BvS - Spoiler discussion

Why bother with any other forum?
Forum rules
We once roamed the vast forums of Corona Coming Attractions. Some of us had been around from The Before Times, in the Days of Excelsior, while others of us had only recently begun our trek. When our home became filled with much evil, including the villainous Cannot-Post-in-This-Browser and the dreaded Cannot-Log-In, we flounced away most huffily to this new home away from home. We follow the flag of Jubboiter and talk about movies, life, the universe, and everything, often in a most vulgar fashion. All are welcome here, so long as they do not take offense to our particular idiom.
User avatar
Dalty
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Posts: 9564
Joined: January 11th, 2014, 5:28 am

BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by Dalty »

Well, not sure what all the fuss was about. It's not the best film ever but it's no complete train wreck.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

I didn't enjoy myself, but I also wasn't exactly bored.
User avatar
Dalty
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Posts: 9564
Joined: January 11th, 2014, 5:28 am

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by Dalty »

I found it more frustrating than anything. It made a good point re: Man Of Steel and continued that representation of how today's world really would react is Superman turned up. It had a good Batman. All the pieces were there.

The rush to set up this DC universe has done something weird. It gave me a 2.5hr movie that didn't actually feel long enough!
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

Like I said on Facebook, the first two hours feel like an extended prologue. You keep waiting for the movie proper to start.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

Here's the thing I wrote, for anybody who didn't already see it on Facebook:
The Swollen Goiter of God wrote: I watched it. I didn't hate it, but I didn't like it. It features lots of characters not really behaving like we've come to expect them to behave. I guess I'm fine with the idea of the DCCU taking creative license with the properties, but I don't think the particular liberties they took were engaging enough to warrant their having been taken.

It also features lots of plodding, heavy-handed scenes over-rich with symbolism. Characters do, as Drew McWeeny put it, often feel like they are doing things because the plot requires them to do it.

Those choppy first two hours help make it not seem as long as it might, but they also make it so that you never really get a foothold. It makes it hard to care for anybody. Almost two hours in, and you still feel like you're waiting for the movie to start.

It didn't necessarily feel all that much like a movie until the last act. The first two hours feel like some sort of disjointed prelude. You know how Batman ('89) opens and cuts back and forth between all these different establishing shots and character introductions? I'd guess Batman does this for ten-twenty minutes. Batman v Superman does it for two hours. Roland Emmerich movies also tend to do this "extended prelude" thing, but I don't think I've ever seen a movie do it for as long as Batman v Superman did it.

Superman's a jerk. Batman's a jerk. It made me not want to pick a side. On second thought, Batman's a jerk, but he's our jerk. I guess he gets something of a pass. I don't hate the idea of another Batman movie with Affleck in the title role.

I eavesdropped on some people after the movie was over. One person said, "That was a good movie. Long, though." Another person said, "It was good and all, but it's not the kind of movie I'd ever want to watch again." Another person from an entirely different group said something pretty similar to that: "I'm glad I saw it, but I don't think I'll buy the Blu-ray or ever watch it again." Another person said, "It was all right. Pretty dull in places." One person just said "Bland!" and didn't say anything else. Despite how the above may read, I take it that the audience generally liked it.

I don't think it's Snyder's worst movie. If you've liked his movies in the past, there's a good chance you will like this one. It feels pretty Snyder-y. I could see some people really liking it. I got the impression from my audience that there probably won't be much repeat business, so it could have a sharp box office drop during its second and third weekends.

Wonder Woman was fine, I guess. She's barely in the movie. She's yet another straw atop the back of the final fight scene--which final fight scene feels weightless and inconsequential. (By the way, at one point during the final fight, a literal kitchen sink is utilized. Is this a smug wink or pained plea for approval? I can't decide.)

The device used to introduce the rest of the future League members is pretty lame. All the dream sequences were pretty lame.

Again, I didn't exactly hate it. It's not the movie I wanted a Batman/Superman movie to be. I guess it's more or less what I expected it to be. I don't think it's a disaster or a travesty. Then again, it could just be that I've come to expect a certain level of artifice, bro, pretension, and directorial tin-eared-ness from Snyder. Since I feel this movie is pretty much par for the Snyder course, maybe it's a worse movie than I realize. Maybe if this were the first Snyder movie I'd ever seen, I'd think as little of it as I think of 300 or Sucker Punch.

