Batman v Superman *spoilers from post 2434*

Mizu_Ger

maximoose wrote: »

Also referenced

Death in the Family

- far too much going on yeah

You're right. I meant to say that instead of

The Killing Joke

. Although, maybe that is referenced too!

TheDoc

There definitely was a mega mash of various different stories and comics, but I don't know if they wanted to tie in what they perceived as best bits into one story, or if they just lost the run of themselves giving nods to fans of the universe.

My opinion is it was more of the later.

Although not sure that is a stick to beat with. I didn't feel myself scoffing at how "thats not what happened in that story" or whatever. I guess I appreciated as someone who has read a bit of the universe, that I could tie it to some existing material.But tie in just as a "I get that nod". Not that I need to have read those stories to extrapolate some hidden meanings or plot.

As you say, there is a mash of numerous stories and source material going on here. But I'm treating the film very much as its own narrative and story, that its feeding of some other stuff, is kinda ok by me.

BlitzKrieg

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?

Did you read Jurassic Park before going to see the first film? Did you read How to Train your Dragon? Have you ever read an Ant Man comic?

The answer for me to all of the above is no. I read Jurassic Park after I saw the film (and The Lost World, which I read before I saw the sequel) but I never read any Ant Man books or read how to train your dragon. But the How to train your dragon movies are among my favourite animated films of all time.

Films need to be able to stand by themselves.

Every time a film tries to rely on th audience getting knowledge elsewhere we get a sh*tty bad film.

best example: Matrix Reloaded had chunks of its plot moved to the animatrix and matrix video game. The result was characters the film treated as important but we knew next to nothing about them.

Venom

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.

A nod to long time fans is one thing but the amount of knowledge this film requires a viewer have to fully understand what was going on, was a tad much in my opinion and this is coming like a long time comic fan. Personally I though the movie was just ok due to having some major issues overall and for me, Afflick's Batman is what really saved the movie.

DC hasn't learned a thing for Marvel in how to set up a movie universe and BvS really suffers for it as way to much was crammed into one film. Batman stole the show, Wonder Woman was good in the small amount of screentime she was given, Supes did nothing for me and Lex was god dammed awful.

The plot had so many holes in it, the cameos for the JL movie were just plain bad in how they were done and Doomsday apart from woeful CGI was wasted here and such an important character/event should of been handled with much more respect. Another thing DC screwed up on was the lack of an after credits scene which left alot of people feeling disappointed leaving the cinema from what I'v been reading online.

Ben Gadot

Are people really upset over the lack of a post credit scene?

Mitch Connor

i don't think any prior knowledge (that can be obtained) is required for this movie.

The Robin costume example. Yes, it could be to do with Robin and death in the family or other comics that hit this subject matter but it doesn't mean that it is, or that not having read these takes away from the movie. My personal hope is that the costume will be explained in Suicide Squad or, more fully, in a subsequent batman movie. I'm quite happy for it to stand alone in the movie as it did at the moment. The fact is we can only speculate on the Robin costume, we can't say for certain because this movie is not taking anything else that has gone before as cannon. It has taken inspiration and future movies will continue to do so, but that is all it is - inspiration. I've read loads of batman stuff and I can't say I know for certain the story of the robin costume - because it isn't a story that exists yet.

Into The Blue

Ben Gadot wrote: »

Are people really upset over the lack of a post credit scene?

that not a marvel thing?
wasnt one at the end of any nolan batmans

Into The Blue

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?

No not at all. If they base it on an existing arc, that would be fine, but should not be required reading.

Comics are not as popular as films, it would cripple a studio to just cater to comic readers.

maximoose

Mitch Connor wrote: »

i don't think any prior knowledge (that can be obtained) is required for this movie.

The Robin costume example. Yes, it could be to do with Robin and death in the family or other comics that hit this subject matter but it doesn't mean that it is, or that not having read these takes away from the movie. My personal hope is that the costume will be explained in Suicide Squad or, more fully, in a subsequent batman movie. I'm quite happy for it to stand alone in the movie as it did at the moment. The fact is we can only speculate on the Robin costume, we can't say for certain because this movie is not taking anything else that has gone before as cannon. It has taken inspiration and future movies will continue to do so, but that is all it is - inspiration. I've read loads of batman stuff and I can't say I know for certain the story of the robin costume - because it isn't a story that exists yet.

I think between the graffiti and Alfred's comments about it, it's more or less a given that it's referring to Death in the Family.

