|
Drifter posted:Batman killing dudes The problem isn't that Batman is killing dudes, it's that he's killing dudes too obviously. 
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
Kal-L posted:It's fun to us, because we are not the ones being judged for not saving enough people/destroying a city. Sure, flying around sounds like it would be pretty awesome, but then people start judging you because you're not doing something to benefit society with it every minute of every day. In a way, I think people dislike those films because they see themselves as the villains in those films. Not like Lex specifically (although several people have said "You know what, Luthor was right about Superman"), but that the in-world audiences criticize Clark for random bullshit that he can't possibly counteract and he still keeps on trucking anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
I think they dislike them because they weren't that good, and with the increasing price of tickets mediocrity is judged more harshly in some situations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:I think they dislike them because they weren't that good, and with the increasing price of tickets mediocrity is judged more harshly in some situations. Note here, the implicit statement: "Thing is more expensive, therefore I can't take a risk on thing. I need to be as conservative as possible." The problem is, if this were true people wouldn't rag on (eg) Man of Steel when it's a  Blu-Ray bargain discount.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Note here, the implicit statement: "Thing is more expensive, therefore I can't take a risk on thing. I need to be as conservative as possible." Man of Steel is also one of the highest selling bluray movies, so what do I know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
broken clock opsec posted:Man of Steel is also one of the highest selling bluray movies, so what do I know. MoS's BluRay/DVD sales were less than half of The Avenger's.  I can't find "all time greatest" stats on DVD sales but I know that Titanic reportedly earned $1.2 billion from video/DVD sales and rentals and Avatar got $345 million from the sale of 16 million DVDs and blurays so MoS's $107 in million BluRay/DVD sales is chickenfeed compared to that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The problem isn't that Batman is killing dudes, it's that he's killing dudes too obviously. Anyone able to fill me in on the context here?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:Anyone able to fill me in on the context here? The guy in the hoodie tried to apprehend a superhero who has started outright killing people and she pointed out that his recent change from wacky gimmick weapons to bludgeoning weapons has probably caused a bunch of deaths as well. http://majorspoilers.com/2007/05/01/astro-city-the-dark-age-book-ii-3/
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:I think they dislike them because they weren't that good, and with the increasing price of tickets mediocrity is judged more harshly in some situations. The MCU wouldn't be as successful as it is today if people were actually critical of mediocrity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Equeen posted:The MCU wouldn't be as successful as it is today if people were actually critical of mediocrity. On the other hand, BvS's reviews.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:That's cool, you can mention how your experience differs from mine. When I was growing up, nobody talked about Spider-man except nerds. Everybody talked about Iron Man. Definitely nobody mentioned Blade. I never asked my mom what her opinion was on the matter. Though I would imagine she probably doesn't see superhero movies as their own genre, just as another flavor of action film. Why would I mention my dumb subjective experiences when discussing your statement that "Iron Man was the first superhero movie to garner the attention of people that would normally not be interested in superhero movies" (and I don't particularly care that you threw a "from my perspective"qualifier in there). It's totally laughably untrue even if a dozen or so kids you used to know thought that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:On the other hand, BvS's reviews. I don't think anyone would say that BvS's reviews were just mediocre so Equeen's point stands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
It's very clear that the resoundingly negative reception of Beavis isn't a consideration of its mediocrity, but its exceptionalism. In general, both film critics and the types of people who rate movies on IMDb and RT think Thor is absolutely delightful. Beavis, on the other hand, provokes them to much more polemical reactions of disgust, existential disturbance, and feelings that they're being manipulated by some shady corporation. Which is to say, they're confusing an authentic emotional reaction with the absence of exceptionalism, and the absence of spectator participation with what movies are 'supposed to do.' Consumerism actually loves mediocrity. What it can't stand is subversion. They accurately perceive that Zack Snyder is a traitor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Whatever else you might think about BvS, it's definitely not mediocre. Nothing just mediocre gets that much derision or that much defense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:Whatever else you might think about BvS, it's definitely not mediocre. Nothing just mediocre gets that much derision or that much defense. Mediocre might not be a word for a film that is at times so beautiful or ballsy, the film can't really challenge them because it seems so hard to engage with the movie in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