Snyder continues to fail up. It wouldn't surprise me if he were to go on to be tapped to direct a Star Wars movie, an MCU movie, an adaptation of Mann ohne Eigenschaften, an adaptation of Gruenwald's Squadron Supreme miniseries, or an adaptation of Jeff Smith's Bone. Basically, if it exists and I care about it, I've just come to assume he'll make a movie of it.
After that, I added this:
The Swollen Goiter of God wrote:I don't know if what I wrote appropriately conveys my shoulder-shrug response to watching it. Maybe I've come to care less in my old age, but I wasn't really incensed by the mishandling of the characters. I can only imagine that few of the people who watched it are that excited for a three-hour-long, R-rated extended DVD.
One thing I forgot to mention was that Wonder Woman's accent was a little distracting. It wasn't distracting because I had difficulty understanding it, mind you. It was distracting because it's not how I expect her to sound. It's not really a criticism of the movie, then. If anything, it's a criticism of my own preconceptions. It's not like she was raised in the US, after all.

I also meant to mention that her introduction to the movie is a bit like Catwoman's/Selina Kyle's introduction to The Dark Knight Rises.

Since this is a spoiler thread, some actual spoilers:

SPOILER: Superman's death felt pretty hollow. The whole movie is obvious setup (I originally had "thinly veiled," but the veil's so thin one questions whether or not it's really there) for future movies, so even if you're unfamiliar with the comics, you're unlikely to buy for a second that he's actually dead. It's also hard to see how anyone would feel invigorated by the reveal at the end that he may not be dead.

I also meant to mention that it's interesting that both this movie and Captain America: Civil War deal with putting superheroes in check following heavy collateral damage. Time will tell which of the two are seen to have done it better.

For better and worse, the DCCU that has been established so far is unlike the MCU, so maybe the people who have tired of the MCU formula will find something here they like. More from Facebook:
The Swollen Goiter of God wrote: I do think it's a bit of a reactionary thing. I get that they want to establish their own identity, and I get that they can't do it in a vacuum, but they need to figure out how to do it in a way that (1) doesn't make them come across as some bizarre hybrid of defensive and arrogant, (2) doesn't make them look like they're counterprogramming against Marvel for spite's sake, and (3) doesn't make them look like they're rushing things in pursuit of a quick buck.
At this point, a lot of people (maybe even some of them at Warner Bros.) are looking toward Suicide Squad and the Wonder Woman movie to "save" the franchise. It's hard to believe that these two movies, in particular, would be put in that position. I am a hardcore, lifelong fan of Superman, Batman, and the Justice League. It feels weird to be shrugging at their first cinematic pairing. I remember the excitement of waiting for The Avengers, and I remember feeling transported when I watched it in the theater. I'm a hardcore, lifelong fan of the Avengers, too, but the core of my fandom for the Avengers has always been a measure or two softer than diamond-hard core of my fandom for Superman, Batman, and the Justice League. I would have thought, as a child, that all I'd need to love a Justice League movie was to see the characters on the screen together. I guess that's not the case.

I guess I'm disappointed in Warner Bros. for not putting in the same kind of time and effort to win me over to the DCCU that Marvel/Disney put in with the MCU. I've watched three live-action, superhero-related things this week. One was a Daredevil Season 2 episode. One was a Flash episode. I enjoyed both a good bit, and both of them were made on the (relative) cheap. I enjoyed both more than I enjoyed the tentpole picture featuring Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman.

Once again, I feel compelled to say that Batman v Superman didn't really bother me or anything. I ain't mad at it. It's there, and I've seen it. One may presume that it imparted necessary information for future installments in the franchise, so I don't think of it as a total waste.
User avatar
Dalty
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Posts: 9564
Joined: January 11th, 2014, 5:28 am

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by Dalty »

Aquaman made me fear that any movie about that subject matter will end up looking like it really is, i.e. an actor struggling to act whilst holding their breath in a studio tank.
User avatar
Dalty
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Posts: 9564
Joined: January 11th, 2014, 5:28 am

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by Dalty »

Thing is I really get what they were trying to do, I really do. I can't shake that feeling that somebody else might have nailed it more.

However also by rushing to this we don't get to know Clark Kent well enough, don't get convinced of his relationship with Lois Lane.

