# Batman V Superman



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

There seems to be little to no interest in this movie, and I am really quite surprised, despite WB's best intentions to market and create hype, it seems not many people seem to be interested. 


I suppose outside of MARVEL FILMS, superhero's and comic books still really aren't all that popular or still shown that much interest or appeal.

Despite the mixed reviews; to which, I want to point out at this point, I don't think is any indication that this movie is bad, but simply that critics and audiences are very much split across the board on this thing, the movie is very well made. 

I do not think this is a typical "blockbuster" and not only merely an attempt at entertainment. DC obviously was going for something a bit more meaningful then typical popcorn fare, which I really enjoyed seeing expressed with such a huge budget and effects to really spare, and only got across the underlying meaning, and emotional aspects of the movie. 

I highly recommend this and to not simply listen to the reviews if you're looking at an attempt at a serious and mature take on the superhero genre and all things epic with even veering on the line of Greek mythology a bit.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Oh, it appears the reviews were actually quite bad.

I am quite surprised, I actually thought it was a really really good movie. This was not the mainstream movie that everyone wanted or expected. It's not a mindless blockbuster, it's not for kids, and it's not for pushing toys to children.

The acting was also really good as well. I encourage anyone with an open mind to see this movie, or who enjoys thought provoking films. I personally thought this was the best take on the "superhero" genre. Obviously the critics must have some sort of an agenda here. It happens at times. 

Maybe I am a little biased; but I thought alone, it was interesting to see a Hollywood blockbuster of this scope, tackle this sort of subject matter, as it's rarely done, especially a classy manner such as this. 

I loved all of the metaphysical and philosophical aspects the movie attempted to portray, but maybe all the cool action and effects are making me feel this way when in actuality it's not so great as I think it is. (of course, it's always subjective)

I'm going to put this alongside Ang Lee's "Hulk" film within how I believe it will be perceived; though, obviously this movie is better made. 

I want them to make a sequel.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Oh and the soundtrack was just freaking amazing.

Seriously, just crank this song, it's pure awesome.


----------



## Wellington (Sep 9, 2015)

After seeing the reviews I was expecting to see a disaster when I saw it, but this is one of the few times where I've walked out of a cinema wondering whether or not I saw the same movie as the critics. The film has undeniable flaws, the pacing could use work, the editing can be jarring and sloppy, some CGI was outright horrible (I swear, how did that Cyborg cameo get into the final cut?) but this movie in no way deserves the scores it's been getting.

It did it's job in setting up the DCEU, I'm excited for the Wonder Woman movie because Gal was great in the role (and I don't even particularly like the Wonder Woman character in the comics), I'm gonna go all in and say that Ben Affleck's Batman is the best one to date so I can't wait for a solo film from him, can't wait for the Justice League movie (the cameos, although forced, got me hyped). Jeremy Irons Alfred was amazing (actually, anything Batman related was great). I feel like Henry Caville has settled much better into the role of Superman, a step up from Man of Steel. The dialogue was pretty good, but I guess an Oscar winning writer will do that for you. The action sequences were absolutely amazing (holy shit that Batman scene where he bodies those thugs was fantastic). The ending was great as well.

Overall I'd give it a solid 7-8/10, probably 7.5
This is not a movie deserving of 9 or 10 out 10, like some fans have been giving it, but it *certainly* does *not* deserve below a 5. No idea why the critics are ravaging this movie so much, my sister who is a Marvel fangirl through and through (was primed to hate this movie) walked out loving it. I thought it was better than Man of Steel. Weird reviews that unfortunately are probably going to negatively affect how well the movie does financially, nevertheless I'll be rewatching it.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

I'm still not sure whether to see it or not...

At first the idea seemed pretty stupid, but having read more about it, it seems to touch interesting aspects of superheroism, with more of a Watchmen-type attitude compared to... well, what Marvel offers... Lately I've been intrigued by the way movies relate to larger mythologies, and this would qualify as research material. Also I'm curious how Ben Affleck will pull out this role. I think he'd be just perfect, but we'll have to see.

Your reviews convinced me. I'll go see it. No regrets.

Oh, but the CGI wasn't totally unbearable, I hope?


----------



## 68097 (Nov 20, 2013)

I'll say why I'm not interested (though Han Zimmer is one of my favorite composers -- he's a genius).

I'm not a fan of either recasting. The "new" Superman has zero personality while not really appealing to me as Superman. I thought "Man of Steel" was TERRIBLE. Did not like a single person cast. The ending where he levels half of Metropolis and doesn't bother saving anyone was the final straw.

Then... we just had a (in my mind) awesome Batman series, which came full circle and ended in a good place. I have no interest in a new Batman, particularly Ben Affleck, whom I've never cared about one way or the other. 

After 10 seasons, 8 of them with a spectacular Lex Luthor, of SMALLVILLE, this cheesy little twit Luthor does nothing for me.

Part of me thinks I ought to throw in the towel and see it anyway. Maybe I'll be surprised. Maybe I'll love it. Or maybe I'm so much "over" the entire comic book franchise at this point (I haven't even bothered seeing the latest Avengers movies) that I'd sit there hating it for the pure joy of hating it. 

Either way, I hope it pleases the people who do go to see it.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

LolTengu said:


> After seeing the reviews I was expecting to see a disaster when I saw it, but this is one of the few times where I've walked out of a cinema wondering whether or not I saw the same movie as the critics. The film has undeniable flaws, the pacing could use work, the editing can be jarring and sloppy, some CGI was outright horrible (I swear, how did that Cyborg cameo get into the final cut?) but this movie in no way deserves the scores it's been getting.
> 
> It did it's job in setting up the DCEU, I'm excited for the Wonder Woman movie because Gal was great in the role (and I don't even particularly like the Wonder Woman character in the comics), I'm gonna go all in and say that Ben Affleck's Batman is the best one to date so I can't wait for a solo film from him, can't wait for the Justice League movie (the cameos, although forced, got me hyped). Jeremy Irons Alfred was amazing (actually, anything Batman related was great). I feel like Henry Caville has settled much better into the role of Superman, a step up from Man of Steel. The dialogue was pretty good, but I guess an Oscar winning writer will do that for you. The action sequences were absolutely amazing (holy shit that Batman scene where he bodies those thugs was fantastic). The ending was great as well.
> 
> ...


I think everyone is almost looking for a reason to dislike this movie and almost seem to be going out of their way to find flaws and nitpick; to which, could you explain to me what a "perfect" movie or film is exactly? 

now that I think about it, it's such a weird way to talk about movies. "Well, this movie certainly had flaws" 

Maybe it's just simply that certain preconceived notions and notions need to be let go off in order to enjoy something that doesn't necessarily need to outright have specific rules in order to enjoy or appreciate something. It's just silly to me.

But I understand, this isn't necessarily an "art-house" film. 

