Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (March 24th, 2016)

[RIDDICK]

Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

If BVS/Justice League delivers, it will shut people up the way Avengers did. But doing one solo character film and throwing a dozen others into his sequel is definitely not earning it on the level Marvel did.

Yep.

Another BDRip I'll w8 4

 

[pturtle]

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Yea that website that had fanboys threatening to murder critics that gave it a bad review is probably a fair bet. They also rank Selma as the number 7 all-time movie ever made but hey.

Imdb also had it at an 8.5 ranked higher than every Marvel film to date with almost a million votes, Metacritic has it at 78, only 4 points lower than TDK, comics nerds may hate it because Bane isn't super jacked and Batman retires but the casual crowd, critics, and a fair number of comic readers loved it.

 

[pturtle]

Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

The Clown Prince and Gasper brought the heat!!!

You guys could have been Difabio-ing The Avengers this whole time and probably every other Marvel film, but I guess you guys don't like to spend your time bashing films all day.

 

[EVILFACE]

Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Oh snap. You just typed that The Dark Knight Rises is better than all Marvel flicks.

 

[pturtle]

Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Oh snap. You just typed that The Dark Knight Rises is better than all Marvel flicks.

Yea I should have just stayed in my shell and not mention TDKR, but that might soak up all the hate BvS is getting right now

 

[Rorywan]

Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

It may not be a crossover, but it had multiple characters, and they were handled properly.

So people used to crap on Marvel? I can't believe that

I don't know about Fantastic Four yet, and yes ASM2 was crap, but the amount of characters wasn't one of it's faults, also that's far from the point, the point is that DC puts together several characters in one movie, there will be people who moan, and pretty much everything DC (and Fox for that matter) does, people will moan, but as soon as Marvel does the exact same thing, and I mean literally the exact same thing, being ****** costumes, ****** movies, bastardization of the characters, or whatever, then it's suddenly okay it's so shameless it's hilarious, so yeah, it's kind of kawaii.

Edit: I misread, what was wrong with the FF and ASM2 threads?

No. That's not a balanced view at all. Firstly you cannot compare Marvel characters to DC characters. There is a huge difference between the two tonally.


I'm neither a DC or a Marvel fanboy, I like both (at times).
DC characters for the most part were originated as non connecting stand alone Super Heroes. They do not "fit" well together in the same world. Batman is dark and realistic (especially since Warner generated the Nolan films), he didn't even have superpowers, that was the core of the character. There were no flying aliens in Batmans' world. Can you seriously imagine Ledger's joker and Wonder Woman in the same scene? Nope, major change of direction required to make some more cash.

Superman was idealistic and science fiction based. Lighter and positive, heroic. Didn't use weapons, had god like powers. The OPPOSITE in many ways to Batman's reality. What about Man of Steel? Why would the military have been freaking out at the prospect of this alien being, if there are mermaids and unicorns in the world?

Then you have all the other crazy characters. Wonder Woman? Invisible plane, truth lasso? Aqua? an underwater Mer-man?

These characters were never intended to exist together in the same world. When they were eventually brought together, they had to all change tonally to make any sense, or else be juxtaposed in a post modern way that was interesting. But here's the rub, Warner have been trying to make their Super heroes "realistic" for many years now. Nolan's TDK trilogy and then his much heralded re-invention of Superman for Synder's MOS. But...

Then The Avengers happened. Lots of crazy characters existing together in a crazy world where ANYTHING could happen. Iron Men, Norse gods, giant green Hulk's, it all made sense, why? because it walked a fine line of comedy and reality. It created it's own reality and it was genius, highly entertaining, colourful and funny. A complete reinvention of the genre. It took Marvel several steps to get there, they put the groundwork in and got the audience used to this heightened reality.

Warner have done just the opposite. Suddenly they needed their own Avengers, but without having to do the ground work. They should have just rebooted everything. Because as stupid as it was at times, even Man Of Steel's reality wouldn't have made sense with mer-man and the amazonian princess.

So, in many ways Snyder is perfect for this. The only way it will work is if it's like Watchmen. An action orientated blast of craziness that completely ignores whats gone before, otherwise it will be a disparate group of characters in a world that makes no sense.

 

[Deckard]

Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

spot on.



