Batman/Superman Dawn of Justice movie review thread

[TheSkeletonMan939]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

SinCast disagrees with you.

The CinemaSins guys? They're funny nitpickers at best, morons at worst.

Anyway, change of subject - has anyone else listened to the score for this yet? I think it's Zimmer at his worst.

[Amaranthus]

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939

The CinemaSins guys? They're funny nitpickers at best, morons at worst.

WOAH WOAH WOAH!!!
I even updated my post to be nicer.
Christ, man!
WOAH!

[NinjaPug]

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939

The CinemaSins guys? They're funny nitpickers at best, morons at worst.

Anyway, change of subject - has anyone else listened to the score for this yet? I think it's Zimmer at his worst.

I have and was really disappointed with it. It's the Zimmer sequels curse. He always recycles too much and never really builds on what has come before. Too much MoS score (which I love) recycled in this. The Batman theme was a letdown for me too although I do really like WW's theme.

[TheSkeletonMan939]

So much of it feels like sound design and experimental stuff. 'Must There Be a Superman?' for instance is just a horrible, horrible track.

Wonder Woman's theme is amazing. I bet Junkie had a hand in it. Junkie officially was brought in just to work on the Batman theme, but he and Hans are so fond of each other that I imagine they worked together through the whole thing.

A huge Zimmer fan - I think he even works at Remote Control Productions - had this to say:

Originally Posted by Hybrid Soldier

Saw the film this morning (which is good but not fantastic. It has really great stuff buried by some lame stuff, all this added to a weird editing/pace).

As for the score, there's as expected a lot of music left out, like many reprises of Superman's piano theme, but there's nothing AMAZING missing from the OST. No Escape from Ship this time. Not even a Zod Disbands Council or Smallville Duel... Sorry... lol Oh well I think I noticed a cool one... Overall as in the OST the Bat

So even the biggest Zimmer fan I know of can't think of anything outstanding that wasn't on the OST... which means to me it's overall a pretty weak score.

Hybrid also says that "...I first though Affleck's Batman would be closer to Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, but it's instead very close to Bruce Timm's Batman Animated series..."

Lol, Batfleck isn't even close to Bruce Timm's character if the spoilers I've read are at all true.

[THGhost]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

This is the end, my beautiful friends. So its been confirmed:

- Wonder Woman movie will have re-writes

- Justice League movie pushed back, likely have rewrites, Synder on the chopping block

- Green Lantern, Aquaman, Cyborg, etc. films all canceled

- Next Superman solo movie will probably not happen for another decade or so

- Batman's solo movie is the only thing seemingly going ahead at this point, but it will be a while so who knows what can change between the.



Its all over. They had one chance, and they blew it. We, the fans, all suffer. I guess it wasn't meant to be.

Originally Posted by Darthknuxward

Cubed where'd you get your info?

I'd like to know this as well.

[ZariusTwo]

Here's what Marv Wolfman (the man behind the definitive Teen Titans group and Crisis) said about the movie

If you've seen any of the trailers nothing I say here will reveal anything. If you haven't seen the trailers, I probably still haven't said anything revealing but I suggest you move on anyway. First off, I really liked the movie a lot. For those who think I'm saying this because I work at DC, if I didn't really like it I wouldn't have posted anything despite having two of my characters appear in it. So please know my view is real and honest.

I thought Ben Affleck was great as both Bruce Wayne and Batman, but I never doubted he would be. I've liked his work for years. He's a solid actor and director and writer and he brings gravitas to the role. I refuse to play the game of is he better or worse than Christian Bale. They're playing very different versions of the character and both are great.

The action scenes with Batman are the best I've seen in any Batman movie. In comics, Batman is an acrobat and despite lugging a cape that's two miles long, he moves like nobody's business, but that has always been pretty impossible to show on screen; the uniform itself prevented that so fights were done with extremely well done cuts and edits. Heck, some of the actors said they even had problems turning their heads in the costumes. But Snyder knows how to play with live action and CG and everything else and Batman moved the way he should. The action is stunning.

