Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

[rukaio101]

10 hours ago, James said:

Are you serious? There is no such thing as a pointless scene. If the writers put it there then it means they had a reason. Are you going to say to me that when I write I shouldn't write something that I, as a writer, who knows the world better than any reader, think belongs there just because I have to keep the plot continuously going? That is ridiculous. Have you read any of George RR Martin's work (Game of Thrones). The guy is a master at writing scenes that apparently do nothing to forward the plot but enrich the experience. Same with Stephen King. Look at PJ's LOTR and TH. World building is necessary. I prefer a 5 hour movie with good world building than a 90 minutes one that throws everything out thinking the audience must understand it. 

Since this is an actual rebuttal to a point I made (rather than just being an attack on my motives), I'll give it a reply myself.

 

Yes, you're correct in that not every scene needs to move the plot forward. However, failing to do that is not what makes a scene pointless. In a good story, every scene needs to add something. And that can take all sorts of different forms. It can establish characters, it can develop characters, it can establish/develop the world, it can establish/develop tone, it can be so simple as giving the audience a break between the heavier stuff or time to digest implications of a previous scene or just help manage the pacing. Almost every 'pointless' scene in ASOIAF or King's work or LOTR does one of these things. The pointless scenes in BvS do not. Take one of the earliest Pointless Scenes, where a couple of boys somewhere fish up that chunk of Kryptonite. What did that add to the movie? It didn't establish or develop any characters (since none of those characters are seen again). It doesn't add anything to the world or tone or pacing. It didn't really do anything to establish Kryptonite that the lab scene later on doesn't do better. It could easily be replaced by a single line of exposition. It's 2 minutes of nothing. You could cut it out entirely and nothing in the movie would change for the worse. Because it adds nothing. It is a pointless scene. And maybe it'd be forgivable if it was the only pointless scene, but it's not. Far from it.

 

Also, 'I'm sure it had a purpose for the writers' is a terrible excuse. This movie isn't some sort of home video only meant for Snyder and co to watch. It's a multi-million budget blockbuster targeted towards a mass audience. It doesn't need to have a purpose for the writers, it needs to have a purpose for the viewers. Because they are ultimately going to be the ones to see or buy your story. It's nice and all to have a vision as a writer and dogmatically stick to it (and, indeed, a writer should know when to preserve their vision) but a writer isn't always right and, if you're wanting your story to be well received by other people, you have to take other people into account. Not to say you should automatically sacrifice your vision to whatever appeals to the lowest common denominator, but that you should try to write something with said vision that a lot of other people would at least find good. And that's where storytelling technique comes in. Technique allows you to write your story, about whatever you want, while still helping to make it enjoyable to read for other people. You can play with it, subvert it, try different things (like 2001 or Memento did) but ultimately it's what makes a lot of stories work. BvS fails at story technique. Painfully. It's crammed with pointless scenes, terrible pacing and poor characterisation. And if that was the intention of the writers then, quite frankly, that's poor writing. It's not on us, the viewers, to enjoy a movie just because you think we should. It's on the filmmakers to make us enjoy it.

 

Also, a 5 hour movie with only good worldbuilding to speak of, is not something I'd want to watch. You'd have to be a goddamn master of pacing to pull a movie that long off in an interesting way. At least the 90 minute movie would be short. It's a common misconception (that BvS falls prey to) that adding as much as possible automatically makes a film better. That's false. Demonstrably false. Knowing when to stop is just as important as knowing when to add. And sometimes less is more. One of the biggest problems with BvS is that it keeps stuffing in more and more talking points or plot points (many of which end up being pointless) but, as a result, it doesn't have room to really explore any of them to a satisfying degree. It needed to really trim the fat, select a few themes or talking points and just run with them instead of cramming in as much as it could find. Because, as it is, important things like characterisation end up being painfully neglected in this movie. 

[somebody85]

8 hours ago, Jay Hollywood said:

After seeing this second time I truly believe this is the worst edited Blockbuster I've ever seen.

 

Also a very simple thing they messed up on, they had a guarantee cheer moment but they choose against it. The Title comes up small in the corner during the batman intro. Personally I don't think that scene was needed but why not after Bruce saves the little girl and he looks up with the Bruce Wayne logo behind does it not cut to the fucking LOGO! Do the whole BAM BAM BAM BAM soundtrack shit and the Bat logo and the Superman Logo crowd goes nuts then boom 18 months alter. I mean it cuts to black anyways and say 18 months later there. This is a comic book film, come on, total missed opportunity, thats a crowd moment no matter what. 

Yeah I agree man, it's definitely up there. 

 

It really was like walking into a bunch of different stories that never feel fully developed. As soon as they start to feel more complete, the movie switches to something else completely different. It's like each story is a download bar and they never finish. Some of these story lines only reached like 65% out of 100%. 