He means Marvel Studio brown nosers. Fantastic Four is getting a lot of guff for changing one of the characters skin colour. Marvel did the exact same several times and the heat only lasted a few weeks, if at all, before people forgave it. Marvel have changed almost all of their villains for the screen and people are fine with it but Fox does the same with Doom and it's not okay. You can say it's because Marvel earned their trust, but they were changing things from day one and with their recent successful comic book movies Fox should be given the same benefit of the doubt

X-Men Days of Future Past thread was the same until the movie came out and cleaned up, people bitching about changes to the source while accepting Marvels changes from the source at the same time.

It's blatent bias hypocrisy

People have been plenty critical of Marvel Studios. They simply have more success to fall back on atm as I already said. Thor 2 is considered pretty bad around here, and Iron Man 3 is split at very best. People are saying Ant-Man will be the first major flop. Guardians and Cap are pretty beloved. That looks like 2-2-1 to me, but it beats 0-0-1 from the team trying to copy your work.

And Days of Future Past was garbage though. Don't think because we aren't constantly still hating it, we didn't. It simply is in the past now and new movies have people's focus. But the whole plot is pure nonsense and makes no sense exactly like I said it wouldn't.

Somehow, changing the past doesn't affect the future until a specific point when it's convenient? ANd the past changed magically into things that didn't happen without someone affecting the timeline and causing it? Absolute nonsense.

Kitty's abilities are never so much as quickly gone over with an explanation whatsoever. They literally just assume you're retarded enough to not even care if you're still watching this awful timeline at this point.

Two fight scenes in the whole movie and one is just replayed from the beggining during the end to make it seem like more is going on then actually is. (Quicksilver was sort of neat I guess if you never saw The Matrix, but it's not a fight) And the costumes and designs are are still crap. Down to the awful looking Nixon and stolen Thor robots. Nothing about the movie changed that. It's a 5/10 average summer blockbuster.

 

[EVILFACE]

Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

The use of the portals in the fights was pretty kewl. So was quicksilver. The rest was average.

 

[Deckard]

Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

 

[Khev]

Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

The Clown Prince and Gasper brought the heat!!!

Did they? I honestly let them have the final word because I didn't want to be "mean" and continue to dismantle their erroneous claims.

They really have no counter for the contrast between Thor's self-sacrifice vs. Kal-El's smugness. And "Thor and the Asgardians" most certainly are NOT responsible for bringing the Tesseract to Earth. That claim is outright absurd. One Asgardian might have been responsible. Maybe even Odin himself. But lumping in Thor because he's of the same civilization would be like me saying "Kal-El and the Kryptonians" killed millions of people. Huh? I guess "Captain America and the Nazis" were attacking Europe. You know, they were all humans right? Ridiculous.

But let's go ahead and clear a couple things up.

Maybe Odin did put the Tesseract on Earth. Okay. Odin created some complications by doing that. But the MCU isn't based around "Odin of Hope" or "Steel" or really anything Odin-centric at all. Odin wanted to teach Thor a lesson and so he sent him to Earth with no powers which led to conflict on Earth and bla bla bla. But Thor didn't pick Earth. Odin could have sent Thor anywhere for his little "lesson." So as far as Thor and Kal-El arriving on Earth, that's a location that neither of them chose.

So what do they do when they get to Earth? They are both in positions of great inexperience. Kal-El being an inexperienced superhero and Thor inexperienced at being a mortal. Bad guys come in search of the heroes and Kal-El fights them angrily and Thor takes it down a notch. Whoa. Suddenly the "similarities" between the two heroes is starting to erode. Suddenly Thor says, "If you're here because of me take me. Take my life. I hope you don't, but here I am." In the midst of the mayhem he talks, negotiates, and sacrifices.

Even during his Rainbow Bridge battle with Loki he sacrifices. Sacrifices the means to see the woman he loves by destroying it. When you watch Thor fight at the end of the film you're watching him fight only because he has no other options. You know he's not doing things out of anger or frustration and you know he's not fighting as a first resort and you also know that if his death will ever stop one single human from dying then he'll gladly offer it. Can you imagine Thor destroying a man's 18 wheeler out of revenge for getting wet? Good gosh no.

