BATMAN VS SUPERMAN MOVIE A DOG 0

[Wayne-Tec]

Watched the movie last night. I enjoyed it a lot.

 

What would you give it on a scale of 1-100?

 

85

 

[Cat-Man_America]

Watched the movie last night. I enjoyed it a lot.

 

What would you give it on a scale of 1-100?

 

85

 

 

 

[Cat-Man_America]

I prefer the new guy.

 

 

 

That's OK, good taste isn't a prerequisite for posting here.

[Mr. 10%]

I prefer the new guy.

 

 

 

That's OK, good taste isn't a prerequisite for posting here.

 

My apologies, your opinion must be right.

 

whether you are right or not depends on your number of post Counts ...

[bane]

Watched the movie last night. I enjoyed it a lot.

 

What would you give it on a scale of 1-100?

 

85

 

 

I too would give it 85.

[Mmehdy]

The marketing would not have mattered if this was a great movie... When the hits the fan ... It's a blame game....bad marketing..phoney cgi...bad -script... Bad timing ...critics are crazy ... Look ... This is the biggest 250 mil flop ever made for that amount of movie ...which has 2 versions .... The lame one we already know about.. The real r rated version the jury is still out... Which WB chickened out to release to sell more popcorn to kiddies.

 

I have seen director's cuts that make a movie better, but I have never seen a director's cut that redeems a film in the eyes of the general public. Only the hardcore fans are going to buy and watch the R version. That Rotten Tomatoes 29% will never go away. Financially, the new cut will be a minuscule fraction of the revenue for BvS.

 

At least it has a chance of making it better than my 34 out of 100 rating and I am being very generous with that number. If it bring it up..say 10 points its still a Dog, but a lot less of one. Just read some of the comments on rotten tomatoes ..my comments are restrained here on the boards.....I am gonna take a big chance and do a blind buy on the directors cut...but the future for the DC universe is simple..no more ZacK the Hack...and scripts...well we can already predict the JSA -script.....and where this is all going..yawn

Edited April 8, 2016 by Mmehdy

[drotto]

I also keep people saying the fan ratings are proof that the general public is less harsh on this movie, and for the most part likes it despite the critics. They point to the fact that it has a 70% fan rating on RT. I hate to remind people that AoU has a 84%, Thor Dark World is at 78%, Iron Man 2 is 72%, and Hulk (2008) is 71%. Those Marvel movies listed are the ones most people on these forums complain about, and I would agree with those complaints (except Dark World, but I know I am odd on that one).

 

I think this illustrates that any movie that gets into the 70's on RT fan rating is on shaky ground. People who make the decision to go pay for a movie, and spend the time are already inclined to like a movie. Otherwise, they would not see it in the first place. General movie goers usually have different expectations than critics, and tend to be kinder when rating a film.

[Transplant]

I prefer the new guy.

 

 

 

That's OK, good taste isn't a prerequisite for posting here.

 

My apologies, your opinion must be right.

 

whether you are right or not depends on your number of post Counts ...

And the # of views and/or box office.

[Cat-Man_America]

I also keep people saying the fan ratings are proof that the general public is less harsh on this movie, and for the most part likes it despite the critics. They point to the fact that it has a 70% fan rating on RT. I hate to remind people that AoU has a 84%, Thor Dark World is at 78%, Iron Man 2 is 72%, and Hulk (2008) is 71%. Those Marvel movies listed are the ones most people on these forums complain about, and I would agree with those complaints (except Dark World, but I know I am odd on that one).

 

I think this illustrates that any movie that gets into the 70's on RT fan rating is on shaky ground. People who make the decision to go pay for a movie, and spend the time are already inclined to like a movie. Otherwise, they would not see it in the first place. General movie goers usually have different expectations than critics, and tend to be kinder when rating a film.

 

This is right on point.

 

I'd go further in distrusting the numbers of positive fan reviews. In his first Superman film Zack decided to play a strategic card in targeting church leaders to motivate their flocks to see his film. Mr. Snyder ham-handedly welded Christian symbolism to the Superman mythos in unsubtle ways to make MoS a message movie for true believers. To be absolutely clear on this, I'm not opposed to religious symbolism in films, my concerns are with propaganda, clearly calculated manipulation employed in marketing any film to appeal to a desired audience just to fill more seats. That, IMO, is offensive and demonstrates a cynical disrespect of the audience's intelligence.

 

Folks can see Zack Snyder's efforts to cull an audience for his reenvisionment of Superman as either a brilliant or devisive strategy. From WB's position it's all about the bottom line. Which brings us to Superman vs Batman. Zack had little choice but to double down on his prior approach for Supe's character after setting that tone in the earlier film. My point is that the faith based audience returning for Zack's latest sermon will be loathe to critisize this film regardless of how jumbled and incoherent the story as long as the redemptive subtext is clearly in evidence. For these folks, they couldn't care less about Supe, Batman, story content, dialog delivery or acting, it's all about the ultimate take away message for the Great Unwashed.

