|
Wheat Loaf posted:It's just a bit of harmless fun. I'm finding I'm growing more and more  as time goes on.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
You know, I've never been entirely sure what the "" smilie is supposed to denote. I feel like I'm missing some context for it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:You know, I've never been entirely sure what the " It means you're a pedantic nerd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Suicide Squad was interesting on the grounds of how transparently it was dropped into the corporate meat grinder. Was there an interesting, weird, out-there, subversive and cool Suicide Squad at one point in it's development. Maybe? But, from the start it seemed to be really crushed by the weight of competing with GOTG, of maintaining the brand, and after the disastrous reception of BvS, trying to turn the tide of negativity against the DCEU by somehow both lightening the thing up and also layering it in faux-edginess, no wonder it came out pretty drat compromised. No the reports were this was all David Ayer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:It means you're a pedantic nerd. Oh. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:No the reports were this was all David Ayer. The story about two different cuts, one from Ayer and one from the trailer house, kind of disputes the quote from Ayer about SS being all his. Not that it matters much. Movie wasn't very good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
They said the trailer house were trying to salvage Ayer's garbage, though introduced some of the stuff people disliked themselves like the music.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
A film widely thought of as bad gets awards for being a bad film...and this is some kind of surprise? Like the reviews were scathing, the word of mouth terrible, it cost a small fortune, underperformed, is overlong and generally considered something of a laughing stock, of course it's gonna get Razzies. This site is genuinely, the honest to god only place I've seen any number of people try to defend it, and given SA is crawling with contrarian, wittier-than-thou assholes who'll Devil's Advocate any chance they get, it's hard to take any discussion of it as remotely sincere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
It had 97 positive reviews so I think you'll find there's at least 97 other sites that would defend it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Sentinel Red posted:A film widely thought of as bad gets awards for being a bad film...and this is some kind of surprise? Like the reviews were scathing, the word of mouth terrible, it cost a small fortune, underperformed, is overlong and generally considered something of a laughing stock, of course it's gonna get Razzies. Fortunately I can think BvS was a lovely movie and think that the Razzies are a pointless, masturbatory dog pile for smug nerds to sneer at high profile movies that are sufficiently poorly reviewed
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
I don't really go in for movie reviews but as far as non-professional perspectives on the Internet (i.e. people on message boards etc.) are concerned, a minor trend that strikes me is how a number of fans who prefer the DCEU movies (the ones who would have been insisting that Disney pays off Rotten Tomatoes for the DC movies to get bad reviews) seem to be more interested in the DC movies beating the Marvel ones (and also Star Wars) than in the DC movies being good on their own merits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
McCloud posted:Batman certainly. He's portrayed as the villain in BvS before his redemption. But how is Superman flawed? If anything, he's coming out of this smelling like roses. He's not a cheery happy carefree Superman a la Reeves , but that's not flawed, nor grimdark, merely different. I find this Superman to be more heroic than the Reeves version in certain ways, because despite struggling with doubt he still tries to help humanity, even when humanity is outright hostile to him. The movie makes a point that violence as a means only begets more violence, and that only by compassion and sacrifice can you make the world better. That's a very inspiring message I think. I probably miss-stated my position, I wrote that at 1:00AM last night. I was referring to the movies more than the characters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
I watched Dr. Strange last night. Was not very good outside of a few moments. The ending to the climatic fight was good though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
