|
CelticPredator posted:Tone is everything. *Bane voice* For you! Edit: Hey have you read All-Star Superman yet? Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Apr 16, 2016 |
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
Yeah, tone is everything, you're right. But nobody can explain why MoS and BvS have "worse" tones, other than that it's "not appropriate," at which point I refer you to my previous post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
I actually liked the crash style editing in this film, one scene into the other, and there usually was some loose connection, it wasn't random, the whole film follows the nightmare logic. I can see how some people would find it jarring or just not feel it though. Definitely some things faltered, Lois and Diana seem to be cut down to the bone, and while I actually enjoyed all the lextube videos, Wonder Woman watching them was oddly placed. Here's to hoping for meat in the long cut!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
I am amused that people here think scene order is what "film editing" means.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:I am amused that people here think scene order is what "film editing" means. Yeah, they never put scenes in different order while editing.....
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Jimbot posted:The editing does have a few problems. I think the nonlinear editing was done better in Man of Steel and this film succeeds in doing that a few times but there are other times where it gets kind of confusing. A big one is where it cuts to a sequences that expands the universe after a very emotional and heavy scene. It was completely out of place and it kills the mood. Tone is definitely a purview of editing, but it encompasses more than that. I think that's more appropriate than just editing, because nothing about the editing seems particularly sloppy. The jarring tone shifts are something I like, admittedly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
That is a part of it, though. You can change an entire film's pacing and story by moving scenes to different places.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:But nobody can explain why MoS and BvS have "worse" tones, other than that it's "not appropriate," at which point I refer you to my previous post. It's loving insane that you can't take a kid to a movie about Superman and Batman fighting. This movie felt like it was targeted at angsty teenagers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Yaws posted:It's loving insane that you can't take a kid to a movie about Superman and Batman fighting. This movie felt like it was targeted at angsty teenagers. You say this in a forum where a large number of people saw Robocop at 8 years old.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Yaws posted:It's loving insane that you can't take a kid to a movie about Superman and Batman fighting. This movie felt like it was targeted at angsty teenagers. What's inappropriate about this movie?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Despite all the content in that movie, I'd say it's much more light hearted and fun than Batman V Superman. Not all scenes are! There isn't anything fun about Murphy getting mowed down. In fact, it's down right terrifying! RoboCop 2 is a lot more fun, for kids anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Yaws posted:It's loving insane that you can't take a kid to a movie about Superman and Batman fighting. This movie felt like it was targeted at angsty teenagers. An angsty teenager is a kind of kid, though ... ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
https://vimeo.com/53767618 Oldschool, but brilliant bit about editing from Albert Brooks' Modern Romance. computer parts posted:You say this in a forum where a large number of people saw Robocop at 8 years old. And brag about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
A lot of what people refer to as the 'lighthearted tone' of comic books is actually just a product of the entire medium being made to sit at the kids' table. The Fantastic Four's origin story involves Ben Grimm, driven mad by radiation, vowing to murder Reed Richards & gently caress Reed's wife with his grotesque mutant attributes. So fans naturally conclude that "this is a lighthearted story about the power of family, just like Disney's The Incredibles!" Like, no, this is a highly ambivalent story about the barely-contained power of lust and jealousy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
OK so I'm going to write a bunch about BvS. I saw it a week after it opened with some friends who are big-time Marvel fans. I like Marvel a lot but I lean towards DC more because Marvel ain't got poo poo on the Trinity and most especially on Superman. So far I've only seen it once but I plan to go back and catch a matinee this weekend, so if I'm wrong about some crucial detail I apologize. I think that what happened with this film is that Snyder dropped a complete, coherent, pretty good (and possibly excellent) movie on the studio's desk that was rated R and clocked in at 3 hours and the studio said, "Uh, can't be rated R, teenage dollars, can't be 3 hours, only 4 showings a day instead of 5" and took a loving hacksaw to it. Specifically I'd like to talk about the released "Communion" scene and Lex Luthor's ending scene in jail. As a big DC fan I was fairly certain that Lex was talking about the New Gods with his "THE BELL HAS BEEN RUNG DING DING DING THEY KNOW WE'RE HERE" freakout at the end of the movie, but while I was watching I thought, "My buds are going to ask