It seemed a strange nod to me as the lack of a clear explanation ended up confusing folks unfamiliar with that story.

Ben Gadot

Not sure how a mere "nod" can confuse people. Marvel put countless nods or easter eggs as some refer to them into their films, where they have nothing to do with the plot.

Yet people have never had a problem with those nods.

Snyder just threw in a quick shot to let fans know what's to come. Harmless. The dream sequence is a whole other kettle of fish.

Nervous Wreck

techdiver wrote: »

One of the major criticisms being labelled against the movie is about breaking canon to do with the no kill policy. People are referencing source material about the characters etc to back this up, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that killing is nothing new to the characters in the live action movie space.

Nolan gets a pass, Burton gets a pass, heck even Donner gets a pass, but Snyder doesn't. Lets be balanced here.

There is plenty about the movie for people to hate. I may agree or disagree with some of these points, but I respect the opinion either way. The only one I don't respect, is inaccurate opinions masquerading as fact.

As I've said, I have serious problems with all those killings. Batman isn't a murderer. Every movie that has had him kill someone has been a failure in my opinion. But why is that relevant? Nolans Batman has nothing to do with this. Nor does Burton's. So I really don't understand why you keep leaning on that point.

5star02707

jsut booked a ticket for it, watching it tonight.

Got a few good ideas based on the trailers so let's see if it lives up to its name

BrookieD

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

As I've said, I have serious problems with all those killings. Batman isn't a murderer. Every movie that has had him kill someone has been a failure in my opinion. But why is that relevant? Nolans Batman has nothing to do with this. Nor does Burton's. So I really don't understand why you keep leaning on that point.

So pretty much every Batman movie in your eyes has a serious problem?:eek:

Nervous Wreck

BrookieD wrote: »

So pretty much every Batman movie in your eyes has a serious problem?:eek:

Precisely. That's not to say I didn't enjoy them. TDK is a fantastic film and I've a lot of love for Batman Returns. But Burton and Nolan both mishandled the character (not surprising, as neither are fans of the source material afaik), just as Snyder did. So yeah, I've got serious issues with them. Snyder's sin was worse, imo, because he's now made a killer out of Batman AND Superman and made a terrible film while doing so. And he's the one who claims to be a fan...

BlitzKrieg

Ben Gadot wrote: »

Not sure how a mere "nod" can confuse people. Marvel put countless nods or easter eggs as some refer to them into their films, where they have nothing to do with the plot.

Yet people have never had a problem with those nods.

Snyder just threw in a quick shot to let fans know what's to come. Harmless. The dream sequence is a whole other kettle of fish.

people are discussing the robin nod but really we should be talking about the extended dream/vision sequence which takes up a big chunk of the middle of the film and has elements of Darkseid, Flashpoint and Red Son mixed together and frankly if you didnt know anything about the Flash (who's not had a film yet) then his scene is stupidly confusing and out of nowhere and more importantly never brought up again. Even though the flash is brought up again its in a completely different context

Hell even where its meant to come back around (with the last scene of the film) is swapped out because batman's feeling of trouble ahead is directly tied to lex warning him that they are coming and not the dream/vision sequence


As for the robin costume, while yes its a nod to a well known story (which has been told in many different forms) it is shown without context which is why I perosnally see this batman as blankman then batman, it comes across as a cynical way to fill in the character of batman without any actual characterisation, very little is actually shown about batman as a character in the film, most of it is filled in from what the viewer knows of batman as a character and it is given gravitas by that knowledge.

Take away that knowledge and you have a character in a void.


for example

we have hints of death in the family but no hints of any of the other robins, does nightwing exist? Was there multiple robins or just the one

We get a throw away line about batman working with the police and the bat signal but the signal does not seem to be at GCPD and we see nothing about anyone outside Alfred working with batman, he's meant to be at this for 20 years but aside from the turkish airlines advert and Laurence Fishbourne's talk about water gotham does not seem to reflect a city protected by the Bat as a constant element


Batman exists in a vacuum in the film with he briefest hints of connections to a wider story which the audience if they are in anyway versed in batman will fill in themselves.


Which is why I understand the film has its fans, there are plenty of people in this thread who fill in those gaps happily. Me personnally though I like each of my batmen to stand on their own two legs. I like my different batman animated series to tell their own stories and also leave their own mark, the same for the different movies and spin off comics.

Even when they do a story like Flashpoint where batman is Thomas Wayne, I like that the Thomas Wayne bat story can stand on its own without me needing to be knee deep in bat knowledge to read it. Knowing batman makes it better, but it should still stand on their own.