And you'd think the brazen petulant Norse god would be the unpredictable one. But no, he truly is good and self-sacrificing and yes, deep down even humble and the movies make sure you get that.

Was it truly Kal-El's "fault" that the Kryptonians came to Earth? No. Of course not. But you'd think a truly heroic individual would do at least SOME soul searching about the part he played in their arrival, would understand what was at risk and how gently he should assist these poor mortals that his presence has unfortunately put in a great deal of danger. A cute half-smile when saying "it means hope?" Um, how about humbly acknowledging the irony of what your stupid symbol means. Cockiness, smugness, and kinda hawt coyness was SO inappropriate given the Earth's predicament.

None of that crap existed in The Avengers. The palette of the Tesseract existing on Earth had long been cleansed. The humans possessed it on their terms. They could have chucked it into space or whatever but they liked it and wanted to harness it's energy to build weapons of their own. And then greater forces than any the heroes had any part of (Thanos) were what allowed Loki to find a way to channel the Tesseract and come to Earth. There is NO hypocrisy in being put off by Kal-El's attitude and his lack of effort to save more innocent lives.

Yes, The Avengers had a number of stupid elements. Cap's cowl was dreadful, the Chitauri all keeling over was idiotic, and so on. So even fans of the MCU "call 'em like we see 'em" without following a blind bias. And believe me, it is fun to howl at a train wreck but you know we're all pulling for BvS to be awesome.

 

[pturtle]

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

People have been plenty critical of Marvel Studios. They simply have more success to fall back on atm as I already said. Thor 2 is considered pretty bad around here, and Iron Man 3 is split at very best. People are saying Ant-Man will be the first major flop. Guardians and Cap are pretty beloved. That looks like 2-2-1 to me, but it beats 0-0-1 from the team trying to copy your work.

And Days of Future Past was garbage though. Don't think because we aren't constantly still hating it, we didn't. It simply is in the past now and new movies have people's focus. But the whole plot is pure nonsense and makes no sense exactly like I said it wouldn't.

Somehow, changing the past doesn't affect the future until a specific point when it's convenient? ANd the past changed magically into things that didn't happen without someone affecting the timeline and causing it? Absolute nonsense.

Kitty's abilities are never so much as quickly gone over with an explanation whatsoever. They literally just assume you're retarded enough to not even care if you're still watching this awful timeline at this point.

Two fight scenes in the whole movie and one is just replayed from the beggining during the end to make it seem like more is going on then actually is. (Quicksilver was sort of neat I guess if you never saw The Matrix, but it's not a fight) And the costumes and designs are are still crap. Down to the awful looking Nixon and stolen Thor robots. Nothing about the movie changed that. It's a 5/10 average summer blockbuster.

So Cap and GOTG are beloved around here but everyone agrees DOFP is garbage? Aside from you and Riddick I can't recall to many other members saying the movie was garbage.

What exactly doesn't make sense about the plot? Changing the past does affect the future, that's the whole point of time travel and Wolverine's reasoning for going to the past. Why does Kitty's powers need explaining? I think the audience is smart enough to realize that this movie take place a long time after X3 and Kitty's mutation evolved.

The movie had more then two fight scenes.

If you didn't like the movie that's fine, but if you're going to argue why it sucks at least be objective.

 

[Khev]

Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

So Cap and GOTG are beloved around here but everyone agrees DOFP is garbage?

No. I loved DOFP and would rank it above most films in the MCU, including The Avengers.

 

[pturtle]

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Did they? I honestly let them have the final word because I didn't want to be "mean" and continue to dismantle their erroneous claims.

They really have no counter for the contrast between Thor's self-sacrifice vs. Kal-El's smugness. And "Thor and the Asgardians" most certainly are NOT responsible for bringing the Tesseract to Earth. That claim is outright absurd. One Asgardian might have been responsible. Maybe even Odin himself. But lumping in Thor because he's of the same civilization would be like me saying "Kal-El and the Kryptonians" killed millions of people. Huh? I guess "Captain America and the Nazis" were attacking Europe. You know, they were all humans right? Ridiculous.

But let's go ahead and clear a couple things up.