I really like the idea of how the world reacts to Supes in MoS and in this. I actually feel that Pa Kent in MoS was a totally reasonable reaction to the circumstances. I think those ideas maybe needed more time to breathe in another movie. But then if Supes was developed/finished article Supes then I guess we wouldn't have Batman's motivation to take him on.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

Here's more of my Facebook talk-speak on Batman v Superman:
What made it much worse than Man of Steel? I agree that it's bad, but I found Man of Steel to be similarly bad. Both had the drab color palettes, both alternated between scenes shot through either a blue or orange filter, both had characters behaving quite unlike their characters behave in the source material, both were overlong, both had lengthy-yet-weightless ending fight scenes, both had their fair share of teenager-level philosophical ruminating, both had jerkish heroes, both had cartoonish villains, both were filled with moments of slow-mo and scenery pr0n, both had people making dumb and unbelievable decisions, both are mopish and joyless from top to bottom, and both had moments so clearly intended to generate controversy that it almost felt insulting.

The only things I can see that really sets the two movies apart are that Batman v Superman has the forced setup for an expanded universe and a really choppy structure that makes it so that the first two hours feel like some bizarre, extended prelude. Man of Steel also had a bit of this choppiness, and it also had what felt like a lengthy prelude, but most of that is because of the Krypton setting and all the flashbacks. This one had fewer flashbacks, but it had more dream sequences. (The Man of Steel has only one that I can remember.) Whatever the case, both felt to me like they took a long time to get going.

What was the line drawn for fans of Man of Steel? What makes Batman v Superman appreciably worse for people? Like I say above, I see a lot of more-of-the-same coming from Batman v Superman. Is that a big part of the problem? Were people giving Man of Steel a pass because they felt like it had its work cut out for it in establishing a world, and were they expecting Batman v Superman to improve on the areas where they found Man of Steel lacking (even if only unconsciously)?

These aren't rhetorical questions. I'm genuinely hoping for a better understanding. I'm also not doubting anyone's dislike of Batman v Superman. Again, I think it's pretty bad. I also think it's pretty representative of Snyder's work on the whole.

I wonder if it has to do with people feeling protective toward the Batman property, specifically. I doubt as many people are upset when a Superman movie is bad as they are when a Batman movie is bad. Despite Batman's being a brilliant playboy billionaire in peak physical condition, people still think of him as an everyman hero. He's *their* hero. Superman can never quite be that. In fact, it's the existence of Superman and other metahumans like him in the DC universe that helps reinforce this idea of Batman as the everyman hero. (Maybe "everyman" is wrong. Maybe it's more that Batman represents us at our best. He embodies human potential.)

Could this be the case despite the general consensus being that Affleck's Batman is one of the best things about Batman v Superman? Could that make it even worse for people? Does it pain people to have what they believe to be a good Batman in a bad movie?

I've also wondered if the intense dislike of The Last Airbender had to do with people's protectiveness. Maybe it's the property. Maybe people didn't mind Shyamalan making shitty movies as long as they were his intellectual property.

I suspect people may now watch Man of Steel through a different lens. It wouldn't surprise me if people were to reevaluate it after Batman v Superman and come away from it thinking less of it. If they do this, though, will it be because they're recognizing it to be a bad movie, or will it be because Batman v Superman has poisoned the well?
User avatar
Dalty
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Posts: 9564
Joined: January 11th, 2014, 5:28 am

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by Dalty »

As I said in the same discussions - there is something strange going on. It's like people have lost their fool minds over this movie. It's not great but it ain't no crime against cinema. People are whipping themselves up into a frenzy and the flaming torches are lit and pitchforks being handed out. The mob march on the WB castle seems imminent. However I keep casually throwing out context - which is important in this..... erm..... context! It's no worse, and comfortably better, than many other bloated and expensive tent pole blockbusters that have been served up in recent years.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

I'm on your side. I probably disliked it more than you disliked it, but I can't understand why people are only now talking of storming the Snyder castle. I feel the dude's been consistently bad, and this movie is bad in ways a viewer of Snyder's movies should expect it to be.

And, yes, there are way worse movies out there.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

Here's what I said in response to Morpheus's suggestion that Man of Steel, unlike Batman v Superman, had a coherent story:
I think BvS has a coherent story. It's just told characteristically poorly by a person I believe to be a poor storyteller. I can give you its sequence of events, and I can tell you what the characters' motivations are--at least insofar as the movie tells us (with its incredibly heavy hand) what they are. I don't think the characters necessarily always react in a human or believable way, but we are spoon-fed their supposed reasons for reacting the way they react.

