard on shooting scenes that extensive and the studio not pulling it back? All that extra footage had to cost location and actor time."

 

That question has been asked since directors started controlling their productions in the early silent era of Hollywood. There isn't one simple answer, but usually it's because it would cost too much to fire the director in charge, scrap all or most of his footage and then bring in another director to reshoot his vision of the same material that may or may not mesh with what's been written and already shot.

 

Also, the publicity surrounding the replacement of a high profile director who filmed an earlier film suggests a troubled production. FTR, I do think Zack Snyder was out of control and over budget, regardless of what anyone thinks of his rebooted Superman franchise.

 

My (adjusted for Hollywood accounting)

[Bosco685]

 

We're in complete agreement about the earlier Superman treatments. The Fleischer/Paramount cartoons of the 1940's brilliantly captured the essence of the character. Even the tightly budgeted television series of the 1950's featuring George Reeves (first season, with darker more pulp-like plots) did a fairly good job of establishing the hero's virtues and values.

 

 

Unfortunately, there are still a few folks who find it odd when someone dares to participate in a frank discussion of the new film who hasn't seen it. I get it, and technically one shouldn't find fault with a movie they haven't seen. Certainly one can't discuss or debate the justification for scenes they haven't seen. That's why I've tried to take the approach of criticizing only those things which are widely known or readily apparent about the production, ...those things which warned me off in the first place (like MoS).

 

In fairness to folks who have seen BvS and like it, my impressions are based on readily available information about this film (production costs, marketing, BO expectations, etc.) and the current franchise as a whole. Any perceived negativism is from other sources or my earlier impressions based on MoS; I'm merely the messenger. As always, other's mileage may vary. If you disagree with these assessments as is your right, please respect the sources even if you don't respect my POV.

 

My problem with the modern Superman is his unheroic portrayal. From the first movie, I felt that this Superman was not a dependable hero with a clear moral compass. Forget all the nauseating born again Christ symbolism. His constant reflections may have convinced some that Supe's character was deeper, more adult or perhaps humanizing, but it never rang true for me. Who needs to see classic fictional heroes in need of psychiatric counceling? Who actually found credible Kevin Costner's scenery chewing death scene with the slo-mo Wizard of Oz tornado? Who enjoyed the vapid treatment of theoretically empowered women (including military officers whose apparent reason for being on screen is to drool over Superman)?

Note : Even the 50's era Phyllis Coates as Lois was provided a more businesslike portrayal of her character.

 

These things and more turned me completely off as a viewer and persuaded me to avoid the first run release of the overblown Thrilla in Manilla hyped BvS sequel starring Ben Affleck (undoubtably he took home a huge paycheck).

My rationale is actually quite simple: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

Nevertheless, I'll force myself to sit through this dystopian orgy, but only Zack Snyder's director's cut! I prefer evaluating the unedited vision rather than it's current arguably muddled incarnation. Since so much has been said in support of the tragically under-appreciated Mr. Snyder and his deconstruction of the Superman mythos, I'll pledge here and now to sit through the R or unrated version when Mr. Snyder deigns to release his glorious final cut for adult audience consumption. That should clearly satisfy those who have problems rationalizing anyone taking a principled stand against the new interpretation of Superman.

 

Yes, I know, it's only a movie.

 

You asked: "By the way, how does a director go overboard on shooting scenes that extensive and the studio not pulling it back? All that extra footage had to cost location and actor time."

 

That question has been asked since directors started controlling their productions in the early silent era of Hollywood. It isn't one simple answer, but usually it's because it would cost too much to fire the director in charge, scrap all or most of his footage and thing bring in another director to reshoot his own vision that may or may not mesh with what's been written and shot.

 

Also, the publicity surrounding the replacement of a high profile director who filmed an earlier film suggests a troubled production. FTR, I do think Zack Snyder was out of control and over budget, regardless of what anyone thinks of his rebooted Superman franchise.

 

 

My (adjusted for Hollywood accounting)

 

Well why didn't you say all that in the first place. Such a timid flower.

 

 

By the way, you dropped some change a few posts back.

 

 

2c 2c 2c 2c 2c 2c 2c

 

2c 2c 2c 2c 2c 2c 2c

 

2c 2c 2c 2c 2c 2c 2c

 

2c 2c 2c 2c 2c 2c 2c

 

 

 

 

[Cat-Man_America]

.

 

2c 2c 2c 2c 2c 2c 2c

 

2c 2c 2c 2c 2c 2c 2c

 

2c 2c 2c 2c 2c 2c 2c

 

2c 2c 2c 2c 2c 2c 2c

 

 

 

Thanks!

 

I wondered what happened to all the common cents, ...but is that Zack on my steamroller?

 

It looks like he's on a roll trying to squeeze more $$$ out of BvS patrons!

[Bosco685]

Final weekend results are in, and it turns out the estimates were a few million too low.

 

 

 

 

Or was that due to someone's ?

 

[krighton]

Flash looks like a homeless person. What horrible casting.

