Batman v Superman *spoilers from post 2434*

Penn

techdiver wrote: »

I knew that excuse would be rolled out.

A deleted scene is exactly that, it is not part of the finished product.

So you'd agree then that the recently released clip of a deleted scene of Lex in the ship showing that it's likely he was acting under the influence of Darkseid is not part of the finished product and therefore, Lex has absolutely no character motivation for creating Doomsday and how he acts at the end of the film?

Mitch Connor

Penn wrote: »

So you'd agree then that the recently released clip of a deleted scene of Lex in the ship showing that it's likely he was acting under the influence of Darkseid is not part of the finished product and therefore, Lex has absolutely no character motivation for creating Doomsday and how he acts at the end of the film?

Within this movie and its story arc, no - there is no proper reasoning or explanation. But, the existence of the deleted scene indicates the direction they are going so there is a good chance that JL1 will then add this plot point to the arc. Until then, it would be more so speculation that Darkseid is on the way than being able to point to it as fact.

Mizu_Ger

I saw this at the weekend and thought it was terrible. No fun, excitement or thrills to be had. It was LOUD and the action was so frenetic that it didn't generate any wow or excitement. The picture was also extremely soft and murky (I saw it in Vue Liffey Valley) making it hard to focus on what was going on sometimes. The film is a poster boy for the bad side of CGI: just keep throwing more and more at the screen, layering effects on top of effects because you can.

Storywise, it just tried to do too much. They are trying to take a shortcut to catch up with Marvel and in the end just crammed too much in. Introducing a new Batman, Wonder Woman and then brief glimpses of The Flash, Aquaman, Cyborg etc. The whole African thing didn't make sense (nor the Batman Superman confrontation) to me and the dream sequences devolved into CGI messes. When Doomsday turned up the last 30 minutes of the film was just a walkthrough to the inevitable. Lex Luthor was annoying. Too many ideas without focusing on anything.

Very disappointed and I'll given the rest of whatever series of films comes from this a miss.

Penn

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Within this movie and its story arc, no - there is no proper reasoning or explanation. But, the existence of the deleted scene indicates the direction they are going so there is a good chance that JL1 will then add this plot point to the arc. Until then, it would be more so speculation that Darkseid is on the way than being able to point to it as fact.

Agreed. I think there's a lot which points to Darkseid being ultimately responsible, but the removal of that scene with Lex means we have no reason why he's gone mental. His character has no motivation as to how he's acting even before he manages to get into the ship.

BlitzKrieg

also batman is terrible with his secret identity in this film.

Its no surprise superman works out who he is (though we never see this.) and he pretty much flirts to wonder woman that he's batman via email.


But ffs even Luther knows he's batman.

Add in by the end of the movie Lois lane knows as well and its clear he's doing a terrible job at the secret identity.

Nermal

Otacon wrote: »

Batfleck didn't see Superman as human; he was literally a monster in his eyes. It was the realisation that Clark had a mother (and a family in general) that allowed him to see this alien as another person.

I believe the doubt came from Alfred's conscience-like discussions with him but the name was the tipping point.

Don't know about that. I agree his mind is changed, at one point he says 'you're not a man' and like you say Lois/'Martha' convinces him otherwise.

But he explained his primary motivation earlier: 'if there is even a 1% chance that he could turn on us, we must destroy him first'. That is never really overturned (can it be?). The only way you could really get around that is to convince Batman that there is a need for Superman - for now - to fight a still-greater enemy, which should have been possible to establish here.

techdiver

allibastor wrote: »

I found Doomsday terrible, I mean he was just a larger Zod with some bone issues, not one thing about him made him the Bringer of doom!

Yeah, I think they **** the bed on Doomsday. It was rushed and wasted and didn't look like him at all.

They should have definitely explained the back sorry more for the general audience as to his proper origins (a Kryptionian experiment) as it made no sense how Lex conjured him up. The only way we knew anything was when Lex activated the scout ship and asked to be told "everything", which in itself was silly considering the vast amount of data it would contain.

