Batman v Superman - Dawn of Justice - Cultivating Apathy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Blood Brain Barrier:
Anyone could tell this would be shit from just looking at the stills.

Why on earth would Superman have such overdeveloped musculature? If anything it should be the opposite, because he's on a planet with much lower resistance than he's used to and your muscles don't have to work as hard.

Because he is just as beefy in the comic books and Cartoons:

https://40.media.tumblr.com/f5fc574f2ef8a31f4d97675d24a33692/tumblr_msexcalR671r1icqao1_500.jpg

http://www.tomosygrapas.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Superman-For-Tomorrow.jpg

http://comicattack.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/superman-batman-public-enemies-026.jpg

Saw the midnight showing last night. Pretty terrible. As bad as moviebob said? Nah. He exaggerates. But its REALLY fucking bad! Like its not lube-less anal rape painful. But its certainly lube-less anal sex painful.

Silentpony:
Saw the midnight showing last night. Pretty terrible. As bad as moviebob said? Nah. He exaggerates. But its REALLY fucking bad! Like its not lube-less anal rape painful. But its certainly lube-less anal sex painful.

Has anything ever been as bad as Bob says it was? I tend to like and dislike the same movies as him but apart from fantfourstic I don't think I've ever gotten as worked up over a movie, I don't think I've ever gotten that worked up over actual crimes.

Copying and editing what I said in another thread (Was late when I got home)

Saw it last night, I thought it was okay. That said, I thought Man of Steel was okay too, but this film definitely has its problems. Pacing is a big issue, you could shave about 15 to 20 mins of the run time I would feel, and the film would be better for it.

I liked that the last films consequences were at least addressed in this, but the story is kind of all over the place. They are definitely planting the seeds of future movies in this, and over all I think they did that too much. They just haven't earned their expanded universe yet I guess is what I am trying to say. That stuff takes a lot of work.

I think Ben's Batman was pretty good and I was okay with Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman.

Like I said, I was okay with it, but I can't say much impressed me.

I knew this movie was going to flop critically, and oh am I drinking it in. Never since EA's Sim City was a media franchise train-wreck so delicious.

Warner Brothers and DC was trying so desperately to copy the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and while I appreciate them trying to distinguish themselves by painting their films in a darker tone, they did so in all the wrong ways and we all fucking knew it. Every single moronic decision they made built up to a wonderfully flammable assemblage of a movie. They earned this shitshow.

Now, we just have to wait a decade or two when some smarter people in Warner Bros can actually make a good DC cinematic universe.

Worgen:

Gorfias:

Worgen:
Its weird how dc movies are the dark ones and Marvel are the more light hearted. Since dc is the weirder comic universe which would really benefit from a lighter tone. But Marvel tends to have more complex characters who have to deal with the weirdness of growing up or alcohol dependence or abuse or being discriminated against. Marvel could go much darker and still be good, but the well known DC heroes are essentially Greek gods. Being dark doesn't help that.

In these pages, someone once wrote that characters need to be who they are. Batman can be dark and that is OK. Superman should not be! Batman is about angst, Superman hope. Instead, they're trying to be "The Dark Knight" and should not be.

They should all be forced to sit in a room and watch "Captain America: Winter Soldier" on loop with "Clockwork Orange" eye openers until they get it. Let your hero be who he is rather than trying to be some other popular character from another movie. And you can have a sense of real urgency in a fantasy movie while keeping it fun.

The last five Superman movies have not gotten it right. That's a lot of whiffed at softballs.

Even batman should't be that dark. I mean part of his moral compass is not killing people. If you make his badguys to bad then him not killing them just looks sillier and sillier. Plus if batman didn't kill them then the cops sure as hell would.

I did love Winter Solder. Although it was so stupid how they made pretty much every bad thing in the 20th century be part of hydras master plan. That was lame.

So what Batman and Superman should not kill in the inevitable fight against Darkside and his huge Army of soldiers?

Because the Avengers did kill in the fight against the Aliens.

TheLaughingMagician:

Silentpony:
Saw the midnight showing last night. Pretty terrible. As bad as moviebob said? Nah. He exaggerates. But its REALLY fucking bad! Like its not lube-less anal rape painful. But its certainly lube-less anal sex painful.

Has anything ever been as bad as Bob says it was? I tend to like and dislike the same movies as him but apart from fantfourstic I don't think I've ever gotten as worked up over a movie, I don't think I've ever gotten that worked up over actual crimes.

Green Lantern; I think he was right on the money with Green Lantern.

I'm honestly amazed at how much of a drumming this movie is getting. Like I wasn't expecting much out of it personally but I'm supposed to be one of those never pleased types about this sort of shit. I expected it to at least resonate and do okay with general audiences and less invested critics but all I'm hearing is either 'Second Coming of Christ' or 'Satan is assaulting Heaven's Gate'

Samtemdo8:

So what Batman and Superman should not kill in the inevitable fight against Darkside and his huge Army of soldiers?

Because the Avengers did kill in the fight against the Aliens.