Superman is different from the comics, more troubled and alienated (no pun intended) than the comic but I think it works based on what the events in the last film. Since I feel Batman, especially an older Batman as he's portrayed here has probably cemented his world view you can understand why his concern about Superman is real to him. And Superman, based on how the people of Metropolis and the world reacted to the events of the last film would obviously be more cautious in his life, even willing to chuck some of it away. For Superman the road to hell is paved with good intentions and now, based on the events of the last movie, he's not only being cautious but distant. Very different from the comic but I can accept that if one accepts his becoming Superman as an adult and immediately and without time to train, finding himself the center of an interplanetary man hunt.

Wonder Woman got the biggest cheer in the audience. Can't say too much but I thought she was handled really well.

By the way, here's a complaint. When Ben Affleck was first announced as Batman fans immediately attacked the choice (as they had Michael Keaton). Now many of the same fans are saying he's the best Batman/Bruce Wayne ever. If Gal Gidot was hired to play Wonder Woman fans complained she was too thin or too wrong to play the Amazon. Now everyone's saying she's the high point of the movie. Why don't people wait to actually see something before deciding it can't possibly work?

Yes, I loved the appearances of Aquaman, Flash and especially Cyborg. Again, everyone thought this would crowd the movie with unnecessary characters. In fact they appear logically out of the plot and work perfectly. I'll say no more. But yay Cyborg.

Finally, Luthor. we've seen so many Luthors over the years (my favorite being Smallville's interpretation) that I would have previously said not to use him at all, but I think they found a different approach. If you've seen any trailer you've seen the interpretation. His insanity is either tempered by his genius, or his genius has been affected by his insanity, but he's an original here and since there have been a million different interpretations of Luthor (and may I remind folk that the businessman version was my proposal so I actually have a real personal viewpoint here) I don't think we can say "This" is Luthor or "That" is Luthor. All I can say is this worked for me and I liked that I hadn't seen this character before. He felt new and different in a way that worked.

I know there are people who love the film and there are already those who don't. But I really, really liked it. I hope I can take Noel to see it this weekend or next if we can get into a local IMax screening. I do hope I was able to give my opinions without accidentally giving away any spoilers. Check it out and enjoy.

[Bry]

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939

I know Reddit is the worst source for just about anything, but this I think is interesting.

Feeling a little pressure there, WB? I'm sure companies do this stuff all the time, but it's interesting that Warner needs to do this to boost ratings for what they've hyped up to be the biggest, smartest, deepest superhero film ever.

Originally Posted by Shred Head

"A constellation of stars together in one film. 10/10"
"In the future they will talk about Batman v Superman debut as a historic day. 10/10

It's getting easier and easier to actively root against this movie.

[ProactiveMan]

It's alright. I have to ponder it some more, but I didn't think it was very good. It had its moments though.

For all the sh*t they got for casting Gal Gadot, I thought she was great. She had a kind of worldly mannerism, like an old pro who's seen it all. I liked that Batfleck wasn't a total emotional cripple like some Batmans we've seen. Dunno what Cavill was doing, but it wasn't brilliant, and Evil Mark Zuckerberg was a bit embarrassing at times. Laurence Fishburne was hell good.

This movie is going to be lambasted like nobody's business, and I don't think it really deserves it. Good or bad, I think it was made in earnest, and its a little sad that it's just more fodder for the legions of near-talentless jackals on YouTube and pop-media. Smarmy parasites. (No offense if that's you - some of my best friends are smarmy parasites.)

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Bry

So... he was a beacon of hope for the oppressed and downtrodden at a time when the world was on the brink of war, the economy was in the toilet, and the people were frustrated by the corrupt officials and elites keeping them down? Gee, too bad none of that's relevant anymore.

Y'know Superman was regarded by the public as an urban myth in those early stories, right? It's hard to be a beacon of hope to a people who don't believe you exist.

So you'd want the social crusader Superman fighting the man? I mean that would be an interesting take (and true to the character) but it's not the definitive version of Superman as a big blue boy scout which is as much a problem.

