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

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

So you see no difference in the quality of The Dark Knight and The Fantastic Four? Good to know. :lol

The point I'm making is this movie doesn't have it's own internal logic. They simply don't even bother. :lol

I’m starting to think you've only watched the "Everything Wrong With DOFP" video and not the actual movie itself.

I loved the fact that the movie skimmed over answering questions about how Kitty got her powers, or how Professor X came back. They left it up to the viewer to piece together which is incredibly easy to do. They gave the audience what they needed to know and jumped straight into the story.
 
Last edited:
Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

I'm starting to think you've only watched the Everything Wrong With DOFP video and not the actual movie itself.

Sorry you have trouble accepting reality.

I loved the fact that the movie skimmed over answering questions about how Kitty got her powers, or how Professor X came back.

We know. I didn't. :dunno That's the point. Circles. You like them don't you?
 
Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Timeline 4-6, but you may have to read the previous ones to understand how you get there.

Back to the Future timeline - Futurepedia - The Back to the Future Wiki

That site lists "Timeline 4" as the timeline created when old Biff goes back to 1955 with the Sports Almanac but completely ignores that the future of Timeline 4 is the future Biff should have returned to. Instead he returned to Timeline 3 (where original Marty and Doc were still intact and oblivious to Biff's history alterining maneuvers) and that breaks their internal consistency. Timeline 3 should have been overwritten by Timeline 4 future, and it wasn't.
 
Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

No there isn't. There are differences in assumptions and things actually happening. You're saying you assume Kitty evolved. That's not an actual explanation.

I already said I didn't like it. And because of the writing. :lol Why you can't accept that and want to keep going in circles? That's on you. If you don't care for my reasons, it's pretty simple, you can stop asking me about them, and go talk about something else. :lol

I'm actually glad I asked for your reasons, it proved that you just want to hate the movie for the sake of it.
 
Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

I'm actually glad I asked for your reasons, it proved that you just want to hate the movie for the sake of it.

He just wanted someone to explain why the future only changes when Wolverine wakes up in a funny and iconic way for him to accept it as "making sense."

Because if you can't say something funny and iconic about time travel, well, it's just illogical man.
 
Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

I'm actually glad I asked for your reasons, it proved that you just want to hate the movie for the sake of it.

Typical retarded thing you do. No one could possibly not like X-men :lol I explained why. Get over it.

I'm starting to think you've only watched the Everything Wrong With DOFP video and not the actual movie itself.
.

I'm starting to think you have no friends irl and your entire existence revolves around X-Men movies so your entire world comes tumbling down when people didn't absolutely love them. :lol
 
Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

So according to Deckard, if there was a scene with Kitty explaining she got her powers after eating a big bowl of special cereal, the movie would be better, but unfortunately DOFP was too lazy to give a lazy explanation for her updated powers.
 
Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

So according to Deckard, if there was a scene with Kitty explaining she got her powers after eating a big bowl of special cereal, the movie would be better, but unfortunately DOFP was too lazy to give a lazy explanation for her updated powers.

:lol Well played man.
 
Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Id have taken tainted cereal over "just because". :lol

Why can't Xavier take 3 seconds to go "I learned to combine my abilities with hers and we can use it to go back in time." He can control time, she can walk through barriers, it kinda would have made sense.
 
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Typical retarded thing you do. No one could possibly not like X-men :lol I explained why. Get over it.



I'm starting to think you have no friends irl and your entire existence revolves around X-Men movies so your entire world comes tumbling down when people didn't absolutely love them. :lol

It makes sense that you would resort to personal attacks because of the silly answers you demanded and were given about the movie.

X-Men movies aren’t even my favorite superhero movies, and like I said I don’t care that you hate the film, but you were saying a lot of untrue things about the movie that you were obviously wrong about and I think everyone here sees that.

It’s funny you’re the one that is actually coming off as upset, I'm fine here sitting back while you demand real time travel in your movies.
 
Last edited:
Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

The Dark Knight and Fantastic Four? :lol
Seriously man, one is a senseless kids cartoon mashup, the other is an over rated but partially excellent elevation of a comicbook story into a psychological action thriller.

Both have major logic flaws incidentally. You seem to be trying to equate quality with logic. Logic is just one element required to make a good movie. A sense of verisimilitude will allow filmmakers to get away with crazy illogical **** on screen.
 
Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Id have taken tainted cereal over "just because". :lol

Why can't Xavier take 3 seconds to go "I learned to combine my abilities with hers and we can use it to go back in time." He can control time, she can walk through barriers, it kinda would have made sense.

Because then things come off as forced. The ending of The Wolverine was enough explanation on how he came back, I didn't need to see him return to form like Sandman did in Spider-Man 3 for me to accept he's back and it makes sense.
 
Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Why can't Xavier take 3 seconds to go "I learned to combine my abilities with hers and we can use it to go back in time." He can control time, she can walk through barriers, it kinda would have made sense.

I just take it as Kitty being able to control time AND walk through barriers. No one else explains how their mutations work. Why does she have to? Movie Kitty can do more things than comic Kitty. I'm cool with that if it makes for an awesome film.
 
Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Why is Days of Future Past a massively better movie than X-Men 3?

Both had major major narrative flaws and plot holes?

