http://www.cinemablend.com/m/new/Full-Batman-v-Superman-Trailer-Leaks-Online-70937.html
...though it has Spanish subtitles and was recorded on a shitty cellphone camera.
Personally...I'm pretty yaaawwwwwwn over this movie. I see nothing interesting here at all.
I lost interest at the announcement that it will be directed by Zach Snyder.
And that Ben Affleck would be Batman.
I don't really have any big issues with Affleck, though I would definitely be a lot more interested in him directing this.
I'm from the Batman generation that saw Michael Keaton (who I thought did the best), Val Kilmer and George Clooney, so, Affleck as Batman is not a big deal from the perspective of continuity. I haven't seen any of the Nolan/Bale Btaman's, so, it's not a case of loyalty to a supposedly superior portrayal. No. It's that anything I see Ben in, he's always the same guy from Good Will Hunting to me. Just different emotions/facets of the same personality. And smart ass Bostonians are not my thing (although, for some reason, I don't have the same problem with Matt Damon. Go figure).
I think the biggest issue I have with this (Snyder aside) is how 'dark' it is. Not adult dark, like I felt the Nolan Batman movies were. No, this comes off as very '17 year old sitting in his basement feeling like the world is against him' dark. It's as if some guy spent the past 20 years reading old Spawn comics and listening to third-rate industrial bands, and now he decided to make a movie. It's 'dark' in the way that you felt like you were dark when you were 16 years old. The suck potential for this thing is off the charts. And if (when) it happens, it'll be a neverending chorus of "Goddamn Affleck. It's all his fault!" Not Snyder, not the script, not anything else...somehow, everything that this movie does wrong will be totally on Affleck.
In addition to everything else, I feel like DC is trying to "force" this along too quickly. I know they feel like they don't have much choice, given the phenomenal success of the Marvel films, but I still think it's a mistake.
Quote from: MetalDog on April 17, 2015, 11:27:33 PM
And that Ben Affleck would be Batman.
Also this.
That's what being the face of the endeavor means. You're going to have to take the hit if the movie bombs. And noone put a gun to Ben's head and said, "You HAVE to play Batman in this movie!" Having said that, if everything in the movie is a stinker, director, script, cgi, casting, etc., etc., then there's little you can do no matter HOW good your performance is. I will also say that todays movie goer is sophisticated enough to know why a movie is bad (if they care about knowing that sort of thing), so blame can properly be assigned.
By the by, the trailer has been legit-released now:
https://youtu.be/IwfUnkBfdZ4
Marvel has hit the right formula with their movies. Movies that kids, teens and adults can enjoy. Main characters have their own stand alone
successful movies, then they're able to bring them all together and have even more success. Just for fun, they'll create a TV show to answer some questions and tease upcoming movies. But wait, not only do they pull it off once, but their about to repeat the whole thing again.
Watching DC's two leading characters, I've only seen a couple of them in the last couple of years, and I don't think my son would enjoy them at all. They're not fun.
In reality, I think Marvel/Disney's key to being so successful is they came up with a complete long term strategy for what they wanted to do. DC seems to just move from one movie to the next with no real thought on the whole package.
Affleck has the jaw for playing Batman, that's for certain. Personally, I've always liked him as an actor and I'm hoping he does Batman justice. The problem with DC, from a fanboy perspective, is simply that Marvel heroes are better thought out and far grittier than DC across the board. I mean, Aquaman vs. Namor? C'mon!
The one exception? Batman. Batman just kicks ass and I'd put him up against anyone. The rest of the DC stable is generally composed of characters who Marvel simply does better. There is no real Superman comparison, but then again, Supes is historically so overpowered that in itself has taken away from the character. Attempts to water down Superman have been pretty dismal overall.
The Justice League vs. the X-Men or the Avengers? The JL simply comes in last in terms of interesting heroes. Batman should pack up the Batcave and move to Marvel. O0
Latest incarnation of the Batmobile
I just don't get the hype. I know they did this to death in the DC comics, but I never read many of them.
I mean, Superman is an invincible alien. Batman is just a man. Granted, a rich, highly intelligent, butt-kicking man, but just a man. Unless he's got Kryptonite-bat-a-rangs I don't see how that's even going to be a fair fight.
Plus I'm harboring a great deal of apathy over the last two Superman films and could care less if he gets killed or not. Or if Affleck gets killed by Superman. Meh. No big loss in either case. Though I'm sure there's going to be some team-up in that movie at some point to fight against and yadda yadda yadda, yawn.
The Superman/Batman conflict was well done in The Dark Knight Returns, but it was part of a larger story, not the center piece. And Supe was basically a government sellout, so you were on board with his ass kicking.
I never read the Dark Knight Returns, just TDK but the 'Superman as an arm of the DOD' backstory was already part of it. How does the second comic compare? The first one was subversive on so many levels for someone like me who had not ready any Batman or Superman since the late 70's.
I really don't understand these things. I figured with a title like Dawn of Justice, that it would be the beginning of the formation of the League of Justice. But from what you guys are saying is that Batman is out to kill Superman?
lol @ "which Newsie did you base Clark Kent off on?" :)
GIFV how how this new movie will end:
http://i.imgur.com/IRg9CPv.gifv (http://i.imgur.com/IRg9CPv.gifv)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthisisinfamous.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2F10003949_10201222348314276_6861101929851017102_n.jpg&hash=d42f0cb1b2aca500b5b028e64bb00e9aff18c20c)
I'd pay good money to see a fist go through Batfleck's head.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on April 27, 2015, 08:40:38 PM
I like this one better.
God, that was funny....especially Commissioner Gordon and his missing glasses.
Okay, I admit, this trailer makes the movie more intriguing. I'm really hoping it has the emotion quotient that the trailer hints at. I think I might go see it now.
Is that the same actor as in the most recent Superman flick? Do I need to see that one first?