I hope we really aren't going to get into "it's panned so therefore it's just too brilliant for people." I used to say that poo poo for Metal Gear Solid 2 back when I was a teenager and annoyed no one else I knew liked the game as much as I did. BvS was a good movie. But it's bloated, has a lot of stuff that doesn't need to be there and ultimately I can see why people felt "betrayed"by the title. Because it ISN'T Batman vs. Superman, it's Lex Luthor vs. Superman & Batman feat. Wonder Woman. Batman comes off like a complete fool - thrre is not even the vaguest hint of a suggestion he's in the right. Alfred is the stand-in for the audience/Bruce's conscience. Bruce did not do this for the lives lost, or because Superman might go evil (a possibility that is somewhat hinted at but nobody is buying), he did it because of his own psychological flaws and vulnerabilities. Flaws and vulnerabilities that were easily exploited by a villain a lot of people seem to not take particularly seriously. I'll be honest, between Thor and BvS? I'd take Thor because Loki was at least interesting. Luthor here was...different but different doesn't mean good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
If anything MGS2 is better now than it was then. Way ahead of its time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:If anything MGS2 is better now than it was then. Way ahead of its time. I think I still like that one the best to be honest. It was certainly the one I was best at anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
It's the only Metal Gear game I ever finished.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:If anything MGS2 is better now than it was then. Way ahead of its time. I know. Sons of Liberty has been my favorite MGS game since I played it and I love it more now than I did 15 years ago. I was just saying I was once a really pompous rear end in a top hat who said "you like MGS3 more? I guess it's just because you were too stupid to understand MGS2 and something as childishly simplistic as 3 was more your speed." You might recall MGS3 is absurdly popular and most often its greatness was contrasted with MGS2's awfulness. That annoyed me and made me lash out in childish ways I'm ashamed of now. These days, if someone doesn't like MGS2 or prefers MGS3, I say more power to them. MGS2 is hardly perfect. There are a lot of vvalid complaints about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I hope we really aren't going to get into "it's panned so therefore it's just too brilliant for people." I used to say that poo poo for Metal Gear Solid 2 back when I was a teenager and annoyed no one else I knew liked the game as much as I did. I think that's kind of a gross simplification of what's being said at least in this thread. But yeah that is a dumb sentiment where it has been used. I'm not arrogant enough to think this movie I liked was flawless or whatever, it certainly did have some issues that a lot of us agreed on right out of the gate. But there is definitely more going on with the level of hate it got, and I think there are multiple reasons that don't event have to do with the movie itself. One thing is I think it's in vogue to make the hyperbolic bash review where you exaggerate how horrendously awful whatever movie is to get more page views. Likewise there is certain amount of bandwagoning going on to make sure you're on the right side of the zeitgeist (nobody wants to be the lone review saying the Phantom Menace of this generation is actually good). Then there is the fact that certain franchises are more protected; MCU films are the type that would get you a pile of hate mail from bashing, whereas the next Transformers will not. Again not saying these were the only or even primary factors in BvS's stream of negative reviews. But I also think modern review aggregation is a weird phenomenon that needs a ton more scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:I think that's kind of a gross simplification of what's being said at least in this thread. But yeah that is a dumb sentiment where it has been used. I think you are probably right about a lot of that. The level of negativity directed at this film and MoS before it always was stunning to me. Even MCU films that some people didn't like got mostly lukewarm "it could have been better" or "this could have been removed" criticism. It seems to me that, for some reason, the Internet really hates Zack Snyder. I dunno what it is but even Singer, who I've seen get a fair amount of poo poo, has never been the target of such animosity. Some guy elsewhere theorized it was his political views. He thought Snyder's films tend to glorify violence and authoritarianism and people are rebelling against that. Now I've only seen 300 and BvS but I dunno about that authoritarianism bit. I suppose we'll have to wait for The Fountainhead movie if that is indeed happening to see if Snyder is some right-wing loon. (although Objectivism is very different type of Right than authoritarianism)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
The internet has beef with Snyder's big beautiful muscles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
MGS2 is prescient as gently caress and I can hardly believe it's a pre 9/11 game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I think you are probably right about a lot of that. The level of negativity directed at this film and MoS before it always was stunning to me. Even MCU films that some people didn't like got mostly lukewarm "it could have been better" or "this could have been removed" criticism. Snyder doesn't strike me as part of the right. I think what he does do is direct his actors with a very emotionally subdued and visually grandiose style, which makes it hard for audiences to connect. This was true in 300 and BvS. There's not a ton of emotional sparkle there. And in the absence of the emotional output we're used to getting, the audience projects some of their own ideas on to the characters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Some guy elsewhere theorized it was his political views. He thought Snyder's films tend to glorify violence and authoritarianism and people are rebelling against that. Now I've only seen 300 and BvS but I dunno about that authoritarianism bit. I suppose