I already forgot most of Dr. Strange, except for the cool 3D effects, which was all I went to see it for in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I don't really go in for movie reviews but as far as non-professional perspectives on the Internet (i.e. people on message boards etc.) are concerned, a minor trend that strikes me is how a number of fans who prefer the DCEU movies (the ones who would have been insisting that Disney pays off Rotten Tomatoes for the DC movies to get bad reviews) seem to be more interested in the DC movies beating the Marvel ones (and also Star Wars) than in the DC movies being good on their own merits. It's a habit of fandom/nerd-dom to need box office profits and review scores to validate enjoyment. The misreading of RT percentages is the perfect example. It measures popularity with reviewers, but is treated as an objective review score. The content of the reviews becomes secondary, and by this logic Adventures of Tintin is inferior to The Avengers, and only slightly beats the average rating of Age of Ultron (Tintin, a few reviewers tell us, lacks simple "feeling"). BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Lol, it's just an alternative about superheroes... and it makes one yearn for superhero movies of the same caliber. There's Incredibles, and that's it. Tintin just such a daring effort, always doing something utterly impossible for live-action, and its joyful buoyancy would be perfect for a Silver Age-inspired work. It almost makes me cry, for the amazing movie we got and the amazing movies we could have. I felt a real disconnect because of that impossibility, like the wowness of set pieces come from the ludicrousity and immense hardwork that it takes to create it, seeing things like watching a bulding drift around a car chase as Tintin chases after a bird was nice, but I didn't feel anything approaching tension or exhiliration viewing it. It's just CGI. edit; Yakmouth posted:I didn't really care much for Suicide Squad, but is it really that irredeemably bad? Like, in isolation to the other hero-flicks of 2016, I mean? Uh the first GI Joe is actually great, and the first Transformers isn't that bad. Shageletic fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Sentinel Red posted:A film widely thought of as bad gets awards for being a bad film...and this is some kind of surprise? Like the reviews were scathing, the word of mouth terrible, it cost a small fortune, underperformed, is overlong and generally considered something of a laughing stock, of course it's gonna get Razzies. Well friend, you're in luck, because I love the movie and will happily have a sincere discussion with you about it! Broadly speaking, the criticism in the negative reviews you mention against BvS fall into three categories. A lot of the reviews criticized it for being dour, grim, not fun, unhappy and too serious. In other words, they went in expecting a marvel style movie with tons of quips and fun action and got all upset when they didn't get that. That's an artistic choice. There's no requirement for Superhero movies to be jolly cheerful adventures. Or they complain about how the characters on the screen are not true to the idea the viewer hirself has (Batman doesn't kill! Superman is too sad! Lex is too wacky!). "Not My X" is not a legitimate argument. Again, it's an artistic choice to have a different interpretation of these characters. Just because fans didn't get Comic book batman cracking skulls doesn't mean it's a bad movie. Or they say the movie is incoherent because they weren't paying attention to the movie (It's never explained why Batman/Luthor is angry at Superman! Why didn't Superman X-ray the bombchair and stop it? What's up with the jar of pee?) etc etc. If you don't pick up on what the film lays out for you, that's on you. I saw a lot of that stuff on here as well, people not liking it because Batman exploded a few folks or because Superman was a sadsack or w/e, and if you don't like it that's fine! But not liking a movie is not the same as it being a bad movie. Now naturally, not everyone disliked it on those grounds. They have "legit" reasons to dislike the movie. Some didn't like the editing, others had issue with the perceived shoehorning of other heroes in the movie, or what not, and that fine. But I think the movie should be judged on its own merits, but a lot of folk insist on judging it on Marvels merits instead, if that makes sense, in that they wanted a DC movie to follow the Marvel Formula, and when Snyder went his own way people got put out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
McCloud posted:Quite honestly, most peoples problems with BvS seems to stem from the movies interpretation of the titular characters differing from what they see as the "true" version of the characters , i.e batman killing or Superman being "gloomy" or Luthors Silicon valley tech geek schtick. I am willing to admit that the off-model take on many of the characters does color much of my opinion of the movies, but I also feel it is not unreasonable to ask a movie that adapts a character drastically different from the source to justify the changes within the work, and in this I feel the movie largely fails. It spends more time on Batman telling us his motivation for trying to kill Superman than showing us, and never even touches on why he's suddenly begun using fatal methods against common thugs. Superman doesn't even get that expository characterization. We can infer that the inner conflict from MoS (whether to be a hero or not) continues, despite it ostensibly being resolved in that movie. But we never see that conflict play out with the character, instead focusing on every other opinion on the matter. I get that that is the source of the central conflict, but that makes it even stranger that Superman himself never establishes his motivations or makes a strong decision one way or another. He becomes a flat background character in a movie revolving around him, causing the entire narrative to be as aimless as he appears to be. It's not that he's gloomy, it's that we are never given a reason why he persists despite the gloom. If Batman starts out antagonist, then where