If Snyder and Goyer (and maybe Terrio, for all I know) were better storytellers, they might have made it clear that Batman was so fucked in the head by his parents' murder that the Martha thing really was an adequate trigger to stay his executioner's hand. They might have also been able to make it clear that, whether or not Batman likes Superman, he realizes Doomsday is the bigger threat and that he needs Superman to help take him down.

They might have also been able to play with the idea that he was considering facilitating the two of them taking one another out. That wouldn't be at odds with Batman-as-tactician, though some might feel it would be at odds with Batman's moral code as it is often represented in other media. Would it be at odds with Batman's moral code as it is represented in the DCCU Snyderverse? I suppose that's a different question.

They might have also made it clear that Batman realized by the time Wonder Woman showed up that (1) there was someone strong enough, maybe, to keep Superman in check if the need arose, (2) this same person has lived for a very long time without destroying Earth, (3) Earth is crawling with all sorts of superhuman activity that could be worse for Earth than anything Superman could do to it, and (4) Superman is clearly capable of being manipulated to suit another person's agenda (and maybe Batman can take advantage of this if he needs to address potential threats posed by the third point).
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

Here's more, this time in response to Stephen Ladd's post saying that Superman killing Zod didn't bother him and that he saw it as a prime opportunity for Snyder to establish why Superman doesn't kill in future movies, but that, instead, Batman v Superman follows up with wanton killing:
I've said this in the past, but the idea of Superman killing--even in a gruesome manner--doesn't bother me as much as it bothers a lot of people. What bothers me more is the specific setup. The filmmakers didn't do enough to convince me that he had no other choice. There were any number of outs available. They intentionally painted themselves in a corner for what they thought would be a water-cooler moment. It was too clear that it was a calculated move to shock, and it came off cheap.

Even though I felt the moment was forced, I believe you're right to say that it could have been used to good effect in the Batman v Superman. In some sense, they do deal with the fallout of the moment. Unfortunately, they deal with it outside of Superman. The world talks about the danger he may pose, but Superman, himself, isn't shown to have been too damaged by what he'd done. There's a generic moment or two of reflection brought on by the world's charge that he doesn't get to decide the world's fate for it, but I don't remember seeing him wrestling with what he had done.

They did have a chance to show Superman as a still-not-quite human alien who is continuing to struggle to comprehend the idea of mortality (even though this is something they probably should have already done by the end of Man of Steel)--and Snyder has even said he specifically wanted to do this and felt he had done it--but the movie sort of blows it. I'd say the movie makes it so that Superman may finally be able to do this next time around, but I continue to have little faith in Snyder and Goyer. If Snyder's at the helm yet again, and if Goyer's still involved in shaping the story, who knows what intermingling of promise, mediocrity, and missed chances we'll get?
User avatar
Dalty
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Posts: 9564
Joined: January 11th, 2014, 5:28 am

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by Dalty »

I saw the Martha thing slightly differently - alongside being slightly annoyed with myself for never realising Clark and Bruce had a mother with the same name.

At the start Bats is fixated on Supes not being a human. However as his obsession takes over him to a point of near mania it is actually Bats that is lowly losing his humanity.

It's the realisation at that point that Supes not only has a Mother he cares for but a woman who loves him, and his potentially final act is to make sure his mother is safe - key facets of "humanness" if you will - that stays his hand. My take, anyway.

Of course, if Snyder was less "Woah, bro this is so, like, you know, awesome!" then he might have constructed a nice little juxtaposition of Supes learning about his place in humanity as Bats is slowly losing his humanity.

I think that was in there, as were a lot of other really interesting things, they just got lost amongst the noise, diluted by the lack of focus and, as you say, in the hands of a coherent storyteller with a smidgen more respect for some source material it could have been something truly special.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

That was all definitely supposed to be wound up in it.

Did I mention that I thought it had a strong start with the Wayne/September 11 stuff? If I didn't, I meant to.
User avatar
Dalty
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Posts: 9564
Joined: January 11th, 2014, 5:28 am

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by Dalty »

This is why the film is more mildly annoying than balls out shite.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

Here's something I wrote in response to a claim made in this review:
The reviewer claims Wonder Woman "is never referred to by name (*any* name)." This isn't the case. She's called "Miss Prince" as she exits the plane. If I remember correctly, she smirks as she walks away.