It doesn't look like it will be essential but see it anyway - it's a decent film
Quote from: Staggerwing on July 11, 2015, 10:22:20 PM
Is that the same actor as in the most recent Superman flick? Do I need to see that one first?
Yes. It's Henry Cavill who was in Man of Steel.
No. Don't bother.
Watch this for a synopsis of Man of Steel. Far more entertaining than the actual movie.
Quote from: mirth on July 12, 2015, 05:55:38 AM
Quote from: Staggerwing on July 11, 2015, 10:22:20 PM
Is that the same actor as in the most recent Superman flick? Do I need to see that one first?
Yes. It's Henry Cavill who was in Man of Steel.
No. Don't bother.
Mirth makes a good point, but if you want to 'get' this newer one, you need to see Man of Steel to understand where Dawn of Justice is coming from. It looks like a lot of the destruction that Supes and Zod were wreaking on Gotham City has a tie-in to Batman's little quest for vengeance.
That's not to say Man of Steel is a good movie...not at all. Just sayin' for understanding the story better.
Quote from: Staggerwing on April 27, 2015, 08:04:24 PM
I never read the Dark Knight Returns, just TDK but the 'Superman as an arm of the DOD' backstory was already part of it. How does the second comic compare? The first one was subversive on so many levels for someone like me who had not ready any Batman or Superman since the late 70's.
He
was talking about the first book, which was DKR. The second book is... I forget,
The Dark Knight Re-returns or something. I have it over on a shelf but I'm durned if I'm going to go look. Its story is about as insane as the title I just made up. ;)
Let's say that the second book is not nearly as seminal as anything Frank Miller did in his early career (two Batman stories and a big Daredevil overhaul). It's more like his crazy anti-fan screed
All-Star Batman and Robin which heavily satirizes the whole idea of Batman, and the Justice League more generally.
As a short summary, since Batman faked his death and went (literally) underground, Luthor and Brainiac have covertly taken over the world (and turned out to be behind the political push to disband the League which happened before DKR), and imprisoned many of heroes in sadistic traps. (Not deathtraps, because then they wouldn't continue to suffer.) Superman is still a government stooge but only because they're holding Kandor (the shrunken Kryptonian city) hostage. Cassie, the new Robin, has grown up a bit into a teenaged new Catwoman, with the March-December romance that eventually implies. :buck2: Batman leads a push to rescue the League members and/or defuse the blackmail threats (not all of which succeed), while the two villains decide they had better force Superman to lose a fight and die before he's freed from their blackmail. The daughter Superman once had with Wonder Woman is revealed (and their romance is rekindled), and acts as a pretty clever trojan horse sacrifice to rescue the Kandorians from Brainiac. The end result is that Superman and his daughter decide to rule over Earth with a whole city of freed Kryptonians, which is no doubt the setup for Miller's coming third story
The Master Race.
It
is kind of interesting sometimes, but it's less about Batman than about DKR-ing many of the other Justice League. Batman mainly returns to arrogantly pull the League's collective hash out of the fire and act as the strategist for putting together a plan to defeat Luthor and Brainiac. His best few scenes by far are where he messes with Luthor briefly (including giving Luthor a Zorro scar.)
Oh, and a gay undead Dick Grayson, driven insane by unresolved lust for Batman, is acting as an assassin for Luthor. Or something like that. :P 'Artistic' touches of this sort are crammed in around the edges.
That being said, now that I've bothered to recall more of how the plot goes, I have to admit Superman and most of the League are treated with surprising respect by the story, which undoes the mere political kowtowing Superman engaged in for the original
Dark Knight Returns -- since it never really made sense that Superman would be so intimidated by mere humans that he would work for the US government in return for being allowed to save people sometimes more-or-less in secret. Even Plastic Man is given some serious respect! -- he's the one League member Batman fears the most. (Because Plastic Man is insane and you can't be sure what he'll do with his almighty powerset.)
It's really a pretty good Old Justice League story, if not nearly on par with Kingdom Come (which itself owes a lot to Dark Knight Returns -- Miller seems to be competing directly with it as a continuation of Old Batman). I guess what bothers me about it, is its needlessly offensive touches meant to be sarcastically daring or whatever. It lacks a
lot of the heart underlying DKR's fierce growling: a heart emphasized by the fine 2 hour 15 minute animated adaptation a few years ago (with Batman voiced by Peter Weller), which showed that after all these years it's still a much better Final Batman Story than the live action end to the Nolan trilogy.
My main problems with
Man of Steel are:
1.) It's just as aggressively stupid in its writing as the final Batman movie, while trying to present itself as Way Grimdark Serious;
and
2.) It's needlessly Way Grimdark Serious. Even to the point of Snyder intentionally putting a Grimdark filter on everything he had already shot. Seriously, a lot of the look is merely color desaturation in post. There's a Youtube video somewhere simply color correcting the trailer footage. (You can even see from the Honest Trailer screengrab that the movie was originally shot as brightly and colorfully as the 70s Superman.)
As long as we're reffing Screen Junkies by the way (the Honest Trailer team), here's their salute to the Timm/Diniverse Animated Superman series if it had gone the Snyder route:
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on July 12, 2015, 09:36:58 AM
Quote from: mirth on July 12, 2015, 05:55:38 AM
Quote from: Staggerwing on July 11, 2015, 10:22:20 PM
Is that the same actor as in the most recent Superman flick? Do I need to see that one first?
Yes. It's Henry Cavill who was in Man of Steel.
No. Don't bother.
Mirth makes a good point, but if you want to 'get' this newer one, you need to see Man of Steel to understand where Dawn of Justice is coming from. It looks like a lot of the destruction that Supes and Zod were wreaking on Gotham City has a tie-in to Batman's little quest for vengeance.
That's not to say Man of Steel is a good movie...not at all. Just sayin' for understanding the story better.
