Batman v Superman *spoilers from post 2434*

Professey Chin

jungleman wrote: »

Funny you mentioned Blade Runner, that film was a far more rewarding experience once the director's cut was released. I suspect BvS will be exactly the same.

Must just be something with Affleck & superhero movies. The DC of Daredevil was a big improvement compared to the theatrical in tone alone.

Mickeroo

Dunno, lots of folks who would be fans of Miller's work on this thread had issues with it too from what I could see and some didn't. Seems to have been divisive regardless of whether people are fans of the comics or not.

martingriff

I just watching the movie again and in the dream sequence when batman is captured and Superman come in then kills everyone (I am guessing for them killing people) and he said you took her away from me is he talking about Lois or Martha. I would suspect it is Lois by what The Flash says but I am thinking in another version of the fight instead of saying Clark's mom he continues the fight and then she dies could also set him off as his mother would have been the first to ground him in humanity. Apologies if it has been asked before

Zillah

Wedwood wrote: »

I suspect this movie will follow a similar road as Blade Runner in that it took audiences a while to get their heads around the movie, but became well liked and respected afterwards.

Ah here let's not lose the run of ourselves... Blade Runner it aint.

shootermacg

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/zootopia/

Zootopia is at 99%, that's up there with "No country for old men", "There will be bloody". Did I go to sleep and wake up on an alternate earth?

DrumSteve

shootermacg wrote: »

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/zootopia/

Zootopia is at 99%, that's up there with "No country for old men", "There will be bloody". Did I go to sleep and wake up on an alternate earth?

Is that the Sequel?

FunLover18

shootermacg wrote: »

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/zootopia/

Zootopia is at 99%, that's up there with "No country for old men", "There will be bloody". Did I go to sleep and wake up on an alternate earth?

It's by far the better film. By far!!! And I don't even think BvS is terrible, but Zootopia is an excellent film.

shootermacg

bvs, 7.4 on imdb. It's starting to look like the people who hate this movie are in the minority and rightfully so! At least the critics are rightfully pissed off because they weren't wined and dined, so that's their excuse, the rest must be just easily lead. I feel happy that my opinion is now being vindicated.

If you disagree with this, well its been put to a vote, the people have spoken, and you lost ^ ^ suckers!

shootermacg

FunLover18 wrote: »

It's by far the better film. By far!!! And I don't even think BvS is terrible, but Zootopia is an excellent film.

I actually stuck in there as a test, if you rated it highly then you are dead to me!

IncognitoMan

shootermacg wrote: »

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/zootopia/

Zootopia is at 99%, that's up there with "No country for old men", "There will be bloody". Did I go to sleep and wake up on an alternate earth?

FunLover18 wrote: »

It's by far the better film. By far!!! And I don't even think BvS is terrible, but Zootopia is an excellent film.

I don't think he's trying to compare BvS to Zootopia, I think his point was that at a rating of 99% it would have to be a perfect film.

Anyway I wouldn't try to compare them, animation from Disney/Pixar always scores very highly with critics and fans. They are crowd pleasers.

FunLover18

shootermacg wrote: »

I actually stuck in there as a test, if you rated it highly then you are dead to me!

Well, it has an 8.4 rating on imdb so clearly you're in the minority ... sucker!

Eugene Norman

shootermacg wrote: »

bvs, 7.4 on imdb. It's starting to look like the people who hate this movie are in the minority and rightfully so! At least the critics are rightfully pissed off because they weren't wined and dined, so that's their excuse, the rest must be just easily lead. I feel happy that my opinion is now being vindicated.

If you disagree with this, well its been put to a vote, the people have spoken, and you lost ^ ^ suckers!

7.4 is pretty low for IMDB. Imdb is for fans of particular movies. People who are now voting thave seen the movie in its first week.

And why you think that critics need to be wined and dined to give a good review, or why a big budget movie wouldn't do that if it were true, that I don't understand at all.

shootermacg

FunLover18 wrote: »

Well, it has an 8.4 rating on imdb so clearly you're in the minority ... sucker!

I wouldn't know I hate kiddie ****e like that, still its a good 90 minute sleep when i bring the kids to the cinema.

Eugene Norman

IncognitoMan wrote: »

I don't think he's trying to compare BvS to Zootopia, I think his point was that at a rating of 99% it would have to be a perfect film.

Anyway I wouldn't try to compare them, animation from Disney/Pixar always scores very highly with critics and fans. They are crowd pleasers.

Once again somebody doesn't understand the RT ratings system. You can get to 99% without one critic considering it 4/4, 10/10 or whatever their individual rating system is. They just have to like it.

Eugene Norman

shootermacg wrote: »

I wouldn't know I hate kiddie ****e like that, still its a good 90 minute sleep when i bring the kids to the cinema.

Isn't the comic book stuff you like kiddie ****e?

shootermacg

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Isn't the comic book stuff you like kiddie ****e?

Now we're getting somewhere! I'm of the opinion that comics are an art form, although I'd lean more to 2000AD myself, whereas kiddie movies are kiddie movies.

e_e

Having seen both of them I can say without a single degree of hesitation that Zootopia is a far more entertaining, aesthetically interesting and meaningful film than Batman V Superman.

FunLover18

shootermacg wrote: »

Now we're getting somewhere! I'm of the opinion that comics are an art form, although I'd lean more to 2000AD myself, whereas kiddie movies are kiddie movies.

Comics? As in drawings, with storytelling, characters, character development, moments of humour, action, drama, adventure, etc.

