Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Charles Rampant wrote:
Also the 'is she with you?' line is terrible.

I think that line is a little wink at the characters' respective relationships with Diana in other mediums.

"Is she with you?" Because Bruce and Di were interested/involved in the JL cartoon, and maybe in the books at some point also?

"No, I thought she was with you." Because Clark and Di have been romantically involved since early in the New 52.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
When he uses the heavy weaponry in non-lethal ways, but doesn't promote the use of the tool that killed his parents? Absolutely.

But that weapon doesn't look like a submachine gun. The caliber looks much too large, hence my guess of some kind of netgun, grenade launcher, etc.

Besides, how do you use machine guns and rockets in "non-lethal ways" other than just not firing them at stuff it can kill? I present to you...Doomsday. And note that in The Dark Knight Returns -- a heavy influence on this version of Batman -- he even used firearms, just with rubber bullets.

 Elemental wrote:
My hunch (and it's only that) is that there's still a sense of embarrassment about making movies about guys in tights, like we saw in the majority of superhero adaptations pre X-Men. The Dark Knight trilogy and Man of Steel feel (again, to me) like they're constantly trying to distance themselves from accusations of silliness, often with clunky exposition on What This Means that feels more like film critics discussing the movie than characters acting naturally within the movie. No, this isn't about a guy in a red and blue costume who can fly and shoot lasers from his eyes, that's just a cover for a very very serious work on how humankind would react to powerful aliens amongst them! Oh, and the main character is Jesus or something.

So the recent wave of DC films try a little to be about something, while the Marvel films just embrace the dumb?

I agree 100%.

Throughout the character's history, Superman has rarely been faced with no-win situations. The writers simply didn't allow it, and provided solutions and escapes, usually in the form of fairly silly applications of his powers, a power up, or most rarely a new power.

As I've said many times before, the Silver Age (and probably Bronze Age) Superman would have dealt with the MoS situation by assembling a Phantom Zone projector at superspeed out of random pieces of stuff around the train station. I mean, I can see the Curt Swan rendering of that panel in my mind right now. Silly yes, but the priority was to keep the character's morality etc. intact first, and worry about logic or story second.

Perhaps the great all-time example took place not in the comics but in Superman: The Movie. He makes a decision about which nuke to stop, and there are consequences for that. But hold on! Superman makes a fairly silly application of his powers AND has a power up (because if he can fly fast enough to reverse time, he should have been fast enough to stop both nukes in the first place)! So nothing bad happens...there are no consequences because his power is just that unlimited.

The question becomes how well does that kind of writing play to modern audiences. The MoS reaction suggests that there are some who still want that from the character, and some that don't, and that's why there's such a difference of opinion about the movie. Personally, I found that scene in MoS to be a borderline brilliant confrontation of the old Superman situational trope, but then that's probably something that most in the audience aren't really going to get.

What I find incredibly lazy and frankly just plain dumb is the "that wasn't Superman" commentary regarding MoS. Superman has a long history and has been different things at different times. Hell, in one of the few and perhaps the most famous no-win situation Superman faced in the comics, he killed Zod and two other people. And less humanely, since he gave them a painful Kryptonite death instead of a quick neck snap. I guess that wasn't Superman either, except that it was.

IN CONCLUSION, I really don't know why every thread about a DC movie evolves (de-volves?) into this same tired exercise. I think we know where everyone stands on the matter, and clearly opinions aren't going to change.

You wonder if the Flash and Cyborg costumes are 100% finalized, since those two are slightly in the background and hazier compared to the other four.

Regarding GL, mum's been the word re: casting too. There have been rumors that GL may not appear right off the bat in JL Part 1. If Big D is the baddie, then maybe the GL Corps shows up once things turn cosmic? Also, it remains to be seen which GL might appear in JL. I suspect -- and there are rumors to this end -- that we'll see multiple GLs in the DCCU, which should head off protests that this or that GL was chosen due to ethnic background.

We also got a glimpse of Katana's Soultaker, which was either degassing for some strange chemical reason or is magical too.

I think magic is 100% in play, and not just as "advanced alien technology." They've been kicking around the JL Dark project for a while.

My take is that it's not about pure realism in the DCEU, but instead about a little more realism in terms of how the existence of aliens, magic, etc. is received by the world.

That scout ship thing was speculation from the guy at Batman on Film that the interwebz took and ran with (and freaked out about). I *believe* one of the execs at WB is on record saying she's the "daughter of Zeus."

Edit: WB would be idiots to ignore the awesomeness that was Azzarello's run on WW, and her relationships with the gods (her family) was central to that storyline. And I don't think that they're idiots.

Edit part deux: From an article on Screenrant...