I'm not sure it will be necessary to see Man of Steel to understand the backstory for BvS. I'm sure there will be plenty of expository crammed into the new film to make sure us dummies in the audience get why Batman doesn't like Supes.
Quote from: JasonPratt on July 12, 2015, 09:59:36 AM
My main problems with Man of Steel are:
1.) It's just as aggressively stupid in its writing as the final Batman movie, while trying to present itself as Way Grimdark Serious;
and
2.) It's needlessly Way Grimdark Serious. Even to the point of Snyder intentionally putting a Grimdark filter on everything he had already shot. Seriously, a lot of the look is merely color desaturation in post. There's a Youtube video somewhere simply color correcting the trailer footage. (You can even see from the Honest Trailer screengrab that the movie was originally shot as brightly and colorfully as the 70s Superman.)
As long as we're reffing Screen Junkies by the way (the Honest Trailer team), here's their salute to the Timm/Diniverse Animated Superman series if it had gone the Snyder route:
Completely agree with your points, Jason.
And that Screen Junkies vid is pure gold.
Yep. The whole 'grimdark' vibe is why I find this movie incredibly tiresome, and have no interest in seeing it. It's so all-encompassing that even the promos make me roll my eyes.
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on July 11, 2015, 07:52:46 PM
Okay, I admit, this trailer makes the movie more intriguing. I'm really hoping it has the emotion quotient that the trailer hints at. I think I might go see it now.
This trailer did its job. Now I'll actually consider paying $$ to see this movie.
Poor Jesse Eisenberg, all those mean Comic-Con fans yelling at him.
Apparently it was like the Holocaust or something. ::)
https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/actor-jesse-eisenberg-compares-comic-con-genocide-154826566.html# (https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/actor-jesse-eisenberg-compares-comic-con-genocide-154826566.html#)
Well seriously, who casts Jesse as Lex Luthor??!! Was Danny Devito busy? Maybe Whoopi Goldberg as Lexi Luthor?
Ha ha because he has awesome amounts of hair, ha.
:crazy2:
Though I'm getting a bit of an Anarky vibe from him. I'd like to think the writers were trying to be daring in such a knowing way, but, to repeat myself... :crazy2:
That being said, I'm hoping Gal Gadot will be a big breakout extended cameo performance. And as usual I'm not against Batfleck, though the setup for Superman fighting Batman (or vice versa rather) seems dubious.
Also, to whomever wrote Ma Kent dis-inspiring Clark with "You owe this planet nothing and you never did"... (https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fold.wargamer.com%2Fforums%2Fsmiley%2Fintrepidphasers.gif&hash=3e10e664f2086b63d51ab388e302f9f916428548)
CAN
NOT
CURSE
SUFFICIENTLY
AT
YOU
Quote from: JasonPratt on July 15, 2015, 02:29:18 PM
Also, to whomever wrote Ma Kent dis-inspiring Clark with "You owe this planet nothing and you never did"...
CAN
NOT
CURSE
SUFFICIENTLY
AT
YOU
I'm thinking that's not being presented in context. I bet Ma Kent is basically telling his whiny ass to get the sand out of his vagina and grow a pair, and is therefore being hella sarcastic. At least that's what I keep telling myself.
^^ Even if true -- and I've heard things to suggest a lot of the apparent conflict in the trailer is taken out of context -- the fact someone in production decided to take it wildly out of context for the trailer is disturbing.
Quote from: Centurion40 on July 13, 2015, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on July 11, 2015, 07:52:46 PM
Okay, I admit, this trailer makes the movie more intriguing. I'm really hoping it has the emotion quotient that the trailer hints at. I think I might go see it now.
This trailer did its job. Now I'll actually consider paying $$ to see this movie.
Same here. I'm now actually somewhat excited to see this.
One of the subplots of the film seems to be the re-emergence of the Joker, to be revealed in Suicide Squad (with at least one brief Batman crossover -- or flashback?)
SPOILERS COMING FOR THE ARKHAM KNIGHT GAME
But evidence from the trailers of both films suggests the Joker may be a presumed-dead Dick Grayson (if not Jason Todd, since Grayon's tomb is visible -- two dead Robins isn't impossible but inherently less likely), combining the Red Hood plot from comics canon with the Tim Drake story from the DCAU continuity.
Or so goes a fan theory making the rounds, which looks like it has a bit of weight to it...
1.) This Joker is awfully young to be a foe of a Batman with already 20+ years of experience behind him. Rebuttal: he could have been one of Batman's last villains. Counter-rebuttal: even in that case he seems a bit too young.
2.) According to the BvS trailer, many good guys died and others didn't stay good. That sounds like a plot point being set up. Rebuttal: the same trailer seems to indicate that Batman became cruel. Maybe this is self-criticism? Counter-rebuttal: Wayne going after Superman doesn't sound like he's being self-critical; and if we're speaking hypothetically, the trailer doesn't specifically show Alfred referring to Batman as a good man gone cruel, so that could be a Robin ref again. Counter-counter-rebuttal: there is also some evidence the trailer has been intentionally pieced together to make Bats and Supes seem more antagonistic and dangerous than they're actually going to be. CCC-rebuttal: by that same evidence, statements made about Robin-Joker could be reframed to seem like they refer to Batman.
3.) The Joker not only knows a lot about Batman, but can get into the Batcave to mess with Robin's memorial. Rebuttal: depending on what he did to Robin, he might have tortured a lot of information out of him. Counter-rebuttal: the one story so far this has also happened in, he turned that Robin (Tim Drake) into a Joker sidekick to attack Batman with and then died in the process. (In Death in the Family, he just beat Jason Todd and left him to die in an explosion. In Arkham Knight he refused to learn anything from Todd, though he wanted Batman to know he had broken Todd down enough to talk; but Todd didn't turn into a Joker.)
