I have bought our tickets for Batman V Superman

Just got back.

As a Snyder movie, I guess it's a win. He's doing his thing. Jammity would probably love it, even if it didn't have his beloved Ben.

But if you're expecting to see the things that make Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc., great... Not gonna happen.

(also needed a script doctor who could handle dialogue)
 
Just got back. Absolutely loved it. Really not understanding the bad reviews. Pacing was good, shout outs were good, it was just really a good movie. I'm excited for Justice League.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
 
Saw it. Liked it ok. But it was a little over serious/taking itself too seriously for my taste. And I am not completely liking what they did with both the Superman character, and also Batman. I guess it is ok to allow the characters to evolve. Even Clark Kent and the paper had to evolve giving modern realities WRT to print papers. And I did enjoy the compare/contrast of world views between the two characters.

So, did not hate it. And think the Marvel movies are more fun to watch.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
And I am not completely liking what they did with both the Superman character, and also Batman.
Click to expand...

I just got back and loved it. I have one comment for you on this. (Not just you a bunch of folks have the same opinion) Batman and Superman have been around for decades. Do you really want to see the same movie over and over again? With the characters being just like they were in every previous version? They have to change it up a bit.

I do think they should have done a movie with Ben as Batman first and then did this one.
 
Chad said:
I just got back and loved it. I have one comment for you on this. (Not just you a bunch of folks have the same opinion) Batman and Superman have been around for decades. Do you really want to see the same movie over and over again? With the characters being just like they were in every previous version?
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

Things change with the times. But at some point you've just got RoboCop in a Batman costume.
 
Chad said:
I just got back and loved it. I have one comment for you on this. (Not just you a bunch of folks have the same opinion) Batman and Superman have been around for decades. Do you really want to see the same movie over and over again? With the characters being just like they were in every previous version? They have to change it up a bit.

I do think they should have done a movie with Ben as Batman first and then did this one.
Click to expand...
No. I agree that the characters need to be able to change somewhat and evolve. But certain linchpin characteristics have to remain to anchor the character. There are others here that know both these characters better than I so I won't say more about the historical linchpins. I just thought they made batman out to be more petty/narcissistic than I thought he should be, and that Superman was a bit too caught up in his girlfriend. But don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the movie overall.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
No. I agree that the characters need to be able to change somewhat and evolve. But certain linchpin characteristics have to remain to anchor the character. There are others here that know both these characters better than I so I won't say more about the historical linchpins. I just thought they made batman out to be more petty/narcissistic than I thought he should be, and that Superman was a bit too caught up in his girlfriend. But don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the movie overall.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to pick on you but in The first Superman movies, superman rotated the earth backwards to reverse time to save Lois from and earthquake.he has always been too hung up on Lois
 
Problem here isn't that Superman is hung up on Lois, it's that Lois's sole purpose in life is to be saved by Superman. That version was dated decades ago, and it's been remedied countless times.
 
Last edited:
Chad said:
I'm not trying to pick on you but in The first Superman movies, superman rotated the earth backwards to reverse time to save Lois from and earthquake.
Click to expand...
Fair point. But as written, there was not collateral damage as I recall when he did that. was there? I don't remember. Truth is, Superman is not my favorite character anyway, nor any of the movies, Christopher Reeves or otherwise. I for some reason was more a batman or Captain America kid as a youth. I kinda like that Superman has a bit more doubt and complexity now. But for him to choose death or damage for others to save what/who he cares about seems to be a fundamental change in my mind. More interesting maybe, but not in the foundational makeup of the original character, as I understood the character. In its purest form, I do not think the character would even have cast Zod into the abyss as he did so in 1980, but rather took him to jail. But I guess human jails would not have worked with Zod so he had to, and said aggression was to a similarly powered villain.
 
I feel like the first two thirds of the movie were typical Zack Snyder fair and somebody else who FUCKING UNDERSTOOD SUPERMAN AND BATMAN did the last third.