Which is this films biggest scripting issue. It doesnt. On its own its a mess.

But all that runs second fiddle to its biggest problem. It's directed by Zack Snyder.

TheDoc

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Did you read Jurassic Park before going to see the first film? Did you read How to Train your Dragon? Have you ever read an Ant Man comic?

The answer for me to all of the above is no. I read Jurassic Park after I saw the film (and The Lost World, which I read before I saw the sequel) but I never read any Ant Man books or read how to train your dragon. But the How to train your dragon movies are among my favourite animated films of all time.

Films need to be able to stand by themselves.

Every time a film tries to rely on the audience getting knowledge elsewhere we get a sh*tty bad film.

best example: Matrix Reloaded had chunks of its plot moved to the animatrix and matrix video game. The result was characters the film treated as important but we knew next to nothing about them.

Well for JP(Did read comics for Ant Man, haven't seen how to train a dragon) I'm similar to yourself, I read the book after seeing the movie. And while I enjoyed both separately on their merits, I could appreciate how maybe people who read the book before seeing the movie, maybe had more knowledge about stuff the film didn't expand on, but could be outlined, relied on reader knowledge. Again I don't know as I saw the film first, but when I watched JP after I read the book, I was able to draw some more stuff from it.

But where in this film, BvS, is there a reliance on the audience having that knowledge to grasp the film? I'm just saying (and maybe I'm not portraying my point well) that there are some things not delved into massively here, as they don't need to right now. If your familiar with some source material, then sure, from the film you are getting an idea where its going and what is coming. But that nearly like a little extra for fans.

As a general viewer who has no concept of the DC universe, I think its being very self containing in providing some setups for what will be other films coming down the pipe in this new universe.

The dream sequence yes, seems to be a clearly muddied part that is drawing a lot of flak. But if I didn't know about the material at all, then I would see that and sure feel its a bit out of the blue, but understand the general concept that its a vision portrayed by Batmans paranoia and fear of what Superman will do, and can do. So it serves its purpose for the narrative. Yet as someone familiar (and not expertly I might add) with source material and the DC Universe, I watched that scene and took from it not just the above, but also the outline it has laid for

Darkseid

Straight after that dream sequence, there is moment of a character having dialogue with Wayne. I was able to cop that as Flash, but if I had no concept of the universe I can still grasp there is a guy there, who is clearly doing a bit of time travel.

I was just making the point that I don't think its a bad thing for filmmakers to acknowledge there is an existing fanbase for this material, and that I don't think everytime a film is released with these characters, it requires another rehashed "origin" story to boot.

maximoose

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

As for the robin costume, while yes its a nod to a well known story (which has been told in many different forms) it is shown without context which is why I perosnally see this batman as blankman then batman, it comes across as a cynical way to fill in the character of batman without any actual characterisation, very little is actually shown about batman as a character in the film, most of it is filled in from what the viewer knows of batman as a character and it is given gravitas by that knowledge.

I felt he wasn't really given any gravitas by the storyitself, Bruce says to Alfred that he's been in the cowl for 20 years - but the reaction to Batman by the Daily Planet/Metropolis crowd didn't really match that IMO - there's a good chance I'm remembering it wrong but it felt like everytime Clark was talking to anyone about Batman he was just a vigilante of no interest, which kind of belittled the character.

Going to see the film again tomorrow, see if it does anything new for me on second viewing.

TheDoc

I know it's no immediate excuse and won't alleviate the issues you have raised about its ability to stand alone.

But knowing that the film is a launch for a series of films, in the same universe, and that films will all have some crossovers etc. maybe taken umbridge to that stuff now, part one of the story, before the whole tale has been told, is a bit premature?

Putting aside your Snyder issue, which is fine. We all have people we dislike and can do no good. I'm not a Synder fan precisely, but I've no issue with him either. Maybe you are jumping the gun a bit quick, when it's the first in what will be a series of films?

Like, did you have these sort of issues with Lord of the Rings, after you watched the first one? When the next Rambo comes out, will you expect to have plenty of filler to ensure everyone knows who Rambo is, or are the makers safe in expecting viewers will be familiar with the character?