4.) This would explain why the Joker let Harley tatt him up with various weird things including "Damaged" (Harley's holding the tat gun in a promo group photo for the Squad). Counter: the Joker is weird, and crazy tats are hardly beyond someone who glasgow smiled his face (the second Nolan film), or who convinced another supervillain to cut it off and sow it back on (comics canon). Counter-rebuttal: yeah, but the Joker doesn't usually think he's damaged. He likes who he is, and what he became. Even when he technically admits the experience damaged him, he thinks he came out better for it.
5.) Jared Leto called the his Joker character "a beautiful disaster". Rebuttal: anyone a fan of the Joker would easily agree to that.
6.) "I'm not gonna kill you. I'm just gonna hurt you. Very, very badly." Sounds like something the original Joker would have said to the captured Robin before the torture begins. Rebuttal: the strength of this comparison depends entirely on it sounding like something plausible a non-Robin Joker would say to a victim. Meaning there's proportionately no reason to suppose Robin-Joker is echoing it as a previous victim.
7.) The Joker has a small J tattooed under his eye. In Arkham Knight, the Joker branded Jason with a larger version of the same tattoo. Rebuttal: this doesn't look like an ownership brand or tat; it's so small most people don't even notice, whereas the whole point was so that Batman would be affronted Joker had done it to Jason to show the Joker owned him. (And also to give truly clueless people a visual reveal when the Knight takes off his helmet and starts saying who he is. ::) That the dead movie Robin is almost surely Richard Grayson doesn't make any difference either way; the J would stand for Joker not really for Jason.) At best this would be a cutely seeded clue mandated by Warner Brothers to draw comparisons with ArkKnight's plot, since it isn't likely the people setting up the Joker's makeup/tatts would have known about that plot. Why would WB risk spoiling their surprise plot with a clue like this? -- is that idea even plausible for someone high enough up in WB management to know the story of both BvS and ArkKnight??
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
End game-spoiler space.
THAT'S Lex Luthor? Yep, last shred of interest lost. 'Grimdark' Superman, Zack Snyder's incompetence, that Lex Luthor and an obvious attempt by DC to catch up to the success of the Avengers is not likely to make for a good flick.
That's OK, having watched that trailer you've pretty much seen the film now anyway.
Yeah there's plenty to worry about isn't there? I don't like that Luthor either and I really don't buy Ben Affleck as Batman (even less so as Bruce Wayne). This will be one of those films I'll end up watching in a couple of years when staying with the in-laws. About 1am, half the family have passed out, and someone mumbles "fuck it, let's put that Batman film on". Then we attempt to watch it before falling asleep.
It would be VERY difficult to top Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Doesn't matter who it is they get to play this 'new' version.
I'm thinking that last scene with WW's appearance is going to be the very last scene in the movie. Perfect cliffhanger fodder to make people want to see the next one.
I'll check this out when the time comes. I'm over Affleck playing Batman and might be somewhat sold on him being able to stay in the ring more than five seconds with Superman (it IS a movie, after all)...but this little dork playing Luthor...uh, not sure I can get behind that. Unless they were going for an annoying little millennial twat to appeal to an audience of like people, which is probably the intent.
Where's the China pandering, by the way? Surely there's some kind of Hong Kong or China tie-in here, because they always do that to appeal to that market.
Saw the new trailer in the theater, looks good. It revealed too many spoilers for the movie.
I gotta admit, seeing Bats successfully block Supe's right hook was pretty rad.
Jeremy Irons as Alfred is pretty awesome.
That warehouse fight scene looked like it could have come out of one of the Arkham games.
Which is why I don't own any of the Arkham games. I can't imagine using a controller or keyboard or mouse to do all of that. :buck2:
Quote from: Martok on February 13, 2016, 03:02:46 PM
I gotta admit, seeing Bats successfully block Supe's right hook was pretty rad.
Is the Bat-Powersuit made of Red Kryptonite or something?
Quote from: bbmike on February 13, 2016, 05:40:47 PM
Which is why I don't own any of the Arkham games. I can't imagine using a controller or keyboard or mouse to do all of that. :buck2:
The keyboard & mouse combo worked better than I ever dared hope in Shadow of Mordor, whose combat is pretty much the same, for what it's worth.
The combat system in the Arkham games is pretty forgiving. It's not too hard to pull of most of the combos (and I say that as a piss poor player at fighting games). At least at the normal difficulty. I wouldn't dare try anything more challenging than that :P
Quote from: bbmike on February 13, 2016, 05:40:47 PM
Which is why I don't own any of the Arkham games. I can't imagine using a controller or keyboard or mouse to do all of that. :buck2:
One button for strikes, one button for counters. That's it. And you get advance warning of strikes, so you know when to counter.
Do you guys work for Steam?
Quote from: bbmike on February 14, 2016, 10:43:31 PM
Do you guys work for Steam?
We simply want you you feel like a badass Batman. Everyone should have the chance to do so! :)
Arctic's right though. The combat isn't necessarily easy, but it's simple, which makes it possible with mouse & keyboard. One of the best things about the Batman games (and Shadow of Mordor) is that you can pull off ridiculous combos and look like the world's best beat-em-upper with just a couple of clicks.
That's really the bedrock of the Arkham games - they make you feel like a badass Batman. It isn't a frigging chore to wail on some thugs. You might need to be a bit sharper in the boss fights, but the generic bad guys are your Bat punching bags.
I'm like mirth in that I suck at fighting games...and on top of that I don't even like them. I just never saw the attraction of a game like MK or Street Fighter or that kind of thing.
But, I do have the first Batman game (can't recall its title offhand, I don't have Steam open right now), and it gave me several hours of enjoyment. Very simple to play, as everyone has said, and there's enough variety so that the simplicity does not become mind-numbing.
Frank Miller reflects on Dark Knight Returns
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/02/22/frank-miller-on-his-dark-knight-returns-30-years-later-i-was-rooting-for-batman-all-the-way/
Is Frank Miller begging our forgiveness for 300 yet?
Okay, okay, it was Zack Snyder...but I still consider him an accessory!