It's not that any of it is hard to follow, it's just like "what the hell? why did they do that?" over and over again. 

It reminded me of the now famous cut to black scene in Fant4stic where Josh Tranks vision ended and the studio took over...except those cuts lasted for 90 minutes and there was five different visions going on instead of just two.

 

It finally started to become coherent around the actual Batman V Superman fight, but up until then...yeah I can't even explain how they allowed that to be released. Honestly the entire climax just felt like another story unrelated to the rest of the movie too.

I was never bored because it was like watching a train wreck. But as an actual movie? Yeah, it failed hard.

Edited March 31, 2016 by somebody85

[RobinHood26]

The great movie is one where nothing is wasted every scene/line of dialogue propels the story forward and everything thing set up comes into play and gets paid off. 

[somebody85]

21 minutes ago, Jay Hollywood said:

The great movie is one where nothing is wasted every scene/line of dialogue propels the story forward and everything thing set up comes into play and gets paid off. 

 

lol this would not score very highly based on that metric.

[KGator]

8 hours ago, Water Bottle said:

The point is that his reviews weren't objective. They were subjective. And you admitted that in that post: he applied his own viewpoint to each film. So has rukaio. We're done here.

 

I didn't dispute his opinions about the film, I said the reviewer was biased.  You and I seem to be having a very different discussion here.  You have not only admitted his review was INDEED biased, but then gone to the extraordinary length of claiming that its all cool because hey . . . all reviews are misleading or purposely misrepresented.  That is patently ridiculous!!!  I guarantee that if the general public knew a particular reviewer had a separate agenda that he would LOSE credibility and not be praised for his "unique prejudicial slant on things".  LMAO.  Did you go to the Ku Klux Klan website for their review of "Selma"?  I'm sure they have a VERY passionate take on the subject that you might have enjoyed.

 

Since your perspective seems to fall outside the generally accepted views on this matter, I agree . . . continued discussion on this topic is pointless.  I'm out.

 

[KGator]

2 hours ago, rukaio101 said:

Yes, you're correct in that not every scene needs to move the plot forward. However, failing to do that is not what makes a scene pointless. In a good story, every scene needs to add something. And that can take all sorts of different forms. It can establish characters, it can develop characters, it can establish/develop the world, it can establish/develop tone, it can be so simple as giving the audience a break between the heavier stuff or time to digest implications of a previous scene or just help manage the pacing. Almost every 'pointless' scene in ASOIAF or King's work or LOTR does one of these things. The pointless scenes in BvS do not. Take one of the earliest Pointless Scenes, where a couple of boys somewhere fish up that chunk of Kryptonite. What did that add to the movie? It didn't establish or develop any characters (since none of those characters are seen again). It doesn't add anything to the world or tone or pacing. It didn't really do anything to establish Kryptonite that the lab scene later on doesn't do better. It could easily be replaced by a single line of exposition. It's 2 minutes of nothing. You could cut it out entirely and nothing in the movie would change for the worse. Because it adds nothing. It is a pointless scene. And maybe it'd be forgivable if it was the only pointless scene, but it's not. Far from it.

 

Also, 'I'm sure it had a purpose for the writers' is a terrible excuse. This movie isn't some sort of home video only meant for Snyder and co to watch. It's a multi-million budget blockbuster targeted towards a mass audience. It doesn't need to have a purpose for the writers, it needs to have a purpose for the viewers. Because they are ultimately going to be the ones to see or buy your story. It's nice and all to have a vision as a writer and dogmatically stick to it (and, indeed, a writer should know when to preserve their vision) but a writer isn't always right and, if you're wanting your story to be well received by other people, you have to take other people into account. Not to say you should automatically sacrifice your vision to whatever appeals to the lowest common denominator, but that you should try to write something with said vision that a lot of other people would at least find good. And that's where storytelling technique comes in. Technique allows you to write your story, about whatever you want, while still helping to make it enjoyable to read for other people. You can play with it, subvert it, try different things (like 2001 or Memento did) but ultimately it's what makes a lot of stories work. BvS fails at story technique. Painfully. It's crammed with pointless scenes, terrible pacing and poor characterisation. And if that was the intention of the writers then, quite frankly, that's poor writing. It's not on us, the viewers, to enjoy a movie just because you think we should. It's on the filmmakers to make us enjoy it.