It also felt like four stories thrown in a Blendtec Blender and somebody screamed "WILL IT BLEND!?" It was disjointed and some things seemed out of order.

And WTF with Lex Luthor? Did Zack Snyder forget it was Lex Luthor and not the alien love child of The Riddler and The Joker that he was working with here?
 
sunvalleylaw said:
Fair point. But as written, there was not collateral damage as I recall when he did that. was there? I don't remember. Truth is, Superman is not my favorite character anyway, nor any of the movies, Christopher Reeves or otherwise. I for some reason was more a batman or Captain America kid as a youth. I kinda like that Superman has a bit more doubt and complexity now. But for him to choose death or damage for others to save what/who he cares about seems to be a fundamental change in my mind. More interesting maybe, but not in the foundational makeup of the original character, as I understood the character. In its purest form, I do not think the character would even have cast Zod into the abyss as he did so in 1980, but rather took him to jail. But I guess human jails would not have worked with Zod so he had to, and said aggression was to a similarly powered villain.
Click to expand...
I think the if take away from this and any comic movie, is you can't please everyone. If you change too much comic fans hate it and if you don't change enough regular folks won't be able to follow.
 
Chad said:
I think the if take away from this and any comic movie, is you can't please everyone. If you change too much comic fans hate it and if you don't change enough regular folks won't be able to follow.
Click to expand...

Except that there have been plenty of examples in recent years that disprove that thesis.
 
Chad said:
I think the if take away from this and any comic movie, is you can't please everyone. If you change too much comic fans hate it and if you don't change enough regular folks won't be able to follow.
Click to expand...
Yeah, kinda like what they did to Bilbo in the re-done Hobbit movie. A couple things he did, particularly in the scene with the Wargs and Goblins after the escape from the Goblin caves. A bit off topic, but this guy hits it right for me:

http://www.pajiba.com/seriously_ran...acksons-the-hobbit-deviated-from-the-book.php

The John McClane-ing Of Bilbo Baggins: "The Hobbit" is, at its core, a very small and simple story. For all the giants and wolves and trolls and goblins and dragons, this is a really story about a comfy little Hobbit who doesn't really want an adventure. He's blustered out the door by Gandalf (this plays out a bit differently in the movie where it's much more Bilbo's idea) and throughout his journey thinks back longingly on his cozy home. Martin Freeman was perfectly cast. Just perfect. But the bravery that Bilbo eventually shows is a slow to come and hard won. It has a lot more to with the ring and nothing at all to do with charging out of a flaming tree and attacking Orcs and wolves. Bilbo is not an action hero. He's a sneak. A thief. A clever, tricksy little hobbit who finds his courage when he needs it most. Bilbo is a bit craven, actually. Those shades of grey are lost when you turn him into a fighter. He's not Frodo, nor would we want him to be. It's the quiet moments that work the best in this film. Bilbo's worried conversation with Bofur (the excellent James Nesbitt) or the cannily encouraging words from Gandalf. More of that and fewer sword fights please.

I know some here don't think much of Tolkien's characters, but I think the simple story nature of "The Hobbit" is important, and to turn Bilbo into an action hero is, well, lame. But maybe that is what people think you need to do to fill movie seats. By way of analogy to the characters at hand in this thread.
 
Flamencology said:
Problem here isn't that Superman is hung up on Lois, it's that Lois's sole purpose in life is to be saved by Superman. That version was dated decades ago, and it's been remedied countless times.
Click to expand...

really? I don't want to put any spoilers here, but she did a little more than be saved by superman. I would argue if not for her, this movie would have ended before we saw Wonder Woman show up in her costume.
 
My son and I saw it yesterday and we both liked it just fine. It wasn't the best of these movies I've seen, but it was very far from the worst.

Like Age of Ultron, it was a tad overstuffed, but I'm not really too down on it for that. There were a couple of things that made me go "Huh?, but I don't let niggling details sabotage my larger enjoyment of things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top