Zach Snyder announces this week that the BvS blu/dvd set will ship with a 3 hour long R rated version, as well as the 2-1/2 hour theatrical.
The extra 30 minutes, whatever else they contain, will definitely feature Jena Malone's deleted scenes as the not-Batgirl (yet?) Barbara Gordon.
Maxim just ripped the film. I guess I'll wait for it to come to cable TV.
Quote
The best and worst aspects of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice can be summed up in a scene you've probably seen before. In their first encounter, the last son of Krypton shows up on a rooftop in Gotham to warn the Dark Knight off his vigilante ways. "The Bat is dead," he smirks before turning and flying off into the night sky. "Do you bleed?" retorts Batman. "You will."
You're damn right he will, but you already knew that, didn't you? That's because the exchange is from a scene we've seen a billion times before in trailer after trailer for the much-hyped film, DC's second installment in its cinematic world-building in response to Marvel's dominance. But Batman v. Superman doesn't fully deliver on its historic meeting between two of the most recognizable superheroes in American history. If you've seen the trailer, you've basically seen the entirety of the film, a super-powered slugfest that finds the two heroes at each other's throats before *gasp* they team up to welcome, uh, a dawn of justice.
But the most surprising thing about Batman v Superman isn't that the movie was basically already spoiled for theater-going audiences by Warner Bros. incessant marketing — it's how much better the trailers are than the movie. Despite the awesome throwdown between the the two titular heroes, the rest of the film is an incoherent mess off sheer destruction, inelegant callouts to the wider DC universe, and an almost nonsensical plot. Hell, the 11-minute long trailer recut is more coherent than the two and a half hours of cinematic dumpster fire. It's as though somebody randomly picked clippings from the cutting room floor, chugged a bottle of whiskey, and tried to piece together the darkest superhero film ever.
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot to love about Batman v. Superman in the same way that there's a lot to love about Godzilla leveling a city or Christian Bale ripping a gang of thugs to shreds during his run as Batman. The fight sequences are beautifully choreographed and earth-shattering, capturing the real-world chaos wrought by superhumans in a stark contrast to the sanitized combat of the Marvel universe. And Ben Affleck actually manages to telegraph an aura of sociopathy fitting of the modern Batman underneath his fancy toys and high-tech armor. But the level of destruction imagined by Zack Snyder is almost gleefully excessive, a deafening spiral through flames and rubble that's visually exhausting — and just so, so fucking loud.
Upping the ante from Man of Steel, the film wants to remind you just how powerful these people are by destroying everything, but when married with overly dramatic choral interludes (foreboding much? seriously, enough of this shit), the combination yields a visual and aural clusterfuck verging on a cinematic migraine. Where Marvel has embraced the light and campy, DC has doubled down on darkness and self-seriousness that made even cult classics like Watchmen something of a bore.
But tonal and aesthetic troubles aside, the film is virtually plotless. [Warning: Mild spoilers] It's been nearly two years since Superman and General Zod leveled whole parts of Metropolis in the astonishingly brutal Man of Steel, killing thousands — including innocent civilians camped out in Wayne Tower (the opening sequence, which weaves Batman's origin story with Bruce Wayne's perspective on the Battle of Metropolis, is actually some damn good filmmaking). Batman, who's been fighting crime for the better part of two decades at this point, is fairly ripshit about the presence of God on Earth, and he's devoted every resource available to taking down what he perceives as an existential threat to the planet. But this is where things start to get out of control: a civilian massacre is attributed to Superman while he's rescuing Lois Lane in some nondescript Middle Eastern country. Meanwhile, Batman's investigation into a Russian gangster entangles the two titular characters with Lex Luthor (played by Jesse Eisenberg and a metric ton of cocaine). Everything after this is basically a morass of dream sequences and forced melodrama; when you have a dream sequence within a dream sequence, followed by more dream sequences, something tells me it's time to pack up and go home.
As the film approaches its climax, it's clear that Batman and Superman are circling each other almost obliviously, their motivations subject to change for the strangest reasons, destined to fight only because it's in the title of the fucking film. Gal Gadot's excellent Wonder Woman is infuriatingly underutilized, her presence meant only to tease the 'dawn of justice' the film promises with a coming slate of stand-alone superhero flicks. And it's not just Gadot whose role is almost entirely ancillary: callouts to other DC characters (Major Ferris?) are forced and awkward, all uncomfortably ham-fisted plays in service of the larger shared universe in which DC is hastily playing catchup. Aquaman, Cyborg, and the Flash aren't introduced subtly, but as explicitly and fleetingly as possible. The entire movie is incredibly, incredibly close: DC wants to rub our nose in every character and every internal conflict, without letting us piece things together for ourselves.
Batman v. Superman is an entertaining movie, but it isn't really a movie in its own right. It's a film that is so obviously written in the service of a larger franchise, a means to an end held back by narrative inconsistency and too much forced melodrama designed to telegraph character development without actually fulfilling it. Where Tony Stark and Steve Rogers develop from movie to movie, making their inevitable conflict in Captain America: Civil War more believable as the logical conclusion of their character arcs, it's hard to find a time during Batman v. Superman where I'm not praying for the talking to stop and the punching to begin. The movie is a popcorn flick through and through, but it's aspirations to be something more, something deeper and more serious, that truly reveal its weaknesses as a film.
There's a scene towards the end of the film where Bruce Wayne and Diana Prince (Wonder Woman's civilian alter-ego) are discussing the other super-powered folk who've just been shoved down the audiences through throat. "What makes you think they'll fight?" asks Prince. "Just a feeling," replies Batman, ruining fucking everything. This one line almost invalidates the entire movie, tipping DC's hand that boy, who actually gives a shit about Batman fighting Superman, we just want to get our Justice League movie as soon as possible. Batman v. Superman could be the superpowered disaster flick we needed to kick off the summer. If you've ever wondered if you bleed, go see this movie; we guarantee you'll start hemorrhaging from your eyes in no time.