 

Also, a 5 hour movie with only good worldbuilding to speak of, is not something I'd want to watch. You'd have to be a goddamn master of pacing to pull a movie that long off in an interesting way. At least the 90 minute movie would be short. It's a common misconception (that BvS falls prey to) that adding as much as possible automatically makes a film better. That's false. Demonstrably false. Knowing when to stop is just as important as knowing when to add. And sometimes less is more. One of the biggest problems with BvS is that it keeps stuffing in more and more talking points or plot points (many of which end up being pointless) but, as a result, it doesn't have room to really explore any of them to a satisfying degree. It needed to really trim the fat, select a few themes or talking points and just run with them instead of cramming in as much as it could find. Because, as it is, important things like characterisation end up being painfully neglected in this movie. 

 

To Kill a Mockingbird is a pulitzer prize winning novel that has wide critical acclaim.  It is also often required reading in many secondary education courses in the US.  However, the vast majority of students who read the book (well over 90%) find the book boring and implausable with laughable dialog and unnecessary plot points.

 

So, which holds here?  The critical review or the reaction from the general public?  Is the novel simply out of touch with its modern audience and therefore should be downgraded or does it keep the high standing it garnered through the years after its first release?  My point is, who is (and should be) the reigning authority on this matter - the classically trained or self-appointed critics or majority opinion from the masses?

 

And given the various points of view you can find in a cinema audience isn't it plausible or even likely that a meaningless plot point to one person could be a significant point to another?  Or like Snyder hammered forth in his Pa Kent scene regarding the farm flooding, "One man's hero can be another man's villian."

[DeeCee]

"People think focus means saying yes to the thing you've got to focus on. But that's not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. I'm actually as proud of the things we haven't done as the things I have done. Innovation is saying no to 1,000 things."

[Goffe]

19 hours ago, filmlover said:

This is a comic book movie that's completely ashamed to be a comic book movie. Snyder has such a fundamental misunderstanding of why these characters have always been so popular that it completely sinks the movie.

did we see the same movie? the whole thing is filled with references that only fans would get, the blatant world-building, and the third act is as comic book-ish as one film can be.

 

the film being built around Batman vs Superman fight is a testament that Zach Snyder embraced its comic book roots.

 

and that is exactly the reason why I disliked the movie.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Goffe

[filmlover]

2 hours ago, Goffe said:

did we see the same movie? the whole thing is filled with references that only fans would get, the blatant world-building, and the third act is as comic book-ish as one film can be.

 

the film being built around Batman vs Superman fight is a testament that Zach Snyder embraced its comic book roots.

 

and that is exactly the reason why I disliked the movie.

I meant more like it failed to embrace it's comic book roots by Snyder & Co. having a colossal misunderstanding of why these characters (well, mostly Superman) have become so entrenched in the public conscious from the comics to the screen. It's possible to give them a new spin but at the same time have some vestiges of the traits that have defined why they've remained enduring icons (even Nolan's Batman had that). I couldn't sense any of those qualities in this movie's supposed heroes.

[DeeCee]

22 hours ago, KGator said:

 

A formal investigation, product review, food critique or film review ar all forms of independent analysis.  They only vary in degrees of importance due to the subject matter.  Roger Ebert was objective because he did NOT go into movies with preconceived notions and instead would rate each film on its own merit.  As long as he applied his own viewpoint to each film that was not personal bias.  Now if he went to a movie and immediately downgraded it if he saw a prominent ethnic actor because he had a deep rooted aversion to non-white actors . . . THAT would be an incorporation of personal bias because certain films would automatically be treated differently.

 

Bias is bringing a specific prejudice or favoritism into a situation, not simply viewing a film from a unique perspective.  Perhaps you like to rephrase your argument.

Your own viewpoint is your own personal bias.

[Goffe]

I meant more like it failed to embrace it's comic book roots by Snyder & Co. having a colossal misunderstanding of why these characters (well, mostly Superman) have become so entrenched in the public conscious from the comics to the screen. It's possible to give them a new spin but at the same time have some vestiges of the traits that have defined why they've remained enduring icons (even Nolan's Batman had that). I couldn't sense any of those qualities in this movie's supposed heroes.

Here's the thing, I don't think the classic Superman plays well with audiences anymore. That's why WB took another route to begin with.

.

He's a fundamentally outdated superhero.

.

What was the last time people loved Superman on something? Superman The Movie? and I'm pretty sure that was because Christopher Reeves was playing him.

[AniNate]

I think there is a way to do a sleek modern Superman while still having him retain his goody-goodness. Chris Evans' Captain America has worked pretty well.

Edited April 1, 2016 by tribefan695

[filmlover]

24 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

I think there is a way to do a sleek modern Superman while still having him retain his goody-goodness. Chris Evans' Captain America has worked pretty well.

This. It's possible to update the character while still retaining his essence.

 

Heck, it's even possible to make a "gritty" version of the character. Snyder just completely fumbles the execution (I mean, he flies off after being the sole survivor of an entire building blowing up with him in it; how hard are you trying to make the iconic hero a total dick here, Zack?).