I'm not trying to be purposefully obtuse, but I'm just thinking as this is a platform launching a universe, with a series of films, some things might be in place, to be answered later. I'm not disagreeing with the points that people are indicating as the infamous "plot issues" or "voids". But while I was fine with it on my viewing, I'm also not seeing how a viewer with no knowledge, wouldn't be able to generally grasp what happened. And in additional films, it will probably all tie back and give you that "ah" moment(that I particularly like)

I don't know, maybe they could have made this more self standing, to then branch out into the universe building after. And maybe I can't bring my head around to it immediately as I liked the film. So maybe when the series concludes and we re-watch them in sequence this one makes PERFECT sense, and maybe much more credited with praise, and that decision they have taken won't bear fruit for a few years. Or maybe it does have some massive issues and holes that I'm not seeing or acknowledging.

TheDoc

maximoose wrote: »

I felt he wasn't really given any gravitas by the storyitself, Bruce says to Alfred that he's been in the cowl for 20 years - but the reaction to Batman by the Daily Planet/Metropolis crowd didn't really match that IMO - there's a good chance I'm remembering it wrong but it felt like everytime Clark was talking to anyone about Batman he was just a vigilante of no interest, which kind of belittled the character.

Going to see the film again tomorrow, see if it does anything new for me on second viewing.

That was odd actually. And actually a question I need to ask for clarification(below)

My take from it, was that Batman was still in that "myth" phase, where people didn't really know what he was. The police officer makes reference to how he "saw it" and "it's real" and "its here". (Thought there was going to be another Dark Knight Returns reference when the more senior cop saw the Batarang)

There is a scene were the Senator(female) is at a podium giving a statement to the press, with the guy in the wheelchair beside her. This comes after him being in her office. So my immediate assumption is that they are in Metropolis.

As she is giving her statement, there is a golden statue in the background of a figure in a cape. And I "thought" I saw it as a statue of Batman. But I'm not sure. Was that a statue of Superman?

jones

I wonder how much of a difference the directors cut will make to this. Could it be a "kingdom of heaven" job that totally changed the film with the added scenes or will it be just superfluous stuff.

Going by the only deleted scene I've seen it looks like it would of explained a fairly big thing in the movie but was cut so I'm just wondering what else has been cut that might of helped the movie flow a little better.

Nervous Wreck

TheDoc wrote: »

Like, did you have these sort of issues with Lord of the Rings, after you watched the first one? When the next Rambo comes out, will you expect to have plenty of filler to ensure everyone knows who Rambo is, or are the makers safe in expecting viewers will be familiar with the character?

Just to pick up on this, I know there's probably a lot of differing opinions. Mine would be that, once someone is established in a movie, it should be taken that, for the rest of the movies in that franchise, the audience is aware of who they are, particularly if you're going by direct sequels.

With that said, it's not hard to re-establish characters at a later point, just in case someone is jumping in halfway through a franchise at a natural anchor-point (see The Avengers as an excellent example). This is one thing I think BvS did pretty well. It jumps you in right at the end of Man of Steel and goes "you know this Superman/Zod fight took place so we're not explaining how it started; this is just a different angle."

BlitzKrieg

Like, did you have these sort of issues with Lord of the Rings, after you watched the first one? When the next Rambo comes out, will you expect to have plenty of filler to ensure everyone knows who Rambo is, or are the makers safe in expecting viewers will be familiar with the character?

No because Fellowship of the ring works by itself predominantly. It deals with the entire plotline of the fellowship forming and breaking, while it clearly lamposts clear plot threads for the following film there really are only 3 and 2 of those 3 threads are formed and executed within the film.


1. Frodo heading to mount doom to destroy the ring with only Sam occurs because of the events that lead to the breaking of the fellowship all within the film. Everything with this is firmly laid out in the first film. The power of the ring, the return of Suaran and what needs to be done. Everything is there within the first film...they just need to pick up and continue

2. Aragon and co. heading after merry and pippen again developed out of the events entirely set up in the film. We see the rise of Souraman and the urakai in full, they are an active part of the plot of the first film and again it is picked up and concluded in the 2nd film.

3. The only plot thread that is kept firmly to chest in the first film and without any real context is Gollum. But thats why Gollum takes up only 2 brief scenes in the entire movie (3 if you count the brief moment we hear him scream *baggins, Shire*). That plot thread is firmly kept close to the chest until the 2nd film because it will be the complication for plot thread 1 going forward.



BVS works more like star wars episode 1


-A plot thats a mess, taking itself too serious and getting tied around.

-An expectation on the viewers to be well versed on the characters and their importance so no effort is made to actually give them character (anakin, Obi Wan Kenobi) and here Batman, Wonder Women.