I am filled with not-surprise.
I'll see it for the spectacle at least once, I guess. But I fully acknowledge that makes me part of the problem.
Drew Mcweeny at Hitfix (previously "Moriarty" at AICN): C+ http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/review-batman-v-superman-throws-lots-of-punches-but-with-no-impact-at-all
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/03/22/batman-v-superman-review-zack-snyders-doomsday "This is a very bad movie."
Kind of amazing judgment around halfway into the article, though: "Affleck morphs into what may be the best screen Batman of our time."
I've read some good reviews and some bad. Granted, the number of bad reviews is far greater than the good ones.
Still thinking I'll take the kids to see it. They enjoyed Man of Steel far more than I did, so they'll probably like BvS okay.
A more ambivalently positive review from long-running contributor Capone at AICN: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/74742
hahahaha
Saw it this afternoon with the family. My only complaint is that it was too long. 40 Jr. Gives it 10 out of 10. I give it a solid 8.5. Didn't suck at all.
review from another FoG
QuoteSo, Batman vs. Superman. I will keep this spoiler free. I think they shot a good movie in there somewhere, but Zack Snyder screwed it up royally in post. He cares so much about establishing the "DC Cinematic Universe" that he forgot to establish the movie as a coherent story.
There were some cool set pieces, but they could have cut all of the dream sequence BS and the "reveals" could have been cut. Would have made the film 20-30 minutes shorter too.
They could have used some of this extra time to tighten up the narrative and pacing. Snyder is awful.
Afleck was solid, as was Gadot in her limited screen time. The logic behind character decisions was not well established, non-existent, or weird.
Eisenberg made a creative choice in his portrayal of Luthor. I won't say I agree with that choice, but he went with it. Some weird direction with it and his motivation is a bit garbled from time to time.
People need to stop going to Zack Snyder movies. Seriously, the guy makes Michael Bay look like a goddamn genius.
I really don't understand all the hate aimed at this flick... except for the too long business; that's bang on! I thought that Affleck was fine. They did a good job portraying how Batman became fearful of Superman and began to plot against him. Jessie as Luthor was better than I ever thought possible.
I guess that haters are gonna hate. Purists are gonna hate too. I'm neither when it comes to the Justice League.
Quote from: Arctic Blast on March 26, 2016, 02:25:08 AM
People need to stop going to Zack Snyder movies. Seriously, the guy makes Michael Bay look like a goddamn genius.
Michael Bay's storytelling is often jingoistic, but his primary problem isn't storytelling, it's the fascination with cameramen suffering from Parkinson's, as though somehow surviving his movies without overdosing on Dramamine is a twisted badge of honor or something
Quote from: Centurion40 on March 26, 2016, 09:29:40 AM
I really don't understand all the hate aimed at this flick... except for the too long business; that's bang on! I thought that Affleck was fine. They did a good job portraying how Batman became fearful of Superman and began to plot against him. Jessie as Luthor was better than I ever thought possible.
I guess that haters are gonna hate. Purists are gonna hate too. I'm neither when it comes to the Justice League.
I can't speak to this movie, but the biggest issue is that Snyder clearly doesn't understand his subject material. Superman is supposed to be a beacon of hope. Instead, in Man of Steel, we got a petulant, brooding, dark character who may as well have been a second Batman, and who engaged in a fight that wantonly killed probably thousands of people without a care. Again, totally against character, since Superman's biggest weakness is the fact that he goes out of his way to save lives.
Snyder was a horrible choice for DC to hitch their wagon to. Most of the people I know who have seen this hated it precisely because it ignores the characters and their backstory and does the same ridiculously humorless, grim-dark nonsense that is all that Snyder is capable of doing (of course, he fails at this as well, since he tries so hard to be dark and brooding that it comes off like the writings of a 15 year old boy having a bad day).
Quote from: Arctic Blast on March 26, 2016, 07:49:50 PM
Instead, in Man of Steel, we got a petulant, brooding, dark character who may as well have been a second Batman, and who engaged in a fight that wantonly killed probably thousands of people without a care.
I'm by NO means a DC fanboi in the least, but what you say here is exactly why I had a major issue with Man of Steel. Issues, actually.
The Superman I grew up with was Christopher Reeve. His Superman character in Superman II (which is pretty much parallel with Man of Steel, with Zod and the showdown and etc.) took the fight as far from the city as he could, when he saw people were suffering. Thing is too, even in the DC cartoons and the few DC comics I've read with Superman in them, this characterization is pretty much him in a nutshell. There's variations, sure, but nothing ever even close to going over the line and turning the city into Stalingrad: The Sequel. ::)
I'd still like to see this movie. I've made peace with Affleck playing Batman. I really don't like the Superman they've created. I'm hoping that this is some kind of major story arc across several pictures that will see Superman becoming much less petulant and more promising.
Who knows. I have far more buy-in with the Marvel universe right now, as does 97% of most of moviegoers, I imagine. If DC wants to capture the imagination of the world, they need to clean up this stinking middle-school bathroom of schlock they've created. Since I've seen generally positive reviews of BvS so far and a whopping 9.4/10 on IMDB, I'm hoping they've finally figured out how to do that, but I'm not convinced they can stay the course.
that fight was somewhat tied to the little issue of the world engine thing pounding the city into rubble though.
The world engine that could have been, and was, stopped by only stopping one side, meaning Supes could have been saving people and minimizing damage in Metropolis while Lois Lane (??) and sundry people EventHorizon'd the local half of the engine. Dramatic and thematic tension could have been built from the Kryptonians trying to mess with Superman while he helps people (and fails to do so on occasion because of interference); and that would explain better why an army of Krypts leveling up to Superstatus couldn't stop the puny humans blowing the half of the engine directly threatening people.