It had things that perhaps didn't quite mesh well together, but the aspects I liked outweighed the flaws for me. I was genuinely moved and touched by the film, but perhaps that are less bombastic and more serious in terms of approaching the subject matter; but the visuals are what made this such a enjoyable movie to me as well.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

What I think that that is sort of strange is how movies that are outright considered a different genre all together like Harry Potter and Lord of The Rings had many of the same elements or features in the way they were filmed, or told but yet similarly when they are included into a "superhero" movie, they are often criticized or treated as if somehow somehow grave mistake or error is being committed as if for some unsaid reason the two cannot or should not exist or have a place in such movies all together and any attempt at doing so it utterly wrong. I think there is simply just this deeply embedded belief in how superhero movies "should" be told, when really they are no different then any other fantasy or science fiction film. 

I kind of think this movie could just as well be considered "fantasy" as well, then just simply a "superhero" film; or with the very least "fantasy" aspects, which should be accounted for. 

(In regards to the fact that the movie was apparently "too" long) yet the LOTR movies were all 3 hours long, and that was fine. Critically acclaimed and loved by many. They were done in a way that was familiar and "appropriate" 

Oh and I thought Eisneberg's take on Lex Luthor was actually quite interesting. The problem is, no one really wants to just watch some really smart evil bald guy in a suit as the main villain and Superman's most evil adversary. I really feel as though he had more depth, and fit in more with today's world, and makes sense in that way if you think about it. He fits to me, a more timeless and appropriate portray of the character and villain. He has been portrayed this way many times in the comics before, but still has a very stern and serious side to him. He was more realistic and fleshed out. That's honestly how I think Lex Luthor would be like if he existed in reality. Kind of a genius, neurotic evil megalomaniac. (not only did he have some sort of "short man" syndrome, but also was obviously some sort of nihilist or hardcore atheist on a warpath; and I guess just megalomania, power lust) 

I think it was also a good idea to go forward with a Justice League movie instead of more solo Superman films, as I believe the character on the silver screen works better in a team movie with other characters. It's easier to understand and sympathize with Superman himself as a character when he has others to interact and share dialogue with. Because when you think about it, much like his position in the world as an alien, a near immortal being, he is simply an outsider at his core, who simply feels he does not quite belong or could ever quite be truly "accepted" or have a place in this world anywhere.

For all intensive purposes, the earth is Superman's home and he simply desire to protect it; yet to most, he will always be 'different' in some form or another, and literally an "alien" from another world all together. But it's simply not what general audiences want at the moment, and likewise, difficult to turn that into an engaging movie by itself.

The movie as well touched on many subjects, and like the DC characters themselves, often serve as metaphorical representations of certain beliefs or virtues placed in a world struggling with and again, metaphorical or allegorical (and quite often "literal" as well) representations of issues that are impacting our world today.

That's what DC is about and how they often attempt to delve into with their stories and characters; and that's what they did with this movie. 


Alone, they asked questions pertaining to political, spiritual, and very metaphysical/philosophical types of questions.


I think the movie at it's core asked: What does it mean to be a hero? what makes somebody a "hero"? 

But I think simply because this movie broke some rules and didn't stick to any specific "formula" or "how things should be" it was critical lambasted. I think too many people went into this movie not even understanding the characters or what they are supposed to represent.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Oh, and it was criticized for attempting or simply being too "heavy" which only "weighed the movie down" and was "boring" and having "unnecessary drama" 

really? are you serious, is that an actual complaint? but what about if the drama or "heavy" and philosophical elements were actually good in anyway? and how would you measure "good" then? oh just another example of not sticking to some pre-established outdated formula. 


But yes, I guess the movie has "flaws" but it still just feels sort of like nitpicking a bit with me. Like generally, everyone wants to find things wrong with *shrugs*I guess it's hard for to agree with the assertion that it's "flawed" to the point where you'd outright label or call it that. I suppose, because I just really liked it for some reason. 

But I'm not a Hollywood movie type of person, I guess. I don't care for many of them. 
This movie almost reminded me of an anime, or foreign Japanese attempts at more big budget or fantasy type films. 

Zach Snyder's directing style really for me, at some times reminded me of Ghost Busters and Blade Runner; to which for me, are two of my most favorite movies of all time. There's something in his style and the way the story was told, that really hankered back and reminded me of them. 
I suppose the movie took time to develop itself as well, not be overly showy or in a rush outside of the actions scenes. Which, I feel many movies today that are similar try too hard to be loud, or just don't really have any character centered drama; or actually touch base with things that are really going on in the world that matter.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Keep in mind they did cut about 30 mins of the whole original length, hence the "rushed" aspect. Otherwise ? awesome movie. Way better than Dark Knight and Dark Knight Returns combined, better than Thor solo movies, better than Iron Man 2 & 3.

So much symbolism in just about every aspect + the ending was gut wrenching. Action scenes are just so up there once again, Snyder simply have no competition on that end (not a single superhero movie reached MoS in term of visual quality just yet, BvS being the exception but it doesn't count).

Wonder Woman killed it, Lex was exactly how he was in the comics, the third act was insane.

That being said, it's pretty much a movie for fans. Don't think the rest will actually enjoy it


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

"Warner Bros. Pictures‘ *Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice* opened with a huge $27.7 million from Thursday previews, which marks the highest Thursday preshow for Easter weekend. The previous record was set by *Furious 7* last year with $15.8 million. The total includes $3.6 million from IMAX theaters, which is also their largest Easter preshow ever."


Okay, I'm not worried anymore. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Sygma said:


> Keep in mind they did cut about 30 mins of the whole original length, hence the "rushed" aspect. Otherwise ? awesome movie. Way better than Dark Knight and Dark Knight Returns combined, better than Thor solo movies, better than Iron Man 2 & 3.
> 
> So much symbolism in just about every aspect + the ending was gut wrenching. Action scenes are just so up there once again, Snyder simply have no competition on that end (not a single superhero movie reached MoS in term of visual quality just yet, BvS being the exception but it doesn't count).
> 
> ...


Wow, glad to know I'm not alone.

Yeah, I guess it's for the "fans" only, huh? your post makes me think I may have gone simply too far with my thoughts on the whole thing :shocked:

I felt like such a giddy fan boy at the end seeing Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman together. I don't think I realized how much of a DC fan I was until now.

I at some point thought that "wow, THIS IS JUST LIKE THE JUSTICE LEAGUE, ON FILM IN LIVE ACTION. IN LIVE ACTION ON FILM!! EXACTLY!" I just loved it.

Did you just love the Flash scene from the future? what do you think he was eluding to? Bruce, you were right all along! 

It was obviously the Flash right? 

I loved how they hinted that Batman was slightly insane throughout the whole movie, too. It was so funny.


----------



## Korra (Feb 28, 2015)

angelcat said:


> After 10 seasons, 8 of them with a spectacular Lex Luthor, of SMALLVILLE, this cheesy little twit Luthor does nothing for me.


It's always awesome to see praise for that portrayal of Lex. I hardly see anyone bring up Smallville whenever these DC movies pop up. I very much can't get behind this new incarnation of Lex either. 

I have also not seen this movie, and the reviews thus far are definitely swaying me. The movie has a lot of visual excellence, but falls flat in terms of content. While yes, it's trying to portray a grittier and 'realistic' take on DC heroes, the reviews seem to be saying that the movie is barely scratching the surface on any of the themes. Just when you want the story to focus on philosophical turmoil within Superman and Batman, it trails off into a completely different story arc, leaving the previous arc unfulfilled. The critics do want a 'deep' story, but apparently it's a victim of style over substance, and too weighed down trying to compete with Marvel of creating a hero-verse. Why the rush to include other DC heroes when they're just going to be crammed in at the end?