Doomsday should really have been save for a Justice League movie. It seems it was just wasted for a 10 minute slot in this movie.

allibastor

Nermal wrote: »

Don't know about that. I agree his mind is changed, at one point he says 'you're not a man' and like you say Lois/'Martha' convinces him otherwise.

But he explained his primary motivation earlier: 'if there is even a 1% chance that he could turn on us, we must destroy him first'. That is never really overturned (can it be?). The only way you could really get around that is to convince Batman that there is a need for Superman - for now - to fight a still-greater enemy, which should have been possible to establish here.

Maybe Batman changed his mind when he saw how easy it was for him to nearly kill Superman?

I mean in the DKR he needed help, a nuke, a highly advanced suit (he did have this one) and LOADS of planning.
Here he used a gun with Kyrptonite and and a spear!

Penn

Nermal wrote: »

Don't know about that. I agree his mind is changed, at one point he says 'you're not a man' and like you say Lois/'Martha' convinces him otherwise.

But he explained his primary motivation earlier: 'if there is even a 1% chance that he could turn on us, we must destroy him first'. That is never really overturned (can it be?). The only way you could really get around that is to convince Batman that there is a need for Superman - for now - to fight a still-greater enemy, which should have been possible to establish here.

I think up to that point, Batman sees Superman as nothing more than an alien with powers, and that if there's a chance he could turn evil, they have to take it as a certainty, because he's alien and probably wouldn't understand right from wrong. Realising he has a mother he loves etc humanises him in Batman's eyes to the point where he realises he's capable of human emotion etc. He realises he's more than an alien, but essentially a human with powers.

As said, it was done kinda poorly, but I thought it worked well enough.

SwagBag32

techdiver wrote: »

The way I saw that scene, is that by Superman mentioning "Martha", it caused Batman to pause and hesitate and it was only when Lois came in and stated that it was his (Superman's) mothers name, that Batman realised that Superman was under duress as he was trying to pleads with him earlier on in the scene before the fight starts. I think to say the only reason that Batman didn't kill Superman is because their mothers have the same name misses the point of the scene.

Once again, just my opinion and reading of the scene. Maybe it was executed imperfectly, but I would bet that the writers intended it to be understood as I explained above.

That's possible. If so, it was poorly executed. Particularly for the genre where those kinds of nuances just aren't expected or needed IMO.

Slydice

Yikes! :eek:

The One Box-Office Record ‘Batman vs. Superman’ Didn’t Want to Break
http://screencrush.com/batman-vs-superman-box-office-record-decline/

The film dropped from $82 million on Friday to $37 million on Sunday, a decline of 55%. That’s a full 7% worse than last summer’s Fantastic Four, which dropped 48% over the same time frame.

techdiver

Slydice wrote: »

Yikes! :eek:

The One Box-Office Record ‘Batman vs. Superman’ Didn’t Want to Break
http://screencrush.com/batman-vs-superman-box-office-record-decline/

I can't remember where, but I read somewhere that Easter Sunday is a slack day for movie going in the States and a larger than normal drop off would be expected.

Still quite a drop. Over the next week and next weekend will give a clearer picture of its legs, especially given that it has no real competition for a couple of weeks.

Ben Gadot

I'll probably see it again next weekend anyway. Say what you want about MOS and BVS but they provoke such heated debate that repeat viewings are required (for me anyway). I don't really get that urge with films these days to watch again after the first viewing.

Mickeroo

Slydice wrote: »

Yikes! :eek:

The One Box-Office Record ‘Batman vs. Superman’ Didn’t Want to Break
http://screencrush.com/batman-vs-superman-box-office-record-decline/

Yeah but was fantastic 4's gross anywhere near what BvS managed? I doubt they'll lose much sleep over it!