Maybe Odin did put the Tesseract on Earth. Okay. Odin created some complications by doing that. But the MCU isn't based around "Odin of Hope" or "Steel" or really anything Odin-centric at all. Odin wanted to teach Thor a lesson and so he sent him to Earth with no powers which led to conflict on Earth and bla bla bla. But Thor didn't pick Earth. Odin could have sent Thor anywhere for his little "lesson." So as far as Thor and Kal-El arriving on Earth, that's a location that neither of them chose.

So what do they do when they get to Earth? They are both in positions of great inexperience. Kal-El being an inexperienced superhero and Thor inexperienced at being a mortal. Bad guys come in search of the heroes and Kal-El fights them angrily and Thor takes it down a notch. Whoa. Suddenly the "similarities" between the two heroes is starting to erode. Suddenly Thor says, "If you're here because of me take me. Take my life. I hope you don't, but here I am." In the midst of the mayhem he talks, negotiates, and sacrifices.

Even during his Rainbow Bridge battle with Loki he sacrifices. Sacrifices the means to see the woman he loves by destroying it. When you watch Thor fight at the end of the film you're watching him fight only because he has no other options. You know he's not doing things out of anger or frustration and you know he's not fighting as a first resort and you also know that if his death will ever stop one single human from dying then he'll gladly offer it. Can you imagine Thor destroying a man's 18 wheeler out of revenge for getting wet? Good gosh no.

And you'd think the brazen petulant Norse god would be the unpredictable one. But no, he truly is good and self-sacrificing and yes, deep down even humble and the movies make sure you get that.

Was it truly Kal-El's "fault" that the Kryptonians came to Earth? No. Of course not. But you'd think a truly heroic individual would do at least SOME soul searching about the part he played in their arrival, would understand what was at risk and how gently he should assist these poor mortals that his presence has unfortunately put in a great deal of danger. A cute half-smile when saying "it means hope?" Um, how about humbly acknowledging the irony of what your stupid symbol means. Cockiness, smugness, and kinda hawt coyness was SO inappropriate given the Earth's predicament.

None of that crap existed in The Avengers. The palette of the Tesseract existing on Earth had long been cleansed. The humans possessed it on their terms. They could have chucked it into space or whatever but they liked it and wanted to harness it's energy to build weapons of their own. And then greater forces than any the heroes had any part of (Thanos) were what allowed Loki to find a way to channel the Tesseract and come to Earth. There is NO hypocrisy in being put off by Kal-El's attitude and his lack of effort to save more innocent lives.

Yes, The Avengers had a number of stupid elements. Cap's cowl was dreadful, the Chitauri all keeling over was idiotic, and so on. So even fans of the MCU "call 'em like we see 'em" without following a blind bias. And believe me, it is fun to howl at a train wreck but you know we're all pulling for BvS to be awesome.

I was speaking mainly about their humor and how they were breaking down some of the ridiculousness of the third act of The Avengers that most fans like to gloss over. To be honest my dislike for The Avengers and MOS is pretty even, but I have more hope for BvS since Snyder is only directing while Whedon is writing and directing AOU. I don't really like anything about Whedon's style of filmmaking which is why I can't wait for him to leave and let the Russos take over.

 

[Deckard]

Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

So Cap and GOTG are beloved around here but everyone agrees DOFP is garbage? Aside from you and Riddick I can't recall to many other members saying the movie was garbage.

What exactly doesn't make sense about the plot? Changing the past does affect the future, that's the whole point of time travel and Wolverine's reasoning for going to the past. Why does Kitty's powers need explaining? I think the audience is smart enough to realize that this movie take place a long time after X3 and Kitty's mutation evolved.

The movie had more then two fight scenes.

If you didn't like the movie that's fine, but if you're going to argue why it sucks at least be objective.

You can't alter a timeline without an event causing it. In BTTF it's Marty accidentally traveling back and messing things up, in Terminator, Reese alters it by stopping the Terminator/helping Sara, in the original DOFP it does make sense too, here it does not. Here it is simply because they want to dismiss the ****** previous movie events but without even bothering to put forth the most minor of effort.

Same old, it's why I don't discuss this movie further with you. I'll talk about DOFP with any other member but you, you are the one not objective. You just do the same running in circles argument every single time and say "explain it" even though we already did. I won't explain it again. The very premise everything works off of is simply nonsense.

 

[Khev]

Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

You can't alter a timeline without an event causing it.

