|
9 out of 10 people whose mothers were named martha loved the new #UltimateEdition #WBHomeEnt
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
Something that I don't think I've seen in the mock threads was my biggest problem with the movie. Okay so Batman has a flash forward where it's a dystopian future with all of these aliens and poo poo around. So he is wearing his gigantic comical rubber suit with a huge over-sized trenchcoat and goggles over it? Why wouldn't it just be bruce wayne with the goggles and trench coat? It looks incredibly dumb. That might make sense on Iron Man or someone that uses their costume as their source of power, but nope, dudes running around in the desert landscape in a gigantic goofy rubber outfit he has comically put clothes on like a parody where you have a super hero doing a mundane job in their outfit or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Fat Shat Sings posted:That might make sense on Iron Man or someone that uses their costume as their source of power, but nope, dudes running around in the desert landscape in a gigantic goofy rubber outfit he has comically put clothes on like a parody where you have a super hero doing a mundane job in their outfit or something. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Cu Chulainn posted:I love the very obvious post-corporate rear end-chewing change of heart in that second tweet They literally have my mom tied up in a warehouse and a sadistic Russian mercenary is going to barbeque her with a flamethrower if the Ultimate Edition doesn't sell a million copies release day! #PLEASEHELPUS #NOTAJOKE #SAVEMARTHA
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Fat Shat Sings posted:That might make sense on Iron Man or someone that uses their costume as their source of power, but nope, dudes running around in the desert landscape in a gigantic goofy rubber outfit he has comically put clothes on like a parody where you have a super hero doing a mundane job in their outfit or something. Alfred died and Bruce can't reach the zip on his own
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Fat Shat Sings posted:Something that I don't think I've seen in the mock threads was my biggest problem with the movie. Well, it is bullet and knife proof as well as having a bunch of sensors and com-gear in the helmet. His suit isn't necessarily non-functional.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Jerk McJerkface posted:Well, it is bullet and knife proof as well as having a bunch of sensors and com-gear in the helmet. His suit isn't necessarily non-functional. It looks stupid as hell and one would assume in the dystopian future he would have those gadgets actually be useful and practical instead of wearing a two inch thick rubber suit like a gigantic comical retard because he is too stupid to figure out how to make dystopian body armor or bluetooth communications.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Fat Shat Sings posted:It looks stupid as hell and one would assume in the dystopian future he would have those gadgets actually be useful and practical instead of wearing a two inch thick rubber suit like a gigantic comical retard because he is too stupid to figure out how to make dystopian body armor or bluetooth communications. I know right, why don't dream sequences follow logic? The other day I was having a dream in which I was configuring a cisco router with an etch-a-sketch, and I was like "why don't I just have a laptop with a serial port? dreams that make no sense make no sense."
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Jerk McJerkface posted:I know right, why don't dream sequences follow logic? The other day I was having a dream in which I was configuring a cisco router with an etch-a-sketch, and I was like "why don't I just have a laptop with a serial port? dreams that make no sense make no sense." are your dreams actually visions of the future sent by the flash jackin off so fast he goes back in time because that's the only way your analogy works
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
a better movie than BvS???