Penn

I've been quite negative about the film in this thread, so I want to go over some of the things I liked:

- Affleck stole the show. I was never too worried about him and he always came across well in the trailers. He's probably my favourite live-action Batman to date, he nailed the role.
- Wonder Woman was fantastic. Even though most of her action bits were shown in trailers, her showing up to the Doomsday fight was one of the best bits of the film.
- I liked the Flash 'dream' appearance. It was a little hard to understand what he was saying the first time but I got it on the second time. Was interesting to say the least. I think the fact that it happened just after the Knightmare bit was what's putting a lot of people off it.
- Jeremy Irons was brilliant as Alfred. He and Ben played off each other brilliantly.
- Lex had moments of brilliance. There were small moments when he was a bit calmer and more controlled that came across really well. I know it's a weird moment to pick up on, but when he tells Superman he has less than an hour and then walks to his helicopter, it was perfect.
- The Batman fight scene while saving Martha Kent was amazing. Yes, I have complaints about Batman killling a few of them, but the action itself was spot on. Lifted straight out of the Arkham games.
- The bits of actual Batman v Superman were fairly awesome. Would have liked to have seen more Batman traps/weapons as opposed to just hitting him twice with the kryptonite gas, but overall I thought it worked really well and showed how Batman could conceivably take down Superman if he wanted to.
- The opening sequence of Bruce during the Supes/Zod fight was excellent. I also didn't mind the bit with Bruce's parents being killed again. Yes, we've seen it countless times already, but I thought it played well and was short enough so as not to be boring, plus they needed it so as to show flashes of it later.

BrookieD

BMMachine wrote: »

its a really really bad film and if you enjoyed this and think its good you quite directly have no idea what you are talking about and your opinion on what is good and bad in the world of film means exactly f-all. you are the problem

however
if you enjoyed the film but know its awful then thats fine. You are being objective.


Bowie is dead now. No mercy

I find it quite laughable that you think you have the right to tell people what they think is right or wrong.

On a side note i think there is way too much bashing of the film to be honest, I also think way to many people are taking it way too serious. On a third point i think too many are comparing this to The Avengers or Iron Man and knocking it on that front. Its different get over it.

I enjoyed it for what it is and I think it is a good film based on my pre conception not yours.

ShakerMaker91

BrookieD wrote: »

I find it quite laughable that you think you have the right to tell people what they think is right or wrong.

On a side note i think there is way too much bashing of the film to be honest, I also think way to many people are taking it way too serious. On a third point i think too many are comparing this to The Avengers or Iron Man and knocking it on that front. Its different get over it.

I enjoyed it for what it is and I think it is a good film based on my pre conception not yours.

I agree its all about personal preference if you liked it or if you didn't like it its up to yourself no one is forcing anyone to love it or hate it

Personally I really enjoyed it and I know its no masterpiece but its still a fairly entertaining 2 and a half hours

If I had the choice to watch it again or either Avengers movie I'd pick BvS all day long as I found it more entertaining and I liked the dark tone of the movie always found the Marvel films a bit too kid friendly but that's just my preference

TheDoc

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I also wasn't a fan, at all, of that apocalyptic 'preminition' scene that Bruce Wayne has - perhaps it makes more sense to comic fans, but it seemed jarring and out of place to me.

Looking at reviews, I'd imagine that for most of the references to "gaping plot holes", it's mostly to do with this. And I think it clearly makes more sense to comic book readers. While it's not a strict copy of something, it's a possible nod to a few existing stories, but to the point of you get what is going on.

The scene while depicting a world where Superman is a dictator and ruler, it's a massive nod to Darkseid, which no doubt these Justice League films will build up to

So while I appreciate the point from critics there are some stuff that is "wtf?" I know, even as a recent entrant into the comic book world, that I knew what references were being made and what is going on. And to be fair, there is an expectation for viewers, that they will have some knowledge of the characters and universe when going into this.