Once the engine is shut down, Superman would have been freed up to fight the renegades directly -- and maybe be pissed enough at the deaths they had caused he had failed to save, to grant him more leeway at smashing things in the fight. Alexander Hamilton meanwhile could have been working on a way to red sun the renegades to capture and legitimately imprison them. (If I recall correctly he's sacrificed to the plot instead.)
I do grant the actual film some credit, in that Kal does try hard at first to knock Zod out of the city rather than fight him there. A little creative editing or a few extra fx shots could have shown more clearly that Kal was scoping evacuated buildings during the fight rather than slamming Zod apparently at random into things; there's some evidence that that idea was intended but it came across too vaguely -- in the midst of such overwhelming visuals it's easy for an audience to miss ultra-subtle clues.
And I'll also say that the movie dang well delivers on superbattle spectacle. Aside from the artistic choice to desaturate everything, my main complaints are in goofy characterization and plot choices. I'm not really against a devastating catastrophe (two actually, including Smallville) which Superman failed to prevent; but I think they could have done better in plotting what happened.
Couldn't get to the new movie this weekend, but I do intend to see it at least once in theaters. O:-)
Sounds like the movie had a great opening weekend. Now the question will be if they're telling they're friends to go now, and how many will make a second trip to see it at full price.
I've talked to folks who have seen it and liked it. Apparently it delivers what one would want; an epic fight between Bats and Supes.
My daughter and I went to see it last night - full of trepidation given the word on the street. But we came out feeling entertained. We reckoned we'd have given it between 6 and 7 on IMDB (and closer to 7).
The story did seem a bit manic. There were definitely parts that could've been shorter and parts that should've been longer. But overall, we enjoyed it.
Don't go with huge expectations and you may come away with a wee smile...not Deadpool style, but a smile none-the-less.
Bear in mind though that we are not comic book fans. I remember the Batman TV series from a kid and I enjoyed pretty much most of the Batman movies (preferring the darker Dark Knight series). I also remember the Superman films from the 70s (you really will believe a man can fly...remember that tag line?)...but I was never a Superman or Batman comic reader...so we know nothing really about the universe or how their paths can even cross.
So perhaps that's how we came away feeling entertained.
http://www.cosmicbooknews.com/content/batman-vs-superman-suffers-worst-drop-any-super-hero-movie#axzz44OWZpwUL
Well, that seems to be a "stats" guy's wet dream.
I see some superb films there with huge drop offs....Winter Soldier? Age of Ultron? The Dark Knight Rises? All in the top ten and yet there are others with significantly lower drops offs...The Green Lantern? Ghost Rider? Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?
Come on Seriously? We're going to judge films based on "drop off" values when the significant portion of the top ten are great films and a significant portion of the bottom ten are shite?
I try not to put too much weight on numbers and I definitely try (unsuccessfully sometimes) to ignore other peoples opinions of movies...or at least try and gain a balanced view.
As I said - me and the kid left the cinema entertained. That's all I can really pass on. Aficionados of the comics and timeline may well see huge plot holes and issues...hell, I saw some things that didn't make much sense.
It's not to judge the movie, but Warner Bros. is in some trouble if BvS doesn't have staying power. The estimates are that in needs to make at least $900 million for the studio to break even. It had a great opening, but it's world-wide box office is just shy of $500 mil. It could still end up a money loser for Warner.
but sooooooooooooooooo many toys at christmas
and lego batman v superman
saw an interview on a UK chat show with them both last night and it was very peculiar in that Ben Affleck definitely seemed he felt inferior to Henry Cavill in the discussion - like 'this is fkng superman here' - oddly entertaining and Cavill knew it too - he was all pumped and 'im superman' affleck never once retorted with 'yeah, but im batman'
Quote from: mirth on March 30, 2016, 10:33:20 AM
It's not to judge the movie, but Warner Bros. is in some trouble if BvS doesn't have staying power. The estimates are that in needs to make at least $900 million for the studio to break even. It had a great opening, but it's world-wide box office is just shy of $500 mil. It could still end up a money loser for Warner.
I don't understand the 900mil figure? I thought the budget was 400mil? I get they have to make a profit - but where did 900mil come from?
Also (figures from IMDB)
- Captain America:Winter Soldier
Budget - $170m
Opening Weekend - $95m
To Feb 2015 - $260m - Avengers:Age of Ultron
Budget - $250m
Opening Weekend - $191m
To Feb 2016 - $459m - Iron Man 3
Budget - $200
Opening Weekend - $174m
To March 2015 - $409m
So opening weekends (and those stats) don't necessarily hold water. They are just figures and are not (in and of themselves) an indication of how a film will perform financially.
Who knows. I actually enjoyed it - and a lot more than I believe I will The Justice League.
I don't even know why I'm arguing the point - the movie was enjoyable. Nothing special.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on March 30, 2016, 01:23:17 PM
I don't understand the 900mil figure? I thought the budget was 400mil? I get they have to make a profit - but where did 900mil come from?
They share revenue with theater owners for starters. The general rule of thumb is to double the total production/marketing costs. The costs for BvS were somewhere between $400-$500 million.
I'm not arguing whether or not it's a good/entertaining movie. Just pointing out that, as well as it has done so far, it could still lose money for Warner Bros.
http://entertainment.ie/cinema/news/Batman-V-Superman-needs-to-make-HOW-MUCH-before-turning-a-profit/378919.htm (http://entertainment.ie/cinema/news/Batman-V-Superman-needs-to-make-HOW-MUCH-before-turning-a-profit/378919.htm)
Ok. Point taken. If "the word" takes root and people don't go, then any film will bomb...including this one.
The critical pans I've seen have not been "this isn't how things are done in the comics" (maybe because DC is changing the canon all the time now), but "this doesn't make a lot of sense on its own merits". Ditto for me on TDKRises and Man of Steel 1. And pretty much any other super-film I've watched, whether I thought it was good or not -- unless they replace something great in the comics with something dumb, or just change the character so much that there's no good reason to even have the character be 'whoever' at all (like Deadpool in the Wolverine Origins movie), I don't care about canon alteration.
