Ben Affleck was terrible. He did the exact same thing he did in DareDevil: slack jaw, no emotions, poor acting. The writers didn't help at all with how badly the character was created including but not limited to: conflicting attitudes towards criminals, sudden shifts in motives over a word, conflicting attitudes towards any other person in the movie. Compare this to all the other Batmans we had. I don't understand the propensity of people to excuse Ben's poor performance. Why cut him some slack?? Didn't he even say he helped create this Batman???
Superman was full blown PMSing in the movie with tones and emotions scattered all over the place. The part that really killed him was his relationship with Lois. My goodness, he loves her, but doesn't, but does, but doesn't, then does and finally doesn't. I agree with you on how he handled it in MoS,
Wonderwoman, the Mary Sue of the movie, was literally added at the end of making the movie. She has almost no scenes and even the ones she does, they are either solo scenes or bare minutes with Ben Affleck. I know how you guys feel about me calling her a Mary Sue but come on: she can hack, she can outsteal and outwit Batman, has unlimited Monies and is pretty much the only one that puts a dent in Doomsday...
Lex was such a phenomenal failure and I agree with you. What were they thinking...
I don't understand the propensity of people to excuse Ben's poor performance. Why cut him some slack??
Because specificity in criticism is how we learn what actually went wrong. If you just blame everyone and everything indiscriminately, that doesn't tell you anything.
Didn't he even say he helped create this Batman???
If the guns were his idea, then yeah, it was a terrible idea, but until I see evidence they were his idea I'm going to assume they were David Goyer's idea (and to a lesser extent, Frank Miller's).
Wonderwoman, the Mary Sue of the movie, was literally added at the end of making the movie. She has almost no scenes and even the ones she does, they are either solo scenes or bare minutes with Ben Affleck. I know how you guys feel about me calling her a Mary Sue but come on: she can hack, she can outsteal and outwit Batman, has unlimited Monies and is pretty much the only one that puts a dent in Doomsday...
Wut? Everything you say makes her a Mary Sue is something that another character does better than her at some point in the movie. Batman hacks something she admits she can't, Batman has more money, Lex Luthor outwits Batman much more embarrassingly, and well, as for dents in Doomsday, unless you walked out of the movie early you gotta know what you said there isn't true.
And even were none of this the case, Mary Sues are typified by too much screen time, not too little. Nobody complained about Wesley Crusher for having almost no scenes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't understand the propensity of people to excuse Ben's poor performance. Why cut him some slack??
Because specificity in criticism is how we learn what actually went wrong. If you just blame everyone and everything indiscriminately, that doesn't tell you anything.
Didn't he even say he helped create this Batman???
If the guns were his idea, then yeah, it was a terrible idea, but until I see evidence they were his idea I'm going to assume they were David Goyer's idea (and to a lesser extent, Frank Miller's).
Wonderwoman, the Mary Sue of the movie, was literally added at the end of making the movie. She has almost no scenes and even the ones she does, they are either solo scenes or bare minutes with Ben Affleck. I know how you guys feel about me calling her a Mary Sue but come on: she can hack, she can outsteal and outwit Batman, has unlimited Monies and is pretty much the only one that puts a dent in Doomsday...
Wut? Everything you say makes her a Mary Sue is something that another character does better than her at some point in the movie. Batman hacks something she admits she can't, Batman has more money, Lex Luthor outwits Batman much more embarrassingly, and well, as for dents in Doomsday, unless you walked out of the movie early you gotta know what you said there isn't true.
And even were none of this the case, Mary Sues are typified by too much screen time, not too little. Nobody complained about Wesley Crusher for having almost no scenes.
Also wonder woman *IS THE BEST FIGHTER IN THE DC UNIVERSE*. She is literally thousands of years old and has been fighting for most of it. She is, cannonically, a (significantly!) better trained fighter than batman, and nearly as strong as superman. You better damn believe she'd put dents in doomsday.