It isn't a Nolan trilogy that will take you start to finish. There is clearly some expectation here that viewers know certain situations with characters. and that is fine, and I don't think it should be a negative point. If I do to see a movie about American Football, I don't expect to have the rules of the game explained in the narrative or dialogue.

Flash was clearly a point of confusion. I grasped it pretty quickly, but only because I saw who they cast in the role a while back. And that I know in numerous Flash stories, he has the ability to move through time or universes. My GF has to ask me who it was, so it was somewhat evident that it might be difficult to make out for someone not familiar with comic book material

Also...they say Lex Luthor has polarized opinions. I absolutely hated the character - felt far too try-hard in an attempt to create a quirkly, unhinged memorable character ala Ledger's Joker but in this context it just did not work for me, at all.

Yeah I definitely didn't like him at all. I just don't like the actor period, but his performance was definitely the only thing that annoyed me throughout, although I was able to somewhat put it to one side. But in retrospect, when the initial casting came out his involvement was the one that raised alarm bells for me, not Affleck, and unfortunately came to pass. Again just my opinion though, but I couldn't stand him.

FunLover18

BrookieD wrote: »

I find it quite laughable that you think you have the right to tell people what they think is right or wrong.

On a side note i think there is way too much bashing of the film to be honest, I also think way to many people are taking it way too serious. On a third point i think too many are comparing this to The Avengers or Iron Man and knocking it on that front. Its different get over it.

I enjoyed it for what it is and I think it is a good film based on my pre conception not yours.

Personally I think the film takes itself too seriously. I've had more fun at funerals. There are a few one liners in this but they're so out of place I was waiting for Batman to turn around and growl "Lives are stake Alfred, stop joking around". It baffles me that people can say they enjoyed watching it as it was a real slog for me but as you said, different strokes and I wouldn't dare assume my opinion was better than anybody else's.

TheDoc

As a totally separate point, the audience makeup when I went yesterday was interesting and weird at the same time.

I guess clearly there are some parents who assumed this would be on the lines of recent Marvel films and suitable for young kids. And I guess its always down to a parents prerogative, but it was noticeable how many young children were in the audience and had to leave(assuming they were scared)or started crying(again most likely scared)

I noticed some criticism from reviews mentioned about the dark tone of the film being a bad thing, but the conclusion I drew beforehand, and moreso yesterday, was in some quarters there being an issue with the fact it wasn't "suitable for all" like some Marvel iterations and the Avengers.

I liked the darker and more mature take, but just felt when I first sat down "There are a lot of kids here" and I guess I took from the get go, that this wasn't going to be child friendly.

There must have been about a dozen kids who started balling when the Martha Wayne tomb burst open and that bat crawled out grabbing Bruce

BlitzKrieg

TheDoc wrote: »

Looking at reviews, I'd imagine that for most of the references to "gaping plot holes", it's mostly to do with this. And I think it clearly makes more sense to comic book readers. While it's not a strict copy of something, it's a possible nod to a few existing stories, but to the point of you get what is going on.

The scene while depicting a world where Superman is a dictator and ruler, it's a massive nod to Darkseid, which no doubt these Justice League films will build up to

So while I appreciate the point from critics there are some stuff that is "wtf?" I know, even as a recent entrant into the comic book world, that I knew what references were being made and what is going on. And to be fair, there is an expectation for viewers, that they will have some knowledge of the characters and universe when going into this.

It isn't a Nolan trilogy that will take you start to finish. There is clearly some expectation here that viewers know certain situations with characters. and that is fine, and I don't think it should be a negative point. If I do to see a movie about American Football, I don't expect to have the rules of the game explained in the narrative or dialogue.