I may be adding the smirk. If she, herself, doesn't smirk, I feel like the movie may somehow smirk for her. I remember it feeling silly. It was almost as if the movie were unaware that the marketing would go on to feature Wonder Woman heavily--as if the revelation that she is Diana Prince were some kind of bombshell.

You know, that may well have been the case. If you hadn't seen the trailers, and if Wonder Woman hadn't been marketed out the wazoo, and if you knew more about Batman than you did about DC in general, you might well think the woman at the party was meant to be Selina Kyle.
I think that's the last thing I wrote about Batman v Superman. At this point, I'm really scraping the bottom of barrel. I doubt I have much more to say.

I feel like I've said a lot, but I doubt I'd be able to squeeze a decent review out of all of what I've said.
User avatar
Dalty
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Posts: 9564
Joined: January 11th, 2014, 5:28 am

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by Dalty »

Dammit Goiter - you will have to watch it again!!!
User avatar
Mango
Washer of the Tights - 250 Posts
Washer of the Tights - 250 Posts
Posts: 302
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:05 pm

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by Mango »

Went and saw this today. I felt it was depressing, bordering on horrible.
When the credits began to roll I sat and let the movie percolate in my brain and then I said "I wish I was dead."
I feel such sentiment is over dramatic, and possibly spurned on by other sources in my life. I was surprised to hear myself say it as well.

SPOILERS! All Spoilers below!

But yeah, I felt it was a pretty bad movie. Parts of it felt like there could have been a good follow-up to "Man of Steel" in there, but the Batman and kryptonite plots felt overly obtrusive. I hated how Luthor was portrayed, and by the end how he really seems to be filling the Joker role for Batman.
The subplot with the special bullets was...I don't even know. Really dumb? Defies all logic? Pointless?
People complained that Superman killed/let people die in MoS. First thing he does here is murderslam a terrorist through a wall.
Batman gets mad at Superman for killing/letting people die, he then proceeds to kill several people.
And if the kryptonite gives Superman enough time to fly along and impale a dude, how about he just tosses the damn thing? I'm sure Batman designed it to be perfectly balanced and aerodynamic.

What really bugged me was the future-dream sequence. It seemed to come out of nowhere, and then it went on long enough to have its own story beats. Finally it ends with a time traveler (whom I didn't recognize, my DC knowledge failed me there) screaming at Bruce that Lois is the key. Then Bruce wakes up and I'm supposed to believe that's just a dream? It was clearly a commercial for future plot-lines. But it held no bearing on the movie at all, Lois wasn't ever in any real danger, and the danger she was in Bruce had no chance to save her, or even knowledge of it.
So in the middle of a choppy movie I get a short film about Batman shooting people, dying, then being warned by a time traveler. And then, we move on.

I don't know...part of me wants to swear off all DC films. But I know other people are handling them, and Wonder Woman showed a bit of promise.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

Mango wrote:Finally it ends with a time traveler (whom I didn't recognize, my DC knowledge failed me there) screaming at Bruce that Lois is the key.
You're not gonna believe this, but that was supposed to be the Flash. He was wearing some kind of dumb, Injustice-like armor, but it was Ezra Miller's Flash.

He was barely recognizable, and he looked dumb. Sorry if this makes you dislike the movie and the Snyderverse even more.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

I've been expecting someone to do this:

User avatar
Mango
Washer of the Tights - 250 Posts
Washer of the Tights - 250 Posts
Posts: 302
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:05 pm

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by Mango »

RE: the Flash

That makes sense at least. I should have thought of that but as you said, dumb armor. Plus I don't yet recognize that actor or connect him to Flash.
I had something of a minor war in my head during that bit. Part of me thought "That should be Booster Gold" but another part screamed "Thank God it isn't"
User avatar
Dalty
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Posts: 9564
Joined: January 11th, 2014, 5:28 am

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by Dalty »

What's a Booster Gold??

As I said on FB, it's still better than all 4 Transformers movies combined, Matrix II & III and any of the Star Wars prequels.
User avatar
Master Skywalker
Money Bag Polisher - 100 Posts
Money Bag Polisher - 100 Posts
Posts: 181
Joined: April 20th, 2015, 1:47 pm
Location: A Galaxy far, far away

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by Master Skywalker »

Thursty and I have been discussing BvS since I saw it a couple days ago, and most of his impressions echo my own. Now that I've had some time to read through all of Thursty's comments here and collect my thoughts, I feel I'm ready to share them.