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Nah it have the "substance". its just you know, 30 mins removed from the original cut and you can certainly feel it. Nonenthless, if you're a fan of the source material, go for it, you'll have the time of your life


----------



## floatingpoint (Dec 30, 2015)

I really enjoyed the movie! I agree that critics are going too hard on the film. I think it's the general public is just suffering from superhero fatigue. I think that people who have loved Batman and Superman since they were kids will really dig this movie! It's not particularly heavy or exhausting in my opinion, and I don't think the movie is stupid or meaningless, either. I'm not sure that it's as intelligent as Captain America Winter Soldier, and it definitely isn't as smart as the Dark Knight. Still, Lex Luther has some interesting lines, and honestly this is about as intelligent as comic books are usually. I'm definitely seeing the movie again.


----------



## infjhere (Mar 8, 2016)

I think a better movie would be a battle between Underdog and Hong Kong Fuey.


----------



## Wellington (Sep 9, 2015)

DOGSOUP said:


> I'm still not sure whether to see it or not...
> 
> At first the idea seemed pretty stupid, but having read more about it, it seems to touch interesting aspects of superheroism, with more of a Watchmen-type attitude compared to... well, what Marvel offers... Lately I've been intrigued by the way movies relate to larger mythologies, and this would qualify as research material. Also I'm curious how Ben Affleck will pull out this role. I think he'd be just perfect, but we'll have to see.
> 
> ...


The CGI was not really unbearable, but there were some scenes where it was a tad unrefined (the Cyborg cameo in particular).



angelcat said:


> I'll say why I'm not interested (though Han Zimmer is one of my favorite composers -- he's a genius).
> 
> I'm not a fan of either recasting. The "new" Superman has zero personality while not really appealing to me as Superman. I thought "Man of Steel" was TERRIBLE. Did not like a single person cast. The ending where he levels half of Metropolis and doesn't bother saving anyone was the final straw.


I feel a similar way, Caville I feel, though he has settled into the role more than MoS, is still a little wooden in his delivery. The Superman parts of the movie seemed to drag.



angelcat said:


> Then... we just had a (in my mind) awesome Batman series, which came full circle and ended in a good place. I have no interest in a new Batman, particularly Ben Affleck, whom I've never cared about one way or the other.


Trust me, Ben Affleck knocks it completely out of the park. I'm seriously gonna go all in and say he's the best Batman we've had to date. Seriously looking forward to seeing more of this guy.



angelcat said:


> After 10 seasons, 8 of them with a spectacular Lex Luthor, of SMALLVILLE, this cheesy little twit Luthor does nothing for me.


Lex was weird to me. He is close to _nothing_ like the original Luthor and he adds a psychopathic element to everything, but he can be distracting and annoying at times.



angelcat said:


> Part of me thinks I ought to throw in the towel and see it anyway. Maybe I'll be surprised. Maybe I'll love it. Or maybe I'm so much "over" the entire comic book franchise at this point (I haven't even bothered seeing the latest Avengers movies) that I'd sit there hating it for the pure joy of hating it.


I do recommend watching it, at the very least it's enjoyable.


----------



## 68097 (Nov 20, 2013)

Korra said:


> It's always awesome to see praise for that portrayal of Lex. I hardly see anyone bring up Smallville whenever these DC movies pop up. I very much can't get behind this new incarnation of Lex either.












I LIVED Smallville for about 6 years. I started watching "live" in season 4, after marathoning 3 seasons one summer. Lex was the best thing about that show. Not only is Michael an incredible actor, they actually made Lex nuanced, deep, interesting, and gave him a heart-wrenching fall from grace. He ruined me, as far as other Lexs go. Every other one is high camp descending into pure stupidity -- a Joker-esque villain rather than an ingenious mastermind. Once they bring THAT Lex to the table, a Lex on par with, say, the lead in "The Blacklist" -- a super-villain ENTJ ahead of everyone else by sixteen moves, I'll be there with bells on. 



LolTengu said:


> I feel a similar way, Caville I feel, though he has settled into the role more than MoS, is still a little wooden in his delivery. The Superman parts of the movie seemed to drag.


Caville has always been more pretty than talent in my opinion. I hated his wooden acting in "The Tudors," I hated it in "Man of Steel," and I will probably continue hating it into infinity. Though if the movie really is worth seeing, I might make an exception and go for curiosity's sake.



> Trust me, Ben Affleck knocks it completely out of the park. I'm seriously gonna go all in and say he's the best Batman we've had to date. Seriously looking forward to seeing more of this guy.


REALLY. Now I'm intrigued.



> Lex was weird to me. He is close to _nothing_ like the original Luthor and he adds a psychopathic element to everything, but he can be distracting and annoying at times.


I read somewhere that this is supposed to not be THE Lex Luthor, but Lex's son Alexander, but it was a statement on a message board, so whether it's true or not I don't know. If so, thank God. If not, ugh... another freakazoid Lex? No thanks.



> I do recommend watching it, at the very least it's enjoyable.


Might wait for the DVD. Or get up tomorrow and go. I never know about these things. Haha.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Based on the reviews I've read and seen on youtube, the main issue with the film seems to be the pacing. They're trying too hard to push the Justice League in order to compete with the Avengers films.

The problem is that Marvel built towards the Avengers over the course of several movies. Captain America, Thor, Iron Man 1 and 2... these films built toward creating the avengers. There was an over-arching idea that they built toward. In Captain America they introduced the tesseract. Which has connected movies like Guardians of the Galaxy. So Disney/Marvel built a world over the course of 8 years or so, plus however long each film took to be created.

DC is trying to do all of that work in one film.

The end result is geeks raging like this(warning spoiler filled video):


* *













On top of that, they're not making use of any of the existing live action shows they've already created. It seems like DC has shot themselves in the foot due to their own impatience.


----------



## Korra (Feb 28, 2015)

Cheveyo said:


> On top of that, they're not making use of any of the existing live action shows they've already created. It seems like DC has shot themselves in the foot due to their own impatience.


That's really the most baffling to me about it all. All these damn DC shows and somehow they're still treated like they're non-existent within the movie-verse. Imagine the hype having your established TV heroes come together onto the big screen!


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Batman is not even a superhero that's what makes his movies bad. Except for the one with the Freeze guy.


----------



## Korra (Feb 28, 2015)

Right. He's just a rich and sly ninja detective wearing a costume. :ninja:


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Korra said:


> It's always awesome to see praise for that portrayal of Lex. I hardly see anyone bring up Smallville whenever these DC movies pop up. I very much can't get behind this new incarnation of Lex either.
> 
> I have also not seen this movie, and the reviews thus far are definitely swaying me. The movie has a lot of visual excellence, but falls flat in terms of content. While yes, it's trying to portray a grittier and 'realistic' take on DC heroes, the reviews seem to be saying that the movie is barely scratching the surface on any of the themes. Just when you want the story to focus on philosophical turmoil within Superman and Batman, it trails off into a completely different story arc, leaving the previous arc unfulfilled. The critics do want a 'deep' story, but apparently it's a victim of style over substance, and too weighed down trying to compete with Marvel of creating a hero-verse. Why the rush to include other DC heroes when they're just going to be crammed in at the end?