is the protagonist opposing him? What is the protagonists arc? He begins conflicted, and then through circumstances outside of his control, dies, motivated not by that inner turmoil, but the endangerment of his mother and significant other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:I watched Dr. Strange last night. Was not very good outside of a few moments. The ending to the climatic fight was good though. Honestly, at this point the novelty of Marvel movies has kinda worn out for me. It very much feels like "generic superhero" movie only with magic instead of tech this time. And all the jokes, jesus. It's like it's deathly afraid of being taken seriously for even a second. I did like Bendy in the role though, and the actors in general. I think Tilda Swinton and Mads danishface got way too little screentime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:I am willing to admit that the off-model take on many of the characters does color much of my opinion of the movies, but I also feel it is not unreasonable to ask a movie that adapts a character drastically different from the source to justify the changes within the work, and in this I feel the movie largely fails. It spends more time on Batman telling us his motivation for trying to kill Superman than showing us, and never even touches on why he's suddenly begun using fatal methods against common thugs. Well, the first ten minutes of the movie is pretty much showing us why he's angry at Superman. Being at ground zero irl broke a lot of people's minds, so it's not strange it would do the same for Batman in Space 9/11. This ties in to his fatal methods as well, he's convinced humanity is facing an existential threat in Superman, and that means that all of his previous limits and moral considerations are pushed aside. It's the "broken omelette" scenario. It's meant to show how much He's slipped and how bad he's become. As a general rule of thumb, this movie tries to avoid the power fantasy that Super heroes represent. Superman is all powerful, but instead of focusing on the joys of that power, it instead shows you the limitations and responsibility, and consequences when you wield that power. And I mean, Batman killing in movies is not exactly a new phenomenon, but even that aside, Batman, at his absolute best, is still a semi-fascist power fantasy. He will break your bones and cripple you for life, but that's fine since he won't kill you! The animated series (by many the "truest" portrayal of the character) cheerfully glosses over the damage he does to criminals. This Batman shows you the consequences of some guy dressed as Bat fighting crime. People will die. It's not flattering, but I find it a valid interpretation of Batman. glitchwraith posted:Superman doesn't even get that expository characterization. We can infer that the inner conflict from MoS (whether to be a hero or not) continues, despite it ostensibly being resolved in that movie. But we never see that conflict play out with the character, instead focusing on every other opinion on the matter. I get that that is the source of the central conflict, but that makes it even stranger that Superman himself never establishes his motivations or makes a strong decision one way or another. He becomes a flat background character in a movie revolving around him, causing the entire narrative to be as aimless as he appears to be. It's not that he's gloomy, it's that we are never given a reason why he persists despite the gloom. If Batman starts out antagonist, then where is the protagonist opposing him? What is the protagonists arc? He begins conflicted, and then through circumstances outside of his control, dies, motivated not by that inner turmoil, but the endangerment of his mother and significant other. I feel that Supermans character arc was a casualty of the the editing in the theatrical edition, but the editors cut does kinda go deeper into his motivation to oppose Batman. Again though, I think the movie does explain why he keeps on fighting, and I feel on the contrary, that him deciding to keep being Superman, to sacrifice himself for the sake of his love of humanity is the strongest decision one can possibly make. He begins conflicted, doubts himself, then finds the conviction to keep fighting the good fight, and in the process inspiring humanity. I do think that the fact that the movie conveys a lot of information visually instead of through dialogue contributes to peoples confusion. If Snyder had a character outright summarize the motivations of Batman killing people or whatever, it'd cut down on confusion, but at the cost of being hamfisted (see Batman Begins and the two train engineers)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
McCloud posted:
How does Luthor even know about the Kryptonian ship? How was he able to access it without being a Krytonian, but he needed Zod to activate the library or some poo poo? How does he know so much about kryptonite? How does he know Batman's and Superman's identities? There are some plot issues and consistencies that are addressed in the extended cut but these are given zero explanation. We're just to assume Lex is a loving genius without actually seeing him do anything a genius would do. notthegoatseguy fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