This is a difficult film for me to quantify, largely because it features two characters I've been personally invested in most of my life. Add Wonder Woman (a character I came to know and appreciate a bit later) to that equation, and it makes things even more complicated. I mentioned on Facebook that there were parts of this film I liked, parts I disliked, and parts I hated. Sometimes, the parts I liked and disliked were one and the same.

As others have already mentioned, Batman literally tosses a kitchen sink onto Superman during their titular battle. In a film full of ponderous symbolism, this was almost like Deadpool breaking the fourth wall to loudly declare: "See, fans?! We really have thrown EVERYTHING into this movie!" The Dark Knight Returns' influence was already clear from the trailers, as was the intent to sow the seeds of the Justice League. But who knew we'd also get the Death of Superman AND the New Gods? On its face, you'd think getting so much content in one film would greatly please a lifelong comics fan like me. Unfortunately, most of it is executed poorly or barely fleshed-out.

Ben Affleck was good as Batman. He even showed hints of the millionaire playboy persona Bruce adopts to mislead people during the event at Luthor's mansion. Batman *the character,* however, was not good. This is an example of what I was referring to earlier when I said there were parts I simultaneously liked and disliked. While this older, more jaded Batman is obviously informed by Miller's TDKR's Batman, I didn't care for the fact he basically murdered a number of people. I saw the film with TKEMotown (some of you might remember him from the old SW forum) and he reminded me afterward that a lot of the killings occurred during Bruce's apocalyptic dream sequence. But I'm pretty sure more than a few enemies got blowed up pretty good when he blasted them with the Batwing and Batmobile.

Speaking of that dream sequence, I couldn't help but geek out and point like a giddy fanboy when I saw the giant Omega symbol carved into the ground. But again, this revelation brought up conflicted feelings. For the past several months, I had expected Darkseid to be the ultimate endgame of the DCCU, and I was happy to get confirmation. At the same time, however, I was irritated that they'd "shown their hand" so early on that. It couldn't be helped, though, I suppose, since they feel their timeframe needs to be accelerated to catch up with Marvel. And regular moviegoers who aren't familiar with the New Gods wouldn't have gotten the reference, so WB/DC probably felt it was worth the risk.

There were far too many dream visions in this film, though I confess I liked the opening with young Bruce Wayne in spite of the fact this was the FORTY BILLIONTH TIME we'd seen some variation of his origin story. Except this time I had to watch Lauren Cohan get gunned down. WTF Snyder?! It's one thing to show Martha Wayne getting murdered yet again. It's another thing entirely for a Martha Wayne played by the lovely Lauren Cohan to be the one getting her pearls blasted off her neck by Joe Chill! NOT COOL!

(Heh. Joe Chill. Not cool. Pun not intended, yet very much welcome. :D )

Superman's characterization continued to be a mess in this film, perhaps even more than MoS. Without a doubt, Cavill is the most *physically* perfect incarnation of Superman we've ever had in a live-action film. It's as if someone took the impressively-broad chest, thick arms and slim waist of a Jim Lee drawing of Supes and grafted it onto a living, breathing specimen. However, the true strength of Superman as a character comes from his emotional, mental, and moral attributes. And this is where the Snyder/Cavill version of Kal-El is sometimes lacking. He's an indecisive, often-morose individual who pays lip service to the grand ideals of "justice" and "accountability" while never quite holding himself to the same standards. Which I understand is part of the theme of this film, but Snyder never paints enough of a distinction between Superman and Batman to make whatever point he's trying to make. Assuming he even had a point to make. Superman is supposed to have an innocence to him, a clarity of self -- even when he feels doubt or is faced with a situation that doesn't have an easy solution. The DCCU Superman still doesn't know who he is or what the point of his existence is, as evidenced by Martha Kent telling him to be whatever humanity wants him to be, or be nothing at all. It's really only at the end that he asserts his raison d'être: to protect the people of Earth, because he's one of them. To inspire the people of Earth, because he's supposed to embody the best of them.