 

Dawn was released PG for a very specific reason, to not offend churchgoers with language or content that blunts the underlying message of faith. As I've stated earlier, this reboot bears no resemblance to Jerry Siegel's and Joe Shuster's hopeful vision of Superman much less Bob Kane and Bill Finger's mysterious gadget-savvy sleuth. Those who are drawn to the apocalyptic, angst driven darkness of Zack's end-days world are perfectly happy with his take on DC's tentpole characters and forgiving of the shoddy filmmaking. Those of us who've grown up with an appreciation, dare I say reverence, for the original characters simpler symbolism as tireless seekers of justice standing up for the oppressed masses aren't likely to be bowled over by Zack's cynical take on these classic heroes.

 

Of course, this is just my take away; other's are free to see these rebooted characters in an entirely different context of their choosing. I have no agenda and no desire to offend, this is just my adjusted for the inflated rhetoric surrounding Zack's steaming pile.

[drotto]

I do also hear the argument that WB should have just gone for the longer R rated version. The reason the did not is as simple as money. R rated movies do not perform well at the box office. Deadpool is the exception not the rule. If you look at the top 10 box offices of all time 9 out of 10 are PG13. Then 8 of the next 10 are also PG13. So 17 of the top 20 movies of all time worldwide are PG13. The numbers really speak for themselves. And the other 3 that buck the rating trend are PG family movies.

 

Deadpool is the top earning R movie of all time worldwide. It ranks 66 all time box office. WB made the only decision that made financial sense by editing the movie to get that PG13 rating, the R rating would likely have reduced the total.

[Cat-Man_America]

I do also hear the argument that WB should have just gone for the longer R rated version. The reason the did not is as simple as money. R rated movies do not perform well at the box office. Deadpool is the exception not the rule. If you look at the top 10 box offices of all time 9 out of 10 are PG13. Then 8 of the next 10 are also PG13. So 17 of the top 20 movies of all time worldwide are PG13. The numbers really speak for themselves. And the other 3 that buck the rating trend are PG family movies.

 

Deadpool is the top earning R movie of all time worldwide. It ranks 66 all time box office. WB made the only decision that made financial sense by editing the movie to get that PG13 rating, the R rating would likely have reduced the total.

 

Yes, this is an entirely reasonable business decision given the box office risks. That said, if Warner Bros. exec's are smart they'll jettison everything connected to these apocryphal reboots including Zack Snyder and rebuild the DC universe from the ground up.

 

seeking common sense.

[Silver Surfer]

Plus they will get double the amount of DVD sales when they release both versions.

[gino2paulus2]

Just saw the film and finally caught up on some posts. Not the greatest film of all time by any stretch of the imagination but not horrific either.

 

 

Things I liked. Wonder Woman. Period .Batfleck wasn't a terrible Bruce Wayne either in fact I thought he was cast rather well. Things I really didn't enjoy. All the God like speak was too much for me. I have to side with Cat on this one. I thought Doomsday was uber lame at least until he got his horns. Sounded like Godzilla to me. Meta thing a bit strange. Really disliked the Flash that was a bad casting call there. I am very partial to CWs Grant G's Barry though. The whole Batman vs Sups scene while very cool could have been avoided all together if Bruce would have listened to Clark for simply 2 seconds then once he says Martha he stops? Thats it?!! Then all of a sudden they are best friends. Weirded me out a bit. Lex was also bad. Didn't really enjoy him much. I understand a lot of people saying he delivered but his twitching was driving me bananas. He seemed more like a Joker than genius power hungry madman and definitely not a presidential candidacy in his near future.

 

Overall, the film was definitely worth seeing on the big screen for simply how epic it was. Was it the best or worst Superhero movie yet? Not even close on both accounts. Entertaining? For the most part yes. It is what it is I guess. I will say this much. It was decent enough for me to not shoot JLA in the foot just yet but Aquaman and Flash standalone's with these 2 cast can't be any good. Wonder Woman I would go see. Ahhh maybe I would see Aquaman who knows but gosh that flash really bugged me there.

 

[Cat-Man_America]

Plus they will get double the amount of DVD sales when they release both versions.

 

DVDs? ...do they still make those?

 

OK, here's Zack Snyder's proposed wing and a prayer rug campaign for Warner Home Video:

 

See... Superman and Batman duke it out while seeking redemption and a path to glory!

 

See... The world in a hand basket!! Can FX save the fearful masses?