me about this because it appears that Lex has just gone full loving lunatic and is talking nonsense because nothing has been established, in any way, about him contacting the New Gods or being influenced by Darkseid or loving. ANYTHING. besides suddenly ranting about a bell? This is just out of nowhere, wtf?" Afterwards as we were demolishing a cheese dip and a margarita pitcher that was, indeed, the first question asked, "Hey, why did Lex Luthor become a crazy Moonie?" I explained what was happening, although I had to say "what I think might be happening" since, you know, there is nothing to suggest to a non-DC hardcore that anything has happened other than Lex losing his mind and imitating a doorbell. All of them are like, "Wow, that really kind of changes the poo poo out of the ending, doesn't it? Why wasn't there a short scene that showed Lex in some way being contacted by a huge terrifying gently caress-off demon to set that up? It would only take like 45 seconds and then you wouldn't have to have read comic books for 40 years to know what was going on." This led to a discussion of how poorly the movie seemed edited and how there were just so many things that a short (say, 45 second!) scene leading into or somewhere before them would have clarified for a general audience as well as how sort of scattershot everything about the picture was. I'd seen that there was a "deleted scene" released online but had avoided it since I hadn't seen the movie yet. A day or two later I watched "Communion" and HEY WHAT THE gently caress DO YOU KNOW. A short, 45 second scene that explains a whole lot of things. I sent it to my friends and every single one had almost the exact same reaction, almost the exact same words, in fact: "Wow, that makes a lot more sense now." The movie is already 2.5 hours long, so why is an (IMO) absolutely critical 45 seconds of this movie cut out? It (again IMO but seriously) changes the entire tone of the ending from "Justice League! Cool!" to "Oh gently caress is it going to be enough  We're probably doomed." I think it's because of those two things I mentioned, that teenage dollar (standing in a pool of blood talking to a demon, can't have an R!) and being able to show it one more time a day. It's the American Sickness in action: The short term is the only term that matters.I guess we'll find out if I'm right when the Director's Cut hits, but I'd put money on this movie being exactly like Kingdom of Heaven: confusing and horribly chopped-up theatrical cut that becomes a much better movie when the guy who made it is allowed to release the film he wanted it to be in the first place. That said, man there are some really confusing decisions here. Superman smashing the guy through the wall was just a completely bizarre choice seemingly made to show that Superman is bad-rear end. Essentially the exact same effect could have been achieved by having the terrorist blink and suddenly there's Superman standing next to him holding his gun smiling before lightly tapping him on the forehead and knocking him out or any of a thousand other ways to resolve that situation. Why was the choice made to have Kal-El from Krypton smash a human being through multiple walls? Comics fans like myself will say, "Well, Superman's fists were out in front of him when he charged the guy so they smashed through the walls first and while the guy probably got a shitload of broken ribs he was probably okay." Someone who just decided to go see BvS is going to say, "Holy loving poo poo Superman just killed a human being." 10 seconds of showing Superman dropping that guy at a jail or him in a hospital bed in casts or something similar solves that. Why would you want to leave any ambiguity at all about the idea that Superman doesn't kill humans? That isn't "not my Superman!" That's "not anyone's Superman!" A throwaway line later on is not going to remove the image of Superman deliberately doing something that seems 99.9% likely to kill even the sturdiest, strongest man. The film is full of weird, confusing, wtf poo poo like this. It's missing things it needs and has things it doesn't. It reminds me in a way of the Harry Potter movies where completely superfluous and unimportant things are emphasized (like that dumb loving voodoo doll bus ride) while things that are incredibly thematically and emotionally important are ignored or barely even mentioned. Oh look, Harry has a stag for a Patronus. Did someone else in his family... eh, probably a coincidence, look how this bus squeezes! I also got a little hint of X-Men: The Last Stand in that this was really two stories that deserved their own movies crammed into one and both of them suffered for it. In X-Men I think it was just stupidity and a lovely director, here I think it was the overwhelming need to cram Justice League setup in here as hard as possible. Superman being >coff coff< dead really helps movies like Aquaman solo et.al. explain why the gently caress they don't just whistle up Superman when things get tough, but at the cost of reducing one of the most iconic Superman stories and most terrifying Superman enemies into a 20-minute fight scene. NOT MY BATMAN V NOT MY SUPERMAN alert: There wasn't enough Batman v. Superman in Batman v. Superman. I want to see these two guys grope toward the understanding that they are on the same side. I want to see them talk while they fight. I want to see Batman say, "I have to destroy you because you are unaccountable!" and Superman to throw it back in his face, "So I guess you'll be turning yourself in about now for your thousands of violent assaults since you are