It's perhaps a little unfair to criticize Clark too harshly when it comes to his emotional and mental makeup, however. After all, he was raised by one of the WORST parents in cinematic history. I'm talking, of course, about Pa Kent. You know, the bastard who told his superpowered kid that it would've been better to let a busload of children die than risk revealing his abilities. The same idiot who later ordered his now-teenaged son to let him die in a tornado rather than be seen by bystanders. Despite the fact Clark has super-speed and no one would've been the wiser. Yep, THAT nutjob. The second I saw Kevin Costner appear on that mountaintop, I internally hissed in exasperated rage and thought to myself: "Not THIS fucker again! DON'T LISTEN TO A WORD HE SAYS, CLARK!"

Since I'm on the topic of the worst things in this duology of films, I want to emphatically declare that I HATED Lex Luthor. Sweet merciful Minerva, was he AWFUL. I don't know if Snyder, the writers, Jessie Eisenberg, or some combination of those three decided Lex was supposed to be Joker-lite, but whoever it was, YOU'RE CLUELESS MORONS!! I don't know what this unstable, incoherent fool was, but he certainly wasn't Lex Luthor. His motivations for doing what he does in the film never rise above Generic Villain 101, and his plan to pit Bats against Supes seemed to be more for his own entertainment than any rational goal. I wish he'd been on that mountaintop with Pa Kent so I could've pushed them both off to their deaths (second one for Pa Kent, but he deserves it).

So what else did I like besides Affleck's performance? Wonder Woman. I thought Gal Gadot was absolutely wonderful, though her screentime was limited. She has the look, the presence, and the poise. I really like the fact she has a bit of an accent, though it initially seemed off until -- as Thursty pointed out -- I reminded myself the character wasn't raised in the U.S. and had no reason to sound like Lynda Carter. I LOVED that she was the one to block Doomsday's heat vision with her bracelets, and also loved seeing her use the Lasso of Truth to subdue him so Superman could deliver the killing blow. She made me look forward to her solo movie even more than before.

I also loved the shot of the Trinity on-screen together for the first time, in spite of the drab coloring and dull environment in that scene. I hope I can actually see some COLOR in their outfits in the future (Batman excluded, for obvious reasons).

While it was cool to see the other metahumans' logos in Lex's file, I didn't care for how they were introduced. And Ezra Miller, you're a THIEF, stealing my boy Grant Gustin's lightning. You are NOT The Flash. And he sure as hell didn't look like it when he appeared in front of Bruce. Did anyone catch what exactly he said to him, by the way? Something about Bruce always being right about "him," and to "find us?" It was a little hard to decipher. Probably because I was too confused by that stupid armor.

As I feared, Doomsday was killed off in quick fashion, another example of a superhero film popping the cork only to smash the bottle on a big league supervillain in the same film. Doomsday's one of the only enemies in the entire DCU (non-cosmic, anyway) who can physically match up to Superman, and he was wasted so Snyder could cram in another major storyline from the comics. Oh, and if anyone figures out how the hell Lex's blood somehow caused Zod's dead body to be remade into Doomsday by the Kryptonian genesis chamber, please let me know. They could've explained that scene better.

There's definitely more I can say on this film (as annoying as that is to me), but I'll leave it at this and welcome any feedback.
On December 20, 2019, the Greatest Saga Ever... concludes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
May the Force be with you
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

I enjoyed the review, Master U.

We've spent so much time talking about this movie--both before and after having seen it--that I almost feel like the review's coauthor. (Only kidding. It's all you, baby!)

It occurs to me that maybe we don't have to count Supes killing Doomsday as a murder, since Doomsday is some kind of weird Zod-Lex meat suit built on a Zod frame. Supes already killed him once. Does a second killing really count if the thing killed is effectively a zombie?

Learning of Snyder's potential Objectivist leanings (he apparently wants to adapt The Fountainhead) has made some of his choices as a filmmaker make more sense to me. His sympathetic portrayal of Rorschach, for example, makes more sense.

I think Rorschach is one of the better things about Snyder's Watchmen adaptation. (I'm not a big fan of the movie as a whole, as you already know.) I'm sure a lot of that is thanks to Haley, but some of it is also likely due to Snyder's feeling close to the character. He and Haley play Rorschach straight. Another director might not have.