If Jimmy Kimmel can figure out their identities I think Lex Luthor can.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I felt a real disconnect because of that impossibility, like the wowness of set pieces come from the ludicrousity and immense hardwork that it takes to create it, seeing things like watching a bulding drift around a car chase as Tintin chases after a bird was nice, but I didn't feel anything approaching tension or exhiliration viewing it. It's just CGI. Well, some detachment is to be expected, and that ultimately reflects the mood of the source material. Tintin stories themselves don't particularly evoke tension or exhilaration. In that it's just part of the tradition it helped form: Eurocomics in general tend to favour some degree of detachment on part of the viewer, compared to many American or Japanese works. Tintin after all has no reason to go on his adventures save for the adventures themselves, as opposed to any ideological cause or emotional investment. The joy of the movie comes from motion itself, and how you're made aware of it - and art hardly exists for any reason but to make it's audience aware and perceptive. notthegoatseguy posted:How does Luthor even know about the Kryptonian ship? How was he able to access it without being a Krytonian, but he needed Zod to activate the library or some poo poo? How does he know so much about kryptonite? How does he know Batman's and Superman's identities? There are some plot issues and consistencies that are addressed in the extended cut but these are given zero explanation. We're just to assume Lex is a loving genius without actually seeing him do anything a genius would do. Lol if you operate on the level of plot holes and continuity. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:How does Luthor even know about the Kryptonian ship? How was he able to access it without being a Krytonian, but he needed Zod to activate the library or some poo poo? How does he loving know Batman's and Superman's identities? There are some plot issues and consistencies that are addressed in the extended cut but these are given zero explanation. We're just to assume Lex is a loving genius without actually seeing him do anything a genius would do. f an alien spaceship the size of a footballfield crashed in the middle of Manhattan, you too would know about it. He was able to access it by using Zods fingerprints. They make this abundantly clear. He knows because Batman doesn't give much of a gently caress about maintaining a secret ID anymore, and if Lois could figure out who Superman is, so could Lex. This is a guy who has face recognition software that recognises Diana taking out money at an ATM or whatever, I don't think cracking who Superman is would be that difficult. I'll assume you're being serious and not facetious, but these are in fact nit picks, not plot inconsistencies that need to be adressed. The movie makes clear he knows who they are. How he knows is just not interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
You acting like BvS is better because it 'shows the consequences of a man dressed as a bat fighting crime' that more beloved interpretations of the character 'gloss over' is why people are sick to loving death of our superheros needing to be realistic and gritty, because anymore that's every superhero movie, especially from DC. Some of us like a little childlike wonder in our stories about people in colorful tights punching metaphors for what's wrong with the world. You're why it's not just an S, it stands for Hope. And the entire thing about Batman's lethal methods showing how far he's gone collapses after his "come to Jesus" moment, as he's still completely happy to murder people and the movie no longer frames him as an antagonist because he's no longer trying to kill Superman. His methods are fine, as long as he's killing the actual bad guys.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Batman v Superman just bored me. Man of Steel was alright, but BvS doubled down on all the things I didn't enjoy about the first movie. I just found it so plodding and one-note. There's almost no tonal variation, it's all so dour (yes, I said dour) and ponderous. It hammers on its themes over and over again, like it's desperate for you to understand how important this film is. All of which makes the few forced moments of levity ("I thought she was with you!") feel jarring and manufactured. I mean, yeah, the Marvel movies tend to err on the side of humour and whimsy (which I'm very okay with, obviously some people aren't and that's okay), but when there's a tonal shift, I think they tend to stick the landing. The Ancient One's dying moments, little Quill being unable to cope with his mother's death, Dummy coming to Tony's rescue, Thor being unworthy of Mjolnir, etc. were, I thought, genuinely affecting scenes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
