BATMAN VS SUPERMAN MOVIE A DOG 0

[Cat-Man_America]

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.

 

When it's available for free I'll try to struggle through it and provide my own review. Hopefully, I won't be cleaning rotten tomato juice off my projection screen.

 

Seriously, I don't want to dissuade folks who honestly want to see this film, but the reality is that contributing money to movies that are disappointing only encourages dismal sequels.

 

Like any cartel, movie studios are in the business of making money by keeping their customers happy. By coincidence, in both business models clientele are at risk of ODing on bad product. As a movie fan, I'd rather avoid that experience.

 

I'd love to see a well done Superman movie, but I hated MoS with a passion and regretted seeing it. I'll never get my time or money back and in retrospect feel guilty having contributed to Zack's obsessive tendencies. The reviews clued me in ahead of time on the sequel (thank goodness).

 

I'm now convinced by the testimonial evidence that Zack Snyder shouldn't be let anywhere near a superhero franchise.

[woowoo]

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

 

 

I'm now convinced by the testimonial evidence that Zack Snyder shouldn't be let anywhere near a superhero franchise.

 

100%

He does not make Sup/Bat look like the heroes i grew up with. I might just have to coll Timely's thats not a bad thing

Edited April 9, 2016 by woowoo

[adamstrange]

 

nattering nabobs of negativity

 

A phrase used by Vice President Spiro Agnew to refer to the members of the media with whom he had a very acrimonious relationship.

 

Said Agnew while speaking to the California state convention on September 11, 1970: “In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4-H Club — the ‘hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history.'”

 

While the phrase is generally attributed to Agnew, it was actually written by White House speechwriter William Safire.

[Mmehdy]

Profit or no profit they did not get avengers money.. Or profit...I really do not believe anybody on these boards would say the movie they saw on the screen the dumbed down version is worth 250 million dollars . It simply is not... Zack the hack fell short and has put a roadblock for dc to challenge marvel which they seem to do better on the small screen with excellent shows. You could take the cost of the entire seasons of arrow, flash , Gotham etc and not come close to 250mil....no I am

Not a naysayer... I say we get short changed on the 250 million negative cost by a studio will no balls and a hack director who sold out his real version to studio pressure to get the kids to buy more candy bars at the theater.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Mmehdy

[Tri-Color Brian]

You people are so picky. the movie wasn't any worse than any of the Batman movies. I enjoyed it, but I like Marvel movies better. I'm just tired of the dark, dreary DC movies with Batman in them. Is it ever sunny in Gotham?

[ComicConnoisseur]

I am hoping the Blu Ray will fill in 'gaps' you could feel while viewing the film.I think a big mistake was trying to blend a Batman reboot with a Superman sequel into one film. It's comic books. They could've found some loophole and just got Bale back and save us an origin rehash taking up valuable minutes. And on top of that trying to mesh two major story arches in each characters history into one movie. I also didn't like the way the battle between the two ended.

 

With that, i did 'like' Affleck, not 'love', but for me the movie 'soared' when big blue was on the screen doing his thing. It's SO hard to believe that a character that has had a radio program, a movie serial, three live action television series(four if you count Superboy), a Broadway show, six major motion pictures (and for a while, was the only superhero character that could get green lighted to take such a risk), that has been referenced in hundreds of songs, that has seen countless animation incarnations, and survived over 75 years on the printed page, and licensed products cannot be done right and 'treated' with the respect such a legacy deserves. When did Superman suddenly become a property that no one knows how to handle? Insane!

 

Superman is not Batman. Once DC realizes this again it could be a start for better times again for the greatest super hero of all times.

 

I have tried to keep this spoiler free for the few who have not seen it yet, so i'll wrap for now just saying i gave it a B-. The blu ray could change my opinion.

When you put Superman in Batman`s world this is what happens,

I always thought Superman should just be left alone, and not mix with other DC Heroes.

I always found the George Reeves Superman TV show and Fleischer Studios animated Superman to be the most interesting Superman stories where Superman is just the focus,than when they put Superman in the DC Universe. When Superman interacts with the DC Universe it get`s silly,and Superman becomes very uninteresting.