accountable to...?" I want to see their conflict become verbal and philosophical instead of just purely physical. I want to see Superman talk Batman down from the murderous ledge he's on and show them become true friends because they see themselves in each other, not because of a familial naming coincidence. I love despairing, beaten-down, increasingly-violent Batman even though he's "not my Batman." I love conflicted, worried, where-is-my-place-in-this-world Superman even though he's "not my Superman." All of that "not my" is goofy pedantic bullshit that is based on nerdier-than-thou hyperbole and the idea that somehow the person speaking somehow owns these characters. But by the end of the movie, I did want to see this "not my Batman" and "not my Superman" evolve into "my World's Finest," two guys who are fundamentally alone who find a friend they can just be themselves around because they've learned that despite their different philosophies they are both struggling and sacrificing themselves for the same goal: a better world for all of us. And I didn't get that. And I'm disappointed as hell that I didn't. I really hope I'm right about the Director's Cut, but even if I'm not, I got to see my heroes live and in color on a giant screen and that was worth the price of the ticket right there. But drat if I don't wish it had been done just a little bit differently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
wyoming posted:Yeah, they never put scenes in different order while editing..... It's an infinitesimally small part of what's involved in the editing of a film, and is determined mostly by the script.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
JonathonSpectre posted:Why would you want to leave any ambiguity at all about the idea that Superman doesn't kill humans? Because half the film is about that ambiguity. There's a lot expressed through the repetition of imagery in this film, and parts of that specific scene are rhymed in Batman's nightmare of being executed, the part where Superman slams Batman through the wall ("if I wanted it, you'd be dead already"), and Batman's own "I believe you" scene with the flamethrower (to name a few). If you trace it back far enough, it is a reference to that Dark Knight Returns scene that was debated a few pages ago, with Superman in place of Batman.* But there's a key difference: where Frank Miller shows Batman actively ignoring the blood from the death he caused (we get a POV shot where the blood is plainly visible, but desaturated), Snyder doesn't show anything one way or the other. You're being forced to fill in the blanks with your own assumptions, and a lot of people will naturally assume the worst. And that's deliberate, as it's something that film itself addresses with that whole "if you really think Superman is a murderer..." scene. The scene in Africa is, basically, a reflection of Wayne's attitudes towards Superman. Batman believes Superman killed that guy, and that he will be next. He dreams about it, in vivid detail. Bruce imagines himself as the warlord. And, in the dream, Bruce imagines that Superman tore out the warlord's heart. *There's a double-twist on the "I believe you" from D.K.Returns, as Snyder points out. If KGB had suddenly grown a conscience and not pulled the trigger, he would have survived. But that sort of happy outcome is, to Batman, 'unbelievable'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
That's a really good post, JonathonSpectre, thank you for writing it. My only comment is about the opening scene. MoS spends a lot of time and effort demonstrating that while Superman's fast, he's not fast like he is in the comics. He's a physical demigod rather than casually omnipotent like he is in All-Star Superman or some of the Justice League cartoons. It makes it a lot more interesting when he can be challenged by mortal things, even if he can overcome them. Since a pretty good amount of the people watching this won't have seen MoS, there needs to be some indication that this Superman isn't perfect - and at the same time, he's clearly showing improvements from MoS, since he doesn't hurt Lois at all. I agree that they did a pretty terrible job communicating that the guy didn't die, though. (and the argument that it's intentional so that the viewer has reasonable doubt about superman doesn't really work since this scene is from lois' pov and she trusts him completely, plus we already see the negative consequences immediately afterwards.) We're given reasonable context to believe Clark's telling the truth when he says he didn't kill anyone, but we're much more inclined to believe what we see than what we're told. pre-post edit: SMG wrote his post while I was writing mine. I'm taking a relatively diegetic stance while he's looking at it from a more analytical, metaphorical approach. ~neither of us are necessarily wrong~ 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
JonathonSpectre posted:
Well you see, Snyder knew most people would be like "Batman vs. Superman? Holy poo poo, these dudes are about to throw down!" BUT, Snyder made a subtle, yet genius move by making the title Batman v Superman. You see, this is not about spandex mans punch fighting. The "v" indicates an ideological struggle, a philosophical battle of wills between these two indomitable heroes. But wait, there's more! Snyder in his infinite trolldom decided not only to remove the physical battle between the two heroes, but to cut out the ideological battle as well! You see, this allowed him to do what has never been done in Superhero cinema before... he made a villain the real bad guy behind everything, so the heroes can team up and fight him in the end. Also, Batman wasn't really a homicidal maniac, he's just got PTSD from alien 9/11, but in the end he's all better because Superman sacrificed his life for him. Don't worry though, Superman isn't really dead! No stakes! Seriously though, that was a good post, and I agree with much of it though you seemed to enjoy the finished product a little more than I did. I'm giving the director's cut a try as well, though ultimately I think using dcs to fix issues is a bit of a cheat. The fact that part of Snyder's deal with WB is reportedly to allow him to release director's cuts for his films speaks a lot about his lack of self-confidence in his ability to put together a theatrical release that can stand on it's own.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:Snyder in his infinite trolldom decided not only to remove the physical battle between the two heroes, but to cut out the ideological battle as well! You see, this allowed him to do what has never been done in Superhero cinema before... he made a villain the real bad guy behind everything, so the heroes can team up and fight him in the end. There's actually a very big difference between the 'the illuminati is behind it all' style, and what Zack Snyder and Chris Nolan do with Lex Luthor and Ras Al Ghul (respectively). Lex and Ras are both attempting to worsen a preexisting situation. In Batman Begins, the release of the 'fear gas' is designed to push the class war between rich and poor to the point of rioting. But Ras did not create that class war. He's just exploiting it. It's as Steve Shaviro wrote about Gamer - and its Luthor-like villain, Castle: 'Gamer has been criticized by some reviewers and bloggers because — in quintessential genre fashion — it shifts attention away from the system and to just one evil individual; thus implying that taking that individual down is enough to liberate everyone. In this way, the movie would be guilty of leaving the system itself intact. But I think that such a reading is itself too simple: it ignores the way that the figure of Castle precisely embodies and condenses the “system itself”, that is to say, the whole regime of flexible accumulation (or of what I might prefer to call expropriation with a smirk, or a smile). One way that today’s media “personalities” differ from nineteenth-century fictional characters, or from twentieth-century selves with interiority, is that media personalities today function so directly as personifications, or embodiments, of impersonal, impalpable, and unrepresentable forces. Indeed, this is not anything really new. It is what Marx already said about capitalists in his own time: that they were not real individuals, but personifications of capital. [...] Just as, according to Deleuze and Guattari, philosophers must develop “conceptual personae” in order to dramatize, and thereby fully work out, their ideas, so capital today must generate entrepreneurial personae in order to fully realize the accumulation of capital at which it aims. In this sense, the genre tendency to personify social forces in individual figures is a necessary procedure; and a genre film like Gamer is accurate to condense its social commentary into such figures.' SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Apr 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:There's actually a very big difference between the 'the illuminati is behind it all' style, and what Zack Snyder and Chris Nolan do with Lex Luthor and Ras Al Ghul (respectively). Lex and Ras are both attempting to worsen a preexisting situation. Sure, I'll agree that this is the case. The result is the same however, the supposed philosophical conflict between the protagonists is almost entirely eschewed in favor of them being pieces on a game board that Lex moves around until they get wise and team up against him. All with no meaningful resolution of their differences, aside from the obvious difference of Batman wanting to kill Superman.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
That's a great post, Spectre. I agreed with all of that. The only difference really is that you feel like you enjoyed it enough to pay to see it again. I came in just a shade under that. The way you and your mates reacted to Lex is how me and my friends reacted to Flash's scene. I had to explain that was The Flash to people who watch his show on the CW. And even that was more like "I'm pretty sure that was The Flash" because even I wasn't certain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Most of the time, editing and pacing problems amount to the same general failure of concepts and techniques, but I actually think pacing is a far bigger issue with BvS than the editing. Editing problems imply unintelligibility or lack of clarity, which doesn't really afflict BvS outside of (arguably numerous) narrative issues that would still be issues no matter how you spliced the scenes. It might be too late now to see BvS in a crowded theater, but if ever you get the opportunity again, make a note of how many times people are going to the bathroom, and at what times. From my experience, the answer is: all over the the goddamn place. Yes, much like Lex, everyone is pissing everywhere. It doesn't matter what scene it is, whether it's pensive or expository or action-filled or dramatic, the pacing structure of this film is such that there's no real ebb and flow (  ) to the clipshow-like sequence of events; every scene is so tonally-indefinite from another that audiences are cognitively unable to decide which scenes are more or less