purple death ray posted:You acting like BvS is better because it 'shows the consequences of a man dressed as a bat fighting crime' that more beloved interpretations of the character 'gloss over' is why people are sick to loving death of our superheros needing to be realistic and gritty, because anymore that's every superhero movie, especially from DC. Some of us like a little childlike wonder in our stories about people in colorful tights punching metaphors for what's wrong with the world. You're why it's not just an S, it stands for Hope. I never said BvS was better, friend. I merely said it's a valid interpretation of the characters. There's room for movies that are more "fun" in tone and that want to be a bit more serious. Again, that doesn't make it a bad movie. Maybe it would be better if Batman made some wisecracks while bludging people with crates you would have enjoyed the movie more? This btw, falls under the "Not my X" category that I talked about above. purple death ray posted:And the entire thing about Batman's lethal methods showing how far he's gone collapses after his "come to Jesus" moment, as he's still completely happy to murder people and the movie no longer frames him as an antagonist because he's no longer trying to kill Superman. His methods are fine, as long as he's killing the actual bad guys. He's using lethal methods yes, but after his Jesus moment, he doesn't flatten people with the batmobile, he gives the criminals every opportunity to save themselves. They just choose not to. KGBeast could have chosen not to try to fry Martha. Grenade guy could have chosen to run away instead of grabbing the grenade. Guys being shot to death by the batplane had the chance to jump of the jeep but kept firing at the Batplane. Again, a Batman that's using lethal methods in films isn't new. Every movie iteration has in fact done this. BvS is not unique in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
purple death ray posted:You acting like BvS is better because it 'shows the consequences of a man dressed as a bat fighting crime' that more beloved interpretations of the character 'gloss over' is why people are sick to loving death of our superheros needing to be realistic and gritty, because anymore that's every superhero movie, especially from DC. Some of us like a little childlike wonder in our stories about people in colorful tights punching metaphors for what's wrong with the world. You're why it's not just an S, it stands for Hope. McCloud had nothing do with the production, writing, or direction of DC movies. Nobody stole childlike wonder away from movies, it's simply a matter of perceiving things. Superhero stories don't even particularly evoke "childlike wonder". Have you ever read Marvel? Even Silver Age stories are more absurd than wondrous. purple death ray posted:And the entire thing about Batman's lethal methods showing how far he's gone collapses after his "come to Jesus" moment, as he's still completely happy to murder people and the movie no longer frames him as an antagonist because he's no longer trying to kill Superman. His methods are fine, as long as he's killing the actual bad guys. You're imagining Batman "happily murdering" people. He's only doing what he's been doing for over 70 years while saving Martha, it's just more obviously lethal than usual. The 'problem' people have with this incarnation of Batman is that him being a weirdo fascist vigilante can't be ignored. Like I mentioned earlier, fans are perfectly happy with their weird fascist hero as long as the fascism is tastefully balanced out by other elements (in a similar example, another goon posted about how Iron Man's libertarianism was acceptable because it could be ignored). BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
McCloud posted:Well, the first ten minutes of the movie is pretty much showing us why he's angry at Superman. Being at ground zero irl broke a lot of people's minds, so it's not strange it would do the same for Batman in Space 9/11. This ties in to his fatal methods as well, he's convinced humanity is facing an existential threat in Superman, and that means that all of his previous limits and moral considerations are pushed aside. It's the "broken omelette" scenario. It's meant to show how much He's slipped and how bad he's become. The opening scene is the one exception to my critique, as it is the only instance where Batman's motivation is shown instead of told. That said, all that characterization is rendered hollow by how easily it is resolved. The "Martha" scene has been overly joked on, but it really is weird that, after throwing away his core tenants to murder a man who 'might' be a threat, all it takes is a dumb coincidence to make him realize that "hey, this guy has a mom! Like I had once!" I also feel like the movie falls into a common trap of modern super hero stories; deconstruction for it's own sake. After the success of Watchmen, many comics and movies likewise deconstruct their characters in the name of realism. However, that story did so not necessarily for realism, but as a commentary the society and politics that gave birth to the superhero medium. What is BvS's deeper message? Yes, it depicts Batman in a realistic and negative light, but he doesn't seem to change any after his "redemption" beyond giving super heros a chance. He still gladly torches normal thugs. McCloud posted:I feel that Supermans character arc was a casualty of the the editing in the theatrical edition, but the editors cut does kinda go deeper into his motivation to oppose Batman. Again though, I think the movie does explain why he keeps on fighting, and I feel on the contrary, that him deciding to keep being Superman, to sacrifice himself for the sake of his love of humanity is the strongest decision one can possibly make. He begins conflicted, doubts himself, then finds the conviction to keep fighting the good fight, and in the process inspiring humanity. Care to share that moment where Superman decides to keep being Superman? With the exception of saving Lois and his