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

ComicBook.com's users (8,200+ of them) have voted Dawn of Justice a 4.26/5 -- the the 3rd highest grade given to a comic book movie ever.

 

Although I enjoyed the film, I don't think I'd grade it that high.

 

But from my personal experience, those who have seen the film have spoken MUCH higher of it than the critics and those on the boards.

 

Kinda hard to argue with the box office numbers. 70% decline from last weekend to this weekend, with nothing in the theaters to challenge. The only thing keeping people away from BvS is BvS. It is STILL going to sell a whole lot of tickets. It might even make money, though most analysts say it will have to approach a billion dollar box office to do that. I think the big wigs at WB aren't happy campers.

 

I can't speak from a marketing/profit standpoint. Personally, I feel that their decision to release a trailer that gave away far too much of the plot was a very poor decision.

 

A lot of people that I spoke to said they wouldn't bother going to see the film in theaters because the trailer basically gave away the entire story. We knew going in that whatever conflict Batman and Superman had would eventually be shelved/resolved so that they could team up with Wonder Woman to face Doomsday. WB may have invested a lot into marketing the film, but their work ended up costing themselves ticket sales for reasons completely unrelated to the quality of the film itself.

 

When it's all said and done, I suspect Dawn of Justice will bring in something close to the 773M that Guardians of the Galaxy (a critical success) did.

 

-ComicBook.com's users rate the film very high.

-Rotten Tomatoes audience rates the film 41% higher than the critics.

 

And despite, what was IMO, a flawed marketing campaign, Dawn of Justice will finish with one of the highest box office totals in comic book film history. That's not to say the film won't finish below expectation, I'm just saying that it's box office performance and fan feedback looks better than what the critics, and many on the boards have had to say.

 

just imagine a smoke-filled room meeting with warner/dc bigwigs a few months ago, where a seer told them their movie would just barely eke by the little deadpool movie in ww box office, and ONLY because china didn't let deadpool in. every jaw would've been on the floor.

Deadpool has been the modern comic book hero for awhile now among modern comic book readers and video gamers. Deadpool became a huge popular character in the Marvel video games over this past decade.

It just took modern mainstream this long to discover him.

Deadpool is what they want now.

Superman fans shouldn't feel despaired though because even Spider-Man seems old-fashioned and long-in tooth compared to Deadpool.

 

[Cat-Man_America]

You people are so picky. the movie wasn't any worse than any of the Batman movies. I enjoyed it, but I like Marvel movies better. I'm just tired of the dark, dreary DC movies with Batman in them. Is it ever sunny in Gotham?

 

Thank you. Pickiness is an excellent indicator of good taste!

 

 

[bane]

I became Bat-Mad at 9 years old after leaving the cinema having watched Batman (1989), I then read everything the 80s had to offer and beyond, I then bought collected editions (I own every Batman related hardcover produced) and I have enjoyed them all through the years.

 

But "my" Batman will always be Year One and DKR. The Nolan trilogy is "my" Batman, what Snyder did with the character is "my" Batman.

 

Each to their own and what they like. I've never read Superman and have no interest to do so, I've always disliked super powered heroes. I loved Superman the Movie and its sequel, mostly because Reeves was so amazing at producing two different characters, but those films have really aged.

 

When I watched Man of Steel I loved it and after subsequent viewings I still do, I understand David's point of view (even though I really disagree with it) because I had to endure Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, terrible campy versions of a character I felt deeply about.

 

So as much as I love MoS and BvS equally and others don't, here's hoping Warners produce something we all love while being fresh, original and different to the cookie cutter Disneyverse.

[ComicConnoisseur]

You people are so picky. the movie wasn't any worse than any of the Batman movies. I enjoyed it, but I like Marvel movies better. I'm just tired of the dark, dreary DC movies with Batman in them. Is it ever sunny in Gotham?

Yes.

[goldust40]

I became Bat-Mad at 9 years old after leaving the cinema having watched Batman (1989), I then read everything the 80s had to offer and beyond, I then bought collected editions (I own every Batman related hardcover produced) and I have enjoyed them all through the years.

 

You got into serious collecting via the movies? That makes you unique.