Flash was clearly a point of confusion. I grasped it pretty quickly, but only because I saw who they cast in the role a while back. And that I know in numerous Flash stories, he has the ability to move through time or universes. My GF has to ask me who it was, so it was somewhat evident that it might be difficult to make out for someone not familiar with comic book material

I disagree with that sentiment, I do think adaptations should be able to stand on their own without the need of the audience being knowledgable of the source material.

jones

I saw this in vue on Saturday night and liked it. I think if you like Man Of Steel you'll like this and its as simple as that. I actually think I slightly prefer MOS (the soundtrack is definitely better IMO) but Batman v Superman is a solid 7/10 for me. Visuals soundtrack tone were all great. Some great moments some not so great.

There is a good read on screenrant or ign cant remember which basically saying why does no one in batman v superman speak and its actually a valid point there is very little dialogue in the film of any meaning. Well worth a read

Mr_Muffin

I am not a big fan of Super hero movies so i didn't read up on this or watch any trailers before viewing.

I thought this was a very strange movie and found it hard to understand what was going on at times - the 'dream' sequence had me scratching my head. The first 2/3rds of the movie did hold my interest but what seems to be a common these these days is how the final 3rd lets it down, it descended into predictability (did anyone really think Superman was dead?) and this is where it lost me. The final fight went on way to long and just seemed disjointed from the rest of the movie for me.

Maybe i would of enjoyed more if i was fan? Maybe less?

TheDoc

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I disagree with that sentiment, I do think adaptations should be able to stand on their own without the need of the audience being knowledgeable of the source material.

But surely it should also be accepted, that if filmmakers make a film based on source material, that they can also comfortably assume that viewership will have some prior knowledge about the subject matter?

Like the film clearly includes some segments that provide some light background and platform building, but that it doesn't go into massive depth surely isn't a bad thing.

Like for example the

Robin suit in the batcave with jokers writing

there is some clear indications there, that there is either a nod to, or expectation, that viewers will understand that reference.

And even if they don't, there might well be a hope that people might get interested enough that they will go read about universe or the characters and the stories, as the film has peaked an interest.

I know one of my first reactions after a friend telling me about

The death of superman story

, is to go get my hands on that story and read it.

I don't see a problem with some films being constructed in a way that bank on the viewership being knowledgeable about the material at hand. Like I see some issues raised with the film opening, and for me I had no problem. I didn't need to see, for the two dozenth time, a take on how Bruce Wayne comes to be Batman. I get it.

TheDoc

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

I am not a big fan of Super hero movies so i didn't read up on this or watch any trailers before viewing.

I thought this was a very strange movie and found it hard to understand what was going on at times - the 'dream' sequence had me scratching my head. The first 2/3rds of the movie did hold my interest but what seems to be a common these these days is how the final 3rd lets it down, it descended into predictability (did anyone really think Superman was dead?) and this is where it lost me. The final fight went on way to long and just seemed disjointed from the rest of the movie for me.

Maybe i would of enjoyed more if i was fan? Maybe less?

I actually did think he was. I had heard of stories about Superman dieing(now actively searching them out to buy and read)and it resonated with me pretty seriously. I was genuinely gutted seeing those last few scenes play out, as I'm really enjoying Cavills Superman.

I thought it was all very poignant, the dialogue from Affleck with WW, the realisation that they were on the same side and all that entails. The closing scene just gave me relief more then anything

Just chatting with some guys in work, and the dream sequence is clearly the what the **** moment. I took an understanding away from it, but even a guy here who is very knowledgeable on the DC universe gave me a different take that is plausible. I had to explain my take on it to my Gf, as she was very much "what the **** was that all about". So as Blitz referenced, that maybe could have been handled better for what might be large segments of the audience that didn't get the nods or what it was doing there.

Drumpot

BrookieD wrote: »

I find it quite laughable that you think you have the right to tell people what they think is right or wrong.

On a side note i think there is way too much bashing of the film to be honest, I also think way to many people are taking it way too serious. On a third point i think too many are comparing this to The Avengers or Iron Man and knocking it on that front. Its different get over it.

I enjoyed it for what it is and I think it is a good film based on my pre conception not yours.

