BvS - Spoiler discussion
Posted: March 26th, 2016, 2:52 pm
Well, not sure what all the fuss was about. It's not the best film ever but it's no complete train wreck.
After that, I added this: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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?
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).
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?
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.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.
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.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.