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Shinjobi posted:a better movie than BvS??? By far.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Jerk McJerkface posted:I know right, why don't dream sequences follow logic? The other day I was having a dream in which I was configuring a cisco router with an etch-a-sketch, and I was like "why don't I just have a laptop with a serial port? dreams that make no sense make no sense." It was actually a vision of the future where he still looks like a gigantic clown idiot, sorry bro.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Nefarious 2.0 posted:are your dreams actually visions of the future sent by the flash jackin off so fast he goes back in time because that's the only way your analogy works Yours aren't?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
there was a time above a time before there were perfect things diamond absolutes how things fall things on earth and what falls is fallen
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Jerk McJerkface posted:I know right, why don't dream sequences follow logic? The other day I was having a dream in which I was configuring a cisco router with an etch-a-sketch, and I was like "why don't I just have a laptop with a serial port? dreams that make no sense make no sense." movie dreams typically have to look good and make sense because movies aren't real life
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
has anyone watched the 3-hour r-rated cut? did it make the movie good? i was going to, but then i remembered i hated the movie and that would be really not fun at all
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
I watched the rated r, 3 hour cut. First time watching the movie. It was ok, rated r for the cripple saying the f word. Not the best movie but not the worst. Don't understand why everyone was angry at the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Edgar posted:I watched the rated r, 3 hour cut. First time watching the movie. It was ok, rated r for the cripple saying the f word. Not the best movie but not the worst. Don't understand why everyone was angry at the movie. apparently all the cut scenes were necessary to get it up to your tepid praise from what they sayin
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
What would even be R-rated about it? Wonder Woman doesn't really have all that much screen time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What would even be R-rated about it? Wonder Woman doesn't really have all that much screen time. doomsday punch upskirt shot extended to 1.6s(up from 1.2s in theatrical cut)
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Maybe all of the cut content was scene transitions, establishing shots, lead-in dialogue and the like that they forgot to leave in the original cut. I like to imagine that someone goofed and deleted that file right before shipping the movie. "The file was labeled 'Do NOT Delete',
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
This one is really my favorite
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
There is nothing more patriotic than hating this movie. Happy 4th, everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Otisburg posted:did it make the movie good? Of course it didn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
hey guys did you know that what falls is... fallen?? i think it's a diamond absolute from the abovetimes
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What would even be R-rated about it? Wonder Woman doesn't really have all that much screen time. there's a 9 minute long scene where doomsday just whips out his rocky troll dong and just jacks it hardcore. it's really jarring and happens right in the middle of the fight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
No amount of restored scenes or additional dialogue could fix those awful, high school drama looking fight scenes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
Otisburg posted:has anyone watched the 3-hour r-rated cut? did it make the movie good? Well they explain that it's Jimmy Olsen in the desert with Lois Lane. No idea why they'd cut that out of the theatrical version as it literally only takes a second and without it it's just some random schmuck getting his head blown off. They also explain that Clark couldn't see wheelchair guy's bomb because it was encased in lead. I think they cut that out because it was being explained by Jena Malone's character who was completely edited out. She also reveals more about the bullet that was lodged in Lois' journal and it being part of the plot to frame Superman, but I think that subplot was also left kind of unclear? What I truly hate about this movie is they gently caress up Batman so bad. He murders like 20 people and tries to paint Superman as the threat. I doubt it will happen but I hope the powers that be have The Flash undo MoS and this movie because got drat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
Apparently the mercs torch the bodies before leaving to make it look like superman came in and lasereyed everyone to death while saving Lois, to make the conspiracy theory more plausible then people thinking Superman flew in and shot 20 people. Which sorta works better but it's still convoluted as gently caress for a side plot that goes nowhere, since the whole frame job was totally irrelevant to Batman hating supes. Oh and apparently the Senator Lady finds out the truth and was going to confront Luther at the hearing about it, to exonerate superman, which is why he blows up the building. Which again sorta works better but it's still weird.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
LOL they had to extend the film to explain poo poo that should have been cut to make the film 90 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:Apparently the mercs torch the bodies before leaving to make it look like superman came in and lasereyed everyone to death while saving Lois, to make the conspiracy theory more plausible then people thinking Superman flew in and shot 20 people. Which sorta works better but it's still convoluted as gently caress for a side plot that goes nowhere, since the whole frame job was totally irrelevant to Batman hating supes. Why would they even leave Lois alive since she's a witness to all this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
i watched the extended edition and it was bad and it gave me a headache. also whatever filter they shot the whole movie in was terrible, and the slow motion "high art" scenes with opera singing were ridiculously stupid. whole movie took itself way too seriously
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
