|
Cardboard Box A posted:Hi I am a comic book fan who wears mirrored shades and pentagram shirts and I am really mad about Captain America being a Hydra agent and being written by a FAR LEFT LIBERAL This guy could have a fantastic career in Right wing radio talk shows. That's not a compliment Fsmhunk posted:So, is Singer a pedophile or not? He's a creepy guy who sexually exploits minors/barely legal teens, even if he didn't explicitly broke the law what he's done is real shady. Here's a fun clip that got posted in CineD about the Russos inabilty to shoot a scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huyVs3QiK1c
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:Ugh, I haven't seen Civil War in like three weeks and I can still tell most of this is wholly disingenuous. lol no, the camerawork in CW was atrocious for like half the movie. It's like during half of it it's shot like a documentary, then the other half someone remembered that shaky cam is the worst, then it became bearable.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:I'll grant you part of the fight at the beginning is shaky but it improved like, immediately. Plus, the other half of that video is that it's all shot in closeup and I don't remember that at all. Fair enough. The stairway fight, the fight in the beginning of the movie with Crossbones, pretty much any fight that occurs up until the airport scene. I remember being very frustrated with the way they filmed those scenes because I wanted to see what was actually going on, not guess and infer. Then you get a clear view of the fights and the action. Same with the final fight of the film with IM, Cap and Buck. Which strikes me as very odd, why have the stupid frantic action in the first half of the movie and then have crystal clear action in the last two fights?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
Codependent Poster posted:I can't find the quote, but I remember them saying they intentionally filmed the first few action sequences that way, and then pulled back the shots at the airport sequence to show that the battles had become larger and on a bigger scale. And yet the final fight is shot the same way, and that one was the most personal one in the film.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AO19XY2rqc It's the trailer for the BvS Ultimate edition release. It seems to add a few more scenes focusing on Superman and Clark, in particular the Africa scene, and him investigating the Batman as a reporter. I, for one, am hyped!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:That movie is already too long, even if by some miracle they manage to make Superman something other than an aloof nobody in his own movie it's not like it's gonna fix the pacing. I respectfully disagree, the biggest issue isn't the length of the movie, but the editing and pacing, both of which could be improved with the additional content. Looks very promising on that front imo. But then again, if you really hated everything about this movie the directors cut probably won't change you being wrong anyway
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Hey to get this back on topic here's a full list of changes from the Ultimate Edition: Crosspost bitches!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:They could have cut the whole Murdered Waynes scene at the beginning, placing it instead later (maybe interspersed with his crazy CrossFit training or something), and wholly excised the stupid funeral scene/christlike rise. We don't need to see the long art-student death of his parents twice in the goddamn movie. The scene with the Wayne murder is important because it links their deaths with Batmans fight with Superman, AND with Supermans funeral. The crux of the whole Martha bit hinges on it being a recreation of the Murder of the Waynes, with Superman as Thomas Wayne. Without the setup, it becomes even more random than it already is. It also visually links to the funeral scene, hinting at Bruce's guilt over his death, and just as Batman was once born out of his grief and guilt over his parents, so he is reborn out of his guilt and grief over Superman.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I thought I'd seen Toxx's worst posts in the kickstarter thread where he threw a tantrum about Tim Schafer, but trying to act like Iron Man 3 is a bad movie is even more ridiculous. IM3 was not the worst marvel movie by dint of IM2, and the Thor movies existing. Edit: Come to think of it, it was way better than the three Avengers movies as well, so I guess it falls squarely in the middle of Marvels movies. The fakeout with the mandarin was pretty slick imo. McCloud fucked around with this message at 13:23 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
X-post from the BvS thread in CineDMcCloud posted:
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