mother, every instance where Superman saves someone is followed by Superman seemingly filled with regret. We never get the sensee that he believes he's making a difference that is worth that discomfort. He sacrifices himself to stop Doomsday, but that decision is made in a moment of chaos. I don't get the sense it was for humanity, but to save his personal family and/or further atone for the "sins of his father" as represented by Doomsday. You say Snyder conveys a lot of motivation visually, but in the case of Batman after the opening scene, he doesn't. He spends a ton of script space on Bruce and Alfred explaining why Batman wants to kill Superman, yet none on why Superman wants to be Superman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Oh I know. Burtons Batman is easily in my top five Batmen and he kills people left and right. Movies have always struggled with Batman because they're always action movies, and action movie heroes kill people. I can watch Batman kill dudes in a movie, no problem, but don't act like it's some deep, symbolic act that shows his character grow and change when it absolutely does not change, and grasping at this idea that all of those guys he wastes in the third act somehow chose to die is absurd. E: yall acting like you want to have a discussion about why people don't like BvS but can't resist immediately jumping to "oh you just want quips! You want quips from whedon don't you? Oh is this 'not your Batman'? What's the matter, do you need more quips??" like why even pretend you're going to engage with people who didn't like this loving movie? Just write us off as dummies who just Don't Get It and stop posting. That's where this is going anyway and we'll all be a lot happier if we just skip to the end. purple death ray fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:The opening scene is the one exception to my critique, as it is the only instance where Batman's motivation is shown instead of told. That said, all that characterization is rendered hollow by how easily it is resolved. The "Martha" scene has been overly joked on, but it really is weird that, after throwing away his core tenants to murder a man who 'might' be a threat, all it takes is a dumb coincidence to make him realize that "hey, this guy has a mom! Like I had once!" That's not why he stops from killing Superman. He has a breakdown when he confuses Superman with his own dying father. When he agrees to save Martha, it's because he wants to stop history from repeating. glitchwraith posted:I also feel like the movie falls into a common trap of modern super hero stories; deconstruction for it's own sake. After the success of Watchmen, many comics and movies likewise deconstruct their characters in the name of realism. However, that story did so not necessarily for realism, but as a commentary the society and politics that gave birth to the superhero medium. What is BvS's deeper message? Yes, it depicts Batman in a realistic and negative light, but he doesn't seem to change any after his "redemption" beyond giving super heros a chance. He still gladly torches normal thugs. You're confused by looking for a single moral like it was an Aesop's fable. BvS doesn't just state things, it explores them. glitchwraith posted:I don't get the sense it was for humanity, but to save his personal family and/or further atone for the "sins of his father" as represented by Doomsday. Superman's love for Lois/his family is his love for humanity ("You are my world."). purple death ray posted:Oh I know. Burtons Batman is easily in my top five Batmen and he kills people left and right. Movies have always struggled with Batman because they're always action movies, and action movie heroes kill people. I can watch Batman kill dudes in a movie, no problem, but don't act like it's some deep, symbolic act that shows his character grow and change when it absolutely does not change, and grasping at this idea that all of those guys he wastes in the third act somehow chose to die is absurd. Nobody has argued that Batman killing people is a deep, symbolic act. Nobody is also arguing that you just want more quips. The guys that die in the third act actually do all die mostly because of their own choices. They're not impoverished street criminals, they're mercenaries who have chosen evil work. They also choose to use deadly force that Batman responds to in kind. Batman changes from a violent antagonist to an ambiguous hero.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:That's not why he stops from killing Superman. He has a breakdown when he confuses Superman with his own dying father. When he agrees to save Martha, it's because he wants to stop history from repeating. Yes, his decision to save Martha is in character, but his decision to suddenly gather super heroes in the denouement directly contradicts his motivation for most of the movie, undermining it. I'd be fine with this if he'd spent any amount of time getting to finally know Clark, but that simply doesn't happen before his death. It's a character arc, at least, but one accelerated so fast that it comes off as inorganic. BravestOfTheLamps posted:You're confused by looking for a single moral like it was an Aesop's fable. BvS doesn't just state things, it explores them. Brevity is the soul of wit, but that aside, exploration of themes is meaningless if no conclusion is presented. I still feel the movie fails to reach any conclusions, primarily because it actively undermines them. BravestOfTheLamps posted:Superman's love for Lois/his family is his love for humanity ("You are my world."). That is an admirable and human trait, but it's also a selfish one. He still comes off as an unwilling Christ-figure, one unable to overcome his own crisis of faith before his ultimate sacrifice, thus calling into question that sacrifice. And again, there is no arc. We know from the beginning he is willing to do anything for Lois, but we aren't shown he is willing to do that for humanity in general.