And I mean wonderwoman is a mary sue. Goodness sake. "Mary sue" doesn't mean "woman who is good at things".
On topic: I notice that the audience score for this has been steadily dipping. It's now lower than man of steel. Perhaps the early 85%-odd scores were hyper fans and perhaps a bit of astroturfing.
Also wonder woman *IS THE BEST FIGHTER IN THE DC UNIVERSE*. She is literally thousands of years old and has been fighting for most of it. She is, cannonically, a (significantly!) better trained fighter than batman, and nearly as strong as superman. You better damn believe she'd put dents in doomsday.
Well, the movie changed Wonder Woman's backstory quite a bit. In most continuities she's fairly young and has only been in "Man's World" for about as long as the other superheroes have been active. But she's still been training all her life in an ancient warrior tradition, and is demonstrably the best at it out of all the Amazons. I can't recall a time she sparred with Batman, but even without her powers I would give her good odds. Also she has a sword forged by the gods themselves that can cut through literally anything. That doesn't hurt. Er, does hurt. You know what I mean.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well, the movie changed Wonder Woman's backstory quite a bit. In most continuities she's fairly young and has only been in "Man's World" for about as long as the other superheroes have been active. But she's still been training all her life in an ancient warrior tradition, and is demonstrably the best at it out of all the Amazons. I can't recall a time she sparred with Batman, but even without her powers I would give her good odds. Also she has a sword forged by the gods themselves that can cut through literally anything. That doesn't hurt. Er, does hurt. You know what I mean.
And I would be inclined to say that the Amazon backstory she had been portrayed as in the animated series Justice League was very good in both character development and backstory and everything else. Heck I loved her in it because they were at least consistent in that portrayal. I especially loved Lex Luthor regardless of his physical portrayal, because they were true to his character.
What I did not like in this movie about it, was simply the fact she had no business in it. If you weren't a DC fan, you wouldn't understand much about her character. There really wasn't much back story or reason for her to show up. What I meant by her being sprinkled was quite literal. Check how many scenes and how many minutes she has and tell me she wasn't an after thought or shoe in at the end.
Now why would you say that Bale was worst than Ben?!?! That I cannot understand. I found Bale's character and portrayal to be quite good. The movies suffered but he wasn't emotionless and did actually act. The "Look at his eyes" argument is a terrible one. If all you needed was eyes, anyone else would have been a better actor based on eyes alone. Here's a challenge for you: watch Dare Devil and his acting and then immediately watch this movie. There is little change in terms of acting or any of the bad points I mentioned.
If you actually look at his film career as an actor, almost all his films average at around 5.5/10 according to IMDB http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000255/#actor
In the last 10 years he finally broke into an average of 6.5 but most of his movies are misses. So again, I don't know where most of this "cutting him some slack" attitude comes from.
Also wonder woman *IS THE BEST FIGHTER IN THE DC UNIVERSE*. She is literally thousands of years old and has been fighting for most of it. She is, cannonically, a (significantly!) better trained fighter than batman, and nearly as strong as superman. You better damn believe she'd put dents in doomsday.
Well, the movie changed Wonder Woman's backstory quite a bit. In most continuities she's fairly young and has only been in "Man's World" for about as long as the other superheroes have been active. But she's still been training all her life in an ancient warrior tradition, and is demonstrably the best at it out of all the Amazons. I can't recall a time she sparred with Batman, but even without her powers I would give her good odds. Also she has a sword forged by the gods themselves that can cut through literally anything. That doesn't hurt. Er, does hurt. You know what I mean.
I've seen a panel of her taking on the entire justice league and beating them in a training session, but I can't seem to track it down. There is a link on her wikipedia page to batman calling her 'the greatest melee fighter in the world'
On the age thing: Huh. I had that memory stored up from somewhere - apparently possibly from either old comics or the old TV show.
Heck I loved her in it because they were at least consistent in that portrayal.