The (three primary) Avengers are in order: an American soldier who saw battle in the fields of Europe in World War II, a high functioning alcoholic narcissist and king of the MIC (who suffered PTSD from nearly dying) and one of the most famously violent members of a Pantheon famous for reveling in bloodshed. They wouldn't be adverse to killing mainly on strength of their backgrounds alone. Superman and Batman have entirely different experiences and circumstances to shape them as people and heroes.

Samtemdo8:

Worgen:

Gorfias:

In these pages, someone once wrote that characters need to be who they are. Batman can be dark and that is OK. Superman should not be! Batman is about angst, Superman hope. Instead, they're trying to be "The Dark Knight" and should not be.

They should all be forced to sit in a room and watch "Captain America: Winter Soldier" on loop with "Clockwork Orange" eye openers until they get it. Let your hero be who he is rather than trying to be some other popular character from another movie. And you can have a sense of real urgency in a fantasy movie while keeping it fun.

The last five Superman movies have not gotten it right. That's a lot of whiffed at softballs.

Even batman should't be that dark. I mean part of his moral compass is not killing people. If you make his badguys to bad then him not killing them just looks sillier and sillier. Plus if batman didn't kill them then the cops sure as hell would.

I did love Winter Solder. Although it was so stupid how they made pretty much every bad thing in the 20th century be part of hydras master plan. That was lame.

So what Batman and Superman should not kill in the inevitable fight against Darkside and his huge Army of soldiers?

Because the Avengers did kill in the fight against the Aliens.

Because the Avengers don't have the same morality when it comes to killing your enemies. They tend to face enemies that are powerful enough to get out of the situation alive. Batman tends to beat up thugs, Superman is Superman. Both of them are pretty much the most unbeatable super heroes around, despite them getting beaten occasionally. For Superman killing would make his fights so much easier and shorter since he could just laser eyes anyone and boom dead, and Batman can pretty much beat anyone too.

The SvB movie universe has already established that both Batman and Superman can rake up the bodycount and it even sounds like Batman is now doing it on purpose. So of course they will be killing in the fight. It still doesn't make them anymore of what Superman or Batman is supposed to be.

Samtemdo8:

tzimize:

grey_space:
I thought it was good: I liked the dark theme and attempt at seriousness...However it is deeply flawed. I thought Affleck nailed it. However every building in Gotham and Maetropolis seemed to be constructed of toilet paper and some form of solidified petrol...I'm looking forward to the directors cut.

I'm not gonna say I am looking forward to the Directors Cut....but I am going to say I have a slight hope that the DC will make it into at least a tolerable movie, as was mostly the case with the first Daredevil movie imo. The Directors cut was much, much better.

Yes. Affleck was good.

The dark theme is decent, and it has worked for Batman. But batman is a dark character, superman is really not. And if you have one dark guy...another one is just gonna be the fifth wheel. You cant bounce off each other when you're the same. Even Wonder woman was bland gray. Is Znyder incapable of seeing
color?

What little we saw of wonder woman was cool, but she was, as most "characters" in this movie...a cardboard cutout at best. There was nothing at all to differentiate her from Superman. She could take a superpunch and had a sword+shield. The "trinity" moment was lame, the only enjoyable moment in the entire movie was when they were all 3 attacking Doomsday. A bit cool.

Znyder is a travesty. He should be fired and not let close to any superhero movie again.

Honestly, if he had cut the amount of slow motion "check this out people" scenes by half, we might have had time for some actual story.

Also, Lex was a disgrace. Capably acted, but all over the place and never what he should be.

The only positive thing I have to say about BvS is that, when looking back, its gonna make Man of Steel be a better movie by comparison.

I think we should shift the blame to Warner Bros. movie company because they seem to be incapable of making anything other then Batman Dark Knight because Dark Knight won a billion dollars and they want that same success again so they think repeating that formula of Dark Knight would succeed.

I mean look at Green Lantern, and Zack had nothing to do with that movie.

Well yeah....but I'm one of those that didnt think the GL movie was THAT bad. It was just not that good. And it suffered from clocking in behind Iron Man, which raised the bar something fierce and showed people how good superhero movies could be.

I totally agree that WB should have a truckload of the blame. You can positively see the threads in their movies "we need to do the Marvel thing and sneak in previews and do some worldbuilding". And they JUST DONT GET IT.

WB is devoid of direction and fantasy...but really Znyder is awful. There is WAY too much slo-mo BS in his movies. Drawn out scenes that do NOTHING. He can do some decent visual stuff, but he is no storyteller and at least needs a co-director or something.

Honestly, I'm so tired of his grey and dark BS. Give me some color for gods sake. It feels like Call of Duty movie format.

tzimize:

Samtemdo8:

tzimize:

I'm not gonna say I am looking forward to the Directors Cut....but I am going to say I have a slight hope that the DC will make it into at least a tolerable movie, as was mostly the case with the first Daredevil movie imo. The Directors cut was much, much better.

Yes. Affleck was good.

The dark theme is decent, and it has worked for Batman. But batman is a dark character, superman is really not. And if you have one dark guy...another one is just gonna be the fifth wheel. You cant bounce off each other when you're the same. Even Wonder woman was bland gray. Is Znyder incapable of seeing
color?

What little we saw of wonder woman was cool, but she was, as most "characters" in this movie...a cardboard cutout at best. There was nothing at all to differentiate her from Superman. She could take a superpunch and had a sword+shield. The "trinity" moment was lame, the only enjoyable moment in the entire movie was when they were all 3 attacking Doomsday. A bit cool.