Yep it's personal preference and an opinion is subjective , not factual.

I didn't overly enjoy it but didn't hate it like many people. I feel I have a more grounded view. I am going to see it again because in the past I have found I dislike Snyder movies when I first see them but for some reason they grow on me with further viewing and more information on what he was going for.

I am convinced an extended edition will be more representative of the directors vision and will be superior to the cinema version. I hope I enjoy it more the second time but don't have huge expectations. I enjoyed MOS more on second and third viewings. I want to enjoy this movie and want to see more movies with these characters (even if I never learn to like this movie).

As I said I have a bigger problem with the studio then Snyder. They made a complete bollox of the trailer (that one!). I also believe they put pressure on huge cuts in movie time for commercial reasons. Imagine dances with Wolves or schindlers list, the godfather or any other great long movie being shredded for cinema.

Yeh, Snyder could of made a shorter , more coherent storyline but paradoxically by sacrificing whatever epic vision he had for the movie this would of been selling his story short. As such this movie was not the epic I feel it would of been had Snyder been allowed to submit his cut that we now have to wait until DVD.

I am not excusing this movie or director. I just feel I am taking a more objective , balanced stance then some of the hysterical opinions.

Mickeroo

TheDoc wrote: »

But surely it should also be accepted, that if filmmakers make a film based on source material, that they can also comfortably assume that viewership will have some prior knowledge about the subject matter?

Like the film clearly includes some segments that provide some light background and platform building, but that it doesn't go into massive depth surely isn't a bad thing.

Like for example the

Robin suit in the batcave with jokers writing

there is some clear indications there, that there is either a nod to, or expectation, that viewers will understand that reference.

And even if they don't, there might well be a hope that people might get interested enough that they will go read about universe or the characters and the stories, as the film has peaked an interest.

I know one of my first reactions after a friend telling me about

The death of superman story

, is to go get my hands on that story and read it.

I don't see a problem with some films being constructed in a way that bank on the viewership being knowledgeable about the material at hand. Like I see some issues raised with the film opening, and for me I had no problem. I didn't need to see, for the two dozenth time, a take on how Bruce Wayne comes to be Batman. I get it.

Still haven't gotten to see the film yet so forgive me if I'm picking you up wrong here but in general it's just bad film making if someone has to go read a few books to provide the actual characterisation and motivation of one of the main protagonists in a story.

TheDoc

Mickeroo wrote: »

Still haven't gotten to see the film yet so forgive me if I'm picking you up wrong here but in general it's just bad film making if someone has to go read a few books to provide the actual characterisation and motivation of one of the main protagonists in a story.

I'm talking more about what seem to be coming across as the general "wtf" parts. For the general viewer, it will be one of those that in a couple of films you can think back and go "ah I remember that there", for those familiar with the general universe, we get hints now of what is coming.

It's setting up a universe, so there is some hints and reference to things that will come. But none of which are critical to the story, right now.

I think that most of it is self contained, but that there was just some added niceties for fans of the universe and DC.

Just my take on it anyway, I didn't feel like I needed to read comics, to grasp why Batman has issues with Superman, and wants to burst him.

The purpose of Luthor in pulling the strings I guess is definitly something that is left a bit slack, but seemingly some deleted scenes make this much more coherant?

Mizu_Ger

Mickeroo wrote: »

Still haven't gotten to see the film yet so forgive me if I'm picking you up wrong here but in general it's just bad film making if someone has to go read a few books to provide the actual characterisation and motivation of one of the main protagonists in a story.

I think the biggest problem is not that it refers to storylines in the comics, but the number of storylines it references. I counted:

The Killing Joke, Red Son, Doomsday, Dark Knight Returns

as all being referenced and I haven't read a comic for about 25 years. It was just too much for a single film. And then there's all the characters it tries to introduce.

maximoose

Also referenced

Death in the Family

- far too much going on yeah