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:Yes, his decision to save Martha is in character, but his decision to suddenly gather super heroes in the denouement directly contradicts his motivation for most of the movie, undermining it. ...Undermining his plan to kill someone? He abandoned that. glitchwraith posted:Brevity is the soul of wit, but that aside, exploration of themes is meaningless if no conclusion is presented. I still feel the movie fails to reach any conclusions, primarily because it actively undermines them. You're confusing things like moral statements, messages, and themes together. The conclusion of BvS is Superman sacrificing himself in an ultimate expression of power and love, which is what resolves most of the tensions running through the movie. glitchwraith posted:That is an admirable and human trait, but it's also a selfish one. No it isn't. Loving an individual is how he's able to love the world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:Brevity is the soul of wit, but that aside, exploration of themes is meaningless if no conclusion is presented. That's not true at all
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
purple death ray posted:Oh I know. Burtons Batman is easily in my top five Batmen and he kills people left and right. Movies have always struggled with Batman because they're always action movies, and action movie heroes kill people. I can watch Batman kill dudes in a movie, no problem, but don't act like it's some deep, symbolic act that shows his character grow and change when it absolutely does not change, and grasping at this idea that all of those guys he wastes in the third act somehow chose to die is absurd. There's a big difference in how the thugs die in the second act vs the third. After his fight with Superman, he gives them the chance to back away, they don't. It's suicide by Batman. It's still lethal, yeah, but it's self defense rather than outright flattening with a bat tank. What backs this up is his use of the branding iron. He has no qualms branding criminals and die in jail during the start of the movie, but in the end, while sorely tempted, he chooses not to brand Luthor. Redemption after all, isn't given overnight. purple death ray posted:E: yall acting like you want to have a discussion about why people don't like BvS but can't resist immediately jumping to "oh you just want quips! You want quips from whedon don't you? Oh is this 'not your Batman'? What's the matter, do you need more quips??" like why even pretend you're going to engage with people who didn't like this loving movie? Just write us off as dummies who just Don't Get It and stop posting. That's where this is going anyway and we'll all be a lot happier if we just skip to the end. Buddy, you can't come out cursing and swinging and then complain when the other guy refuses to shake your hand. Your first post on this was dripping with animosity and expletives. In comparison my snide remark was positively restrained. If you really want an honest discussion in good faith then set a good example instead of complaining of the guy retorting in kind. Phylodox posted:
Well, I mean, can't really say anything about that. I personally disagree with a lot of what you wrote, but it's just that, a matter of personal taste. Like, I hate Star Wars ep VII with a passion. I won't say it's a bad movie though, I just intensely dislike it. I can understand that people feel the same way about BvS, but again, this is different from outright thinking it's a bad movie because it doesn't cater to your personal taste. glitchwraith posted:Yes, his decision to save Martha is in character, but his decision to suddenly gather super heroes in the denouement directly contradicts his motivation for most of the movie, undermining it. I'd be fine with this if he'd spent any amount of time getting to finally know Clark, but that simply doesn't happen before his death. It's a character arc, at least, but one accelerated so fast that it comes off as inorganic. Glichwraith, I'd be happy to respond to the rest of your posts, but I don't want you to feel ganged up on. I do want to respond to this bit though. His decision to gather super heroes is two fold: partly because of his regret at Supermans loss. The world lost its greatest champion, and he knows there are other heroes who could help fill the void that he left. But more importantly, he also still has the foreboding sense that something wicked is coming their way. Both via Lex's insane rants, and his vision of the flash. It's also interesting that the funeral kinda works as a rebirth of the "real" batman. https://www.instagram.com/p/BF4lbDxE5de/ Just as the Batman was born when Thomas Wayne was killed and buried, so to is he Reborn when Superman dies. In the movie it's obvious Batman had lost his way, that he's become a monster