[Goffe]

Not fan of BvS, but I think Superman, along with Troll Luthor, was one of the best things in the film.

 

Actually, I think BvS's Supes was the most realistically human and sympathetic incarnation yet.

 

and I'm not really sure what else he could do in that moment.

[filmlover]

A friend said to me the other day that he thought Jesse Eisenberg was to this movie what Uma Thurman was to Batman & Robin.  Honestly I think he's this year's Eddie Redmayne in Jupiter Ascending: a respected, usually modest young actor grabbing a paycheck with an over-the-top villain performance.

[Water Bottle]

1 hour ago, filmlover said:

This. It's possible to update the character while still retaining his essence.

 

Heck, it's even possible to make a "gritty" version of the character. Snyder just completely fumbles the execution (I mean, he flies off after being the sole survivor of an entire building blowing up with him in it; how hard are you trying to make the iconic hero a total dick here, Zack?).

 

Also how is he the sole survivor? Sorry, not important. It's just you'd expect a lot of injured people he could have been helping but that would have made him an even bigger dick if he just flew off.

 

2 hours ago, Goffe said:

What was the last time people loved Superman on something? Superman The Movie? and I'm pretty sure that was because Christopher Reeves was playing him.

 

In a live-action movie? Superman II. In live-action television? Smallville which lasted 10 seasons. Before that Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman also did pretty well (four seasons).  I disagree that the classic Superman can't play well to modern audiences. The first two Donner Superman films after all have aged pretty well. It's just that there hasn't been a universally acclaimed Superman film in a long while.

[filmlover]

55 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

Also how is he the sole survivor? Sorry, not important. It's just you'd expect a lot of injured people he could have been helping but that would have made him an even bigger dick if he just flew off.

 

Well, the entire Capitol building blew up and it's safe to say anyone who didn't have superpowers didn't survive.

 

It would've been nice to see Supe at least do something as an acknowledgement of him not catching what happened around him in time. But given the quality of the rest of the movie, it likely would've fumbled that too.

[Goffe]

1 hour ago, Water Bottle said:

In a live-action movie? Superman II. In live-action television? Smallville which lasted 10 seasons. Before that Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman also did pretty well (four seasons).  I disagree that the classic Superman can't play well to modern audiences.

Was Superman/Clark the highlight, like people really loved him in it, in any of these shows/films? I doubt. Don't remember people singing high praises to Tom Welling's Clark Kent/Supes.

 

Quote

The first two Donner Superman films after all have aged pretty well.

Have they? people rarely bring it up when discussing superhero films, let alone when discussing best superhero films.

[Aristis]

I think the only bad thing about it is the excessive Action (Batman vs Superman fight; All against the Monster). These scenes took too long. But the idea of the movie, to show which results such powers can have and if it's allowed to use them without a democratic legitimisation, is more than good. It's lost sometimes a bit though... Less fight scenes and more story would have been better sometimes. So I hope the Extended cut doesn't show even more action and fight scenes.

The music was just perfect. Hans Zimmer is a genius! Beautiful Lie and the Lex Luthor theme are really powerful and wonderful pieces of music.

Sometimes it was a bit confusing but maybe that's intended (or it's just me )

I really really like Henry's Superman even if (sometimes) he seems a bit too sorrowful, maybe it's his character. I did not really like Batman (he appears very unlikeable to me). He led to one of the worst scenes in the movie when Superman wanted to talk to him and he did not hear until he was said Martha was Supermans mother, too. A bit unlikely. As a character I liked Alfred but as Alfred... Maybe after Michael Caine that was to different to me. Wonderwoman was cool and she wears such cool dresses! Lex Luthor was great to me even if others don't think so.

 

All in all it was a good movie, not a masterpiece though. But good enough to have at least 70% and A- . The rather subtle ending was pretty good. I liked it more than both Avengers (I really don't know why the first one was so well-liked ) Unfortunately it isn't strict with its issue which makes it a bit worse...

Edited April 1, 2016 by Aristis

[StarSaber]

Didn't like it.

The first hour and a half was bad except for a few scenes. The action with doomsday at the end was okay but looking back is pretty forgettable (this sucks because I actually like Man of Steel).

 

Amy Adams was horrible and Wonder Women was pointless and felt like a throwaway. She served no purpose except to beef up the action at the end and build up Justice League. If her role was more ambiguous or she was introduced like Cyborg or Aquaman were I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

Affleck was good as Batman, his scenes were the only ones that I had any interest it.

 

The editing was horrible as well. The movie was way too long and it just felt like it would never end. There were way too many stories trying to be told. It was a jumbled mess that had an overabundance of scenes that abruptly cut to black. The movie was a chore to sit through.

 

D+/C-