Seemlar posted:Was, until the part where they decided for some reason they wanted to try to make him a villain, completely failed to do so, then instead of course correcting killed him off screen and had terrible characters endlessly whine about how he was totally such a villain and bad guy, really, please accept this readers I know I'll regret asking this...what happened to Scott? Last I saw he was in that secret wars thing with pheonix powers and got punked by Doom to show how totally badass doom is, guys! 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Proving once again that the best way to make money is to make a generic, by-the-numbers action movie, throw in some neat special effects and some jokes. This movie is almost aggressive in its mediocreness. I did like Cumberbatch, though I think they'd been better off with him using his natural british accent. I kind of always pictured Dr Strange as a brit anyways for some reason.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
I appreciate the more thoughtful and nuanced discussion on c/d, and much prefer it over the discussions here. There they discuss the movies on their own strengths and can separate it from its comic book roots. Here people see the movies as extensions of the comics, and have more casual conversations about the movies, if that makes sense, so cineD is far more interesting. Plus you might actually learn something about cinemaphotography if you lurk there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Just curious, what happened to the other X-men, and what continuity is this? If it's the old one where Sentinels purged the mutants I'm kinda fine with it, but if the second future is hosed up as well I'd be slightly peeved.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
I hate Kevin Smith so much. What the everloving gently caress
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
zoux posted:I thought that Smith's unforgivable sin was making Batman pee pee his pants. The whole loving series was attrocius. There's one issue Batman and DD are loving on an island, and loving aquaman shows up because she was screaming so much the dolphins thought she needed help. Some new bad guy breaks joker out of jail, and joker thanks him by offering the guy his rear end. Like, literally, pulls down his pants and offers the guy to gently caress him. That woman? She gets fridged in a pretty stupid way. It also has a lovely killing joke "inspired" conversation between Bats and joker. It's just terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
I gotta say I'm unreasonably annoyed at BvS getting Razzie awards. I mean it feels more like they're giving BvS awards because a lot of people disliked it and not because it's an actual bad movie. 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. It's a bad movie if you expect it to be a Marvel Superhero movie, but it's great on its own merits, so it getting razzie awards seems more lik pandering than anything else. Personally I think BvS will be viewed more favorably with time, after the kneejerk response to it has faded. Re Civil War chat: Steve Rogers unironically argues that the Avengers, a paramilitary organisation led by a billionaire CEO, should have zero oversight what so ever. Imagine Blackwater, but with superpowers, and no one to hold their leash. The astounding arrogance of Rogers is just mindblowing. Tony of course, isn't much better, since he only signs the accords with no intention of actually honoring the spirit of the law. In fact he violates them the second it becomes convenient. If the goal here was to make everyone in the Avengers look bad (aside from Black Panther) then they did a pretty good job. In fact the movie proves that the Avengers do in fact need some heavy oversight, since they break laws at a whim and cause massive collateral damage wherever they go. Yakmouth posted:The Batman and Superman of this franchise are presented as such grimdark, flawed, not-quite-heroes.. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:
No one is saying any of this. Quite the contrary, BvS is in fact neither dark nor gritty! It's actually a move with the hopeful message that love and compassion will inspire more good than chest pounding and violence. If anything, the movie is a reprimand against the DKR Batman as a violent inefficient fascist who accomplishes nothing. twistedmentat posted:
The only movie to do this was Superman Returns. This movie has a purpose to the Christ allegories, in that it examines the characters relationship to power. Lex, who covets it to the extent he will commune with the devil, Bruce who fears it to the extent he will try to kill god, Superman who is burdened with it to the extent he almost abandons it, and the people, who react to it by making him a false god. It's not just "oh he's jesus", it's "how are people reacting to what may as well be the second coming". It examines the paradoxical relationship between the people uplifting a man to Divinity, and his struggle to relate to that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:
His single minded obsession was rooted in fear and anger. Once he realised that he was in effect turning into his parents assassin his mind he stepped back from the ledge. And from there, he not only faced a supermonster, he fought side by side with two worthy allies for a just cause. His main motive for attacking Superman was his fear that he would inevitably turn on us, because that's the story of his life. He believed no one stayed good in this world, and that included Superman. But he was proven wrong. He's a convert. And no one is as fanatical as the converted.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
purple death ray posted:The thing about BvS is that most of this stuff he's saying is actually true, but the finished product is so poorly edited and badly directed that it undermines itself expressing these themes and ideas to the point that most people watching the movie aren't going to pick up on them. It's really not just a case of "Batman shouldn't be killing people!" or "Superman frowns too much!", even though both of those things are probably true, the movie has much much deeper problems than that. I hesitate to say this because it really sounds condescending, and that's certainly not the intent, but a lot of people who watch movies (and I'm including myself here) don't really do much more than a surface reading of a movie. Was it fun? Was it dour, was it grim, how did it make me feel, can I understand the plot / motivations? Watching Transformers for instance, the surface level reading is that Autobots = good, Decepticons = bad. A deeper reading would in fact reveal that Autobots = Dicks, Decepticons = Not bad. I intensely disliked Prometheus because I didn't get it, for instance, and found it a confusing mess. Others loved it, because they totally understood what Ridley Scott was going for. A film can, as a goal, have more than having the viewer feel good or have fun. It'¨s an artistic medium, and the creators have license to strive towards other goals. To compare to a different movie, in Inglorious Basterds, Tarantino is drawing direct parallels between us, the viewers, cheering for the murderous basterds killing a sympathetic nazi, and the nazis in the cinema cheering on their nazi warhero murdering allied soldiers. Many people missed that parallel. Is that Tarantino's fault? Should he have been more obvious? Was the movie badly put together? How much onus do you put on the viewer to figure these things out, and how much is on the director/producer to clarify these things? Futurama said it the best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBhR4QcBtE McCloud fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
Ireallylikeeggs posted:So as far as I can tell, all of this boring recalcitrant goober debate boils down to a fundamental difference in taste: do you prefer the HOW of a movie, or the WHAT of a movie? Obviously I disagree on the story of MoS and BvS being told poorly. I think it told it just fine, but from my anecdotal experience people have a harder time parsing the subtler elements of Snyders stories because he has a habit of conveying information visually and through symbolic imagery rather than dialogue. I think it ties in to what I said to purple ray earlier, if people didn't understand or read the movie 'correctly', is it the producers fault or the viewers? Is it Verhoevens fault that most viewers didnt get that Starship troopers was satire? Is it Tarantinos fault if people dont see the parallel between them and the nazis in Basterds? Obviously the best movies are those that can be entertaining even if the viewer entierly miss the subtext (Alien, Inglorious basterds) but still have a depth to them beyond the obvious surface reading. BvS clearly falls short of this benchmark. But even though it's not to everyones taste that doesn't make it a bad movie. Kinda like salty liquorice candy. I know I'm late to the guardians discussion, but one of the things that really bugged me about the movie was the prison portion of the movie. At some point, the racoon makes some sort of comment about how only the worst of the worst are in there and even the guards are totally evil assholes! Thats when you know that everyone there is going to be brutally murdered. Its like they had thst line in there so we wouldnt feel bad when our heroes murder them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:That would have made more sense for the earlier scenes. The whole point is that Superman doesn't know if he wants to continue to help. Supermans motivations for helping humanity were established in MoS, so BvS doesn't rehash them, instead it explores what happens when his love for humanity is tested, and if he's going to turn his back on them when they reject his help. Ma says if he wants to help because he thinks it's the right thing to do, then go for it, but not of any sense of guilt, he doesn't owe anything to anyone. What Pa is saying is that there are consequences for your actions, no matter if they're backed by good intent, and you do what you need to do, and you learn to live with the consequences. This makes his decision to actually give a gently caress and give his life more important, because he's sacrificing himself not of any misplaced sense of duty or responsibility, but out of love for his fellow humans. notthegoatseguy posted:Glitch nails it. I