This is a very silly argument, I will leave it to you guys.
**backs away from screen**
 
Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Fellas fellas fellas, I think we're getting off track here. As we all know, Superman V. Batman is coming, and it's probably going to be terrible. I say, let's focus on these things that all reasonable folks here can agree on, rather than those that we can't :peace
 
Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Because then things come off as forced. The ending of The Wolverine was enough explanation on how he came back, I didn't need to see him return to form like Sandman did in Spider-Man 3 for me to accept he's back and it makes sense.

No, things come off as "forced" when you can't explain them but need them to retcon your other broken movies, so you go for it anyway.

The Dark Knight and Fantastic Four? :lol
Seriously man, one is a senseless kids cartoon mashup, the other is an over rated but partially excellent elevation of a comicbook story into a psychological action thriller.

Both have major logic flaws incidentally. You seem to be trying to equate quality with logic. Logic is just one element required to make a good movie. A sense of verisimilitude will allow filmmakers to get away with crazy illogical **** on screen.

Quality writing. Exactly. and that is what allows the crazy illogical to be truly great. The point I was making was that it is the writing that allows Batman to be both realistic and still maintain comic book abilities. They took the time to say, ok look, he can fly which is silly, but here's how you try to explain it so they can see we made an effort. Contrary to say TDKR where they throw those logical sort of things out the window.
 
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Fellas fellas fellas, I think we're getting off track here. As we all know, Superman V. Batman is coming, and it's probably going to be terrible. I say, let's focus on these things that all reasonable folks here can agree on, rather than those that we can't :peace

I don't know, I think BvS is going to be pretty good. They got a much better writer on board and they seem to actually know what they want to do with the character this time around. Also with Nolan gone they don't have to stick to his grounded vision of Superman which gives the writers and Snyder a lot more room to work with these characters.

Why is Days of Future Past a massively better movie than X-Men 3?

Both had major major narrative flaws and plot holes?

This is a very silly argument, I will leave it to you guys.
**backs away from screen**

Yea I gave up.
 
Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Because it isn't.

And you just agreed it has major flaws and plot holes yet told me I'm wrong(or lying even) when I say that. :lol

Now... First Class's writing is a different story.
 
Re: 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.

Odin, the king of Asgar brought the Tesseract to Earth...that's not debatable, you known, the same guy who took a baby that wasn't his and raised it to believe something he wasn't and lied to him his entire life instead of telling him the truth about his origin, which lead to him becoming an villain, which created all the problems you see in the film. That same guy took the Tesseract to earth. :lol

As far as blaming Thor for everything, well...it wasn't exactly a serious argument, since your initial "argument/comment" was, "Who brought the Kryptonians to earth?", insinuating that Superman should be blamed for the destruction the villains (zod) caused, but it's good to know you really don't blame Sups for that one. Because it would be like indirectly blaming Thor for Loki attacking earth since Loki dislikes and is jealous of Thor, which is the reason Loki went to Earth (besides the Tesseract) because he knew Earth was under Thor's "protection." All because a petty dispute between two Godly brothers.

As far as what Thor and Superman do on earth? It's funny how you forget the small details in order to make an argument. First, Thor angrily tried to get his hammer back by betting up humans, and yes he didn't have his powers (lucky for those humans) but he was still a trained fighter, hurting the humans because he was angry and he was a spoiled entitled big kid who was sent to earth to begin with because of his anger issues, which almost created WW2 on his world.

So then you say that Superman was fighting the enemy angrily? Really, because he turned himself in and surrendered to the Kryptonians in order to find a peaceful way of solving the problem. Thor was ONLY "peaceful" and "negotiated" with his enemy because he had no powers...he had no choice to begin with...he was only a human at that point, so there wasn't much of a sacrifice, really. What did he do as soon as he came back from the dead like Jesus? He destroyed his enemy with his godly powers. Superman only started fighting the Kryptonians after they attacked his home and almost killed his mother. There was no reasoning with them.

But here's another issue, you really can't compare the enemy in the first Thor film with the one from Man of Steel. One mindless "Robot" "destroying" a small town (more like a few cars) against a race of alien gods with enough technology to destroy the entire earth :lol Was Thor negotiating during the Alien invasion in NY? Did he sacrifice himself? No, he talked to Loki, the same way Sups talked to the Kryptonians and when it didn't work, he was "angrily" fighting and killing thousands of them with his thunder power. And after he was done, he went to eat some shawarma..for some soul searching :lol

What was Thor's other "sacrifice"? Oh...he won't be able to see some girl he just met a week ago? Wow, that's really something, man. Supes had to kill his own race in order to save a planet that wasn't his to begin with. He killed the last of his race with his bare hands in order to save a human family. But hey, Thor not getting some puss is a real heroic "sacrifice".

Soul searching? Didn't Superman go to a church and ultimately made the decision to turned himself in...get "arrested" by the humans? Because he felt responsible Even though, as you said, the Alien attack wasn't his fault.

Also, you're saying that had the humans not messed with the Tesseract, there wouldn't have been an Alien invasion? Well, had the humans not messed with the Kryptonian ship that was on earth for thousands of years, there wouldn't have been an Alien invasion
 
Back
Top