The movie Wonder Woman didn't actually do enough for any inconsistencies to arise. I'm holding off judgment on her new backstory until we actually see it in her movie.
What I did not like in this movie about it, was simply the fact she had no business in it. If you weren't a DC fan, you wouldn't understand much about her character. There really wasn't much back story or reason for her to show up. What I meant by her being sprinkled was quite literal. Check how many scenes and how many minutes she has and tell me she wasn't an after thought or shoe in at the end.
I doubt that she was literally an "after thought or shoe in at the end" simply by the nature of the movie-making process. It's not like they could just edit her in in post-production. But please note that substantively I agree with you: my exact words were "she doesn't actually have any reason to be in the plot", if you'll remember.
The "Look at his eyes" argument is a terrible one. If all you needed was eyes, anyone else would have been a better actor based on eyes alone.
Batman is supposed to be acted with the eyes alone. He's one of the least emotionally demonstrative characters in fiction. Affleck's Batman is tired, frightened, and defiant, and it shows in his eyes.
For anyone keeping track of the box office *winces* wow... Remember that figure of about 800 million? The film hasn't made that. In three weeks. Worldwide.
I don't know if this is ever going to make a billion in theaters.
Honestly, it's been years since I watched those. Probably competing for roughly the same real estate between Bale and Conroy. Another example of a good Batman weighed down by writers deciding "bat-machine-guns" were a thing.
For anyone keeping track of the box office *winces* wow... Remember that figure of about 800 million? The film hasn't made that. In three weeks. Worldwide.
I don't know if this is ever going to make a billion in theaters.
It is actually stunning that this film might not make a profit in the cinema. (The line is, as I think you were saying, at roughly 800 million (it cost about 400 to make and market, and theatres keep maybe half of the gross).
It's a bit of a beating. Guardians of the galaxy grossed around the same but cost half as much; the Avengers cost about the same (30 mil less) but grossed a quiet 1.5 billion.
I feel like any showing at the cinema short of a billion dollars is an embarrassing failure for their DCCU plans.
The DCCU is doomed because they keep putting out garbage like this. I don't know what satanic pact Marvel studios made, but apparently they're the only ones that can make a good superhero flick.
Oh wait, by satanic pact I meant bought out by Disney. Which means I do know. Also, they didn't give the keys to Zack Snyder.
The DCCU is doomed because they keep putting out garbage like this. I don't know what satanic pact Marvel studios made, but apparently they're the only ones that can make a good superhero flick.
Oh wait, by satanic pact I meant bought out by Disney. Which means I do know. Also, they didn't give the keys to Zack Snyder.
I think its due to the fact that MCU films and in some cases fox made marvel films actively try to be fun movie experiences, where as Sony and WB productions forget that movies are supposed to be fun. Way too often WB films focus on moral or ethical concerns of what it means to be a superhero instead of the actual character that is the superhero with those same questions in the background like MCU movies do. The dark knight worked because it was about Batman/Bruce Wayne while Man of Steel didn't work because it was a movie about a half dozen ideas and none of them were Clark Kent/Superman as a character.
This is why I am pretty excited for suicide squad. It looks like it will be a very fun movie experience and stay consistent with the tone of the current DCCU.
Oh! And DC heroes are kinda one dimensional which doesn't translate well to the screen.
DC heroes are not one dimensional. They're just not. You can take a well-known hero like Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter, etc. or the ones that people barely now like Swamp Thing, Jonah Hex, Animal Man, the Phantom Stranger, Captain Atom, etc. and read their stories and you will find multiple themes and conflicts and struggles and complexity there. Does that mean every single character is written in a good way? Hell no. Sometimes it takes a different writer to do justice to a character, but when it happens it is amazing. DC has the best characters in the history of comic books, period. John Constantine? DC. Sandman? DC. WATCHMEN? DC.