Znyder is a travesty. He should be fired and not let close to any superhero movie again.

Honestly, if he had cut the amount of slow motion "check this out people" scenes by half, we might have had time for some actual story.

Also, Lex was a disgrace. Capably acted, but all over the place and never what he should be.

The only positive thing I have to say about BvS is that, when looking back, its gonna make Man of Steel be a better movie by comparison.

I think we should shift the blame to Warner Bros. movie company because they seem to be incapable of making anything other then Batman Dark Knight because Dark Knight won a billion dollars and they want that same success again so they think repeating that formula of Dark Knight would succeed.

I mean look at Green Lantern, and Zack had nothing to do with that movie.

Well yeah....but I'm one of those that didnt think the GL movie was THAT bad. It was just not that good. And it suffered from clocking in behind Iron Man, which raised the bar something fierce and showed people how good superhero movies could be.

I totally agree that WB should have a truckload of the blame. You can positively see the threads in their movies "we need to do the Marvel thing and sneak in previews and do some worldbuilding". And they JUST DONT GET IT.

WB is devoid of direction and fantasy...but really Znyder is awful. There is WAY too much slo-mo BS in his movies. Drawn out scenes that do NOTHING. He can do some decent visual stuff, but he is no storyteller and at least needs a co-director or something.

Honestly, I'm so tired of his grey and dark BS. Give me some color for gods sake. It feels like Call of Duty movie format.

Sorry I love his style of action, they are memorable and brutal and feel raw:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXLfTv42T8A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdNn5TZu6R8

And why are you complaining about color palette? What can color add in this movie that is already tonely dark and gritty?

Just saw it a couple of hours ago and I wasn't particularly impressed. Spent most of the film thinking about all the comics I've read and cartoons I've watched that are vastly superior to BvsS. Not very long into the film all I wanted to do was go home and read my Batman and Superman comics that are so much better than this, then maybe watch some clips from the DC Animated universe to remind me these characters are so much better than what's happening in the film. Apparently lots of my fellow cinema goers had the same idea but less patience than me because I've honestly never seen so many people leave the cinema in the middle of a film. I'm not talking about a mass walkouts, but at least 20 people had left by about an hour and a half in.

I was disappointed when I heard they were taking cues from Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" since, despite its popularity and significance, it's a poor portrayal of Batman. Miller constantly strained against the rigid moral code of the character, trying instead to turn Batman into one of his dark and ultra-violent anti-heroes. I like TDKR's early bits and consider it a good portrayal of where Batman and his associated characters would end up in a few decades time, but as it goes on Batman does more and more stuff he'd never do (kill people, use guns, etc) until it's not really Batman, but one of Miller's protagonists in a Batsuit.

Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor was terrible, annoying from the get go and never threatening or compelling as a good villain should be. His reinvention as Zuckerberg may have been more modern and relevant when some spiv in a suit thought it up but things have moved on since then and it just looks dated already. Every time "Lex" showed up I was waiting for the proper Luthor to turn up, deck Eisenberg, and then pretend he'd been there all along. There was no depth to his hatred of Superman, despite proper Lex having some genuinely interesting reasons. But with no time to focus on anything we wouldn't know if there was a good reason or not.

Affleck did a good job, even if the film gets Batman wrong by using DKR Batman. He's going to be the Ewan McGregor of this film if you know what I mean. He's in good shape, I like his Bruce Wayne, he does well in the suit. He's got crap to work with but credit to him for doing as well as he did, even if I don't think having an older Batman is a good idea if you're planning a series of Justice League movies.

I like Cavill as Superman, but he's given nothing to do but punch, be punched, and look mopey which is not what Superman is. I think he looks the part and would be great in a better Superman movie but the utterly shallow Superman he's portraying means he's two for two in disappointing DC films. The less said about Amy Adams' Lois Lane the better, she's got little chemistry with Cavill and they can't think of anything to do with her. A better written film might have the confidence to lessen her role and have her only appear when actually needed, but instead she just hangs around major scenes like a liability and nobody knows what to do with her.

So the film doesn't really work, the characters don't really work, and they were reading off the wrong hymn sheet in the first place. There's little to get invested in and for a film so cluttered with other stuff it takes a very long time to get anywhere relevant. The characters all interact with each other like strangers, there's no warmth or heart to anything, and I never got invested in the movie. It was something that happened to be going on in front of me, and I spent my time thinking about ways each part could have been done better.

But obviously I'll be going along to watch whatever DC puts out next in the faint hope that it's actually good. So I guess I'm an idiot.

Gordon_4:
all I'm hearing is either 'Second Coming of Christ' or 'Satan is assaulting Heaven's Gate'

I've been hearing both of that a lot over the past few days. I can't take any remark that says it's the greatest thing ever or a huge pile of shit seriously, because these types of reactions tend to be kneejerk reactions.

Samtemdo8:

tzimize:

Samtemdo8:

I think we should shift the blame to Warner Bros. movie company because they seem to be incapable of making anything other then Batman Dark Knight because Dark Knight won a billion dollars and they want that same success again so they think repeating that formula of Dark Knight would succeed.

