Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
Father
Sr Member
I said this in the SS thread, but I'll say it here too... I think the added half hour makes it a more coherent movie, but not necessarily a better movie.
90 minutes is probably too short for any good superhero movie. Most average about 120 minutes, which is fine. BvS, theatrical version, ran 150 and was meh. Adding the "intended" additional 30 minutes doesn't do much for it.
The writer and director simply crammed too much into this. You need some level of lead-up to get to a titular showdown like this. The fight that this movie is "inspired by" obviously borrows from a story that this movie couldn't be if they wanted it to be an ongoing franchise. So, in what's becoming the norm, the writer/director present viewers with a mash-up of elements from various landmark stories. What we end up with is an older Batman only now meeting a fledgling Superman, while the son of Superman's arch enemy-that-never-was creates a monster from Krypton's past a la Doomsday. In short, a muddled hodge-podge of good stories. Sometimes it works, and sometimes the fusion of great stories just ends up being a messy, bad tasting glob of nastiness.
Fawbish
Sr Member
Hold up your Wonder Woman shield and try to withstand the onslaught. It's relentless, but welcome to the smart side
Extended cut is better though, as I'm sure you've heard.
Snikt
Sr Member
What do you mean by bland?
Fawbish
Sr Member
I probably wouldn't go as far as bland, but definitely in the "tepid" category, would be Ant-man (still some good comedy, but overall haven't been compelled to watch it again), Thor 2, Thor to a certain extent, Incredible Hulk and parts of Ultron felt very uninspired and quite tepid. I think Ant man was probably the first one where I felt like I could see the MCU machine cranking it out by numbers, and yet the comedy meant I came out thinking "not bad" when in reality, there isn't a massive amount of depth or consistency there. Each of those films has still contributed something decent of course, and some great moments. But I think almost every other MCU film makes the ones above look pretty second rate.
I would imagine he means something similar, though I won't talk for anyone else.
I think in contrast, something like Days of Future Past felt like a great comic book film with some complexities, some depth and definitely didnt feel bland, and didn't rely on as much comedy as some films do to succeed.
In the same vain, Deadpool managed to turn a bland story idea (guy saves the girl) into an absolutely brilliant film that is anything but bland.
I've found MoS and BvS to have a ton of rewatchability, because there is a lot there to dissect, and I don't think there can be an argument for them being bland. A muted colour pallet might lead people to that comparison initially, but the same could be reversed for brightly coloured, comedy peppered films in the superhero genre (Antman, Suicide Squad to an extent with the reasons I'm seeing people that love it etc).
I'm not talking about what something should or shouldnt be, btw - just what is.
Mola Rob
Sr Member
Bland as in I think they all follow the pattern created by the first Iron Man a little too much and, as Fawbish pointed out, I think they substitute humor for real emotion too much. I also find the color palette boring in many of the movies ranging from light grayish to dark grayish, the exception to that being the first Thor which is a gorgeous movie, and Ant Man, which is a pretty nice looking movie.
astroboy
Master Member
They all feel like they're directed by the same person...who's being told what to do by a committee.
Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk
crabra comander
Master Member
Yeah, T.I. ,Jose Pena, and Paul Rudd criminals, super by the numbers...:wacko
Jose Pena's storytelling, totally unoriginal. Sometimes a films success hinges on going back to basics and telling a simple story, which, I believe, Antman did extremely well. Same goes for Deadpool, Dredd, etc.
I do agree that Ironman 2 told a less than interesting story, I just believe that the story held up to scrutiny. Not like BVS.
Jose Pena's storytelling, totally unoriginal. Sometimes a films success hinges on going back to basics and telling a simple story, which, I believe, Antman did extremely well. Same goes for Deadpool, Dredd, etc.
I do agree that Ironman 2 told a less than interesting story, I just believe that the story held up to scrutiny. Not like BVS.
Snikt
Sr Member
Interesting on peoples thoughts of bland. Even though MCU out numbers the DCCU(whatever its called) I would call bland on DC's part, not just on the color palletes that they use for the actual film, but the story as well.