we'll have to wait for The Fountainhead movie if that is indeed happening to see if Snyder is some right-wing loon. (although Objectivism is very different type of Right than authoritarianism) Watchmen and Sucker Punch are usually what people point to when talking about him glorifying violence (300 as well, but I've heard far more regarding Watchmen and SP online than 300). So once you make it through those two movies (the director's cuts for both are the ones to watch btw), then you'll probably have a good sense for how he films violence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Batman comes off like a complete fool - thrre is not even the vaguest hint of a suggestion he's in the right. But wasn't he kinda right in the end? His fear was that a Kryptonian would go evil and destroy the world. He singled out the wrong Kryptonian, but it was the weapons he created that ultimately saved the world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Why is "Batman was completely wrong" such a negative thing to people? It didn't bother me in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Watchmen and Sucker Punch are usually what people point to when talking about him glorifying violence (300 as well, but I've heard far more regarding Watchmen and SP online than 300). So once you make it through those two movies (the director's cuts for both are the ones to watch btw), then you'll probably have a good sense for how he films violence. Well I have my Watchmen Collector's Edition blu-ray but I still need to finish the comic. Just read Chapter VI. If I may go off-topic for a second, I am beginning to like Rorschach. He's a bit of a hypocrite calling Veidt out on "liberal affectations" though because it feels like he, Rorschach, has conservative affectations. He didn't like Blake because he was a patriot, he liked Blake because he was a nihilist like himself and they shared common view of the human condition. I can respect that more than I can respect Rorschach being some Goldwater-esque Neocon. But anyway, looking forward to seeing Watchmen eventually but Sucker Punch...I haven't even seen Snyder fans defend that one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Mediocre might not be a word for a film that is at times so beautiful or ballsy, the film can't really challenge them because it seems so hard to engage with the movie in the first place. That's the thing, though: Something that's "challenging" is by definition difficult to engage with in the first place. The problem goes way beyond Beavis. The problem is words are meaningless. The political dialog in Beavis is simultaneously "heavy handed," while also somehow failing to "challenge" the spectator. "Mediocrity" means deviation from the norm. "Engagement" means a non-oppositional relationship with the film spectacle. 87% of cape-man movies are "fresh." Zack Snyder is an objectivist. The Omega dream/Flash prophecy doesn't make sense because it isn't utilitarian to the story. Again, this is very much like the crisis at the center of the childrens' movie The Point: Meaning is rooted in superficial signifiers of the generic, because the fear is that we'd be lost without this. The lesson is we're already lost. The world only makes sense if you force it to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:BvS was a good movie. But it's bloated, has a lot of stuff that doesn't need to be there and ultimately I can see why people felt "betrayed"by the title. Because it ISN'T Batman vs. Superman, it's Lex Luthor vs. Superman & Batman feat. Wonder Woman. Batman comes off like a complete fool - thrre is not even the vaguest hint of a suggestion he's in the right. Alfred is the stand-in for the audience/Bruce's conscience. Bruce did not do this for the lives lost, or because Superman might go evil (a possibility that is somewhat hinted at but nobody is buying), he did it because of his own psychological flaws and vulnerabilities. Flaws and vulnerabilities that were easily exploited by a villain a lot of people seem to not take particularly seriously. People are having this reaction because Snyder has done an extremely good job of expressing his thesis. The conflict is not over whether Bruce Wayne should win, but over the fact that he - the man, with all his pathological motivations - will win, and successfully kill Christ. And in that sense, he's absolutely right: the people in power all agree that if Superman doesn't save someone, that's as bad as killing them. If a bomb goes off, Superman may as well have planted it. These are things that enraged fans have actually argued - and Batman is explicitly on their side. The entire point of Batman bending the rules to kill people is to point out the hypocrisy when fans cheer murders commited by 'flawed but well-intentioned' heroes like Nolan-Batman or Ironman. BVS reenacts the nuke scene from the end of Avengers to comment on the ideology of Avengers. And Solidsnakebandana will tell you Avengers is winning, because he feels it made the most money. In a wave of love. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Jul 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:BVS reenacts the nuke scene from the end of Avengers to comment on the ideology of Avengers. Can you elaborate on this? I don't recall that scene in Avengers but what exactly is the commentary you think Snyder is making with his version?