I mean look at Green Lantern, and Zack had nothing to do with that movie.

Well yeah....but I'm one of those that didnt think the GL movie was THAT bad. It was just not that good. And it suffered from clocking in behind Iron Man, which raised the bar something fierce and showed people how good superhero movies could be.

I totally agree that WB should have a truckload of the blame. You can positively see the threads in their movies "we need to do the Marvel thing and sneak in previews and do some worldbuilding". And they JUST DONT GET IT.

WB is devoid of direction and fantasy...but really Znyder is awful. There is WAY too much slo-mo BS in his movies. Drawn out scenes that do NOTHING. He can do some decent visual stuff, but he is no storyteller and at least needs a co-director or something.

Honestly, I'm so tired of his grey and dark BS. Give me some color for gods sake. It feels like Call of Duty movie format.

Sorry I love his style of action, they are memorable and brutal and feel raw:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXLfTv42T8A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdNn5TZu6R8

And why are you complaining about color palette? What can color add in this movie that is already tonely dark and gritty?

Oh, I cant argue with that. I LOVE watchmen, in its entirety, and I love 300 as well. But a movie should be more than action. Luckily Watchman is a good story to begin with, so it was harder to mess that up. 300 is....well...its barely a story, but it looks cool :P and I enjoyed watching it.

What could color add? Some personality maybe? I found Wonder Womans suit to be decent, but too dark. Batman is supposed to be dark, so ok. The Supersuit is cool, at least there is color even if its dark tones.

However, Wonder Woman and Superman are the polar opposites of Batman. They are Icons. They are SUPPOSED to be visible. The shadows are not for them. I dont mean that we need the Reeve suit back or anything like that...but EVERYTHING is dark. Its the same with the mood/psyche of the players. If everyone is dark you get numb and the grittyness loses its effect.

This is one of the reasons why The Dark Knight is probably the best Batman movie. The joker. He has color, in every way. He gives Batman something to bounce off of. Both visually and personalitywise. Also, he is FUN.

Nobody bounces off anything in BvS. It all just mushes together to a dark blob :(
And the weak attempt to make Lex into some sort of joker-esque crazy person...didnt work for me at all. The movie desperately needed some mood, and none was to be found. At least Superman smiled at the end of Man of Steel :|

The Harkinator:

But obviously I'll be going along to watch whatever DC puts out next in the faint hope that it's actually good. So I guess I'm an idiot.

Here is the preview of the Wonder Woman movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9Ur4De7yT8

The Harkinator:
Just saw it a couple of hours ago and I wasn't particularly impressed. Spent most of the film thinking about all the comics I've read and cartoons I've watched that are vastly superior to BvsS. Not very long into the film all I wanted to do was go home and read my Batman and Superman comics that are so much better than this, then maybe watch some clips from the DC Animated universe to remind me these characters are so much better than what's happening in the film. Apparently lots of my fellow cinema goers had the same idea but less patience than me because I've honestly never seen so many people leave the cinema in the middle of a film. I'm not talking about a mass walkouts, but at least 20 people had left by about an hour and a half in.

I was disappointed when I heard they were taking cues from Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" since, despite its popularity and significance, it's a poor portrayal of Batman. Miller constantly strained against the rigid moral code of the character, trying instead to turn Batman into one of his dark and ultra-violent anti-heroes. I like TDKR's early bits and consider it a good portrayal of where Batman and his associated characters would end up in a few decades time, but as it goes on Batman does more and more stuff he'd never do (kill people, use guns, etc) until it's not really Batman, but one of Miller's protagonists in a Batsuit.

Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor was terrible, annoying from the get go and never threatening or compelling as a good villain should be. His reinvention as Zuckerberg may have been more modern and relevant when some spiv in a suit thought it up but things have moved on since then and it just looks dated already. Every time "Lex" showed up I was waiting for the proper Luthor to turn up, deck Eisenberg, and then pretend he'd been there all along. There was no depth to his hatred of Superman, despite proper Lex having some genuinely interesting reasons. But with no time to focus on anything we wouldn't know if there was a good reason or not.

Affleck did a good job, even if the film gets Batman wrong by using DKR Batman. He's going to be the Ewan McGregor of this film if you know what I mean. He's in good shape, I like his Bruce Wayne, he does well in the suit. He's got crap to work with but credit to him for doing as well as he did, even if I don't think having an older Batman is a good idea if you're planning a series of Justice League movies.

I like Cavill as Superman, but he's given nothing to do but punch, be punched, and look mopey which is not what Superman is. I think he looks the part and would be great in a better Superman movie but the utterly shallow Superman he's portraying means he's two for two in disappointing DC films. The less said about Amy Adams' Lois Lane the better, she's got little chemistry with Cavill and they can't think of anything to do with her. A better written film might have the confidence to lessen her role and have her only appear when actually needed, but instead she just hangs around major scenes like a liability and nobody knows what to do with her.

So the film doesn't really work, the characters don't really work, and they were reading off the wrong hymn sheet in the first place. There's little to get invested in and for a film so cluttered with other stuff it takes a very long time to get anywhere relevant. The characters all interact with each other like strangers, there's no warmth or heart to anything, and I never got invested in the movie. It was something that happened to be going on in front of me, and I spent my time thinking about ways each part could have been done better.