So when Batman V Superman producer Charles Roven discussed the film for LMU Film School’s Hollywood Masters series, his comments regarding the next heroes to be introduced weren’t too shocking:

“Well Wonder Woman’s in it, we know that. She has powers, she’s a goddess. She’s half… she’s a demigod. Her father was Zeus."

Said it since she was cast...the big question with Ms. Godot is her acting chops, not her muscles. Not that WW requires her to be Meryl Streep, but that's what carries a performance.

I mean, JHC...Scarlett Johannson isn't the least bit athletic-looking, and yet fanboys don't utter a peep about her as Black Widow. Of course, they're probably busy ogling other "assets," which are really what 75% of the complaints about Godot have to do with. But really, SJ does a decent job in the role, we suspend our disbelief, and it works.

Quite frankly, a lot of the fan suggestions I've seen for WW have predictably been no better or even worse. Gina Carano? She's cute and has physicality, but really don't see "goddess" presence. And I don't know that she's any improvement in the acting department. I don't see leading lady there.

Jamie Alexander...well, maybe. At times she even looks just like WW as drawn by Cliff Chiang...think it's in the eyes. But IIRC she talked with WB about the role and it didn't work out.

If someone wanted to bring up Charlize Theron, you'll get no argument from me, as she's basically *perfect* for the role -- terrific actor, has height, presence, looks, and can play tough or sweet. But they also probably weren't going to get her.

Given that the geek hivemind has a track record of fairly awful judgment with regards to casting genre characters, we should probably give Godot a chance.

DARKSEID IS


Edit: Note the firepits in the background. New Apokolips, perhaps?





As my kids would say, IT'S ON LIKE DONKEY KONG!

 Paradigm wrote:
Omega symbol on the ground, definitely Darkseid, as was speculated earlier when the last trailer had what appeared to be Parademons.

In a word, awesome. The funny thing is here that if Darkseid is to appear in JL Part 1, then DC have actually beaten Marvel to the punch, DS will take on the League before Thanos meets The Avengers... Not that I'm usually one to pit DC against Marvel, I just sit back and enjoy great films and comics from both, but since Thanos and Darkseid started out as pretty much identical characters, this is the one comparison that can be fairly drawn, I think.

Well, Marvel has more incentive for drawing things out with Thanos, since Marvel superhero films are all they make. They don't want to get there TOO quickly. I tend to think that WB has a shorter-term focus -- that they don't plan to run this DCEU until 2037 or whatever Feige says these days about the MCU. After 2020 or so, WB will probably move on to other things and maybe reboot some of the characters. Which seems kinda fitting giving the history of their respective comics universes!

And regarding the two big bads...Darkseid is much scarier than Thanos, IMO. Thanos is trying to impress a chick! Who doesn't understand that? Darkseid wants to crush the concept of free will...just because.

Well sure, but Marvel Studios isn't making the SW films. Marvel Studios exists within Disney only to make Marvel character films.

And TBH, I'm expecting some superhero movie exhaustion to hit in a few years time. When you look at the lineup across all three studios, it's really a lot. Too much, probably.

It's going to be about 6 per year. Eighteen over the next 3 years. We haven't been averaging close to that yet, so it's uncharted territory.

I'm a comic book fan, but just keepin' it real...it's going to be a lot.

2016
Deadpool
BvS
Civil War
X-Men Apoc
Suicide Squad
Dr. Strange

2017
Wolverine 3
GotG 2
WW
Spidey
Thor 3
JL Part 1

2018
Black Panther
Flash
Avengers Part 1
Ant-Man & Wasp
Unnamed Fox Marvel film
Aquaman

2019
Captain Marvel
Shazam
Avengers Part 2
JL Part 2
Inhumans

2020
Cyborg
Unnamed Marvel
GL
Unnamed Marvel
Unnamed Marvel

This doesn't even count the animated films.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I think people might pick and choose what they see more but that they will still rake in the cash. I mean, just this year I'm iffy on Dr. Strange & BvS. Though I'll probably see all of them this year.

Next year on the other hand I'm iffy about WW, Wolverine 3, and Spidey.

And does Marvel really have 3 films slated for 2018 and 2019?

Yep. And three slots in 2020. To me it seems like doubling down at a time when fatigue could set in. But Marvel does a good job at keeping the budgets down for their films, so even if they aren't doing huge box office, they'll probably be profitable ventures.

I got a little chuckle out of "Captain Marvel" and "Shazam" being back to back, considering the history of those characters and their names.

I hazard to guess that Shazam will be the lightest, most comedic fare offered by the DCEU.


So I did some minor sleuthing re: Wonder Woman. There's a shot in a recent trailer that shows her (as Diana Prince) on an airplane. If you look closely at the wall behind her, you can see that it's a Turkish Airlines plane. This is interesting because the Themyscira Plain in Turkey is where the mythical Amazons were supposed to have lived. The comic book writers borrowed the name to refer to the fictional Paradise Island.