I'm not going to spend 16 minutes watching that video but what are you saying here? Are you saying that there was no "event" that altered the future timelime? As I said I loved DOFP but I also love time travel/paradox discussions even those that ultimately show how a film could never work.

 

[pturtle]

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

To be honest I'm lost, maybe my bias is blinding my eyes but the time travel mechanics make perfect sense, Mystique didn't assassinate Trask and Wolverine's mind went back to the future, the future was altered, what exactly doesn't make sense about that?

You were against the film as soon as "pedo" Singer signed on to direct and I think it's a bit hard for you to admit you were wrong about everything you said prior to its release.

 

[Deckard]

Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

I'm not going to spend 16 minutes watching that video but what are you saying here? Are you saying that there was no "event" that altered the future timelime? As I said I loved DOFP but I also love time travel/paradox discussions even those that ultimately show how a film could never work.

Watch like from the 1 to 3 minute mark and then skip ahead, they explain it well. Wolverine going to the past to alter the future is a fine time travel premise. The way he gets there is nonsense but we'll put that aside for a moment.

It's how the timelines work that make zero sense. How did the past get altered to the point that Trask is a white dwarf who built Sentinels but the Sentinels were never mentioned. He was a black guy, now he's a white dwarf? I get the point is to put aside X3, but you have to do that with writing. Magneto killed JFK, Mystique is captured and her powers taken to use on Sentinels. What caused all that to happen all the sudden? None of it happened in the X1-3 timeline, what all the sudden set this off?

All they had to do, was write a quick thing like "oh, Bishop was jumping through time and ****ed something up somehow, set off Mystique and changed the timeline to involve Sentinels that already existed in the 70s etc. But they didn't.

It's like Doc explaining the skewed timeline. DOFP starts with an alternate future reality but doesn't explain why. It's like if BttF2 just started with them in Biff's Hill Valley with no explanation as to how it happened and no direct cause.

 

[Khev]

Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Ah, you're saying "where the heck were the Sentinels that had been evolving since the 70's in X1-3." Right? I thought DOFP suggested that they were all kept under wraps until sometime after X3. But then when Logan altered the past so that Mystique, Beast, and Magneto made a very visible display of their powers in front of the world in Paris that Nixon fast-tracked the funding of the Sentinels and made a big public presentation of them as a result.

So old timeline: Mystique discreetly murders Trask, world doesn't fear mutants, Sentinels developed in secrecy.

New timeline: Mystique, Beast, and Magneto all fight and use their powers in front of everyone, freak everyone out. Sentinel plans are made known to the public to ease panic.

 

[Deckard]

Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

That should also affect the future then. The same exact final battle shouldn't be playing out at the same exact time if things got fast tracked but didn't happen until that moment of change occurred as a result of the future travel. They are too random in deciding what and how events are changing the timeline. And it still doesn't explain things like how Trask changed. No one ever mentions mutants before that or thinks to mention "hey Magneto killed JFK." That's a pretty big deal.

 

[pturtle]

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Wolverine going to the past to alter the future is a fine time travel premise. The way he gets there is nonsense but we'll put that aside for a moment.

It's how the timelines work that make zero sense. How did the past get altered to the point that Trask is a white dwarf who built Sentinels but the Sentinels were never mentioned. He was a black guy, now he's a white dwarf? I get the point is to put aside X3, but you have to do that with writing. Magneto killed JFK, Mystique is captured and her powers taken to use on Sentinels. What caused all that to happen all the sudden? None of it happened in the X1-3 timeline, what all the sudden set this off?

All they had to do, was write a quick thing like "oh, Bishop was jumping through time and ****ed something up somehow, set off Mystique and changed the timeline to involve Sentinels that already existed in the 70s etc. But they didn't.

It's like Doc explaining the skewed timeline. DOFP starts with an alternate future reality but doesn't explain why. It's like if BttF2 just started with them in Biff's Hill Valley with no explanation as to how it happened.

Dwarf Trask isn't black Trask.

Magneto didn't kill JFK

And Mystique was captured by the Government after killing Trask which is where she was tortured and experimented on which explains why present Mystique is absolutely nothing like past Mystique.

Like Khev said the sentinel program kept under wraps until much later on.