But obviously I'll be going along to watch whatever DC puts out next in the faint hope that it's actually good. So I guess I'm an idiot.

Its like we're twins. This is more or less word for word how I felt.

tzimize:

Samtemdo8:

tzimize:

Well yeah....but I'm one of those that didnt think the GL movie was THAT bad. It was just not that good. And it suffered from clocking in behind Iron Man, which raised the bar something fierce and showed people how good superhero movies could be.

I totally agree that WB should have a truckload of the blame. You can positively see the threads in their movies "we need to do the Marvel thing and sneak in previews and do some worldbuilding". And they JUST DONT GET IT.

WB is devoid of direction and fantasy...but really Znyder is awful. There is WAY too much slo-mo BS in his movies. Drawn out scenes that do NOTHING. He can do some decent visual stuff, but he is no storyteller and at least needs a co-director or something.

Honestly, I'm so tired of his grey and dark BS. Give me some color for gods sake. It feels like Call of Duty movie format.

Sorry I love his style of action, they are memorable and brutal and feel raw:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXLfTv42T8A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdNn5TZu6R8

And why are you complaining about color palette? What can color add in this movie that is already tonely dark and gritty?

Oh, I cant argue with that. I LOVE watchmen, in its entirety, and I love 300 as well. But a movie should be more than action. Luckily Watchman is a good story to begin with, so it was harder to mess that up. 300 is....well...its barely a story, but it looks cool :P and I enjoyed watching it.

What could color add? Some personality maybe? I found Wonder Womans suit to be decent, but too dark. Batman is supposed to be dark, so ok. The Supersuit is cool, at least there is color even if its dark tones.

However, Wonder Woman and Superman are the polar opposites of Batman. They are Icons. They are SUPPOSED to be visible. The shadows are not for them. I dont mean that we need the Reeve suit back or anything like that...but EVERYTHING is dark. Its the same with the mood/psyche of the players. If everyone is dark you get numb and the grittyness loses its effect.

This is one of the reasons why The Dark Knight is probably the best Batman movie. The joker. He has color, in every way. He gives Batman something to bounce off of. Both visually and personalitywise. Also, he is FUN.

Nobody bounces off anything in BvS. It all just mushes together to a dark blob :(
And the weak attempt to make Lex into some sort of joker-esque crazy person...didnt work for me at all. The movie desperately needed some mood, and none was to be found. At least Superman smiled at the end of Man of Steel :|

I want the look and tone of the DCAU cartoons aswell, but I doubt we will get that at the rate these Live Action Superhero Movies are going.

The reason I prefer this dark and gritty tone is because I don't want the later DC movies to end up copying the Marvel style and tone because honestly there are moments in the Marvel movies that comes off as UNBELIVEABLY CORNY its cringeworthy.

For example the whole of GOTG, perticularly this scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8ohTJp3PAA

Everyone laughed at that scene in the theater I watched this movie, I just facepalmed at it, I was like "Oh my goodness that was the corniest thing I have ever seen"

And not only that. I can't stand some of the Humor and levity in the Avengers. Iron Man can be groan worthy so much that I wish Captain America and Hulk punches him.

And don't get me started on Ultron.

And now that BvS is struggling and with the announcement of the Lego Batman Movie (And I already know how that movie is going to be like and Lego Movie was also corny like the Batman singing Darkness, No Parents, and the cheesy drama scenes with Will Ferral) I worry that WB will hire the team behind the Lego Batman movie to make their own DC movie.

Samtemdo8:
For example the whole of Guardians of the Galaxy, particularly this scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9Ur4De7yT8

That link does not go to a Guardians of the Galaxy video.

JimB:

Samtemdo8:
For example the whole of Guardians of the Galaxy, particularly this scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9Ur4De7yT8

That link does not go to a Guardians of the Galaxy video.

Fixed it.

Also how do you do that feature of making the video itself appear in the posts?

Samtemdo8:
And why are you complaining about color palette? What can color add in this movie that is already tonely dark and gritty?

Dark and gritty is a emotional tone, not a visible one. You want to know a good example of "dark and gritty" while being colourful? The Metroid franchise. The XCOM reboot. Hotline Miami. Far Cry 3. Grand Theft Auto.

Even going for a dark and grittier colour pallete doesn't mean using no colour. Examples? Injustice: Gods Among Us. Thats from DC itself. More examples? Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Sure, mostly yellow, orange and red but there's plenty of colour. Spec Ops: The Line, easily the darkest, most gruesome game in tone I've played, took place in a city hit by a giant sandstorm, and had a subdued visible tone yet it has white, black, red, blue, green, orange, yellow, even purple and indigo. You can clearly have a very subdued colour tone while still having a lot of colour.

Atop of all that its really just baffling that they didn't make Superman's suit brighter, just for the sake of symbolism. Very washed out colours and all and his go with the rest of the world but if it was brighter Superman literally would've been a light shining in the darkness. Quite on the nose but given the rest of the extremely heavy handed symbolism in Man of Steel that made even Superman Returns' symbolism look subtle I'm surprised they didn't take it. It also would've addressed one of the major fan complaints.