threatening to devour Bruce Wayne's humanity. Supermans sacrifice reminds him what Batman should be about, instead of being a violent murderhobo. His lasting legacy that he was so worried about will still be the protection of earth. Just not the way he intended it at the start of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I don't really go in for movie reviews but as far as non-professional perspectives on the Internet (i.e. people on message boards etc.) are concerned, a minor trend that strikes me is how a number of fans who prefer the DCEU movies (the ones who would have been insisting that Disney pays off Rotten Tomatoes for the DC movies to get bad reviews) seem to be more interested in the DC movies beating the Marvel ones (and also Star Wars) than in the DC movies being good on their own merits. Yea, it's really annoying to find people who are dedicated DC fan that just want that ability to say "hey DC movie X beat Marvel Movie Y!" as if there is some kind of prize for it. Thing is I want the DC movies to be as good as the Marvel movies because they've moved into the stage where they can start introducing new characters that would never fly if there wasn't a established fanbase already. I want the DC movies to get better so I can see like Batgirl or Zatanna or a good Green Lantern movie. And its such a juvenile outlook to think "mature" means dark, depressing, gritty and violent. This bizzare fixation with just doing Frank Miller's Batman is to blame I feel. It's as if they're beholden to it because every time there's a list of best Batman stories, DKR always tops it, and it just feels lazy, as if they don't want to dig any deeper into Batman massive catalog of books to find a different interpretation of the character. And I said it before doing Christ Allegories with Superman is just really loving lazy at this point. No one's going "oh he's supposed to be Jesus!" becuase, again, it's something that been done so often that it's lost any impact. The stupid thing is even though I freely admit the DC universe that started with MoS haven't been very good, though I think MoS is better than most people give it credit for as it looks amazing and I love this interpretation of Krypton and Michael Shannon is always great to see, not to mention Superman fighting Zod's forces looked like gods fighting each other, not to mention Superman gets to do more than bend and lift stuff (something I always felt was a weakness of the older films). Anyways, they're like the Star Wars prequels to me, I know they're ranging from bad to not good, and there's a lot of terrible, terrible stuff in them (Anakin complaining about Sand/Every thing about Leto's Joker), there's too many things that when they happen I just turn into a kid again and enjoy. In regards to Civil War, Cap is fully aware that oversight is not fool proof, he doesn't want to be controlled by another organization that can be infiltrated and manipulated from behind the scenes, as he saw exactly that with SHIELD in Winter Soldier. He straight up says "what if they send us to a place where we don't belong; what if they prevent us from going somewhere we're needed?". Like Canada nationalizes it's oil fields which threatens cheap oil, so the Avengers are sent in to prevent that? That's the kind of thing Cap is worried about happening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
It's actually only like the second DKR adaptation and the first Superjesus since 99% of that audience hasn't seen any other Batman or Superman media.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:It's actually only like the second DKR adaptation and the first Superjesus since 99% of that audience hasn't seen any other Batman or Superman media. Superman Returns used the superjesus thing really hard. If anyone remembers that. edit: Also, isn't the first Donner film actually supposed to be the origins of the Jesus analogy thing with Superman, since it was the first thing to make a deal out of Jor-El? mycot fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
purple death ray posted:Oh I know. Burtons Batman is easily in my top five Batmen and he kills people left and right. Movies have always struggled with Batman because they're always action movies, and action movie heroes kill people. I can watch Batman kill dudes in a movie, no problem, but don't act like it's some deep, symbolic act that shows his character grow and change when it absolutely does not change, and grasping at this idea that all of those guys he wastes in the third act somehow chose to die is absurd. I don't know why, but I'm far more willing to let Burton's Batman slide on all those dead guys. Maybe it's Snyder's statement that Batman doesn't directly kill anybody and therefore it's not really his fault? I dunno, I gotta say that I still enjoyed BvS despite it being a heavily flawed movie. I hope they stop going back to DKR though, real talk, the only decent Batman comic Frank Miller wrote is Year One. I'll grant ASBaR is enjoyably bad though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
Aphrodite posted:It's actually only like the second DKR adaptation and the first Superjesus since 99% of that audience hasn't seen any other Batman or Superman media. Jesus shots are pretty much a superhero trope at this point. Spider-Man 2 and the Homecoming trailer have Jesus shots in them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:57
|
|