[ComicConnoisseur]

I became Bat-Mad at 9 years old after leaving the cinema having watched Batman (1989), I then read everything the 80s had to offer and beyond, I then bought collected editions (I own every Batman related hardcover produced) and I have enjoyed them all through the years.

 

But "my" Batman will always be Year One and DKR. The Nolan trilogy is "my" Batman, what Snyder did with the character is "my" Batman.

 

Each to their own and what they like. I've never read Superman and have no interest to do so, I've always disliked super powered heroes. I loved Superman the Movie and its sequel, mostly because Reeves was so amazing at producing two different characters, but those films have really aged.

 

When I watched Man of Steel I loved it and after subsequent viewings I still do, I understand David's point of view (even though I really disagree with it) because I had to endure Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, terrible campy versions of a character I felt deeply about.

 

So as much as I love MoS and BvS equally and others don't, here's hoping Warners produce something we all love while being fresh, original and different to the cookie cutter Disneyverse.

You make very good points.

Batman has reinvented himself and introduced new fans over the years with top notch movies/shows like

Batman (1989)

The Nolan Batman Trilogy

Batman: The Batman Animated Series

books like

The Dark Knight Returns

Batman Year One

Knightfall

Hush

Long Halloween

Killing Joke

A Death in a Family(Robin dies).

even video games had the acclaimed Batman: Arkham Trilogy.

 

What has Superman done in that same time frame?

He got killed and had a goody two shoes show like Lois and Clark that showed Superman domesticated to Lois!

 

Oh wonder why the fans have gravitated to Batman over Superman and find him much cooler!

 

 

 

[bane]

I became Bat-Mad at 9 years old after leaving the cinema having watched Batman (1989), I then read everything the 80s had to offer and beyond, I then bought collected editions (I own every Batman related hardcover produced) and I have enjoyed them all through the years.

 

You got into serious collecting via the movies? That makes you unique.

 

Yes. I had no exposure to DC or Marvel as a child, I grew up with cartoons such as He-Man, Thundercats and Transformers and would read UK comics based on those characters. When everyone was into Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles I was into Batman.

 

I wanted to collect everything Batman and comics became an extension of that, when I started reading the comics I fell in love with the stories, character and art. Then it became all about the comics.

 

Soon as I got my first paying job shortly before turning 17 the first thing I did was setup a subscription with my local comic shop for all future Bat releases while collecting back issues, trades and hardcovers.

 

When I used to go on holiday to North America I always used to look out for comic shops so I could fill gaps in the collection.

[goldust40]

I became Bat-Mad at 9 years old after leaving the cinema having watched Batman (1989), I then read everything the 80s had to offer and beyond, I then bought collected editions (I own every Batman related hardcover produced) and I have enjoyed them all through the years.

 

You got into serious collecting via the movies? That makes you unique.

 

Yes. I had no exposure to DC or Marvel as a child, I grew up with cartoons such as He-Man, Thundercats and Transformers and would read UK comics based on those characters. When everyone was into Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles I was into Batman.

 

I wanted to collect everything Batman and comics became an extension of that, when I started reading the comics I fell in love with the stories, character and art. Then it became all about the comics.

 

Soon as I got my first paying job shortly before turning 17 the first thing I did was setup a subscription with my local comic shop for all future Bat releases while collecting back issues, trades and hardcovers.

 

When I used to go on holiday to North America I always used to look out for comic shops so I could fill gaps in the collection.

 

Bat's dedication!

[Wayne-Tec]

I became Bat-Mad at 9 years old after leaving the cinema having watched Batman (1989), I then read everything the 80s had to offer and beyond, I then bought collected editions (I own every Batman related hardcover produced) and I have enjoyed them all through the years.

 

But "my" Batman will always be Year One and DKR. The Nolan trilogy is "my" Batman, what Snyder did with the character is "my" Batman.

 

Each to their own and what they like. I've never read Superman and have no interest to do so, I've always disliked super powered heroes. I loved Superman the Movie and its sequel, mostly because Reeves was so amazing at producing two different characters, but those films have really aged.

 

When I watched Man of Steel I loved it and after subsequent viewings I still do, I understand David's point of view (even though I really disagree with it) because I had to endure Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, terrible campy versions of a character I felt deeply about.