MarsAtlas:
Atop of all that its really just baffling that they didn't make Superman's suit brighter, just for the sake of symbolism. Very washed out colours and all and his go with the rest of the world but if it was brighter Superman literally would've been a light shining in the darkness. Quite on the nose but given the rest of the extremely heavy handed symbolism in Man of Steel that made even Superman Returns' symbolism look subtle I'm surprised they didn't take it. It also would've addressed one of the major fan complaints.

But then they wouldn't be chasing after the Batman Dark and Gritty Gravy Train. Nope, can't have that.

Gordon_4:

'Second Coming of Christ' or 'Satan is assaulting Heaven's Gate'

By coincidence those are both themes of the movie.

So I have returned from a viewing, after all I cannot criticize without seeing it.

In short: I was wrong about Gadot, Ben and Jeremy are a brilliant double act, and the cameos of Cyborg, Flash and Aquaman were surprisingly clever - though Green Lantern is conspicuous in his absence.

The rest of the movie, can go fuck itself.

You say an Asylum film does a better job of establishing its characters than this one does? Wow, that's . . . an accomplishment. Not one to be proud of, but it's an accomplishment.

Samtemdo8:

Worgen:
Its weird how dc movies are the dark ones and Marvel are the more light hearted. Since dc is the weirder comic universe which would really benefit from a lighter tone. But Marvel tends to have more complex characters who have to deal with the weirdness of growing up or alcohol dependence or abuse or being discriminated against. Marvel could go much darker and still be good, but the well known DC heroes are essentially Greek gods. Being dark doesn't help that.

No I always saw DC as the more serious one.

I mean look at the DCAU, not all the Superman episodes were comedic.

Not to mention the fact that DC has characters like Constantine, who in his own comics, deals with child murders, violence, race wars, sex addiction, alcoholism, and the Devil himself. Marvel doesn't have anyone quite like him.

Sheo_Dagana:

Samtemdo8:

Worgen:
Its weird how dc movies are the dark ones and Marvel are the more light hearted. Since dc is the weirder comic universe which would really benefit from a lighter tone. But Marvel tends to have more complex characters who have to deal with the weirdness of growing up or alcohol dependence or abuse or being discriminated against. Marvel could go much darker and still be good, but the well known DC heroes are essentially Greek gods. Being dark doesn't help that.

No I always saw DC as the more serious one.

I mean look at the DCAU, not all the Superman episodes were comedic.

Not to mention the fact that DC has characters like Constantine, who in his own comics, deals with child murders, violence, race wars, sex addiction, alcoholism, and the Devil himself. Marvel doesn't have anyone quite like him.

Last but not least let us not forget about DC's Vertigo Comic Imprint.

Where we get comic books that has balls.

Worgen:

Gorfias:

Worgen:

Even batman should't be that dark. I mean part of his moral compass is not killing people. If you make his badguys to bad then him not killing them just looks sillier and sillier. Plus if batman didn't kill them then the cops sure as hell would..

I see this tomorrow with my nephew and I had heard that in this, Batman does have a casual attitude about not killing which undermines his character. One of the best depictions of him was "Kingdom Come" where he is a dark, snarky old bastard and he is turning down helping Superman. In reality, he is not being cynical, he is acknowledging that he is human and will be of limited assistance. Superman reminds him that he knows, deep down inside, Batman doesn't want anyone ever being killed.

I haven't seen it but apparently he doesn't have a casual attitude to not killing, he goes out of his way to rack up a rather large body count.

I just came home from seeing it.

Neither Batman nor Superman! seem too worried about killing people.

My overall impression: THE EXACT OPPOSITE of just about everyone else I'm reading. The movie is 2.5 hours long. Critics write that the first 2 hours are an unbearable drag, waiting for the fun of the last .5 hours.

I find the 1st 2 hours a blast. Like Watchmen meets Dark Knight. Fun stuff mixed with thought pieces and character development. The last .5 hours is fun to look at but a noisy mess with leaps of logic to match Superman 4. And it commits a sin I read about in these pages: it assumes a sequel and spends time making you look forward to that rather than enjoy what is on the screen. Final verdict: VERY imperfect but, if you love this stuff as I do, see it. You will appreciate it.

Gorfias:

Worgen:

Gorfias:

I see this tomorrow with my nephew and I had heard that in this, Batman does have a casual attitude about not killing which undermines his character. One of the best depictions of him was "Kingdom Come" where he is a dark, snarky old bastard and he is turning down helping Superman. In reality, he is not being cynical, he is acknowledging that he is human and will be of limited assistance. Superman reminds him that he knows, deep down inside, Batman doesn't want anyone ever being killed.

I haven't seen it but apparently he doesn't have a casual attitude to not killing, he goes out of his way to rack up a rather large body count.

I just came home from seeing it.

Neither Batman nor Superman! seem too worried about killing people.

My overall impression: THE EXACT OPPOSITE of just about everyone else I'm reading. The movie is 2.5 hours long. Critics write that the first 2 hours are an unbearable drag, waiting for the fun of the last .5 hours.