-An expectation on the viewers to know the universe such as the Sith and palpatine. Episode 1 like BVS has a big chunk in the middle of the importance of the rise of the sith, which even i you've only seen the original trilogy you might struggle with because the sith are barely mentioned in the original trilogy and palpatine is only ever called the Emperor (see pretty much everything in batman's vision)

-A believed betrayel of canon with the whole meta clorines garbage which will overshadow a lot of genuine issues (see batman killing)

-A third act villian to fight where the villian is there just to be a big bad and really has had no characterisation (Maul, Doomsday)

-A massive reliance on the sequels cashing in all this *groundwork* and to make the film look better in retrospective.

yeah I went there. Batman Versus Superman is the Episode 1 of comic book movies.

alchemist33

Just saw it, enjoyed it, and don't get the hate. It may be because I had low expectations and no real knowledge of the source material but I thought it hung together well and put Age of Ultron (the last superhero film I saw) to shame. There were niggles, like the dream sequence (it was entertaining at least, but I didnt know it was a nod to something), but overall they didn't detract for me.
And I had no interest in Wonder Woman before; I'm looking forward to more of her now.

BMMachine

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 find it quite laughable that people are doing mental gymnastics to try and justify that this film was anything other than terrible.

its crap. if you like it and think its good, you are wrong and have terrible taste and have difficulty in understanding what good is.

as I said - if you like it but acknowledge that its a horrible mess, thats fine.


but it IS sh*t. It is quite directly a terrible film. If your standards are low, I don't care about hurting your feelings as I see you as part of the problem as to why we get crap like this thrown at us, repeatedly.

martingriff

I have just seen the movie and enjoyed it. Not great by any means but I enjoyed it. The main problem with this movie and it has been said a thousand times and witten as many is they tried to push 2 much in to 1 film as they just wanted to a Justice League movie. As 1 Youtube reviewer has said it is like if Marvel tried to do the Avengers movie after the 1st Iron Man movie. They have tried to get on par with the Marvel movies and they rushed it. What was needed was a solo Batman movie (maybe they were scared of Afleck on his own) a Flash movie, a Wonder Woman movie and a Aquaman movie. Or at a stretch have the Batman V Superman movie but leave the other out. Have a big bad but have it lead up to the main Evil. Then introduce the others in there own movies

BrookieD

BMMachine wrote: »

I find it quite laughable that people are doing mental gymnastics to try and justify that this film was anything other than terrible.

its crap. if you like it and think its good, you are wrong and have terrible taste and have difficulty in understanding what good is.

as I said - if you like it but acknowledge that its a horrible mess, thats fine.


but it IS sh*t. It is quite directly a terrible film. If your standards are low, I don't care about hurting your feelings as I see you as part of the problem as to why we get crap like this thrown at us, repeatedly.

I am not wrong just like you, you have an opinion, thats fine but I sir am very much not wrong. I just disagree with you as is my right. I also do not think its a horrible mess, far from it. Thanks for your opinion though

martingriff

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

As I've said, I have serious problems with all those killings. Batman isn't a murderer. Every movie that has had him kill someone has been a failure in my opinion. But why is that relevant? Nolans Batman has nothing to do with this. Nor does Burton's. So I really don't understand why you keep leaning on that point.

Batman has killed or been responsible for deaths many many times in both comics and movies. Its nothing new.

johnny_ultimate

BMMachine wrote: »

I find it quite laughable that people are doing mental gymnastics to try and justify that this film was anything other than terrible.

its crap. if you like it and think its good, you are wrong and have terrible taste and have difficulty in understanding what good is.

as I said - if you like it but acknowledge that its a horrible mess, thats fine.


but it IS sh*t. It is quite directly a terrible film. If your standards are low, I don't care about hurting your feelings as I see you as part of the problem as to why we get crap like this thrown at us, repeatedly.

Enough of this trolling, BMMachine. Any more posts like this will be actioned. Discuss the film, not the people who did / did not like it.

Nervous Wreck

martingriff wrote: »

Batman has killed or been responsible for deaths many many times in both comics and movies. Its nothing new.

If you wanna go back and read the conversation, go for it. I'm not going back to an earlier point in this argument for you.

Wedwood

The one thing that disappointed me was Hans Zimmer's soundtrack. It was completely unmemorable, the best bits were reprises of his Man of Steel score.

Zimmer's last few movie scores all sound the same, listen to Amazing Spider-Man 2, Interstellar and BvS and you'd struggle to distinguish which is which.

I hope they get Michael Giachinno for the next given John Williams is probably not an option.