Well, it's still more complex then most Marvel films, IMO. With Marvel, it generally only goes as deep as with character archetypes and some lightly added socio-political commentary, perhaps. With DC, I feel at their best they tend to go quite deeper and almost rely on their themes and the symbolism to actually tell and give the stories meaning themselves.

One of the members in charge of DC(cannot recall his official title) actually was interviewed briefly by some media site and he seemed to actually be quite supportive and confident with Snyder and the direction their film franchises are going. They are on the record as "intentionally" going for a "darker" and more philosophical take on their films. I can't explain why, but the vibe they're going for kind of harkens me back to some classic 80s movies for some reason. When you think about it, I think it was actually a pretty good time for cinema; and some of the movies that come to mind are Star Wars, Who Killed Roger Rabbit? Ghost Busters, Blade Runner, ET, Indiana Jones, Gremlins, and just countless others. I get this weird sense from the company, I can't explain what it is, but I really like it. 

It makes me wonder if DC is consciously deciding not to simply create films that sell only sell well, and are going for something else altogether. I really think that, they've been kind of misunderstood thus far. But that's just my opinion. I am surprised at how formal and well mannered the vice president chairman is compared to like, who is it, Joe Queseda? the guy who runs Marvel, who's almost always dressed in jeans and t-shirts with a thick Brooklyn accent, lol.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

The Rolling Stone gave the movie a good review. 

It doesn't surprise me, they've always been one of my favorite and most trusted editorial sources for information, ha ha ha. 

I usually agree with them. They've always sort of stood for something, and has managed to at least maintain some of their integrity. 
'Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice' Movie Review | Rolling Stone


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

floatingpoint said:


> I really enjoyed the movie! I agree that critics are going too hard on the film. I think it's the general public is just suffering from superhero fatigue. I think that people who have loved Batman and Superman since they were kids will really dig this movie! It's not particularly heavy or exhausting in my opinion, and I don't think the movie is stupid or meaningless, either. I'm not sure that it's as intelligent as Captain America Winter Soldier, and it definitely isn't as smart as the Dark Knight. Still, Lex Luther has some interesting lines, and honestly this is about as intelligent as comic books are usually. I'm definitely seeing the movie again.


I would totally say it was.

Come on! it had freaking Neil Degrasse Tyson as a cameo in the god damn film. DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON WOULD APPEAR IN ANY MOVIE!!???

The movie touched base on concepts like idealism, god, the possibility of their being a divine power or presence in the universe that cannot be defined. Cynicism, journalistic integrity, the press, Darwinism, democracy.

*sigh*

Okay seriously, what does Marvel have? oh..oOOOOhh...uh, JUSTICE...yeah, uh.."JUSTICE" and like, oh look It's Iron Man and he used to be a filthy rich playboy with a drinking problem and is still sort of a filthy rich playboy but now is all like "REDEMPTION" and stuff, but only sort of, and often half-heartedly in this whole like "I'm the face of general public everywhere! yeah, in Superhero form. I'm cynical and sarcastic about everything, and of slightly questionable moral standings and hey, whatever!"

I don't even want to go near Deadpool; but seriously, I cannot believe how well reviewed and popular that slasher murder film that was filled to the brim with only pop culture references and mindless action was so much more well received. Seriously? 

Oh my god. That was hardly even a movie, it was just a slasher flick. Say of it what you will, it was still only a slasher film.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Batman is not even a superhero that's what makes his movies bad. Except for the one with the Freeze guy.


But he fits every other criteria alone to be considered one. I don't think it's really such a "static" concept anyway. Obviously it's a genre that he fits perfectly into it, regardless. He wears tights, jumps around and does things beyond the realm of normal humans or that you would find in regular life.

He's like Indiana Jones, or James Bond or something.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Meteoric Shadows said:


> But he fits every other criteria alone to be considered one. I don't think it's really such a "static" concept anyway. Obviously it's a genre that he fits perfectly into it, regardless. He wears tights, jumps around and does things beyond the realm of normal humans or that you would find in regular life.
> 
> He's like Indiana Jones, or James Bond or something.


I grew up watching the incredibles. The bad guy was like batman. I think super implies that they have superpowers. Batman is just a hero, like a firefighter or policeman.


----------



## Wellington (Sep 9, 2015)

Reading more reviews, and I think that a lot of the deeper psychological and philosophical elements of this movie going completely over the heads of most people is a good thing. 

If you want to walk into the theatre and watch a simple and uplifting movie, where the plot and themes are spoon fed to you, then this movie is not for you.

This definitely shows the route WB are taking with the DCEU, focusing on very deep themes that promote good discussion. A lot of the discussion around the movie isn't even whether or not it's good, rather they're about what it *means*. This is definitely a movie you'll need to watch more than once, because every time you see it, but from a different ideological or philosophical standpoint, the whole film takes on a new meaning.


----------



## 68097 (Nov 20, 2013)

LolTengu said:


> Reading more reviews, and I think that a lot of the deeper psychological and philosophical elements of this movie going completely over the heads of most people is a good thing.
> 
> If you want to walk into the theatre and watch a simple and uplifting movie, where the plot and themes are spoon fed to you, then this movie is not for you.
> 
> This definitely shows the route WB are taking with the DCEU, focusing on very deep themes that promote good discussion. A lot of the discussion around the movie isn't even whether or not it's good, rather they're about what it *means*. This is definitely a movie you'll need to watch more than once, because every time you see it, but from a different ideological or philosophical standpoint, the whole film takes on a new meaning.


This actually makes me want to see it.

I got so bored / sick of the meaningless tripe that was the Avengers movies, I gave up on seeing anything profound in comic book franchises.


----------



## Wellington (Sep 9, 2015)

angelcat said:


> This actually makes me want to see it.
> 
> I got so bored / sick of the meaningless tripe that was the Avengers movies, I gave up on seeing anything profound in comic book franchises.


I would say that there is a negative in there somewhere... Whilst the movie sets up interesting discussion and deep topics (at some point in the movie, the question 'Should there be a Superman?' was asked, which I think is a question deserving of a movie all to itself) it doesn't really flesh them out before introducing a new plot point. 

The way the first half of this movie flits around whilst introducing such interesting themes without fully fleshing them out can be frustrating, though it is still thought-provoking. 

I just hope that WB stick to their guns with this and redefine the superhero genre. Continue with the deep, dark and interesting themes, don't listen to the reviews that say the movie isn't 'fun' or it is too 'dark', go all in and continue with this in future movies. Don't try to replicate Marvel and what they do.

EDIT: I will also say that it's amusing how this particular point has been blown out of proportion as a negative. Basically it's "Oh noes, the movie forced me to think for myself!" Makes me chuckle.


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

"Never compromise even in the face of Armageddon."

I really appreciated what WB/DC did with this. I think with Man of Steel, director Zack Snyder had to compromise his vision so that WB/DC could shoehorn some Nolan elements since Nolan's TDK trilogy is fair worshiped by the public. As much as I enjoyed MOS, it resulted in a prominent imbalance. Snyder couldn't figure out how to juggle action and philosophy.