I find the 1st 2 hours a blast. Like Watchmen meets Dark Knight. Fun stuff mixed with thought pieces and character development. The last .5 hours is fun to look at but a noisy mess with leaps of logic to match Superman 4. And it commits a sin I read about in these pages: it assumes a sequel and spends time making you look forward to that rather than enjoy what is on the screen. Final verdict: VERY imperfect but, if you love this stuff as I do, see it. You will appreciate it.

I liked the entire movie but there is a certain hit in quality after the tea jar scene. Something that makes me wonder how anyone could say that the movie is boring at the start.

Does no one watch dramas or anything other then action movies?

Gordon_4:
...and the cameos of Cyborg, Flash and Aquaman were surprisingly clever...

Weird, to me that was the worst part of the movie, (except Flash, he made sense, altough his first presence would have been enough), they felt so forced and in your face, especially Aquaman.

josemlopes:

I liked the entire movie but there is a certain hit in quality after the tea jar scene. Something that makes me wonder how anyone could say that the movie is boring at the start.

Does no one watch dramas or anything other then action movies?

That tea jar scene was spectacular. Really reminded me of Dark Knight.

I wonder why DC isn't making movies that can feel serious but have the tone and fun of the Marvel movies. I think it is that... Marvel is already doing that so, DC can say "us too!" and fail, or offer something different. I hope audiences give them props so we get both styles.

I just got back from seeing the movie. I have so much to say and don't know how to properly articulate it.

The proper editing would have fixed a lot of the problems. The flow from one scene to the other almost gave me whiplash. If I didn't know any better, I'd say this movie was edited by an automated computer program and not an actual human. It felt like more work was put into efficiently cutting down the time to 2.5 hours over coherent storytelling. After hearing 30 minutes was being added into the home version, it all made sense. Scenes will come and go swiftly, so be prepared.

A few other ramblings:

- Ben Affleck's Batman was freakin' awesome. I hope his character is better served in future movies.

- The Justice League tie-ins were very shoehorned and unnecessary.

- Jessie Eisenberg's manic, twitchy Luther was strange and unfitting to the character. I didn't hate him, but it felt like he was channeling the Joker somewhat.

- Superman is still mopey. I like Henry Cavill as Superman, but he doesn't have much to work with.

- Doomsday does not need to be here. Generally, I think Doomsday is a horrible, one-note villain, but he should have been saved for another movie if they were going to use him.

- Overall, the movie is a mixed bag. I think I like more than I dislike it. I will gladly watch it again when the director's cut gets released. I hope my theory about the editing pans out. It it worth seeing? Absolutely! Just don't expect perfection.

josemlopes:
Does no one watch dramas or anything other then action movies?

Raises hand...

Honestly, I find myself enjoying dramas far more than action movies these days. Bridge of Spies was my top movie of 2015 (admittedly you can call that a thriller). Likewise, this year, my top ten list has drama/thriller films like Eye in the Sky, Concussion, The Big Short, and while some movies have action in them (10 Cloverfield Lane, Zootopia, The Revenant), they're certainly not action movies in of themselves. On the other end of the spectrum, action movies I've seen this year like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and Gods of Egypt stand as the worst films I've seen this year. Deadpool currently holds the #9 spot, which is most certainly an action movie, but will probably fall out by the year's end.

So, yeah. This doesn't stop some dramas from being lacklustre in my eyes (e.g. Lady in the Van and Hail, Ceasar!), but frankly I'm finding them far more interesting. The ethical, political, and legal issues raised in Eye in the Sky prompted discussion among friends and family, but, well, let's be honest, the Escapist (or many Internet sites) probably aren't the best place for that kind of discussion unless you want a shouting match. But that's a far more relevant conversation to the real-world than who would win in a brawl? Heck, even Zootopia prompted intelligent discussion, even if its themes were obvious (not that I'm complaining, Zootopia's currently the best film I've seen this year).

Gordon_4:

TheLaughingMagician:

Silentpony:
Saw the midnight showing last night. Pretty terrible. As bad as moviebob said? Nah. He exaggerates. But its REALLY fucking bad! Like its not lube-less anal rape painful. But its certainly lube-less anal sex painful.

Has anything ever been as bad as Bob says it was? I tend to like and dislike the same movies as him but apart from fantfourstic I don't think I've ever gotten as worked up over a movie, I don't think I've ever gotten that worked up over actual crimes.

Green Lantern; I think he was right on the money with Green Lantern.

I'm honestly amazed at how much of a drumming this movie is getting. Like I wasn't expecting much out of it personally but I'm supposed to be one of those never pleased types about this sort of shit. I expected it to at least resonate and do okay with general audiences and less invested critics but all I'm hearing is either 'Second Coming of Christ' or 'Satan is assaulting Heaven's Gate'

Samtemdo8:

So what Batman and Superman should not kill in the inevitable fight against Darkside and his huge Army of soldiers?

Because the Avengers did kill in the fight against the Aliens.

The (three primary) Avengers are in order: an American soldier who saw battle in the fields of Europe in World War II, a high functioning alcoholic narcissist and king of the MIC (who suffered PTSD from nearly dying) and one of the most famously violent members of a Pantheon famous for reveling in bloodshed. They wouldn't be adverse to killing mainly on strength of their backgrounds alone. Superman and Batman have entirely different experiences and circumstances to shape them as people and heroes.