So, I think it's probable that the Amazons in the DCEU are located in modern-day Turkey. That could be an island as in the comics, or it may simply be a city on the Themysicra Plain, as per the original myth.

And that could be the explanation for the WWI setting of the Wonder Woman film (as opposed to the character's traditional WWII association) -- it's the fighting on their doorstep during WWI (the Ottoman Empire being one of the Central Powers) that gets the Amazons interested in "man's world" once again.

I loved that casting from the beginning. *shrug*

Trailer looks great. That might be the best Batman fight sequence that we've seen on film to date, and we aren't even seeing all of it. Especially with the traditional-looking suit, it really looks like the Batman of the comics in action.

If you don't blink, you can see that shot of Batman overlooking the ruined city and firepits, with the symbol in the ground.

IMO, the look on Cavill's face is more "what the feth is going on" than "hmm...tougher than expected." And there's a BvS LEGO kit that suggests an answer.

If anyone cares to know the LEGO spoiler (it's not a big one, but still)...

I think we really need to see what this Lex is before we judge the actor in the role.

If this Lex is supposed to be a growling, scenery-chewing, middle-aged, real estate-obsessed villain, then sure, he's probably not the best choice for the role. But OUTSIDE past movies, Lex has been different things at different times.

Since this Lex is LL Jr., I wonder if they aren't taking a few basic notes from the LL II storyline from the mid post-Crisis era, without the whole clone angle. To wit, Dad was the more obviously ruthless one while Jr is the energetic optimistic type (at least publicly). Some of the fake interviews have suggested this.

Good find. I like the clarification that his cowl and suit actually have a lot going on underneath.

Here are some tweets from Anthony Breznican (@Breznican), an EW reporter who's seen the film:

1. If you loved Man of Steel, you'll love BvS.
2. If you loved Man of Steel, but not the end, BvS may redeem that.
3. If you hated Man of Steel and the whole grim/dark thing, okay, probably not for you.
4. Wonder Woman is fearsome.
5. There's a moment between Batman & Superman that'll make even the most cynical eye tear-up a little.
6. Fans will have a lot to discuss (and fight over.)

I loved that it took things people didn't like about Man of Steel and jiu-jitsued them into being part of the story.

I'm just fine with a darker tone and some thoughtfulness. If I want to see yuks and dance-offs, I'll go watch a Marvel film. I don't need to see Bruce dance the Batusi again. It won't be worse than Avengers 2, which was a steaming pile.

Regarding #4 above, there have been a lot of rumors and whispers that WW steals the film.

And once again, you dip into "I have no idea what Mr. Morden is going on about" territory.

The buzz does seems positive.

I'm going on Thursday evening. I probably need to go on spoiler lockdown since I think the early screenings start today...?

 KingCracker wrote:
Depends who you hear it from. I just watched a video on YouTube where the guy said it was all kinds of awesome. Then again I watched a video where the hosts panned it as barely watchable. *shrugs*

Yeah, the reviews are *all over the place*. They can't even agree on individual elements of the film. Reviewers who liked it mostly praised the cast. Other didn't like the film but felt the performances were good. And others didn't like the film and really bashed the performances.

Even individual reviews are disjointed. One of the reviewers from Forbes spent 1000 words laying into the film, then closed by praising its visuals and saying he was still looking forward to the rest of the DCEU. The other Forbes reviewer gave it a positive review. WTH?

I do think that some critics just have it in for Snyder, and at this point WB would almost be better served by just putting the 'Alan Smithee' label on anything he directs. The reviews would probably tick up a bit as a result.

I haven't seen it yet, but it kinda seems like that early "review" I posted from the EW(?) guy might be on target -- if you liked Man of Steel, or liked MoS except for necksnaps, you'll probably like this one. If you didn't like MoS at all, it might not be your movie.

Although a friend of mine pointed out how many critics said it was better than Man of Steel...but then rated it lower than what they gave MoS. I dunno. I tend to think this movie is largely critic-proof anyway.

I'll chime in too, in spoiler-free fashion. This will probably get *long* because it's stream of consciousness, but could even be longer just because I feel like there's a lot to talk about, and if I get started I'm going to be here for a while (not in a bad way). I'm happy to discuss spoiler-y stuff and particular points behind spoilers in the next couple days.

It's not a perfect film, partially because it's so ambitious. There's a lot of ground to cover -- transitioning from and tying up Man of Steel, introducing this Batman -- and to a lesser degree Wonder Woman and getting you interested in THAT film, laying some groundwork for Justice League, and even starting to introduce the ultimate threat in the DCEU. I think some reviewers are remiss not to give a certain allowance to Snyder knowing how hard this would be for ANY director. Getting down to brass tacks, I think some kind of "B" rating is fair within the film's genre. If you want to argue for a "C", I won't agree, but might acknowledge some of your points. It's not a "D" or "F", and I'll never really understand an argument for those kinds of grades.