love a movie with layers and subtext and open for interperation. I saw Muholland Drive a couple weeks ago and loving loved it and I keep bringing it up to people because I'm still thinking about that movie several days later. But for me personally, a movie has to be....you know, good and edited well and watchable for me to give a poo poo to then analyze it at a deeper level. BVS isn't an absolutely horrible movie, but they desperately needed a good editor to trim the fat. Between the editing, the Eisenberg's Lex, and a really poor reason for Superman to fight Batman (Bat's support was really obvious and actually well done), the movie just fell flat. Also all the Wonder Woman poo poo is just kind of there and adds almost nothing to the story. You could take Wonder Woman and the quicktime files out completely and it doesn't impact the movie at all. Ironically, the trimmed fat you complain about is the reason Supermans motivation for going after Batman is a bit lacking. They delve a bit further into this in the extended version. It also makes Supermans first meeting with Batman a bit less jarring. Lex...well, Lex is jarring, I wil give you that. I can kinda see the reason why they made this change, in that the Silicon Valley Elon Musk CEO is a more modern take on the Evil genius billionaire trope. Frankly he's probably my least liked part of the movie as well, but I can totally see why they went the way they did. Regarding wonderwoman and the other cameos, this movie references Excalibur a lot, borrowing lots of visual imagery, casting both Supes and Bats as King Arthur (one at his noblest, and the other at his lowest). I suspect Snyder is going for a sort of "King Arthur assembles the Knights of the Round" thing, a theme starting in this movie that will be paid more attention to in the next one. And she steals pretty much every scene she's in as well, so I'd argue that even if she could be cut out of the movie with no changes to the story, it would still be a net loss because she was pretty badass. YMMV though. Still, I rather they try to integrate this sort of thing in to the plot itself rather than have a teaser at the end of the credits. Personally I loved the movie, it was like an wagnerian opera, an epic tragedy about how the human flaw of the gods leads to ruin, reminiscent of the ancient greek myths.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:As already mentioned, the decision point you mention at the end of you paragraph is never shown on screen, or even alluded. We can assume it happens, due to Superman's sacrifice and previous depictions of the character, and that is most likely the filmmakers intent, but based solely on what's on screen we can just as easily assume he fought and died primarily to save his personal family. Which again, is human and good, but falls short of the Messiah metaphor. The decision is taken when he's done talking to ghostdad. Pa says that what makes the hard choices bearable is finding someone you love, who will lend you the strength you need to bear the weight of the consequences. Clarks love of humanity was established in MoS and it is assumed the viewer is aware of the events there. Clarks struggle in BvS is whether he can keep fighting as Superman. At one point Lois asks him if she is stipping him from being true to his self as a hero, but the answer to that is that she fuels and reaffirms his dedication, not an obstacle like she is afraid that she is. It just took some soul searching for him to realise that. And it is through Lois that he can love and sacrifice for humanity. glitchwraith posted:Wonder Woman was by far my favorite part of the film, and an Arthurian take on the beginnings of the Justice League seems like a fair read. The problem is that these elements are entirely in service to films that haven't been released. You could remove Wonder Woman and the cameos from the film and lose nothing of narrative value. In fact, it'd probably help the narrative to remove the latter. Just like MoS hinted at the themes of a sequel so to does BvS. I rather they lay some thematic groundwork for a future payoff than have some silly stinger at the end of the credits.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Claremont's original mega run. Morrison New X-Men. Whedon Astonishing (and not everyone will agree on those two either.) Whedon's Astonishing X-men was pretty awesome. If only his movies could have been too  Despite how good the reviews for Logan are, I'm probably not gonna see it, just because of how depressing it is. It's more or less damning Xavier as a fool for hoping humanity would coexist with humans, and that Magneto was right about us all along. Of course, personally hating Wolverine doesn't help much either. They may as well have renamed the first three X-men movies to Wolverine and friends, Co-starring Storm, feat. The X-men! glitchwraith posted:
You are talking about worldbuilding. I am talking about something else. Consider the collateral damage in the fight in MoS. It left a bad taste in a lot of people because of how jarring and brutal it was (including lots of complaints about how unheroic superman is ) but it came up in BvS as a major plot point, and also continues the idea that Superman is a guy who can fly and punch stuff, he's not an all-knowing diety that can solve all the worlds problems like his comic counterpart. It also draws some interesting comparisons to Pa Kent, in that Pa died trying to save a "lesser creature" just as Superman died saving us. Both movies also have heavy doses of Arthurian lore and imagery baked in to them, and ideas and themes from the dolorous stroke/Fisher king story are prevalent in both. Considering the sequel is all about gathering pure and valiant knights to fight a great evil and unite a kingdom I expect the Arthurian themes (with a heavy does of christian imagery) to continue in JL. As for the dream...Batman is a violent warlord that rules over a blasted hellscape with what suspiciously looks like militarized police, when his rule is violently overthrown by aliens and fascist police under the command of Space Lucifer. He is captured, chained up (with two convicts on each side...hmmmm, have I seen that before? https://imgur.com/a/ZjlVa ) and is violently murdered. In the real world Batman is a violent vigilante that rules the streets of Gotham, torturing and beating up its citizens, with the consent of the local police. He's opposed by Superman (who is rightly disturbed by not only what Batman is doing, but also the implicit support from the local police) and sees himself as a selfless messiah martyr figure, yet impotent and helpless against Superman. The aliens represents his xenophobia and fear of Supermans otherness. It's clever in that it both works as a window into Bruce's mind, and as a foreshadowing to Him. The large omega in the dried out lake is not only signifying His coming, but also a symbol for the end of the world (which is after all why His symbol is the Omega. He represents the end of all things). It's why I've said that Snyders greatest problem is that he packs so much information in his visuals that the viewers have a hard time parsing (See Sucker Punch for a good example of this). McCloud fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:I like that there is a universe where Batman wins simply by being a good guy and allowing himself to be happy. Have you seen some of the criticisms against these movies? This is not an assumption, it's an observation. People that saw Sucker punch for example, came away from it thinking it was misogynist garbage, not realizing that it's actually arguing against exploitative nerd male gaze feminism (might still be gargabe though, yymv). How can I not argue that something flew over their head? It's like reading Moby Dick and going "It's a book about a whale, man how boring" and when someone points out that maybe the whale stands for god you get mad that he's implying that you're dumb. Also technically your spoiler describes Nolans Batman as well. McCloud fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:Superman has never been depicted as an "all-knowing diety that can solve all of the worlds problems." He's surprisingly incorruptible in spite of his power, but by default he is usually depicted with human intelligence and flaws countered by a strong sense of morality. Many problems exist in the DC universe despite being the home of Superman. I disagree here. While I was a bit strong in my wording, the general depiction of Superman (and superheroes in general, but Superman and batman are the worst ones at this) is one who knows exactly what to do at the right time to solve whatever issue or crisis they are having. This is the nature of comic books, the good guys win, and they do so by being awesome. Whenever our hero faces a dilemma that would confound most us, they use their fantastic wit and powers to find a way. And that's great, that's awesome! Like Grant Morrison said, Superman is that one guy who will never let you down, who despite insurmountable odds will always find a way to save the day, either through wit or brawn. If Superman wasn't real, we'd have to invent him! He's a shining beacon for anyone to follow, because he instinctively knows what's right and wrong. "There is a right and a wrong in this universe. And that distinction is not hard to make." He's the eternal example for which we should all strive. He's, as a rule, portrayed as the wise fatherly figure that always knows what words to say or what to do to make things better. Exceptions to this exist of of course, like Ennis's story in Hitman, but they are not the norm. He's a power fantasy. MoS eschews this unrealistic power fantasy in favor of a more nuanced portrayal. In fact that was a major source of criticism from fans, that Superman in MoS was too ineffectual at limiting collateral damage and saving innocent people. If he was the "real" Superman, he would have used his heat vision to destroy debris and his superspeed to turn back time and save Jenny or whatever. This is not by accident, but by design. I mean for gods sake, they evoked 9/11 imagery to really hammer home and emphasize the collateral damage here. That