The fact that the DCEU is failing so hard on the big screen comes to show that material and execution are two completely different things. Marvel also has good and complex characters, don't get me wrong, but if DC had done his work right their films would not only be much better, but much more appealing than the Marvel ones, hands down.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
I didn't mind Batman. I thought Batman, Alfred and Morpheus were the highlights of the movie. I do however hate the new batman origin. I mean his parent essentially killed themselves. Also I had no clue who this "Jack" was in the building.
The difference with Marvel and DC is their formulas.
Marvel caught on with DC in terms of origin stories and they started introducing small clips at the end to try to sneak in a test feel for an avengers movie. Guess what, people love it and people wanted that movie. They worked with the creators of Marvel, they made the movies a fun experience and also kept their characters true to their nature. Not only that, they pushed their franchise and made movies that introduced several villains, several stakes and situations. We have been to Asgard, Earth, some dude's head in the Galaxy, etc. DC has been to... krypton and Gotham... over and over again in the same neighborhoods mind you. Additionally, most Marvel films focused on specific themes. They didn't try to cram in 3/4/5 stories in 2 hours.
Before someone makes it sound like I am some Marvel fan, they did make bad movies, that is a given. However, it seems that unlike DC, they learned from their mistakes and improved.
Finally, they also seem to give the keys to people who know what they are doing. Look at the latest Deadpool for instance.
DC has only been doing origin stories and for some god awful reason, keep doing it and handing the keys to random folks. The Dark Knight trilogy was great because we had the origin story that brought you more than just parents-died-i-saw-a-bat-batman! trash we keep being hit with every goddamn batman movie. Superman from the 80s/90s was very campy and a great success regardless of how bad superman 3 was. But instead of expanding those stories on heroes we have known for decades, we get more and more origin stories. Then those stories bomb and we wait a few years and get yet another origin story. This is DC's problem: they are stalling at the starting point and people will get bored of it. It is boring to see the same thing over and over again.
I didn't mind Batman. I thought Batman, Alfred and Morpheus were the highlights of the movie. I do however hate the new batman origin. I mean his parent essentially killed themselves. Also I had no clue who this "Jack" was in the building.
I thought he said "Dad". I really did not get that part either.
Oh! And DC heroes are kinda one dimensional which doesn't translate well to the screen.
DC heroes are not one dimensional. They're just not. You can take a well-known hero like Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter, etc. or the ones that people barely now like Swamp Thing, Jonah Hex, Animal Man, the Phantom Stranger, Captain Atom, etc. and read their stories and you will find multiple themes and conflicts and struggles and complexity there. Does that mean every single character is written in a good way? Hell no. Sometimes it takes a different writer to do justice to a character, but when it happens it is amazing. DC has the best characters in the history of comic books, period. John Constantine? DC. Sandman? DC. WATCHMEN? DC.
The fact that the DCEU is failing so hard on the big screen comes to show that material and execution are two completely different things. Marvel also has good and complex characters, don't get me wrong, but if DC had done his work right their films would not only be much better, but much more appealing than the Marvel ones, hands down.
Are you telling me how great and complex DC heroes are in one breath while unironically bringing up Watchmen in the other? That's why Watchmen is good, because it shows how shallow the other DC comics were. The deconstruction wouldn't work otherwise.
Are you telling me how great and complex DC heroes are in one breath while unironically bringing up Watchmen in the other? That's why Watchmen is good, because it shows how shallow the other DC comics were. The deconstruction wouldn't work otherwise.
You know Moore and Gibbons wanted to use existing DC heros in Watchmen instead of making new ones right?
I didn't mind Batman. I thought Batman, Alfred and Morpheus were the highlights of the movie.
By "Morpheus" do you mean Perry White? Because for a second there I thought you were saying there was a cameo by Dream that I somehow completely missed.
Are you telling me how great and complex DC heroes are in one breath while unironically bringing up Watchmen in the other? That's why Watchmen is good, because it shows how shallow the other DC comics were. The deconstruction wouldn't work otherwise.