 

I have to say I think I'm pretty gracious when it comes to casting - and I can't agree more. Going to try and keep an open mind, but the few shots we got - he looks terrible - like a teenager who can't grow a beard yet but REALLY wants to.

 

They need a more diverse Barry Allen...they were going for the shoplifting refugee look.

Edited April 18, 2016 by krighton

[Batman]

Flash looks like a homeless person. What horrible casting.

That's strange. Up until now, you've only had good things to say about the casting...

[Bosco685]

Now that you mention it, I don't even remember what the Thing looked like in that last FF movie.

 

Couldn't have been too memorable.

 

I DO remember controversy about him running around with no shorts on.

 

...oh yeah, and the Flash looks horrible. First Flash movie ever and it already looks like they're getting ready to crush my childhood as bad as andru/esposito did when they took over that book.

 

[Bosco685]

Flash looks like a homeless person. What horrible casting.

That's strange. Up until now, you've only had good things to say about the casting...

 

People complained about Affleck as Batman: worked out great!

 

People complained about Gadot as Wonder Woman: worked out great!

 

People complaining about Ezra Miller as The Flash:

[Chip Cataldo]

If that is horrible, how would you describe the casting and CGI (e.g. the Turd, I mean Thing ) from the last FF movie?

Well since I $hat on that from the first leaked images onward it would probably be several paragraphs where (on this board) you'd see every other word showing as "*spoon*."

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by Chip Cataldo

[Chip Cataldo]

Flash looks like a homeless person. What horrible casting.

That's strange. Up until now, you've only had good things to say about the casting...

 

People complained about Affleck as Batman: worked out great!

 

People complained about Gadot as Wonder Woman: worked out great!

 

People complaining about Ezra Miller as The Flash:

You're seriously going to tell me that he looked great?

 

...that he looked like The Flash?

 

Come on, man. Take off the rose-colored glasses and SEE.

[Bosco685]

You're seriously going to tell me that he looked great?

 

...that he looked like The Flash?

 

Come on, man. Take off the rose-colored glasses and SEE.

 

If Snyder knocked out those other casting choices successfully, the track record is solid so far. All I can assume is he saw the same things that came across from Affleck and Gadot that many of us didn't see initially.

 

'take off the rose-colored glasses'

 

[Chip Cataldo]

You dodged my question. Answer it, please.

[Bosco685]

You dodged my question. Answer it, please.

 

I dodged something? I didn't dodge anything.

 

Which scene are we talking about? The brief dream video where all I saw was a face, or the store 20-second video where he appears as a teenager?

[burntboy]

OK , I just have to say this; You guys are all F'ing nuts - it's a Movie fer chrissakes...

[Cat-Man_America]

Flash looks like a homeless person. What horrible casting.

 

If that is horrible, how would you describe the casting and CGI (e.g. the Turd, I mean Thing ) from the last FF movie?

 

Now that you mention it, I don't even remember what the Thing looked like in that last FF movie.

 

Couldn't have been too memorable.

 

I DO remember controversy about him running around with no shorts on.

 

...oh yeah, and the Flash looks horrible. First Flash movie ever and it already looks like they're getting ready to crush my childhood as bad as andru/esposito did when they took over that book.

 

This is a crucial point that hasn't been adequately addressed with any reboot (DC or Marvel). Someone suggested that "it's their turn" like these characters we grew up with from the 40's through the 70's and beyond had their time in the sun and should be put out to pasture so the next generation of heroes can have their shot. Wait a minute! So exactly when did we ever get accurate media representations of our childhood heroes?

 

It could be argued that Marvel has done the best job of threading that needle by trying to incorporate the SA look and background into characters updated to the new millennium. But what about DC? So many of the interesting second tier characters (once you get past Supe and Batman) have never had an opportunity to shine in a major film as they originally appeared and evolved. From where I sit, it looks like a lot of fine traditional DC heroes have been denied their shot and skipped over in an attempt to look hipper to a younger demographic more familiar with more dystopian heroes and storylines.

[Davenport]

It's all just opinion.

 

I thought it was well put together. I followed it from the start - understood where it was and what it was trying to say - I think it's the closest thing to a superhero FILM that's been made.

 

Other than Watchmen, which is great.

Ditto your 'FILM' sentiment.

 

I'm coming at it from a story-junkie pov. I personally think if the exact same story, same actors, same director had the Netflix's Daredevil format, to bring viewers along s-l-o-w-l-y, much of the and moaning would dissipate.

 

It's as rich and complex as Daredevil imho. And as rare.

 

Plus on the back end, everyone should think about how easily Batman and Superman could've been the next Lone Ranger or The Spirit. That danger is ever-present when bringing 70 year old comic book characters to film.

[rjrjr]

Flash looks like a homeless person. What horrible casting.

That's strange. Up until now, you've only had good things to say about the casting...

 

People complained about Affleck as Batman: worked out great!

 

People complained about Gadot as Wonder Woman: worked out great!

 

People complaining about Ezra Miller as The Flash:

 

I remember the complaints about Quicksilver. That worked out great!

[NewEnglandGothic]

OK , I just have to say this; You guys are all F'ing nuts - it's a Movie fer chrissakes...