 

See... Wonder Woman contemplate taking a bite out of the Big Apple!!!

 

Will Lois be rescued from damnation ...again?

 

Coming soon to a pew near you!!!

 

 

Download your copy today!

 

 

Liturgy provided for age appropriate audiences in two flavors for DCiples:

Sunday School PG-13 and New Testament R with bonus Easter eggs and full gnostic branching

 

 

[font:Times New Roman]Now I think I'll go hide under a rock, even though it won't help in the event of a flood from the Noah 'tols.[/font]

 

 

[Aman619]

I enjoyed it, and for anyone who hasn't and has been bombarded with negativity so far -- and like comics --- go and enjoy it on a big screen while you can. Nothing like a near empty theatre to watch a film without distractions! ... especially once your expectations have been grinder down to a nub by the nattering nabobs of negativity..

 

(and a No-Prize to the first True Believer who gets the reference. (It wasn't Stan!)

 

on the discussion of film gross and profitability, I was thinking about the proverbial 50% film rental the trades and websites all throw around -- thats the amount the distributor gets back out of the GROSS ticket sales that gets announced. Well, the old rules have been tweaked, and deals with theaters are more film by film, and have been changed from the sliding scale of profit sharing that resulted in a pretty even split for decades.

 

It seemed off to me that today when there's a billion dollars to split between the studio who gambled cash and borrowed monies to make the film, and theaters who exhibit it (whose hard expenses are paid for by popcorn soda and candy sales) -- that the disturbs couldn't and wouldn't be pushing for a higher %, seeking MORE than an equal share with the theatres.

 

SO I asked some friends in the industry, and nowadays WB can (and probably did, none ever talks specifics) negotiate a better deal that netted them as much as 60-70% of the gross.

 

so, all of our projections of profit = film rental - (negative cost + marketing) are short selling the pics that had better deals on film rental than what we all estimate. This is a pool of "extra profit" that isn't being considered...

Edited April 9, 2016 by aman619

[Straw-Man]

spiro

[Aman619]

bingo! written by William Safire.

 

[Cat-Man_America]

I enjoyed it, and for anyone who hasn't and has been bombarded with negativity so far -- and like comics --- go and enjoy it on a big screen while you can. Nothing like a near empty theatre to watch a film without distractions! ... especially once your expectations have been grinder down to a nub by the nattering nabobs of negativity..

 

(and a No-Prize to the first True Believer who gets the reference. (It wasn't Stan!)

 

Anyone who is a true believer in Pat Buchanan might be just the right audience for Zack's world view.

 

on the discussion of film gross and profitability, I was thinking about the proverbial 50% film rental the trades and websites all throw around -- thats the amount the distributor gets back out of the GROSS ticket sales that gets announced. Well, the old rules have been tweaked, and deals with theaters are more film by film, and have been changed from the sliding scale of profit sharing that resulted in a pretty even split for decades.

 

This may be true as Hollywood accounting favors the failure side of the equation.

 

It seemed off to me that today when there's a billion dollars to split between the studio who gambled cash and borrowed monies to make the film, and theaters who exhibit it (whose hard expenses are paid for by popcorn soda and candy sales) -- that the disturbs couldn't and wouldn't be pushing for a higher %, seeking MORE than an equal share with the theaters.

 

The disturbs would be anyone associated with this franchise.

 

The distributors would be wise to push the limit on the front end from an overhyped blockbuster directed by Zack Snyder. Take the money and run is a good rule of thumb.

 

SO I asked some friends in the industry, and nowadays WB can (and probably did, none ever talks specifics) negotiate a better deal that netted them as much as 60-70% of the gross.

 

so, all of our projections of profit = film rental - (negative cost + marketing) are short selling the pics that had better deals on film rental than what we all estimate. This is a pool of "extra profit" that isn't being considered...

 

My hope is that WB will give Zack the boot and then reboot the Superman franchise in a more traditional heroic vein. Of course, those who are enamored of this kind of dystopian vision are welcome to it.

 

bingo! written by William Safire.

 

I heard Pat Buchanan credited with this a long time ago when he was co-hosting Crossfire (he supposedly came up with this line when he was a speech writer for Nixon), but the actual quote probably was by Safire. Just goes to show that quote sources aren't always reliable between these pusillanimous pussyfooters.

[Aman619]

I may have misremembered and credited Safire. I think it was Buchanan taking credit. but who can remember!

 

go see the film already. judge for yourself. quite a few really nice moments in there you will smile experiencing.

 

[woowoo]

I just went for the 2nd time and it was better the 2nd time. I found 1 easter egg that was cool. I am 99% sure that the guy with no legs when he's at his house useing the tape on his wall was a pic of the cover to Action 1 with Sup lifting the car. I did understand the movie better this time.