But yeah -- that just draws a big fat line under what a great Superman could have, and should have, been in today's world. And I think the character could be hugely relevant and effective again if they'd tap into that in a smart way. Having Superman be heroic, principled, and optimistic at a time when it's hard to be any of those things makes the character stronger. Snyder did the opposite, making him brutal and weirdly aloof, giving in to the troubles of the world instead of rising above them. IMO, that's a completely wrong angle. Superman should help lift us up in troubled times. IMO, going for the "deconstructionist" angle was the absolute wrong move at this moment in time.

See we've already got a pretty damn good presentation of Superman as a character in cinema right now; he's called Steve Rogers aka Captain America. In terms of character that very much along the lines of what Clark Kent/Superman should be.

You could make a movie where you really break down what it means to be Captain America and how he would act in more extreme circumstances I suspect Civil War will attempt this to some degree but it works because the previous movie set up who Steve Rogers was by simply letting him be.

The major problem is that Superman is regarded by many as an icon above such simple approaches. When you start using the phrases like "beacon of hope" or "stands for something more" that's when film makers decide that they have to constantly define what it means to be Superman which means you get ultra earnest approach that Singer tried were he doesn't even punch anyone or Snyder's approach were we examine who Superman is when in a darker world. It's not like either is wrong, in fact the latter took it's character beats from some very popular Superman stories but in terms of getting the audience to warm to him it doesn't seem to work.

Simply letting the character be a character rather than the the constant presentation of him being above reproach or constantly asking how would an ultra powerful alien that's kinda like Jesus really feel is the way.

[Sumac]

Meanwhile, Zach Snyder provides his explanation for why his Batman they way he is in the movie:

I tried to do it in a technical way. There’s a great YouTube video that shows all the kills in the Christopher Nolan movies even though we would perceive them as movies where he doesn’t kill anyone. I think there’s 42 potential kills that Batman does! Also, it goes back and includes even the Tim Burton Batman movies where this reputation as a guy that doesn’t kill comes from.

So, I tried to do it by proxy. Shoot the car they’re in, the car blows up or the grenade would go off in the guy’s hand, or when he shoots the tank and the guy pretty much lights the tank [himself]. I perceive it as him not killing directly, but if the bad guy’s are associated with a thing that happens to blow up, he would say that that’s not really my problem.

A little more like manslaughter than murder, although I would say that in the Frank Miller comic book that I reference, he kills all the time. There’s a scene from the graphic novel where he busts through a wall, takes the guy’s machine gun…I took that little vignette from a scene in The Dark Knight Returns, and at the end of that, he shoots the guy right between the eyes with the machine gun. One shot. Of course, I went to the gas tank, and all of the guys I work with were like, ‘You’ve gotta shoot him in the head’ because they’re all comic book dorks, and I was like, ‘I’m not gonna be the guy that does that!’

Source

I...what...why...?

[Candy Kappa]

The hell kind of Dark Knight Returns did he read?

Or have I mentally denied that Bats execute a guy?

[ProactiveMan]

I think the no killing thing is a holdover from the Comics Code Authority days. I prefer it that way too, but I'm not sure why it is such a deal breaker for so many people.

[sdp]

Originally Posted by Bry

Well, personally... in a market where there's "a cool superhero movie with awesome stuff happening" released every handful of months, and if many or most of them have better stories and are getting better word-of-mouth than this one, that's a less compelling argument.

That's a good point but there really isn't another superhero movie that is doing what BvS did. So unless DC keeps making the same mistakes and the newness wears off it isn't a problem now.

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939

I'm sure companies do this stuff all the time, but it's interesting that Warner needs to do this to boost ratings for what they've hyped up to be the biggest, smartest, deepest superhero film ever.

Companies have done this in the past and will continue. Also those ratings are usually filled by super fanboys so I never really take those into account. I do think the movie will be huge though, and by that I mean bigger than any other Marvel movie this year.

Originally Posted by Sumac

Meanwhile, Zach Snyder provides his explanation for why his Batman they way he is in the movie:

Source

I...what...why...?