With BVS, you can tell Snyder was 100% in the driver's seat (and that Affleck and Terrio worked to support his vision rather than splice their ideas into his). Where Marvel cinematizes comics, Snyder comickized his film. The scenes were short and rapid fire, much like panels in a comic book, and Lex Luthor's villainy was larger than life, much like the villainy present in a traditional comic book. There were even shots ripped right out of the pages of The Dark Knight Returns and The Death of Superman. In other words, he took a Watchmen approach to BVS as opposed to a MOS one, a really brave (some would say stupid) move as Watchmen is not exactly a film that appeals to the mainstream. DC's attitude seems to be that they care more about making a movie they're proud of than one that will go over well with the majority. "Is it really so surprising that the most powerful man in the world should be a figure of controversy?" WB/DC was COUNTING on controversy.

One of the things people often criticized TDK (and Christopher Nolan in general) for is that these films are fundamentally action/thriller films peppered with philosophy that came across to some as pretentious or insincere. BVS is the total opposite of that. It is philosophy peppered with action. I would go so far as to say 90% of the script was exploring the concept of a Superman, of a man who could be god and the implications of this Superman walking among men. It attempts to ground itself with references to the real world, with terrorism concocted by government figures and paranoia and issues of legitimacy and accountability that are present in our police force. All that being said, I think the focus on philosophy was a double-edged sword. It made the movie an awesome ice-cooler piece, but there was a slight imbalance between abstraction and real world tension.

Another interesting aspect about BVS was its total _lack_ of traditional world-building. There was no tour guide showing us Gringotts, no real exposition, no introduction. It was like we were flung into a preexisting world to fend for ourselves. This is classic DC Comics. DC has very few #1 issues. Detective Comics went on for over 850 issues before resetting to a new #1 a few years ago. If you've never done this, pick up a random pre-New 52 'TEC comic and read through it. Even if it's the first issue of a story arc, you're still gonna be left wondering what the backstory was to x character and why there is tension between Bruce and this random fella, and who is that guy tinkering with his Batmobile? What is that joke referencing? And this is how BVS was presented to the masses. As a result, a common opinion is that this is a movie for the fans and not for the general, unknowing public.

However, I'm not so sure this movie _was_ being geared toward fans. These iterations of Batman and Lex Luthor in particular are not the ones fans know oh so intimately. Lex was bent a bit to fit the narrative, to be the mouthpiece of a purportedly philosophical film, and Batman, well, Batman KILLS. That is a gigantic no-no. Of course, this actually isn't as big of a leap as fans have made it out to be. After the death of Jason Todd in the comics, Batman grew pretty violent, and only the interventions of Dick Grayson and Tim Drake saved him from spiraling out of control. Neither Dick and Tim were here to save Batman from himself in this film, so of course he slid into madness.

"How many good guys in Gotham are left? How many stayed that way?" Most minds go to Harvey Dent. I think Bruce was referring to himself. He's not a good guy anymore, merely a vessel of justice. He knows it and Alfred knows it. However, it seems by the end of the film, Superman has shown Batman that yes, men ARE still good. Lex Luthor makes a comment before the Batman vs Superman fight: "If God is all powerful, He can't be all good. If God is all good, He can't be all powerful." Batman sees at the end of the film that Superman isn't all powerful, but he is all good, and I think that will inspire him to get himself personally back onto the path of justice.

8/10 for me.


----------



## marblecloud95 (Aug 12, 2015)

>tfw the jew gold can't fill the hole left by negative reviews


----------



## Wellington (Sep 9, 2015)

I hope Affleck doesn't take this to heart. He should be extremely proud, he was far and away the best part of the movie to me, a fantastic performance.


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

LolTengu said:


> I hope Affleck doesn't take this to heart. He should be extremely proud, he was far and away the best part of the movie to me, a fantastic performance.


I would take it a step further and say Affleck has been the best live action Batman. As much as the nerds will kick and scream, this guy _is_ the Bruce Wayne we know from the comics, paranoia and all. He has just gone unchecked.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Meteoric Shadows said:


> There seems to be little to no interest in this movie, and I am really quite surprised, despite WB's best intentions to market and create hype, it seems not many people seem to be interested.
> 
> 
> I suppose outside of MARVEL FILMS, superhero's and comic books still really aren't all that popular or still shown that much interest or appeal.
> ...


SPOILERS 

I hope they bring Superman back so they can make a Justice League Movie!

Also Iron man as Batmans Butler ARE YOU SERIOUS? Not that he did a bad job but that is just bad casting in my opinion. Even though DC and Marval are different universes and so Iron man does not Exist in Batmans universe. Also Excited to see Spiderman in the new Capetian America Movie. 

Also I understand Batman is suppose to be dark but wasnt he against murdering the Joker? Why would he be so quick to kill Superman? Also Why the hell does everyone hate Superman for being an Alien? Are they racist? WTF? Also if his parents took him in as a baby doesn't that mean they adopted him? How does that make him an illegal Alien? LOGIC? THE HELL PEOPLE? 

I did love the Crazy Lex Luther kid though.

Also why does being a martian automatically make you GOD? Didnt God make people? What about every other super hero? Does that mean Wonderwoman is GOD too? Why is JUST SUPERMAN GOD? When its established that having powers like that makes you one, but apparently this is not believed of any other superhero, and Batman has files of other heros so why is he not setting out to murder them too? The premise of this is asinine


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Meteoric Shadows said:


> There seems to be little to no interest in this movie, and I am really quite surprised, despite WB's best intentions to market and create hype, it seems not many people seem to be interested.
> 
> 
> I suppose outside of MARVEL FILMS, superhero's and comic books still really aren't all that popular or still shown that much interest or appeal.
> ...


Its not bad 

but the premise which its built on is stupid 

The Demonizing of the characters does not make a lot of sense 

It clearly favors batman greatly and while I love seeing Bruce upstage superman and steal his chick in series, I dont think this portrayal was really fair to Superman

Also we have a lot of what I believe might be underlining Political Propaganda because realistically the way the outside world views these characters makes no sense. Batman is refereed to as the Devil and everyone loves Batman despite the fact he looks like a bit of an ass in this movie, While superman is refereed to as God and an Illegal Alien and is just trying to do good but no one seems to appreciate it and tell him to get off this planet and seem to hate him for being from another planet. Is that a metaphor for Racism? Also why does having super powers automatically make you GOD? Did Superman being from Krypton mean he made planet earth?


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

MisterPerfect said:


> Its not bad
> 
> but the premise which its built on is stupid
> 
> ...


Ugh, that's how they're quite often refereed to in the comic books. Yes, they are not all together loved, and Batman has taken on the appearance of a "bat" for those specific reasons. He's a good guy who acts like a bad guy. 

The original cut of the movie was actually a bit more equal in how much it showed both the heroes, but near the end decided on Batman as it seemed to be what most favored or wanted the most.