A GLISTENING HODOR posted:LOL they had to extend the film to explain poo poo that should have been cut to make the film 90 minutes. My favorite thing is multiple people in the CineD thread going "Ugh, why wasn't this the theatrical cut?" Because studios want to squeeze the most showings out of a movie in a day, so they tend to frown upon long rear end movies. The LOTR series being the only notable exceptions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
I have not watched it yet, and I'm not sure I even am going to. I don't really want to subject myself to it again. But from what I have read, the new cut does fix some of the movie's more egregious problems: Apparently, characters are given actual motivation, which tends to be important. Some things in the movie, according to rumors, start to make a bit of sense. There are actually scenes where Superman helps people instead of just flying above them in artsy shots or looking mopey and sad when poo poo blows up around him. Lois Lane is actually given something to do, as is Clark Kent. That said, they still awkwardly shoehorn Wonder Woman into the movie, and they still have Batman email the press kit for the sequel to her. Batman and Superman's fight still ends because their mothers have the same name (which is one of those things that you might be able to look past in a better movie) and I think they even may have added some scenes to the "Doomsday" fight which was already superfluous and too long. A three hour movie is too long for sure, and I can understand why WB wanted to cut it down. But to remove the story beats in order to make it fit is perhaps the worst possible decision they could have made. If the movie was interesting and then just turned into a disappointing ending, I feel like it would have been a much more successful movie and a much more fruitful start to a DC Extended Universe than what we were given. Instead, they took all the story out, left in as much cross-promotional nonsense as they could, and relied on the names to pull in the box office. It seems like it worked (it made a lot of money) but only just, and now most of the public is lukewarm to whatever comes next. God help WB is Suicide Squad is a flop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Why would they even leave Lois alive since she's a witness to all this? Superman is quantumly entangled to Lois' vagina since she can survive supersex and they can use her as bait, and Lex probably wanted to keep that option open for later. She was also inside the building when all the gunplay goes down so technically not a witness, though she deffo saw the mercs and would probably have noticed that they weren't among the bodies when she left if she was any kind of reporter it really doesn't make much sense, but you can at least see the thread of logic, unlike before where it's clear no one could suspect superman because superman doesn't have bullet eyes or whatever
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
What I really find interesting about this is the difference in approach between Marvel and DC movies. Marvel has had movies that didn't go down well: Ang Lee's Hulk, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Fant4stic. In each case the studio involved has taken criticism on board and changed things. WB gets negative feedback on a movie and says "gently caress you" then doubles down. It's weird given they had no problem ditching Green Lantern, but seem determined to make Zach Snyder's version of the Justice League popular.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Fat Shat Sings posted:Something that I don't think I've seen in the mock threads was my biggest problem with the movie. You're thinking logically about a Zack Snyder movie. That's where it all falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Sunswipe posted:What I really find interesting about this is the difference in approach between Marvel and DC movies. Marvel has had movies that didn't go down well: Ang Lee's Hulk, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Fant4stic. In each case the studio involved has taken criticism on board and changed things. WB gets negative feedback on a movie and says "gently caress you" then doubles down. It's weird given they had no problem ditching Green Lantern, but seem determined to make Zach Snyder's version of the Justice League popular. I did a huge effortpost in CD earlier arguing that trying to course correct to appeal to audiences has always been a bad idea and doubling down turns out to be the right thing to do: Snowglobe of Doom posted:The perceived wisdom at the time was that sequels made less money and franchises had a set shelf life, although the studios tried to extend that shelf life as long as possible. The Reeve Superman films set a really strong example where they start out really strong and then just tailed off in quality until audiences and critics were fed up with them, and the 90s TMNT films, The Crow films and the Blade films also went the same way. The 80s/90s Batman films nearly bucked the trend when the 3rd movie proved to be more popular the 2nd movie but returned to form when the 4th movie couldn't pick up an audience and killed the franchise. tl;dr: the studios can't help but interfere and if they butt into an already successful series they almost always gently caress it up, so they're better off picking a tone and a direction for the series right at the outset and making sure the films stick to it no matter what
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
The problem with that is that the actual real-world evidence doesn't support it - just look at the critical and commercial success of Marvel Studios stuff vs DC's efforts. Like, it's self-evident.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
Xenomrph posted:The problem with that is that the actual real-world evidence doesn't support it - just look at the critical and commercial success of Marvel Studios stuff vs DC's efforts. Like, it's self-evident. The DC cinematic universe only has 2 films so far and when the MCU started out they had a bunch of films that were only moderately successful. The first two MCU films were Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk and Man of Steel only made slightly less money than Iron Man but Batman v Superman made a whole lot more money than The Incredible Hulk. Like, I don't doubt that the DC films could just get worse and worse if they stick to their "Grim and Gritty" business plan but we won't actually know if that gamble will pay off for a few years now. It could be that Aquaman is the movie which clicks with the audience and turns the DCCU around. Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 17:15
|
|