That's a very -- dare I say -- shallow interpretation of Watchmen.
Are you telling me how great and complex DC heroes are in one breath while unironically bringing up Watchmen in the other? That's why Watchmen is good, because it shows how shallow the other DC comics were. The deconstruction wouldn't work otherwise.
You know Moore and Gibbons wanted to use existing DC heros in Watchmen instead of making new ones right?
You know that doesn't change anything, right? Using Batman to deconstruct Batman doesn't change how shallow batman is, it would only highlight to the reader of Batman that the subversive massage was meant for them.
Are you telling me how great and complex DC heroes are in one breath while unironically bringing up Watchmen in the other? That's why Watchmen is good, because it shows how shallow the other DC comics were. The deconstruction wouldn't work otherwise.
You know Moore and Gibbons wanted to use existing DC heros in Watchmen instead of making new ones right?
You know that doesn't change anything, right? Using Batman to deconstruct Batman doesn't change how shallow batman is, it would only highlight to the reader of Batman that the subversive massage was meant for them.
Well personally I don't think Batman is shallow. I think Superman is though.
I enjoyed the movie and i don't think it deserves this mutch hate. Hell i was expecting crap but i thought we got a decent action movie. Isn't perfect but i thought it was better then Man of Steel and even Age of Ultron.
I thought the pacing was fine, not spetacular but fine. Doomsday looked silly but in the comics he was a monster so you had liberties with him and i honestly din't care about his aperance and he only needed to be a threat that united the trio and kill Superman and thats it. You are making him to be more important that he should be so i think he did his job fine as the threat
Lex Luthor was a bad casting choice, i agreed with that. Tried too hard to be Heath Ledger the joker crazy and Lex shoudn't have been that. Lex luthor from TAS was AMAZING, hell he got his own season as the final season of Justice League because he was that good. Yeah i agreed with people about Lex Luthor been bad in this movie. I understand his motivations but his character was weird and coudn't be taken seriouslly
When i heard that Batman killed in this movie it made me hate the movie before even watching it and EHHHHHH isn't that bad. I can understand that after fighting so many criminals for years and having traumatic experiences i can see him been more crazy and not giving ****s. And the deatsh weren't exactly a big deal, he still left most of the criminals alive.BTW i dislike Frank Miller's potrayal of Batman and i still think this version of Batman is fine, Ben Affleck did a ncie job personally.
Wonder Woman joining the fight was epic, i know it was only at the end but i think she was awesome in this. And she had scenes through out the movies and this movie wasn't about her so i din't mind her having litle scenes.
The movie isn't perfect by all means but the action was great and i thought it was a solid movie. I'm mad that people complain about plot holes in this movie but gives The Force Awakens a pass.
IMO the problem with both this movie, and The Man of Steel, comes down to mostly one thing: Snyder is the wrong guy for the job. He was a great choice for 300 and did ok on The Watchmen but he clearly doesn't have a clear understanding of the Superman and Batman characters that have been well defined for decades. The writing isn't best, and the acting for the most part is pretty sub par, but movies are ultimately driven by the director's vision, it's just how this medium works. Snyder's tone is all wrong. I also think part of the problem is that the powers that be at Warner Bros are trying too hard to compete with Marvel studios and they're rushing things into production instead of making sure they are good. And as a die hard Superman fan this bugs me a lot because Cavil could be the best Superman ever if they'd have given him a better script and a director who understands the character. Both movies are giant missed opportunities.
There's my two cents.
IMO the problem with both this movie, and The Man of Steel, comes down to mostly one thing: Snyder is the wrong guy for the job. He was a great choice for 300 and did ok on The Watchmen but he clearly doesn't have a clear understanding of the Superman and Batman characters that have been well defined for decades. The writing isn't best, and the acting for the most part is pretty sub par, but movies are ultimately driven by the director's vision, it's just how this medium works. Snyder's tone is all wrong. I also think part of the problem is that the powers that be at Warner Bros are trying too hard to compete with Marvel studios and they're rushing things into production instead of making sure they are good. And as a die hard Superman fan this bugs me a lot because Cavil could be the best Superman ever if they'd have given him a better script and a director who understands the character. Both movies are giant missed opportunities.