Felt Pelt and I talked about this a bit today. Felt Pelt feels "Snyder is so incoherent it's hard to see a philosophy being expressed." I think this is something potentially inherent to Objectivist modes of thinking. Their thinking is so black-and-white that it has no choice but to contradict itself when they try to express it. I'm sure it doesn't seem incoherent to them. To people whose life approach is more grayscale than black-and-white, on the other hand, it's a different story.

It's my feeling that Alan Moore presents Rorschach, in many ways, without judgment. I say "in many ways," because he's a pastiche of Steve Ditko's Question character. (Ditko, like Snyder, has Objectivist leanings.) Rorschach's also a bit of an extreme version of the Question--just like Ditko's own Mr. A is an extreme version of the Question. Oddly enough, this makes Rorschach and Mr. A essentially the same character. The difference, if there is one, is in intent. Ditko likely thinks of Mr. A as a hero (well, as much as an Objectivist can think in terms of heroism), while Moore likely thinks of him as someone out of place in the Watchmen world. If there's a judgment on Moore's part, this is it. Still, Moore plays him straight, and Snyder and Haley honor this with their portrayal.

Snyder probably also feels Rorschach is out of place in the Watchmen world, but I sense that he feels it's a bummer that this is the case. I think he appreciated that Rorschach would rather die than live in a world built on a foundation he could neither understand nor play a productive role in. In other words, I think Alan Moore is saying, "There's no room for Rorschach in a world like this," and I think Zack Snyder is saying, "It sure is a shame there's no room for Rorschach in a world like this."

Now that I'm more certain than I used to be that Objectivism informs Snyder's filmmaking, the positive reviews given Batman v Supermanby sites like National Review also make more sense. (Do they know of his leanings? Maybe. Maybe not. It could just be that it feels right to them regardless. Of course, it may not even be the case that Objectivism informs the narrative. I may be reading into it things that aren't there simply because I feel I just confirmed a thing or two about Snyder's worldview.) When National Review's Armond White (yes, *that* Armond White) says, "Zack Snyder dares to infuse the comic-book genre with moral and political substance," he probably believes what he's saying. I'd say Snyder did the exact opposite, but that's because White and I are mostly (I'm guessing) at philosophical odds.

It also makes me rethink my decade-long stance that White consciously swims against the tides of both popular opinion and review consensus. I'm less sure that he's clickbaiting, now, and more sure that his brain chemistry differs so radically from mine that the wacky stuff he says and the disjointed way he often says it is entirely in earnest. (I'm not sure to what degree White and I are at odds. I don't fully know his politics or philosophy. I only know that he's been writing reviews for National Review for some time and that not all of its writers are generically conservative. Many of them straddle the libertarian/Objectivist line.)

Snyder's version of Batman also makes more sense within the context of Snyder-as-Objectivist. He has a black-and-white (or, har har, black-and-gray)/all-or-nothing/Rorschach-like approach, and he only modifies it after he receives different intel (the Martha thing, which is apparently all he needs to convince himself Superman has human interests). I suppose it works for Batman v Superman, on some level, but it doesn't quite agree with most representations of Batman outside of Batman v Superman.

I do think it's possible Snyder is weirded out by the concept of Superman--in much the same way Rorschach is weirded out by the existence of Dr. Manhattan. It's one thing to be a human effecting micro-changes while utilizing Objectivist tactics. It's another thing for an alien entity with seemingly limitless power doing it. For one, the entity is not human and should not--as an Objectivist--have human interests. (This is why it's incredibly important, perhaps, for Batman [and, by extension, Snyder] to prove, for his own peace of mind, that Superman has human interests/is brainfucked enough by his human raising to "slum.") For another, the changes made would likely be macro-changes, and done incredibly quickly (as quickly as the power possessed would allow) to boot. It forces Objectivists to witness what a less impotent version of their system has the potential to do/be. It's probably pretty uncomfortable for them to conceive of Objectivism actually working, because it would likely lead to the totalitarian-brought-about cessation of the conflict they so crave. If Snyder is as weirded out by Superman as I think he is, that may explain why so many feel his Superman is unrelatable.

[I tried to use a fair amount of conditional language while I was crafting the above. It's too simplistic to say that people who are Objectivists are more prone to like Batman v Superman than people who are not. I hope it doesn't seem as though that was my intent. People can--and do--like it and dislike it for any number of reasons.]
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: BvS - Spoiler discussion

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

(At one point, I deleted the above. Then I edited the hell out of it. Now I'm reposting it.)
Post Reply