important, which scenes signify "rise" and which scenes signify "fall," which are the stop and go points for the storyline in anything other than the broadest, most general terms.So the audience will take necessary pee breaks from the film whether it's Batman talking to Alfred about trivial matters or Batman speeding after bad guys in his car because, in their minds, both are equally worth sacrificing for their bladder. Which is incredibly uncommon for an action film (or any genre film, really; imagine someone going to the bathroom just as Colin Firth is about to woo a woman) and indicates pacing issues, ie, issues of quote-unquote "boredom." Here's a pretty concise article giving some pacing advice in a screenplay. Not to say that BvS violated, like, this entire credo, but it's interesting to see where and how it does. Yaws posted:Have you seen Sucker Punch? ImpAtom posted:... have you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
BvS: Next time you're in a theater, make note of audience piss breaks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:BvS: Next time you're in a theater, make note of audience piss breaks. Every time I went to see BvS after the first I used the Cyborg/Flash/Aquaman scene as my piss break.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
I think a little kid ran out of the theater during the film. Or an old person. Someone got up and left and no one knew where they went. I saw people walk toward the exit door to open them...and the last time that happened in my state while watching a Batman movie, welp... So I sorta followed what was going on because I didn't want to get shot. But someone ran away, someone who probably couldn't take care of themselves considering they got half the staff to go looking. No idea what really happened though but I was relieved that it was not a shooter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Because half the film is about that ambiguity. This is a reasonable POV but what I don't like about this decision is that Superman's good/evil should be ambiguous to Batman, not the audience watching. The audience walks in the theater already knowing the "secret" that Batman is wrong and Superman is a good person who is trying to do what he thinks is right. Imagine the scene referenced (wall-crashing-through) was changed in some way to show unquestionably that Superman did not kill that man. If we later see Batman watching a news report that says "Superman intervenes in Africa, hundreds killed," that strengthen's Batman's internal motivation because as far as he knows Superman killed 'em all. But we as the audience would know he's wrong because we saw it be wrong. That's my opinion, at least. NERD FANFICTION ALERT: I forgot to mention one thing I really loved, and that was Bruce Wayne at the end saying, "Men are still good." If I was writing this movie, we would have heard that line twice, once where it was and once at the end of one of the three BvS fights that would have made up the core of the film, preferably the first one where Superman tosses Batman around like a ragdoll since he hasn't DKR semper paratus'ed it up yet. Alfred specifically references Batman's powerlessness as something that was turning him cruel, and man I'd liked to have seen a thoroughly beaten Batman, certain he was about to die at the hands of an almost omnipotent alien, ranting and raving about how everything is corrupt and everything sucks and he had to start branding and shooting people because they're all scum and criminals just like him and they deserve it, I mean full-blown edge of tears meltdown, and then have Superman say something like: "No. You're wrong. You've gotten so lost in your pain and hatred that you don't see it anymore. But there are billions of people out there all over this planet who are fighting for the things you care about... the things we care about. Men are still good, Bruce. You can give up on me all you want. But please... don't give up on all of them," before turning away, sparing Batman, blasting off and leaving Batman huddled there in a heap with a lot more to think about than he had before. Adding that in makes that line at the end repeated by Bruce Wayne something truly iconic and IMO incredibly powerful. It would show that Superman's example really did change/redeem Bruce Wayne, showing Kal-El's power to make people better not by flying or punching things but by showing that there is a different, better way than violent retribution to solve problems. That's always been his real power, at least to me. It would also give more weight to, "I failed him in life... I won't fail him in death." Even with all the slap-dash editing and their bizarre insta-friendship based on their mom's shared name and all of the problems this film had, that line got a real emotional reaction out of me. For two and a half hours I watched "not my Batman" and then all of a sudden, right there at the end, there he was. My Batman.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