----------



## Wellington (Sep 9, 2015)

MisterPerfect said:


> SPOILERS
> Also Iron man as Batmans Butler ARE YOU SERIOUS? Not that he did a bad job but that is just bad casting in my opinion. Even though DC and Marval are different universes and so Iron man does not Exist in Batmans universe. Also Excited to see Spiderman in the new Capetian America Movie.


Lol



MisterPerfect said:


> Also I understand Batman is suppose to be dark but wasnt he against murdering the Joker? Why would he be so quick to kill Superman? Also Why the hell does everyone hate Superman for being an Alien? Are they racist? WTF? Also if his parents took him in as a baby doesn't that mean they adopted him? How does that make him an illegal Alien? LOGIC? THE HELL PEOPLE?


Well in this movie Batman is a lot darker and world weary. He's been there done that, it's very likely the death of Robin pushed him over the top. Remember when he says to Alfred "We're all criminals", this Bruce Wayne literally gives zero fucks, he's taking names and dropping bodies.

This is what I mean by certain elements of the film going right over people's heads, no offence. They make it very clear why people don't like Superman. He's a walking, talking weapon of mass destruction and he answers to _no-one_. Anyone with that kind of power will be the subject of controversy, should there even _be_ someone with that power on Earth (notice how, in the movie, the question was asked: "Should there be a Superman?"). Batman thinks not because the result of him turning bad is too catastrophic to even allow it to be a 1% chance (hence the 1% quote) and Lex Luthor hates the idea of God. He hates that Superman is seen as all powerful and all good by some, so he wants to show the world that you can be one but not the other.


MisterPerfect said:


> Also why does being a martian automatically make you GOD? Didnt God make people? What about every other super hero? Does that mean Wonderwoman is GOD too? Why is JUST SUPERMAN GOD? When its established that having powers like that makes you one, but apparently this is not believed of any other superhero, and Batman has files of other heros so why is he not setting out to murder them too? The premise of this is asinine


Superman is the first time these people have seen _that_ kind of power. And Superman literally goes around saving people he wants to and stepping into certain situations. He is _literally_ judging who to save and who not to. That's God-like. 

Wonder Woman isn't even known about, the whole point is that Superman has made the leap into the public eye.

Batman didn't have files on other heroes, not until he stole them from Lex. 

Just because you didn't get it, doesn't make asinine.


----------



## Wellington (Sep 9, 2015)

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice shrugs off bad reviews with $170m opening weekend | Daily Mail Online

Batman v Superman Box Office Surges to $424M Worldwide

It seems like audiences have given critics a very prominent middle finger. Despite getting thrashed by critics this movie appears to be doing well financially as predicted, though it is still early days. We'll need to wait and see if this gets better or worse. But for now BvS has been successful.


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

LolTengu said:


> Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice shrugs off bad reviews with $170m opening weekend | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Batman v Superman Box Office Surges to $424M Worldwide
> 
> It seems like audiences have given critics a very prominent middle finger. Despite getting thrashed by critics this movie appears to be doing well financially as predicted, though it is still early days. We'll need to wait and see if this gets better or worse. But for now BvS has been successful.


I actually think the bad reviews are helping the film in some capacity. Sure, it'd smash either way with Batman and Superman in the title, but the extreme reactions from critics likely piqued some people's curiosity.

And I'm sure WB anticipated this. I might even say it complements the film. Is it really surprising that the closest thing America has to a mythological hero should be a figure of controversy?


----------



## italix (Sep 26, 2015)

star tripper said:


> Eh, fuck it. Here it is for anyone else that missed it.
> 
> View attachment 499786


I saw this, but I did not know it was Robin's! It really confused me in the film.. I thought it happened to Batman and couldn't figure out the meaning of it. Wrong association throwing me through a loop 😜

I've only been lurking on this thread until now, but I almost feel like I should stop reading it. You are really piecing together the meaning of every scene in the film and soon there will be nothing left for me to figure out!! And that's the fun part! 

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk


----------



## Wellington (Sep 9, 2015)

Deleted scene released by WB and it seems to be the scene before Lex is arrested (seems legit, considering the fact that we don't really have a transitional scene for Lex's capture). The creature in front of Lex seems like Steppenwolf, which would explain why Lex alludes to Darkseid's arrival in his cell.


----------



## Korra (Feb 28, 2015)

Man, this 2003 canceled script for Batman vs Superman is the movie we deserved! (not.... holy hell)






Anyways, I've pretty much read the spoilers for this movie intentionally since it's one of those movies that I didn't think I'd be crazy about in the first place, but after reading some of the spoilers and the posts in this thread, I at least feel interested in seeing it more. Still, some of the spoilers put me off of how certain things were handled. The Martha bit sounds pretty smart though, I like that, along with a supposed Batman that has seen too much shit and therefore isn't the "No kill code" Batman most of us seem to be used to; fine by me.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

LolTengu said:


> Deleted scene released by WB and it seems to be the scene before Lex is arrested (seems legit, considering the fact that we don't really have a transitional scene for Lex's capture). The creature in front of Lex seems like Steppenwolf, which would explain why Lex alludes to Darkseid's arrival in his cell.


Yeah, that really makes things a lot clearer. Kind of a shame they cut it out.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Korra said:


> Man, this 2003 canceled script for Batman vs Superman is the movie we deserved! (not.... holy hell)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


oh my god, why did they make such bastardizations of the comics. The comic books were still better written then half of these films and they think that comic books are stupid and thus make them that way themselves.


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

italix said:


> I saw this, but I did not know it was Robin's! It really confused me in the film.. I thought it happened to Batman and couldn't figure out the meaning of it. Wrong association throwing me through a loop 
> 
> I've only been lurking on this thread until now, but I almost feel like I should stop reading it. You are really piecing together the meaning of every scene in the film and soon there will be nothing left for me to figure out!! And that's the fun part!
> 
> Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk


One of the polarizing aspects of the film I particularly enjoyed was the experience of discerning which analogies and symbols were directly relevant and meaningful and which were red herrings. I suspect this was partially what confused people -- the metaphors are hurled at us in such a disjointed fashion that it's hard to juggle when accepting them all at once in chronological order. I'm realizing upon reflection that there really weren't any red herrings, just disorder. In that respect, this film actually has a stronger focus on chaos than TDK did interestingly enough.

I know people were frustrated by this dicknut of a Batman, but I think this has easily been his best arc in cinema. It's clear yet complex, and this is the first time a film has called him out on his morality and penchant for murder. Though I've said before that WB labeling this film as grounded and edgy is utterly laughable, the emphasis on accountability was a really good anchor, and I hope it makes people more mindful when they watch other movies.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Yeah, it almost felt like a satire in some instances.

Probably Batman the most, but superhero's in general.

I felt a little like in the car chase scene, they were intentionally calling out Nolan and maybe to a lesser extent Burton, for portraying Batman as (due to lazy filming perhaps) a bit of a murderer. (In Batman Begins especially, the chase scenes are a bit ridiculous, with him running his bat-tank through innocent civilians, and on coming traffic, lol)

But when you really think about it, still spares life more often then most action heroes.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Meteoric Shadows said:


> oh my god, why did they make such bastardizations of the comics. The comic books were still better written then half of these films and they think that comic books are stupid and thus make them that way themselves.