 

So as much as I love MoS and BvS equally and others don't, here's hoping Warners produce something we all love while being fresh, original and different to the cookie cutter Disneyverse.

You make very good points.

Batman has reinvented himself and introduced new fans over the years with top notch movies/shows like

Batman (1989)

The Nolan Batman Trilogy

Batman: The Batman Animated Series

books like

The Dark Knight Returns

Batman Year One

Knightfall

Hush

Long Halloween

Killing Joke

A Death in a Family(Robin dies).

even video games had the acclaimed Batman: Arkham Trilogy.

 

What has Superman done in that same time frame?

He got killed and had a goody two shoes show like Lois and Clark that showed Superman domesticated to Lois!

 

Oh wonder why the fans have gravitated to Batman over Superman and find him much cooler!

 

 

 

I actually found Lois and Clark to be entertaining. Was it a definitive take on the character? No. But it was entertaining for what it was. Not all characters are equally adaptable to change. Batman may be one of the best examples, with the ability to be funny (Adam West), Burton'y (Michael Keaton), serious (Christian Bale), successful in the animated realm (Kevin Conroy), interactive in a graphic novel brought to life style (the Arkham video game series) so on and so fourth.

 

And while Superman has been reinterpreted himself, the "truth, justice and the American way" aspect of the character has become so permanently engrained in the public's minds, I think they find it tough to see him deviate from that.

 

Superman's portrayal in the new DCU is imperfect. My greatest issues came early in MoS, after seeing his earth-father sacrifice his life to help protect his secret, Clark spends the first quarter of the movie displaying physical feats of strength in plain sight. Impaling a tractor trailer? Funny, but senselessly reckless in respects to protecting his identity, to an extent that took so much away from the efforts established to protect it.

 

I had no issue with him taking Zod's life. It went against the grain, but not just for the sake of going against the grain. The writers put Superman in a difficult situation and forced him to make the decision that would protect innocence. It's too easy to avoid putting him in those types of situations, but they did, and it was clear that it hurt the character to have to make that decision. That type of emotional conflict was absent from previous interpretations of the character. The closest thing to tragedy that Christopher Reeves' Superman faced was losing Lois at the end of the first film, a move that was conveniently un-done by his sudden ability to "turn back time."

 

It's funny, people are quick to point out the plot holes in the new franchise (myself included, I just did with MoS) but are quiet when it comes to doing the same for the old, beloved franchise. When was it ever established that Superman could turn back time if he was emotionally motivated enough by flying around the world? Imagine if Snyder suddenly did the same for Superman's tragedy in MoS. Superman breaks Zod's neck, screams like Superman did for Lois in the 1978 film, flies fast around the world, turns back time, instead of destroying Metropolis in a battle, sneaks behind Zod, knocks him out and saves the day. Convenient? Yes. Practical? No.

 

Michael Keaton's Batman could kill without conscious, set people on fire, strap a bomb to a criminal, blow him up and it was all considered "funny"? It doesn't matter if such portrayals went against what had already been established by 1989. It didn't make the movie any less entertaining, so I'm not at all criticizing it in that respect. Just pointing out the obvious inconsistencies in respects to criticism.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Wayne-Tec

[drotto]

I do find it a little funny that people keep saying they want a darker comic movie like it has never been done before. Yes Marvel has pushed it movie to the middle to middle/light side of things, but there have been many dark comic movies. The Nolan Batman's, Burton Batman's, Blade, Sin City, Watchman, MoS, etc. They are not in short supply. It just so happens Marvel style has dominated the last 5 years.

[Mmehdy]

Time for dc to get a fresh vision ..a new opinion.. We do have to remember it was the 1978 original superman movie that elevated comic book material to mega movie status thanks to Marlin Brando and gene Hackman being cast... The two biggest names in movies at the time and a director who fought tooth and nail with the producers to make a non camp version of superman Richard donner.. If you want to know what Richard went thru go to hollywoodreporter.com and check out article on the making of the original superman which was posted a few days ago...one of the best movie making articles I have ever read... That is guts.. Getting a phone call offering you one million dollars back when it ment something and being over budget and never knowing the budget as well as casting a unknown for the part.. That movie especially the first half shown what a filmmaker can do when he loves and respects the material ... Great read

[Randall Ries]

We can punch holes in any movie and I think hero movies are especially susceptible to that. I watch the Avengers and conclude that Black Widow would have been wasted pretty quickly as would Hawkeye. Doing somersaults and waving a couple of pistols around in the face of an alien invasion, she would have been dispatched pretty handily. The aliens are privvy to some really advanced technology, and inter dimensional travelers and Natasha has a glock? K.