There's my two cents.
I agree with a lot of this. To make a cinematic universe work you need to have someone that really knows what they're doing. Marvel has that with Kevin Feige. Feige is a huge comic book nerd that ensures the source material is respected while still being able to cater to general audiences. Marvel can have all the different directors/writers they want but ultimately everything begins and ends with Feige. He is "the buck stops here" guy. That's why Marvel movies appear to be formulaic in nature.
Zach Snyder has been entrusted with a huge amount of the DCEU. After MoS and BvS it's starting to become clear that Snyder doesn't "get it". Movies like MoS and BvS should not be getting critically panned like this. It's Batman and Superman. Two of the most iconic superheroes of all-time. You have to really go out of your way to screw up Batman and Superman.
Zach Snyder has been entrusted with a huge amount of the DCEU. After MoS and BvS it's starting to become clear that Snyder doesn't "get it". Movies like MoS and BvS should not be getting critically panned like this. It's Batman and Superman. Two of the most iconic superheroes of all-time. You have to really go out of your way to screw up Batman and Superman.
I don't think the issue is "getting" the source material. I really think the issue is the source material. There is simply not much that is terribly interesting about most DC mainstay heros. Batman being the obvious exception of course. I just can't think of a single thing that is compelling about Superman as a character. MoS had a brief glimpse of of on Krypton but then nothing was really interesting after that. Superman as a character is just written into a corner where nothing is threatening to him aside from macguffins and there is no real reason why he can't just punch his way out of any situation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Superman was full blown PMSing in the movie with tones and emotions scattered all over the place. The part that really killed him was his relationship with Lois. My goodness, he loves her, but doesn't, but does, but doesn't, then does and finally doesn't. I agree with you on how he handled it in MoS,
Wonderwoman, the Mary Sue of the movie, was literally added at the end of making the movie. She has almost no scenes and even the ones she does, they are either solo scenes or bare minutes with Ben Affleck. I know how you guys feel about me calling her a Mary Sue but come on: she can hack, she can outsteal and outwit Batman, has unlimited Monies and is pretty much the only one that puts a dent in Doomsday...
Lex was such a phenomenal failure and I agree with you. What were they thinking...
RETIRED - GAME SUCKS
Modern:
UUUMerfolksUUU
RGoblinsR
Ad Nauseam
BR 8 Racks RB
WUB Mill BUW
Legacy:
XOps! All splels! X
What I think of MaRo
Because specificity in criticism is how we learn what actually went wrong. If you just blame everyone and everything indiscriminately, that doesn't tell you anything.
Better than Bale, not as good as Conroy.
If the guns were his idea, then yeah, it was a terrible idea, but until I see evidence they were his idea I'm going to assume they were David Goyer's idea (and to a lesser extent, Frank Miller's).
Wut? Everything you say makes her a Mary Sue is something that another character does better than her at some point in the movie. Batman hacks something she admits she can't, Batman has more money, Lex Luthor outwits Batman much more embarrassingly, and well, as for dents in Doomsday, unless you walked out of the movie early you gotta know what you said there isn't true.
And even were none of this the case, Mary Sues are typified by too much screen time, not too little. Nobody complained about Wesley Crusher for having almost no scenes.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Also wonder woman *IS THE BEST FIGHTER IN THE DC UNIVERSE*. She is literally thousands of years old and has been fighting for most of it. She is, cannonically, a (significantly!) better trained fighter than batman, and nearly as strong as superman. You better damn believe she'd put dents in doomsday.
And I mean wonderwoman is a mary sue. Goodness sake. "Mary sue" doesn't mean "woman who is good at things".