This still reverses the Roles and Batman and Superman. Since Batman has several times "I cant kill" and superman actually kills Joker. I think Superman would be more willing to kill people in the name of justice than Batman would be, and Batman also had a debate with Jason that he could not kill the Joker and saved Joker from Jasons Attack.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Oh I forget to mention

*spoilers*


* *




When Batman beats Superman to a bloody pulp and then is just about to kill him!
That was horrid and nothing like how Batman is I don't think. That was a horrible "dicknut" Batman for sure, and I would say they almost tried in moments like this (especially with Batman) to be "too" dark. In fact, I don't really see what the point was to make him like this. It seemed like cheap story telling and one moment in the film where I was put off. Ha ha ha, if I were to give it a rating it would definitely minus some points for me.




Was there even enough of a real reason for him to feel that way about Superman? I know the whole world being destroyed, and everything else was scary for him, and that Batman has been known to be "paranoid" and to plan everything out right, but come on, what evidence to he have to fourthright think that Superman deserved to be killed? it never even touched based on or tried to explain what Batman made of his "Flash" encounter, early in the film (you were always right about him Bruce!) 
I suppose it's just another case of Lex's meddling and his manipulating of everyone. It makes sense in a way, but I just don't think it's true to his characterization. 

Of course, I'm sure there is a possibility where if taken further enough, he would but not on such little evidence as that. It almost seemed like he was taking on as his right because Superman was just "too powerful" 
(which again, is just not Batman) 
He would probably for himself, design a "worse case scenario" plan of action in case such a thing like that were to happen, but that's it. 

Honestly, thinking back now, I was probably taken away from just seeing these characters on screen and all what I thought were really enjoyable visuals (yes, no "perfect" of course, but I can't stand people doing that, as in my mind, still to this day CGI still looks like CGI)

I cannot help but think that Snyder could have made a better movie if he just toned it down a 'little' bit, and not just try to make it so similar to Watchmen (because they're not the Watchmen)

And even though Frank Miller's a great writer, he's not perfect and his versions are not the definitive. :frustrating:


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

MisterPerfect said:


> This still reverses the Roles and Batman and Superman. Since Batman has several times "I cant kill" and superman actually kills Joker. I think Superman would be more willing to kill people in the name of justice than Batman would be, and Batman also had a debate with Jason that he could not kill the Joker and saved Joker from Jasons Attack.


Back then they always thought that they should kill off the villains for some reason.

But no, Superman doesn't really kill that often (only if, it's a giant mutant alien or something and has no other choice) 

Other wise, he always sticks by what his morals and beliefs are. I think as when looking at the differences between Batman and then Superman, it's because Superman is near invincible, and for reasons like that is a little "removed" from humanity, and I believed that is eluded or hinted at some times, that even though he "cares" he'll never know what it's like to really be a human, and to as well, be fragile, weak, or really scared(because he's invincible) and that generally, is what causes the rift between them both.

Batman is a human being, and he knows how it feels to be unable to defend yourself, which is why he will go to such means to protect or defend others.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Oh, and something else I thought about:

With the subplot with the man who loses his legs, and showing the real personal effects of the collateral damage the alien invasion on earth causes, I have a feeling that many of the complaints or dislikes in regards to this aspect of the movie is that many see "superhero" and "fantasy" films/characters as so removed from reality, they cannot properly take a film that tries to ground them in the real world in anyway, and how they would relate, or have an effect with it either.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

I wanted to say to (but forgot earlier) 

did anyone get a "surrealistic" tone from parts of the movie? I felt like especially with the part of the movie with the news and with everyone discussing just what to make of Superman exactly; then showing (in a past montage) some of the feats he's carried out, and just exactly how strong he is, there felt like there was almost a bit of this 'surrealist' tone in a sense that I think they were trying to get across just how frightening it would be for there to actually be a being with that much power.

I felt like they were conveying a lot of feeling without being too direct or resulting to cheap tactics to try and make the audience "feel" things.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

I saw it! Wow. I am so, so surprised, yet I can't even properly articulate why I enjoyed it so much. There was this feeling that something great was about to happen, through out the film. The music was phenomenal and seemed to have it's own role in the movie completely. It also looked fantastic most of the time. About surrealism... it was, all of it, but only because it reflected some real world issues I think. 
* *




Dream sequences especially so, with that wired psyche and unusual psychology, but also that devastating Capitol scene.






Meteoric Shadows said:


> Oh, and it was criticized for attempting or simply being too "heavy" which only "weighed the movie down" and was "boring" and having "unnecessary drama"
> 
> really? are you serious, is that an actual complaint? but what about if the drama or "heavy" and philosophical elements were actually good in anyway? and how would you measure "good" then? oh just another example of not sticking to some pre-established outdated formula.


Rather their consepts flung too high above the ground. Lex was too scattered and too meta for Lex, but I enjoyed him anyway (I must be one of the few). The relationship between Superman and Lois Lane was touching as ever, and some fans might enjoy that, it brought lightness into the story. The movie touched at Superman's trouble of being unable to save them all, but it didn't rub it in the audience's face. Also, most of the psychology of Bruce Wayne was presented in a very subtle way.



Meteoric Shadows said:


> With the subplot with the man who loses his legs, and showing the real personal effects of the collateral damage the alien invasion on earth causes, I have a feeling that many of the complaints or dislikes in regards to this aspect of the movie is that many see "superhero" and "fantasy" films/characters as so removed from reality, they cannot properly take a film that tries to ground them in the real world in anyway, and how they would relate, or have an effect with it either.


This as well... a real issue, a real world issue, which is seen by some only as a clever plot device. The problem is very real, how this man, a victim of other's vengeance and later society's alienation became a vessel of vengeance and alienation in turn.



Meteoric Shadows said:


> Other wise, he always sticks by what his morals and beliefs are. I think as when looking at the differences between Batman and then Superman, it's because Superman is near invincible, and for reasons like that is a little "removed" from humanity, and I believed that is eluded or hinted at some times, that even though he "cares" he'll never know what it's like to really be a human, and to as well, be fragile, weak, or really scared(because he's invincible) and that generally, is what causes the rift between them both.
> 
> Batman is a human being, and he knows how it feels to be unable to defend yourself, which is why he will go to such means to protect or defend others.


At times, it really felt like Lois Lane was Superman's only link to humanity. It was interesting how the mob was shown to act in this movie almost as a one creature with one mind; either embracing him, or hating him, or honoring him. Maybe that as well reflects how he is different from us humans. The masses react to him. Individuals don't. 

Batman is obviously more human and more afraid. People criticize him of not being a real superhero; that's just part of his tragedy. He is not all powerful. There were also clever little things hidden in the movie, insinuating his ambiguous role. 

* *




Victims being in horror because they were saved by the devil, or him being called the judge, the jury etc. all in one.






LolTengu said:


> EDIT: I will also say that it's amusing how this particular point has been blown out of proportion as a negative. Basically it's "Oh noes, the movie forced me to think for myself!" Makes me chuckle.


It still saddens me that not everyone will enjoy this movie. I overheard some young lads critique it. "What a pointless movie", they said. "First half was boring, the second half was sloppy." I thought, 

* *




cut out the Doomsday battle, fill it up with more interesting exploration of heroism and psychology, and you'd have the best superhero movie since Watchmen.