The closest I've seen to "not the comics" is "Snyder doesn't understand and/or hates the character of Superman". I kind of agree it seems like one or both of those is true, but I'd still be willing to give him (and/or his writers) credit for trying an alternate take even if it's a failure.
Still going to see it in theaters at least once, when my schedule and the weather clears up. Hopefully Saturday.
Just got back from watching it. Went in with very low expectations (except for spectacle, which were met). Expectations were pretty well exceeded! Will no doubt contribute an essay or something tomorrow. Story (even with clunky inter-scene editing) is far more internally consistent than for either of the two previous Nolan!DC movies (Man of Steel and Dark Knight Rises), and arguably more consistent than even The Dark Knight (although strictly speaking I'd argue that's still a much better movie in most regards). This is not a compliment I give lightly; nor something I was expecting from other responses before going in.
Admittedly the film is dour (an intentional tonal choice, and I'm willing to accept that as a valid artistic choice, but it sucks a lot of the fun out of what's happening); and there are plenty of minor problems, some of which I'm sure come from trimming out 30 minutes. There's only one major plot problem I can think of at the moment -- which has been mentioned elsewhere and above, about the idea of framing Superman by shooting people -- and I suspect the explanation was dropped by accident in post or someone realized the explanation was somehow unworkable and so just dropped it and hoped for the best. I had no problems with Luthor's side of the story at all, and I was watching hard for problems there.
I'll talk about this later (maybe in a separate post so as to minimize spoilers), after I've had a chance to sleep. I fully intend to go watch it again in the theater, which is not something I did for TDKR or MoS. I actually bought a Blu of MoS tonight simply because I wanted get a clear idea of whether this film improves that one for me somehow. I doubt it, but even if not, I'm reasonably excited for the 'series' and so I want MoS in the library.
Forgot to add the link to my very spoilery review/commentary here (http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=16650.0).
Saw it today with my kids. I'd give it a 7/7.5. Too many dream sequences and I swear to God if I have to watch another version of Bruce Wayne's parents being murdered I'll kill myself right there in theater.
Definitely too long, but not egregiously so. Jesse Eisenberg was good, but I didn't care for the version of Lex that was presented. Jeremy Irons was woefully under-utilized. I thought Affleck did a solid job as Bruce Wayne/Batman. I liked how this film explored some of the underlying psychosis of the character. I'd be happy to see a standalone Batman movie with Ben Affleck and Jeremy Irons.
Wonder Woman kicked ass. I'm glad Gal Gadot is getting her own Wonder Woman movie.
It was one of the better DC comic book movies. I enjoyed it more than Man of Steel and far more than Dark Knight Rises. I don't know where some of the harsher criticism comes from. It was a well above average comic book movie. Too much Zack Snyder sepia tone self seriousness, but I expected that going in. I don't go to a JJ Abrams film without expecting lens flares in every other scene.
Kids liked it just fine. They sat through the whole thing without so much as pee break. I can't say the same.
The warehouse Batman fight scene is even more awesome than it looked in the trailer. Some of the best fighting I've seen in any of the comic book movies. Really gave a sense of Batman as a brutal brawler. Made me very much think of The Dark Knight Returns and the Arkham games.
Quote from: mirth on April 10, 2016, 02:48:00 PM
I don't go to a JJ Abrams film without expecting lens flares in every other scene.
I watched
Man of Steel(1) the other night -- my first time since theatrical release -- and I did appreciate the film better afterward, although my overall critiques remain the same for it.
Including too many lens flares, which made me chuckle when I read your comment. ;D
Dawn was better shot in the dark, simply to minimize Snyder's own proclivities in that regard! (And he still snuck in too many.)
Angry Joe and the Nostalgia Critic team up to remake/summarize BvS (and critique it):
For their original MoS review, Angry Joe defended the film hard:
I think Luthor's motivations would have been clearer, or anyway easier to figure out and understand, if he hadn't been a raving whackadoo comic-relief the whole time.
I still say this wasn't a bad movie overall. I've also seen some comments on Man of Steel which I thought was a pretty good reboot or a reboot of a reboot.
I'm not so much bothered about new cinematography techniques (or whatever the correct "movie jargon" phrase is) like lens flare or 300/Sin City almost cartoony style of graphic and colour...though they can be over done.
But in Man of Steel I didn't find them off putting in the slightest.
What he cannot and SHOULD NEVER be forgiven for is NOT playing the Superman soundtrack in either of those movies.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on April 27, 2016, 01:03:35 AM
What he cannot and SHOULD NEVER be forgiven for is NOT playing the Superman soundtrack in either of those movies.
True. Although I think the film would have looked better with the supersaturated color of the 300 movies, rather than the weird desaturation. It flatly changes the color of the suit, which in 'real life' production had the traditional color hues.
This color correction project features John Williams' music.
The second part of the Smallville fight (after the safe), color corrected. Other elements haven't been corrected, so it still looks weird.
The Spanish version of BvS trailer, color corrected. Color's a little too hot.
We all knew it was coming. Three years in the making! -- or, uh, more like three weeks, maybe.
Obviously best ending is obvious: "BEEEEEECAAAAAAAUUUUSSSSSSEEEEE IIIIIIIMMMMMM BAAAAATTTTTTMMMMMAAAAAAANN!!!!"
(using this as a default DCU thread)
Saw this article title on CinemaBlend and couldn't resist coming here and making fun of it...The Big Downside To James Wan Directing Aquaman For DC.
The fact that there is going to be an Aquaman movie? ;)
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Big-Downside-James-Wan-Directing-Aquaman-DC-135827.html
Well, I guess they're counting on LB seeing it 16,568,421 times in order to make up the cost of that crap(pie).
I see what you did there. I am not amused :P
O:-)