On topic: I notice that the audience score for this has been steadily dipping. It's now lower than man of steel. Perhaps the early 85%-odd scores were hyper fans and perhaps a bit of astroturfing.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What I did not like in this movie about it, was simply the fact she had no business in it. If you weren't a DC fan, you wouldn't understand much about her character. There really wasn't much back story or reason for her to show up. What I meant by her being sprinkled was quite literal. Check how many scenes and how many minutes she has and tell me she wasn't an after thought or shoe in at the end.
Now why would you say that Bale was worst than Ben?!?! That I cannot understand. I found Bale's character and portrayal to be quite good. The movies suffered but he wasn't emotionless and did actually act. The "Look at his eyes" argument is a terrible one. If all you needed was eyes, anyone else would have been a better actor based on eyes alone. Here's a challenge for you: watch Dare Devil and his acting and then immediately watch this movie. There is little change in terms of acting or any of the bad points I mentioned.
If you actually look at his film career as an actor, almost all his films average at around 5.5/10 according to IMDB http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000255/#actor
In the last 10 years he finally broke into an average of 6.5 but most of his movies are misses. So again, I don't know where most of this "cutting him some slack" attitude comes from.
RETIRED - GAME SUCKS
Modern:
UUUMerfolksUUU
RGoblinsR
Ad Nauseam
BR 8 Racks RB
WUB Mill BUW
Legacy:
XOps! All splels! X
What I think of MaRo
I've seen a panel of her taking on the entire justice league and beating them in a training session, but I can't seem to track it down. There is a link on her wikipedia page to batman calling her 'the greatest melee fighter in the world'
On the age thing: Huh. I had that memory stored up from somewhere - apparently possibly from either old comics or the old TV show.
What do you mean by "regardless of his physical portrayal"? That's what Lex Luthor looks like. A well-muscled bald guy in a really expensive suit.
I doubt that she was literally an "after thought or shoe in at the end" simply by the nature of the movie-making process. It's not like they could just edit her in in post-production. But please note that substantively I agree with you: my exact words were "she doesn't actually have any reason to be in the plot", if you'll remember.
Whiny Bruce Wayne, grating over-the-top Batman voice.
Batman is supposed to be acted with the eyes alone. He's one of the least emotionally demonstrative characters in fiction. Affleck's Batman is tired, frightened, and defiant, and it shows in his eyes.
I prefer to form my own opinion of his work based on what I see on screen.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
For anyone keeping track of the box office *winces* wow... Remember that figure of about 800 million? The film hasn't made that. In three weeks. Worldwide.
I don't know if this is ever going to make a billion in theaters.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It is actually stunning that this film might not make a profit in the cinema. (The line is, as I think you were saying, at roughly 800 million (it cost about 400 to make and market, and theatres keep maybe half of the gross).
It's a bit of a beating. Guardians of the galaxy grossed around the same but cost half as much; the Avengers cost about the same (30 mil less) but grossed a quiet 1.5 billion.
I feel like any showing at the cinema short of a billion dollars is an embarrassing failure for their DCCU plans.
Oh wait, by satanic pact I meant bought out by Disney. Which means I do know. Also, they didn't give the keys to Zack Snyder.
This is why I am pretty excited for suicide squad. It looks like it will be a very fun movie experience and stay consistent with the tone of the current DCCU.
The fact that the DCEU is failing so hard on the big screen comes to show that material and execution are two completely different things. Marvel also has good and complex characters, don't get me wrong, but if DC had done his work right their films would not only be much better, but much more appealing than the Marvel ones, hands down.
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).
Marvel caught on with DC in terms of origin stories and they started introducing small clips at the end to try to sneak in a test feel for an avengers movie. Guess what, people love it and people wanted that movie. They worked with the creators of Marvel, they made the movies a fun experience and also kept their characters true to their nature. Not only that, they pushed their franchise and made movies that introduced several villains, several stakes and situations. We have been to Asgard, Earth, some dude's head in the Galaxy, etc. DC has been to... krypton and Gotham... over and over again in the same neighborhoods mind you. Additionally, most Marvel films focused on specific themes. They didn't try to cram in 3/4/5 stories in 2 hours.