I don't think it's for the fans only. I've always had a bit problematic relationship with superhero movies, and I found it only beneficial with this one. It presented all the right questions. So what if it didn't spit out the answers right away? Let it simmer. Let it sink in. Some might come back to it, in time. Some will forever hate it, because it's not the movie they wanted to see. It's a shame, but what can you do? Except spread the word of it's hidden awesomeness...


----------



## Watchtower (Aug 20, 2015)

Meteoric Shadows said:


> DC obviously was going for something a bit more meaningful then typical popcorn fare


Throughout the movie I kept thinking that they're going to milk these characters for all their worth. And every movie they make will be an introduction to the next, and then the next, and then the next...

I did enjoy the movie for what it was. Mindless entertainment with lacking substance and depth of characters, but somewhat decent action scenes that appear to be rinse/repeat in all such movies. Do these 'monsters' only have one mould since LOTR, or what?

I have no regrets about seeing the movie, as I never expected much from it to begin with. It was designed to break the viewers free from their everyday drudgery for a few hours, and it fit that purpose perfectly. I will watch the next ones as well.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Watchtower said:


> I did enjoy the movie for what it was. Mindless entertainment with lacking substance and depth of characters, but somewhat decent action scenes that appear to be rinse/repeat in all such movies. Do these 'monsters' only have one mould since LOTR, or what?


Our views couldn't differ more. I thought it had substance and also depth of characters, but like said in a subtle way. I wonder what specifically made you dislike this aspect of it. How could it have been improved? Action was good enough apart from the last battle. CGI monsters are CGI monsters... and the "epicness" of battle scenes grows every year unfortunately... I wish something more interesting would replace them in future. Surprise us, makers of film!

Oh, one other thing what may have dissappointed people... Can't remember if it was already discussed, but the trailers gave away most of the action. If one was more interested in the story and it's elements, it wasn't that bothersome, but if one came into see a surprising head-to-head showdown, I can see why they felt betrayed.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Kind of off-topic; but I thought it was so funny.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

The original and old Batman, by bob kane, actually was killing bad guys. Val Kilmer did kill too. So didn't really have issues with it in the movie, but hey, 'murica! ...


----------



## Lemxn (Aug 17, 2013)

Jesse Eisenberg acting was the best thing about the movie.

The rest? It wasn't THAT bad, I actually enjoyed it.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Sygma said:


> The original and old Batman, by bob kane, actually was killing bad guys. Val Kilmer did kill too. So didn't really have issues with it in the movie, but hey, 'murica! ...


Well yes, that is actually what Tim Burton based his interpretation of Batman on.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Is Batman V Superman a "Bad, good movie" ?

As in, it was filmed and directed in such a way that it doesn't fit conventionally with what we consider tasteful or good? 
but still, but whatever reason is enjoyable to some? 

It's like a cultural bash on the head with a club, lol.
"Ew, this does not fit my western pallet, it's too much of the un-right things"


----------



## Wellington (Sep 9, 2015)

I've seen Suicide Squad. Enjoyed it. It had it's flaws, but I think the characters certainly carried the movie. Diablo, Amanda Waller and Harley Quinn were standouts imo. Not enough Joker. The cameos were awesome. Pacing seemed off a few times and yeah I could see that editing had affected this movie quite a bit. Incubus also kind of sucked, so did Enchantress.

Also, lol at Jai Courtney actually being decent in a movie. Boomerang was funny.

Overall I give it a B+. Enjoyable, fun, good chemistry between the characters, good action scenes but weighed down a bit by the pacing, editing and an underwhelming villain.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

I think it had potential. DC has some great source material, they just need to find someone more qualified to produce the movies.

* *




Marvel


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

Tropes said:


> I think it had potential. DC has some great source material, they just need to find someone more qualified to produce the movies.
> 
> * *
> 
> ...


I would rather kill myself than get Marvel-style DC movies. Marvel's good but hopelessly homogenous. Say what you will about DC, but at least you're not seeing literally the same movie over and over.


----------



## Hollow Man (Aug 12, 2011)

OK, all the controversy surrounding it really made me want to see it. Even if it is bad. I didn't completely hate the trailers like so many did. I don't have a complete care about the source material. Though, I know a few basics that are broken in this movie...just the utterly obvious, mind you.

I felt the terrorist stuff was shoehorned in. I had no interest in the stakes of that. lol. 

I didn't mind Superman and how he was portrayed...I thought he was kind of cool actually. I liked him a lot more than Batman. Though I did like the portrayal of him and the looks of him as a person, but personally I thought Batman was an asshole. He was compromised after all these years, and I don't that's cool at all. Even though Superman does things that cause consequences at least he's not jaded. 

Actually too, since I am a Kevin Costner fan, I liked the idea of Superman's father being a down to Earth Kansas guy. The story was OK with that, I guess. Though, maybe not the best either. 

All in all, the movie made sense and was edited OK...but, I didn't care about a lot in it. Some of it seemed kind of forced at times. Though, it made sense...so, that's not a bad thing for an action movie and I. Though, ultimately, didn't love this movie...I don't want to see it again. There were some cool choices in editing and shots...but it was kind of superficial with little emotional value or thought provoking value. Sometimes I like darker and gritty things, so there's a little appeal there. But it was kind of empty and not a lot of motivation for many characters.Spoilers: Other cool shots include what and the way led to Lex lost his hair, the way Bruce's parents story was done really quickly. lol...so glad that ended fast....everyone knows that story.


----------



## probablyINFP (Aug 6, 2016)

Gawwwdddd. ... what did they do to Lex Luthor? It's like aimed for Hans Landa (inglourious basterds) but ended up with Jar Jar Binks (Star Wars).


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

Meteoric Shadows said:


> I suppose outside of MARVEL FILMS, superhero's and comic books still really aren't all that popular or still shown that much interest or appeal.


It's like saying Mormonism is not popular. Superhero business is a religious cult and there are always enough/regular people who go on the pilgrimage to movie theater. I honestly don't think anybody who invested in those movies are expecting an outreach beyond satisfying the fans. Don't confuse shitty reboots like Ghostbusters and never-ending prequel/sequel franchising of Star Wars, Star Trek, Batman, Superman, etc.



Meteoric Shadows said:


> Despite the mixed reviews; to which, I want to point out at this point, I don't think is any indication that this movie is bad, but simply that critics and audiences are very much split across the board on this thing, the movie is very well made.


Indeed... It's a "not so bad" movie yet still poorly written and ruined by the excessive usage of visual effects. Making a demigod and businessman had a fist fight inevitably damage their identities/roles. As the result, we have a Batman on steroids and a half-assed version of Superman for the sake of making that promised and ridiculous competition possible. Not taking the willing suspension of disbelief granted and giving a perspective of politics/allegory was a promising trend started with The Dark Knight. The thing is, they supposed to know that kind of responsibility and "X =VS= Y" bullshit doesn't mix well. Nothing good comes from fanfiction orgies.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Im seeing Suicide Squad tomorrow. I loved Batman vs Superman. It was nice to see a film that dosnt try to be something it isnt for a change.


----------