You do realize that Darkseid is unresonable. That is armies will attack and kill without mercy.

Superman and the Batman will not even the chance to knock them out and send them all to jail.

Funny, people complain about Prince Anduin Wrynn in World of Warcraft for being a painfully stunted pacifist in the face of a clear unreasonable warlike enemy and the fans wants to push him into War against the enemies of the alliance (Garrosh's horde, THe Burning Legion)

But when Superman has to fight and kill everyone wants him to be the same pacifistic upholder of Justice.

Diablo1099:
God, I can not wait to see how much money DC pissed away on this mess.

About $400 million total. WB said that it needs to make 1 Billion to be considered successful. In America, opening day was approx. $82 million, with projected weekend being $170 million. With a 6 week run, factoring diminishing returns, I personally guess it will make approx. 750 million total. If WB 1 Billion is domestic alone, I don't think they will make it.

Samtemdo8:
You do realize that Darkseid is unreasonable. That his armies will attack and kill without mercy.

Superman does not believe in choosing who lives and dies (which is a reason I draw a distinction between Superman and the character in the Snyderverse, whom I will call Kal-El). He will save every life he can, and he will mourn the ones he can't, but he will not accept responsibility for a trigger he didn't pull. The civilians who die during Darkseid's invasion are Darkseid's fault, not his.

I also think you're excluding huge amounts of middle ground here, implying that killing aliens left and right is the only way to save the population. The population can be evacuated and/or put into a stronghold to defend. With the speeds some of the Justice League are capable of moving at, it is eminently possible to defend life by a means other than taking life.

Samtemdo8:
Funny, people complain about Prince Anduin Wrynn in World of Warcraft for being a painfully stunted pacifist in the face of a clear unreasonable warlike enemy and the fans wants to push him into war against the enemies of the alliance (Garrosh's horde, the Burning Legion); but when Superman has to fight and kill everyone wants him to be the same pacifistic upholder of justice.

That's really only a funny thing if you first demonstrate an overlap in the two groups of people arguing those two different things, and then demonstrate that the reasonings behind those arguments are contradictory. I have nothing to say about it because I have nothing to do with Warcraft and no idea what you're talking about, but I tend to suspect the prince you mentioned is not invulnerable, capable of lifting entire planets with his bare hands, and faster than the speed of sound. If he's not those things, then holding him to the same standard one holds Kal-El to seems a tad silly.

JimB:

Samtemdo8:
You do realize that Darkseid is unreasonable. That his armies will attack and kill without mercy.

Superman does not believe in choosing who lives and dies (which is a reason I draw a distinction between Superman and the character in the Snyderverse, whom I will call Kal-El). He will save every life he can, and he will mourn the ones he can't, but he will not accept responsibility for a trigger he didn't pull. The civilians who die during Darkseid's invasion are Darkseid's fault, not his.

I also think you're excluding huge amounts of middle ground here, implying that killing aliens left and right is the only way to save the population. The population can be evacuated and/or put into a stronghold to defend. With the speeds some of the Justice League are capable of moving at, it is eminently possible to defend life by a means other than taking life.

Samtemdo8:
Funny, people complain about Prince Anduin Wrynn in World of Warcraft for being a painfully stunted pacifist in the face of a clear unreasonable warlike enemy and the fans wants to push him into war against the enemies of the alliance (Garrosh's horde, the Burning Legion); but when Superman has to fight and kill everyone wants him to be the same pacifistic upholder of justice.

That's really only a funny thing if you first demonstrate an overlap in the two groups of people arguing those two different things, and then demonstrate that the reasonings behind those arguments are contradictory. I have nothing to say about it because I have nothing to do with Warcraft and no idea what you're talking about, but I tend to suspect the prince you mentioned is not invulnerable, capable of lifting entire planets with his bare hands, and faster than the speed of sound. If he's not those things, then holding him to the same standard one holds Kal-El to seems a tad silly.

1. Ok then they evacuate the population and/or placed them in a stronghold to defend, but there is still the matter of dealing with the Hostile Aliens/Forces that could still be after them.

2. But Prince Anduin is now King of a grand Alliance of Different Races with a whole slew of Warriors and Heroes who can control either has control over Holy Powers tha can go as far as raising a recently slain person, control of the very classical elements of Earth, Wind, Water, and Fire Avatar stlye, Mighty Warriors capable of killing Great Demons and Monsters.

Samtemdo8:
Okay then, they evacuate the population and/or placed them in a stronghold to defend, but there is still the matter of dealing with the hostile alien forces that could still be after them.

Yes. These are things they have the power to deal with in a nonlethal fashion.

Samtemdo8:
Prince Anduin is now king of a grand alliance of different races with a whole slew of warriors and heroes who can control holy powers that can go as far as raising a recently slain person, control of the very classical elements of earth, wind, water, and fire Avatar-style, and mighty warriors capable of killing great demons and monsters.

Uh, okay. Again, I have no familiarity with Warcraft, so none of that has the context to make any sense to me. If you insist he has the personal power necessary to pacify an entire army, then...sure, I guess. That still leaves you with the problem of having to demonstrate that real people are making both the statements you attribute to them and are doing so for hypocritical reasons.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here