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:That's the thing, though: Something that's "challenging" is by definition difficult to engage with in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I don't think that's actually true at all. A challenging film might be hard to watch, but even that comes from a visceral place. For a lot of people, BvS was ultimately just a bore. There just wasn't a connection. Your definition is a bit off. Something challenging doesn't mean you have to feel it deep in your belly whether you like it or not. If something is a challenge and you disagree with the thesis then you'll just disregard it and become bored. I'm not saying the other dude is right, but there's a lot BVS provides if you pay attention, but if you don't pay attention you'll find it boring because you can't engage. And if you don't like the characters then you won't like the movie, as well, but that's unrelated to what you're talking about. Also, I think the theatrical cut benefits from having extended knowledge of the characters because the movie requires certain leaps due to the editing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:It's very clear that the resoundingly negative reception of Beavis isn't a consideration of its mediocrity, but its exceptionalism. In general, both film critics and the types of people who rate movies on IMDb and RT think Thor is absolutely delightful. Beavis, on the other hand, provokes them to much more polemical reactions of disgust, existential disturbance, and feelings that they're being manipulated by some shady corporation. Ah yes its the audiences fault. Goddamn I hate BvS talk
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Can you elaborate on this? I don't recall that scene in Avengers but what exactly is the commentary you think Snyder is making with his version? I can't speak for SMG on this, but it does tick off a pet peeve of mine. Nuclear weapons are abhorrent. They are one of the worst weapons in history, and any movie that uses a nuclear weapon to solve a problem hosed up something major. They fail to acknowledge the very real fact that nuclear weapons are terrible and extremely complicated and simplify it down to something very childish and stupid. Avengers uses a nuclear weapon to save the day with no ill effects for anyone. BvS used a nuclear weapon where all it managed to do was nearly murder Superman and empower Doomsday even more. Pacific Rim failed to use a nuclear weapon, but still saved the day with a nuclear explosion thanks to Gypsy Danger, and is a bit more complicated because it cost the cast two major characters and two of the last Jaegers. Godzilla 2014 showed that nuclear weapons are dangerous and a loving stupid idea and it was a major threat in and of itself and a good portion of the last act was trying to deal with it. You can tell a lot about a film with how it uses nuclear weaponry and the message that carries.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Your definition is a bit off. Something challenging doesn't mean you have to feel it deep in your belly whether you like it or not. If something is a challenge and you disagree with the thesis then you'll just disregard it and become bored. Trust me, I have thought a shitton about Batman v Superman. I find it interesting, but ultimately appreciate it more than I enjoy it. Not liking the characters is sort of exactly what I'm talking about. I don't think most people were turned off by the thesis of the film. They just weren't drawn in enough to really consider it. People who think about movies were not engaged by it. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jul 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Ah yes its the audiences fault. My confidence is merely that Beavis is an exceptional and good movie. I actually don't give a poo poo about whatever you're prescribing as "fault." But I digress to something more constructive: What if Batman v Superman wasn't in color?! http://imgur.com/a/Q02Lw    
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Can you elaborate on this? I don't recall that scene in Avengers but what exactly is the commentary you think Snyder is making with his version? In Avengers, an illuminati cabal launches a nuclear strike on Manhattan to stop the alien invaders. Billionaire Tony Stark heroically redirects the nuke into space, away from civilians and towards the alien mothership, then does a Jesus pose while watching all the bad aliens die in the nuclear firestorm. Stark falls back to Earth because of a suit malfunction, and it looks like he's dead. But then he wakes up and they all laugh and go for fast food. In BVS, everything is different. There's no illuminati; the nuclear strike is authorized by the president himself. The citizens of Metropolis were never endangered; the president heroically ensured that the nuke would be fired into space, only killing the bad aliens. Superman sees that humanity has decided to kill him, but still keeps fighting to protect them. He deliberately moves himself into the path of the bomb, to ensure Doomsday will be hit. Doomsday falls back down to Earth and the military realize he's unkillable. (In fact, he has fed on the nuke's power and become far stronger than before). Superman miraculously survives and continues to fight, sacrificing himself to stop Doomsday once and for all. The president throws a big parade celebrating the US military, and declaring the dead Superman an honorary soldier. Also, it turns out the Doomsday monster wasn't really an alien. He was half-human, created on Earth by a heroic billionaire. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Jul 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
Part of the reason BvS reactions are so strong is that it has some bright moments, but is a thoroughly okay movie. Just okay. The expectations game plays a large role in how passionate people are about the results. Age of Ultron is another okay movie, but because the expectation was for a great movie following Winter Soldier, Guardians, and Iron Man 3 people came out the gate saying it was one of the worst movies of all time, which is obviously ridiculous. BvS is supposed to be a continuation of Man of Steel, a launching point for the DCU, and a major event that stands on its own. It just kind of muddled its way through all three of those categories and never really committed to any of them. This is not even getting into the issues with the writing, editing, bloat, etc. People expected a 9 or 10, but they got a 5 and the gut punch from the expectations and obvious mistakes made it feel like a 1 or a 2.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 17:08
|
|