Regarding the committee thing, I think an over-arcing vision is needed to guide these types of movies, or else you wind up with what the DCCU has, a disjointed mess. As a director I could see how that would be frustrating, but man, Feige and the rest have had WAY more success than they had stinkers. If DC gets someone with that same kind of vision, they could really turn it around. Unfortunately they gave the reins to snyder, and he has his head up his ass. Im really excited to see what Dr. Strange brings to the table, and his impact on the MCU as a whole. It all boils down to what you find entertaining, and I havent been nearly as frustrated with Marvel as I have been with DC. My bar was set really low for SS, and man. That let me down so hard I was mad that I spent the money on it. :facepalm
Regarding the committee thing, I think an over-arcing vision is needed to guide these types of movies, or else you wind up with what the DCCU has, a disjointed mess. As a director I could see how that would be frustrating, but man, Feige and the rest have had WAY more success than they had stinkers. If DC gets someone with that same kind of vision, they could really turn it around. Unfortunately they gave the reins to snyder, and he has his head up his ass. Im really excited to see what Dr. Strange brings to the table, and his impact on the MCU as a whole. It all boils down to what you find entertaining, and I havent been nearly as frustrated with Marvel as I have been with DC. My bar was set really low for SS, and man. That let me down so hard I was mad that I spent the money on it. :facepalm
glunark
Sr Member
My wife said something that surprised me when we watched this the other night.
It was when Batman was beating up Superman, she just said "I don't like this Batman." when I asked her why she said "They should be fighting bad guys together, not fighting each other"
Even though they ended up doing just that, her opinion of Batman was never the same after seeing him, repeatedly punch Superman in the face.
It was when Batman was beating up Superman, she just said "I don't like this Batman." when I asked her why she said "They should be fighting bad guys together, not fighting each other"
Even though they ended up doing just that, her opinion of Batman was never the same after seeing him, repeatedly punch Superman in the face.
Fawbish
Sr Member
Interesting. Did the same opinion apply to Captain America and Iron Man in Civil War?
My opinion did slightly alter on Tony Stark after that fight. I think it was the comment about his father's shield that got me - and not in a bad way as such, even though my opinion of Tony dropped slightly. I enjoy the differing viewpoints and emotions that can take place with the same character in different circumstances.
On the flip side, their cinematic relationship had been established in The Avengers. Wary of each other, while respecting the other's abilities. With occasional dips to frustration and even hostility. So the fight at the end of Civil War was that existing dynamic pushed to an extreme by Zemo's manipulations. In BvS, this is our not only our first encounter with the current cinematic Batman, but the first time they've met in live-action films. Bruce's temper and violence is already dialed-up past what most casual viewers expect of the character, and I feel it lacked enough time establishing a background of admiration-but-distrust that would have been triggered to this extreme by Zod's attack. As with Steve and Tony, the filmmakers needed to build up to having them fight, not start with it.
--Jonah
--Jonah
Russ Pumpkin
New Member
I think the worst part of this film was it felt like 6 movies poorly crammed into one instead of what could have been a great sequel to man of steel or a really good first batman movie, and the fact they killed superman in the second movie, I would have personally saved his death for after or during the second justice league movie.
cboath
Master Member
That's the thing - the INTRODUCTION of this batman was one upset at what superman did to metropolis and a wayne enterprises bldg. Their first action together is beating each other up. It's a first impression that way. IM was in 4-5 flicks before cival war, captain america 3-4 - therefore when they're fighting it each other it's hell and gone from a first impression.
I think that's the flaw in a lot of MU vs DCU comparisions. Marvel took their time and built things up and more ore less eased you into each character. The first real look at batman in BvS is them fighting each other....the first real Superman action to the DCU is the fight with zod nearly destroying metropolis. Again, first impressions. It's as if they're more concerned about playing catch up then they are about establishing a world and then building on it.
There was seeming nothing happy, heroic, or uplifting really done by either character in the DCU to get you on their side before they went all emo, dark, fighting each other, etc They see to assume you know they're good guys and that you'll just accept it. Buy the same token, the MU wouldn't have worked out remotely as well as it has had they started with Civil War. There's no emotional struggle without the build up. You don't want to see your heroes fight, but at the same time you get it even though you don't want to see that.
glunark
Sr Member
She never said anything at the time, but then we were in the cinema and not at home, but the way civil war was laid out, even though they both still got manipulated into fighting each other by an enemy, their reasons for the fight were more sound, and a friend who becomes an enemy has more drama than an enemy that becomes a friend, especially by something as contrived as the Martha thing.
Marvel served up a surprisingly wonderful 10 course banquet out of ingredients they bought at the local Safeway.
In response DC spent 15 minutes on prep and served us a single platter with Wagyu steak on a bed of beluga caviar, a tub of fois gras festooned with shark's fin and white truffles. ... with no dessert.
In response DC spent 15 minutes on prep and served us a single platter with Wagyu steak on a bed of beluga caviar, a tub of fois gras festooned with shark's fin and white truffles. ... with no dessert.
drcraig13
Sr Member
I actually thought BvsS was a pretty decent pic until they did the whole Doomsday story line. If they had done a two hour movie on how Lex manipulated them into a fight and then they realize it was Lex and the they defeat him the end I wouldn't have minded it. Then they could have teased Doomsday or Darkseid as a second movie. But the whole Doomsday story line is what turned me off.
Similar threads