Yeh, you're right. These are all forms of art your so called "kiddie films" lack. :rolleyes:

IncognitoMan

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Once again somebody doesn't understand the RT ratings system. You can get to 99% without one critic considering it 4/4, 10/10 or whatever their individual rating system is. They just have to like it.

Ah right that makes a lot more sense. Its a pretty **** way of kepping the scores but I get why you see the scores you see now.

Is metacritic the same system do you know?

Mickeroo

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Ah right that makes a lot more sense. Its a pretty **** way of kepping the scores but I get why you see the scores you see now.

Is metacritic the same system do you know?

It's a fairly flawed system, sometimes you'll see "fresh" reviews that were reasonably negative and vise versa.

Billy86

shootermacg wrote: »

Now we're getting somewhere! I'm of the opinion that comics are an art form, although I'd lean more to 2000AD myself, whereas kiddie movies are kiddie movies.

Pilar movies are absolutely an art form too though, they're one of the most consistent and high quality studios the cinema world has ever seen. Outside of the two Cars movies (74% and 39% for the sequel - their only poor film) their worst RT ranking is 78% and most rank in the 90s. They do seem to be on the slide mind you, but having 16 films average probably close to 90% with only 1 bad one is about as good as you can get.

Trying to write Pixar movies off as "kiddie movies are kiddie movies" is like saying Ronaldo or Lionel Messi are one trick pony football players.

Billy86

Mickeroo wrote: »

It's a fairly flawed system, sometimes you'll see "fresh" reviews that were reasonably negative and vise versa.

It is the "least worst" mind you. It would in a sense be great if every review had to come with a standardised percentage mark they could go off of, it it's also unfeasible unfortunately.

Mickeroo

Billy86 wrote: »

It is the "least worst" mind you. It would in a sense be great if every review had to come with a standardised percentage mark they could go off of, it it's also unfeasible unfortunately.

Ah yeah, I find it a good gauge myself, would never let it talk me out of watching a film I want to see but have often watched stuff I would otherwise not be bothered with due to a high score.

Wedwood

Zillah wrote: »

Ah here let's not lose the run of ourselves... Blade Runner it aint.

Roger Ebert described Blade Runner as a waste of time in 1982. By the 1990's he was calling it a masterpiece and had to row back on his earlier opinion. Most of the other earlier negative reviews were similarly 'forgotten' after they realised the audiences actually saw something in the movie the critics failed to see at the time.

It might happen again with BvS, it might not, time will tell either way I suppose.

Brief_Lives

Here's a decent review....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2016/03/29/the-critics-must-be-crazy-batman-v-superman-is-fantastic/#118b1a021cc5

Mickeroo

Wedwood wrote: »

Roger Ebert described Blade Runner as a waste of time in 1982. By the 1990's he was calling it a masterpiece and had to row back on his earlier opinion. Most of the other earlier negative reviews were similarly 'forgotten' after they realised the audiences actually saw something in the movie the critics failed to see at the time.

It might happen again with BvS, it might not, time will tell either way I suppose.

Pretty sure the original cut of blade runner is still regarded as fairly poor. Maybe the extended cut will do the same for this, but doubt it will make people change their mind about the theatrical cut.

Chain Smoker

Brief_Lives wrote: »

Here's a decent review....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2016/03/29/the-critics-must-be-crazy-batman-v-superman-is-fantastic/#118b1a021cc5

He's not wrong, I said it earlier in the thread, part (definitely not all) of the reason a lot of mediocre reviews sway towards negative has a lot more to do with how they've remembered Man of Steel or how they've ceased to give Snyder the benefit of the doubt.
Pixar had a similar thing with Cars 2, the first one actually got pretty good reviews at the time (I feel like in 2006/2007 it had mid 80s on RT with "it's not top tier Pixar but a bad Pixar film is still better than just about anything else..." type stuff) and many of the sequel's reviews seemed out to compensate for that. John Carter's negative reviews more stemmed from a place of utter frustration (what was Andrew Staunton doing wasting his significant goodwill on something so old fashioned and unadventurous, who on earth thought this film had any kind of market potential, etc) and a disappointment that they hadn't been proven wrong.

You are talking here about 3/5's instead of 2/5's though, not the kind of thing you want at the core of what you're hoping will be a franchise to carry your studio for the next decade.

Liam O

I quite liked the film and even I can admit it's a meandering mess at the best of times with questionable narrative decisions and some poor writing.

Not everything is either terrible or a masterpiece. I enjoyed this for the performances, visuals and the later action mainly. Not because I think it was well plotted or coherently mapped.

Penn

Liam O wrote: »

I quite liked the film and even I can admit it's a meandering mess at the best of times with questionable narrative decisions and some poor writing.

Not everything is either terrible or a masterpiece. I enjoyed this for the performances and the later action mainly. Not because I think it was well plotted or coherently mapped.

Absolutely agree. There's a damn good movie in there. They just needed to cut all the unnecessary stuff out, change even just some small bits of the writing and develop the characters who matter (Clark, Bruce and particularly Lex) a bit more.

Tony EH

Mickeroo wrote: »

Pretty sure the original cut of blade runner is still regarded as fairly poor. Maybe the extended cut will do the same for this, but doubt it will make people change their mind about the theatrical cut.

There's actually an awful lot of people who prefer the original cut (+ voice over), because shoehorning the "Deckard is a replicant" a decade after the film was released doesn't sit right with them. It falls apart under the slightest of scrutiny as it wasn't shot like that in the first place.

I'm one.

As for BvS, I don't know if adding anything will help. But, if it's going to end up like 'The Big Red One - Reconstruction' or 'Apocalypse Now Redux', then they shouldn't bother.