 

The other side of that is the aliens that DO invade, like the Orcs in the LOTR trilogy, are feared before battle by reputation, but once the battle gets underway, are fairly inept and get killed by the hundreds, with our hero's suffering nary a scratch. The only thing that saved the "gang" in ROTK was the ghost army. Must be nice to have benevolent writers getting you out of a squeak constantly.

 

The other thing to remember as well is the times WE live in aren't the 1950's, where there were no terrorist threats and the heavy narcissism and negativity we live with every day. This movie (MOS, BvS) is a reflection of the times as was George Reeves Superman was.

 

The human race, being in the predicament we are now, naturally looks for a savior to bail them out of distressing times. It's why we vote. If that savior is way mightier, or that savior has its own agenda, then there is going to be a problem. It's a "Save Us Then Go Away" mentality. People are superstitious and suspicious by nature. Like in MOS, if someone showed up all of a sudden with Clark's abilities and went public with them, it would hit the fan. Talk about divisiveness. The 1950's Superman was accepted and lauded. Given awards. Today's Superman would be considered a threat. Especially a Superman who outright said he wouldn't be controlled.

 

We actually LIVE in a dystopian society.

[Cat-Man_America]

True, we live in a dystopian society, but why pander to it? If our heroes are incapable of rising above the nastiness they simply become a sad reflection of it. One of the things I absolutely loathe about Zack Snyder's first of two Superman fiascos is how he turned the Superman mythos into a modern form of camp, ...an unfunny camp pastiche of the most iconic of American heroes. Superman as a jumble of confused emotions and angst. He's been turned into an apologist for American violence while reflecting it's worst excesses.

 

The heavy handed religious iconography not only turned me off, it was offensive and manipulative propaganda that had no place in an uplifting movie about comic book heroism. I'll never forgive Zack Snyder for deconstructing Siegel and Shuster's greatest triumph. BTW, I don't agree with those who feel a character must be completely reconstructed for each new generation of movie goers. While the first Captain America film had it's faults, it brilliantly bridged the WWII era patriotic mind-set and successfully brought the character into an alien future with his character intact.

 

DC's franchise holders apparently see Superman more like Gumby, moldable into whatever era he can be dropped into with no homage to past greatness. One simple solution would've been to make him ageless as a part of his immortality. That'd add greater depth to his character and complicate his emotional involvements and interactions with people. Of course, this is too complicated and risky for Zack Snyder. He wanted a Transformers audience, so he dumbed down MoS with lots of FX, tossed in strong Christian religious references packaged and sold to ministers who recommended it to their congregations and sold tons of tickets. It was a cynical approach to creating a blockbuster, but it worked.

 

Those who like MoS have their reasons, but obviously they saw a different film than I did or have set the bar so low for DC's dystopian black hole that they've come to the conclusion that any film is better than nothing. The tornado death scene of Pa Kent may be the single worst scene I've ever witnessed in a movie. I mentally gagged and should have walked out. The heavy handed religious symbolism reached the level of product placement, ...like performance cars in a Bond flick. The treatment of women in MoS as weak, weak-minded, vapid and inferior was offensive. The dialog was moronic and stereotypes pervasive. Those who liked Snyder's first Superman film are beyond my understanding, but he has his defenders.

 

As I haven't seen Supe & Batfleck 2.0 my assessments are based on second and third hand appraisals, but there's strong enough critical consensus to know what to expect. I'd only ask my friends here to try and look at this honestly from a comic book fans standpoint. Would you buy Zack's reenvisioned dystopian take on Siegel & Shuster's character if it was a comic instead of a movie or would you pass and buy something more fun to read? Food for thought.

[bane]

I respect your opinion but you make it very hard to.

 

I feel like your just browbeating everyone with "your" opinion because it's the right and only one.