He has a point though. It didn't bother me in the movie because he really doesn't act any different than Batman has in previous films. I still hate that they do it but every movie has done it.

Originally Posted by ProactiveMan

I think the no killing thing is a holdover from the Comics Code Authority days. I prefer it that way too, but I'm not sure why it is such a deal breaker for so many people.

Maybe because I grew up with it that way but to me its very important that Batman doesn't kill. it just goes against who he is and that's what "crossing the line" is. Same reason why he doesn't use guns. It's a big no-no for me. Same with Superman, I expect him to do the right thing no matter what. That's why I liked the ending of MOS, you could tell he didn't want to do it but he did. I'm a little bit more lenient with Superman than Bats because we've seen him kill plenty of sentient "monsters" before because there was no other option. Other superheroes I don't mind if they kill, I mean I wouldn't expect Spider-Man or another hero to kill their enemies but they would do it to save other people and that's fine for them but not Batman.

[Candy Kappa]

Batman's no-kill rule and no-guns happened very early on like within the first year of publication.

[TurtleTitan97]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

The hell kind of Dark Knight Returns did he read?

Or have I mentally denied that Bats execute a guy?

I remember one scene in which he killed a member of the Mutants, but only cause she was threatening a child.

But other than that DKR Batman used non-lethal means to dispatch most of his enemies.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by sdp

Maybe because I grew up with it that way but to me its very important that Batman doesn't kill. it just goes against who he is and that's what "crossing the line" is. Same reason why he doesn't use guns. It's a big no-no for me. Same with Superman, I expect him to do the right thing no matter what. That's why I liked the ending of MOS, you could tell he didn't want to do it but he did. I'm a little bit more lenient with Superman than Bats because we've seen him kill plenty of sentient "monsters" before because there was no other option. Other superheroes I don't mind if they kill, I mean I wouldn't expect Spider-Man or another hero to kill their enemies but they would do it to save other people and that's fine for them but not Batman.

I'm the same but I'm more lenient on Batman than Superman. Batman's just a man at the end of the day but for Superman the only exception should be Doomsday.

[sdp]

I hope any negativity in this thread from now on will only be from people who already saw the film. It's out there no reason to crap on the film if you haven't watched it. And for those who want to see an awkward interview where they are being asked what they think of the bad scores:
https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/post/141...-v-superman-is

And some more final spoiler filled thoughts I forgot to mention:

Spoiler:

The whole ending scene is so stupid. Luthor acting all crazy about the "invaders" in jail and Batman telling Wonder Woman "We need to get the other metahumans because I have a feeling something will happen" is all so stupid and out of the blue.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Galactus

Y'know Superman was regarded by the public as an urban myth in those early stories, right? It's hard to be a beacon of hope to a people who don't believe you exist.

So you'd want the social crusader Superman fighting the man? I mean that would be an interesting take (and true to the character) but it's not the definitive version of Superman as a big blue boy scout which is as much a problem.

These ideas are not mutually exclusive. Only in Frank Millers World and Red Son did he have a more dictatorial characterization, perhaps a bit in Birthright.

Originally Posted by Galactus

See we've already got a pretty damn good presentation of Superman as a character in cinema right now; he's called Steve Rogers aka Captain America. In terms of character that very much along the lines of what Clark Kent/Superman should be.

Except Superman should have a little more wit, and a little more confidence.
But the characterizations are naturally similar, sure.

Originally Posted by Galactus

Simply letting the character be a character rather than the the constant presentation of him being above reproach or constantly asking how would an ultra powerful alien that's kinda like Jesus really feel is the way.

Religious symbolism has no place in any Superman film; Moses, maybe a little, if you really want to go there, but he's really his own character. There are numerous martyr's/ orphaned heroes in comics; resorting to Jesus is just lazy symbolism.

[Commenter 42]

This Batman is the true Batman.

[ZariusTwo]

And they acknowledge Batman Forever/Batman and Robin!

Afflek working on solo Batflick with Geoff Johns (watch out for Andrew)


http://www.comicbookmovie.com/batman...n-film-a132536