wasn't by happenstance. Whether or not they anticipated the enormous backlash against that decision is unclear, but they were certainly aware of what they were doing. Or maybe you mean that they didn't plan on using it as a hook for the sequel? In which case you might be right, but clearly they saw that they hit a nerve with it and decided to stick with that for the sequel. glitchwraith posted:I admitted as much that Bruce's dream supported his characterization and, at least initially, the movies themes. What I'm arguing is that the foreshadowing elements simply don't make sense within the context or plot of BvS, is confusing to both general audiences and comic fans, and distracts from the themes of the movie. After the scene, I wasn't contemplating Bruce's fears, but instead was wondering what the bug people and armored guy was all about. Arguably those bugs play into Batmans xenophobia. Aliens murdering his friends and allies and all that. If you find it distracting though  The why of Batmans quest to gather the knights has already been discussed earlier, so I won't be rehashing that discussion. Edit: glitchwraith posted:It's possible for people to perfectly understand a movie, and still find it bad or flawed. I'd argue the many professional critics who negatively reviewed the movie fall into this category. Your allowed to disagree, but assuming people only hate the movie because they don't understand it is not arguing in good faith. Ah, I think you misunderstand my post. I was speaking very broadly, and had in mind a few posts I've read here and there about the movie when I wrote that post. I didn't mean to imply in absolute terms that if you disliked the movie you didn't "get it" or that you're dumb, as that would be asinine, and never been my viewpoint. Sgt. Politeness posted:I don't think they'll be bored, it's hilarious and flies at a mile a minute. Any reference to old stuff is still pretty funny without context and doesn't distract from the movie I don't think. Because of your bad posting, you've been sent to forums hell. And I'm the devil 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
zoux posted:It seems they were pursuing exclusively actresses of African descent for Domino which made me wonder, is comics Domino supposed to be of African descent as well? (It absolutely doesn't matter, I don't care about keeping comics characters whatever race they are, just that I never realized if she was supposed to be a certain ethnicity) I am looking forward to all the people complaining about blackwashing and whiteface
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:They could just do eye makeup? Well, I mean, dominos are black with white spots, so just give her a white spot around the eye, and be done with it. Or just say gently caress it and give her whiteface, just to bait all the
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
BvS, a flawed but interesting movie with a slightly novel take on superheroes: 27% on rotten tomatoes. Avengers 2, a subpar movie about the destruction of cars that might has well been produced for TV: 75% on rotten tomatoes. Thor, a pretty bland movie that manages to to have not only Portman, but also Hopkins sleepwalk through the movie: 77% on rotten tomatoes. Thor 2: Bland harder, who's only worthwhile contribution was Hiddleston: 66% Doctor Strange, a movie where they copy pasted Tony Stark and gave him magic instead of tech and a sassy cape: 90% on rotten tomatoes. Etc etc. Basically, RT rewards conformity and cookie cutter movies in the superhero genre while eschewing movies that deviate from the formula.In fact, a common complaint of BvS was that it wasn't "as fun as Marvels movies!" Now obviously I am not saying RT is responsible for BvS not becoming even more successful, but something is arguably wrong when bland poo poo like the Thors and loving Avengers 2 have twice the rating of BvS. Edit: The audience rating of 63% is a more accurate rating imo. It's a rating that acknowledges a movies flaws while not entirely dismissing it because of them. McCloud fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Mar 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:none of them are higher than a C+, sounds about right to me I'm saying that BvS should at the very least be on par with them. A rating of 27 is grossly missleading
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Maybe GBS is more your style, friend. Plenty of racists over there too!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:I dunno, I definitely rank Batman v Superman pretty low down on the superhero movie totem pole. It's just so loving dull, which is about the worst thing one of these movies can be. Again: Thor 2, the boringest poo poo ever: +60%
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
Blockhouse posted:was infinitely more bored by BvS than Thor 2 Yes, Natalie Portman seems to be having a blast, man. And Hopkins is pretty jazzed to be there too! I mean jesus, even George Lucas managed to get a better performance out of her.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 22:07
|
|