Before someone makes it sound like I am some Marvel fan, they did make bad movies, that is a given. However, it seems that unlike DC, they learned from their mistakes and improved.
Finally, they also seem to give the keys to people who know what they are doing. Look at the latest Deadpool for instance.
DC has only been doing origin stories and for some god awful reason, keep doing it and handing the keys to random folks. The Dark Knight trilogy was great because we had the origin story that brought you more than just parents-died-i-saw-a-bat-batman! trash we keep being hit with every goddamn batman movie. Superman from the 80s/90s was very campy and a great success regardless of how bad superman 3 was. But instead of expanding those stories on heroes we have known for decades, we get more and more origin stories. Then those stories bomb and we wait a few years and get yet another origin story. This is DC's problem: they are stalling at the starting point and people will get bored of it. It is boring to see the same thing over and over again.
I thought he said "Dad". I really did not get that part either.
RETIRED - GAME SUCKS
Modern:
UUUMerfolksUUU
RGoblinsR
Ad Nauseam
BR 8 Racks RB
WUB Mill BUW
Legacy:
XOps! All splels! X
What I think of MaRo
Are you telling me how great and complex DC heroes are in one breath while unironically bringing up Watchmen in the other? That's why Watchmen is good, because it shows how shallow the other DC comics were. The deconstruction wouldn't work otherwise.
Yeah, I like Fishburne's Perry.
A senior employee of Wayne Enterprises.
That's a very -- dare I say -- shallow interpretation of Watchmen.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I thought the pacing was fine, not spetacular but fine. Doomsday looked silly but in the comics he was a monster so you had liberties with him and i honestly din't care about his aperance and he only needed to be a threat that united the trio and kill Superman and thats it. You are making him to be more important that he should be so i think he did his job fine as the threat
Lex Luthor was a bad casting choice, i agreed with that. Tried too hard to be Heath Ledger the joker crazy and Lex shoudn't have been that. Lex luthor from TAS was AMAZING, hell he got his own season as the final season of Justice League because he was that good. Yeah i agreed with people about Lex Luthor been bad in this movie. I understand his motivations but his character was weird and coudn't be taken seriouslly
When i heard that Batman killed in this movie it made me hate the movie before even watching it and EHHHHHH isn't that bad. I can understand that after fighting so many criminals for years and having traumatic experiences i can see him been more crazy and not giving ****s. And the deatsh weren't exactly a big deal, he still left most of the criminals alive.BTW i dislike Frank Miller's potrayal of Batman and i still think this version of Batman is fine, Ben Affleck did a ncie job personally.
Wonder Woman joining the fight was epic, i know it was only at the end but i think she was awesome in this. And she had scenes through out the movies and this movie wasn't about her so i din't mind her having litle scenes.
The movie isn't perfect by all means but the action was great and i thought it was a solid movie. I'm mad that people complain about plot holes in this movie but gives The Force Awakens a pass.
There's my two cents.
I agree with a lot of this. To make a cinematic universe work you need to have someone that really knows what they're doing. Marvel has that with Kevin Feige. Feige is a huge comic book nerd that ensures the source material is respected while still being able to cater to general audiences. Marvel can have all the different directors/writers they want but ultimately everything begins and ends with Feige. He is "the buck stops here" guy. That's why Marvel movies appear to be formulaic in nature.
Zach Snyder has been entrusted with a huge amount of the DCEU. After MoS and BvS it's starting to become clear that Snyder doesn't "get it". Movies like MoS and BvS should not be getting critically panned like this. It's Batman and Superman. Two of the most iconic superheroes of all-time. You have to really go out of your way to screw up Batman and Superman.