Question: Why didn't superman take the scout ship away from the city by BvS? Wouldn't he want it back in safe hands (in the Arctic or wherever) rather than leave for Lex/governments to peruse?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Sylink posted:Question: Why didn't superman take the scout ship away from the city by BvS? Wouldn't he want it back in safe hands (in the Arctic or wherever) rather than leave for Lex/governments to peruse? I think for the most part nobody had access until Lex used Zod's fingerprints to get in so it wasn't something he was really worried about? Perhaps he felt if they could unlock it and reverse engineer whatever was inside they were welcome to it? On the other hand Superman feels no responsibility to help clean up the mess left behind by his fellow kryptonians?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Sylink posted:Question: Why didn't superman take the scout ship away from the city by BvS? Wouldn't he want it back in safe hands (in the Arctic or wherever) rather than leave for Lex/governments to peruse? Because then Lex would be Prometheus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Every time I went to see BvS after the first I used the Cyborg/Flash/Aquaman scene as my piss break. Did the PA Kent scene add anything?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
So this movie still sucked, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Blackchamber posted:I think for the most part nobody had access until Lex used Zod's fingerprints to get in so it wasn't something he was really worried about? Perhaps he felt if they could unlock it and reverse engineer whatever was inside they were welcome to it? I guess Superman just fucks off for a while after MoS instead of helping clean up the huge gently caress off mess?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Sylink posted:Question: Why didn't superman take the scout ship away from the city by BvS? Wouldn't he want it back in safe hands (in the Arctic or wherever) rather than leave for Lex/governments to peruse?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Its not like they could stop him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
I only finally saw the movie earlier today. After seeing it, everything I've read about it makes perfect sense, and in hindsight, I finally got to be on the other side of the "Is Hunger Games a bad movie?" debate. In that debate, I never read the books, and I thought the first movie was an incoherent mess of a movie (which, objectively, it is). But book readers LOVED that drat mess. Why? They knew all the bits most of the audience didn't. I feel that's a big reason for the divide in opinion on BvS. I've read enough DC Comics (thought I'm mostly a Marvel fan) that I knew enough references and Easter eggs that half of the totally not-set-up references made sense (ie: Lex's loony meltdown in jail). So I enjoyed the movie overall, but still felt that it was objectively a mess, paced horribly and made bizarre character choices in places. But that said, if I hadn't known most of the little poo poo to fill in the gaps? Probably would have left the theater confused about most of it and kind of mad I wasted an afternoon. Actually, JonathonSpectre's review earlier up the page is great and sums up a lot of what was wrong - and right - about the movie. Although the #1 main thing I hated about it was the whole Martha coincidence that ended what I thought was supposed to be the point of the whole godamn movie. It was stupid as hell. "Oh, Martha? Martha won't die tonight!" and "I'm a friend of your son's" all in the span of a few minutes, or what was about 15-20 minutes in the movie's real time. I mean, that's just a coincidence, but they made a whole major plot point out of it? That's just lazy, and was executed horribly and I hated it. There. Other than that, the dialog was crap and felt incredibly forced through most of the movie. I also would have liked to see Ben Afleck try his hand a little more at the Bruce Wayne half of Batman and be the suave playboy a little bit. Instead, he's always on mission and dodging around trying to find clues about things. However, on the plus side, Wonder Woman was loving great and I'm way more interested in her solo movie now than ever. Seriously, Marvel better figure out how not to ruin female characters and build up a drat good one, because Warner Brothers might have cracked the code on that front.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Sylink posted:Question: Why didn't superman take the scout ship away from the city by BvS? Wouldn't he want it back in safe hands (in the Arctic or wherever) rather than leave for Lex/governments to peruse? Because Superman is dumb as hell in BvS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Sylink posted:Question: Why didn't superman take the scout ship away from the city by BvS? Wouldn't he want it back in safe hands (in the Arctic or wherever) rather than leave for Lex/governments to peruse? Moving something that big is impossible for this version of Superman. If you remember, he was struggling a bit with the ship in the artic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Doronin posted:I only finally saw the movie earlier today. After seeing it, everything I've read about it makes perfect sense, and in hindsight, I finally got to be on the other side of the "Is Hunger Games a bad movie?" debate. In that debate, I never read the books, and I thought the first movie was an incoherent mess of a movie (which, objectively, it is). But book readers LOVED that drat mess. Why? They knew all the bits most of the audience didn't. I feel that's a big reason for the divide in opinion on BvS. What was hard to follow in Hunger Games? I never read any of the books, and the story seemed to flow fine for me. On the flip side, I'm well versed in DC comics and the BvS still felt disjointed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
What could have been...      I can't believe we were deprived of such wonderful lines like, "You thought a pair of glasses could fool the world's greatest detective?" and "Tell that to Zod's snapped neck."
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 02:06
|
|