The film is probably a little too brisk, and needed more room and time to simmer and breathe (although again, it was a long list of boxes it needed to check). Some unevenness resulted. And it almost requires that you've seen MoS. However, I didn't feel at all like the film was fatally flawed because of this. I'd call it a weakness and leave it at that. It's not an "incoherent mess." I thought the script asked some interesting questions early on. That might have been lost somewhat during the last third of the film, but it wasn't brooding for brooding's sake like some of the reviews would have you believe. It's a world and public still wrestling with the reality of this alien god running around doing stuff, and to me that's a realistic note. *shrug* This aspect of the film is personified in Holly Hunter's character.

Yes, it's a broody Clark/Superman in this film because he's still wrestling with the gak that went down in MoS, the disturbing ways people are acting toward him -- worshipful or terroristic, and some really unfortunate gak that happens during the movie. Something happens in this film that I think would have any reasonable person in his boots questioning whether the whole superhero thing was worth it. And I'd recommend that you believe the reviewers who said Cavill is good in the role...I liked his performance.

Batman/Bruce...I found it reasonably believeable that he'd feel the way he did. He's a damaged, extreme Batman who's been doing his thing for too long without any help or a lot of hope that he even made a difference. Then the Battle of Metropolis happens, he feels the aftermath of that very personally and deeply, and then with a few pushes... Some might not like that he's not THE good guy, or maybe even a good guy throughout the film. But I thought the end showed a Batman fully back on track, if that makes sense. And in a spot where he's the damn best...making plans. Affleck was also good in the role I thought...probably my fave Bruce/Batman to date. Interestingly he was Bruce for most of his screen time, it seemed. Of course, then when he's in the cowl...I dunno, personally I found myself thinking, now THAT is the Batman from the comics...or at least the closest thing that we've seen. Cripes, he actually does detective work! Importantly, I feel like this Batman (and Alfred) was established well enough by this film. I don't need the solo film first before we get JL.

What brings them together rang fairly true to me. Clark has a very good reason for hunting down Bruce, and Bruce...is in a mood. Too much so? If you want to question it, fine, but then see the first bit of my last paragraph. What makes them STOP fighting -- which is ultimately the more important point, right? -- is interesting. It may not ring true to everyone. Again, if you want to call that a potential weakness, that's fine. But I think some spackle was applied to that possible crack just because of the presence of another character in the scene.

Lex. This isn't the scenery-chewing real estate-obsessed Hackman/Spacey Lex, and it isn't the cold, calculating Lex from Smallville either. He isn't as goofy as the trailers might make him seem, but he's a twitchy sonuvagun. Eisenberg went with a "insanity/megalomania simmering hot *just* below the surface" thing. Snyder, Terrio and Eisenberg made some choices there, and not everyone might like them. Personally...I was okay with it. Over-the-top, perhaps, but he's a villain in a comic book movie and there were times I thought Eisenberg was very effective. He and Hunter had a number of scenes together and had good chemistry, I thought.

The rest of the cast was good. Gadot looked good and not out of place like people feared. Obviously, Wonder Woman is revealed and gets some good moments, but stays somewhat mysterious, and they leave a lot for her solo film and had me looking forward to it. Call that a checked box. Amy Adams was good, and Jeremy Irons was a great Alfred...if he had had the screen time that Caine built up over 3 films, I'd probably say that Irons is the best to date. Fishburne didn't have a lot to do in the Perry White role, but I thought he actually had some of the snappiest lines. I even laughed out loud a couple times. My god, it wasn't so humorless as to drain my soul!

The presence of the other JL heroes was IMO very deftly done. Cyborg and Aquaman are in the film, but not in the story...and you'll understand what I mean when you see it. Flash...different thing. Or is it? That's something to talk about behind spoilers.

Visually, the film is pretty darn amazing...different and IMO much better than MoS. The opening scene is IMO an incredibly artistic version of something you've seen before. There's a lot of night stuff -- although Batman is a main player, remember -- but Snyder didn't shoot this with the blue filter like MoS. Colors are noticeably brighter, especially Supes' suit. The fights were pretty great to watch. Hell, just go for that and have fun with that if nothing else floats your boat. The final battle...if you want to say too much CGI or whatever, fine...call that a weakness. I didn't find it to be a fatal flaw, and during that sequence you get to see WW in action, which is a treat and kept me from focusing on how Doomsday looked anyway. They did go somewhere at the very conclusion of that fight that was both obvious, and yet still a little surprising. But what it did was take some of the issues people had with MoS, flip them around and leave things in what might be a more satisfying and appropriate place for some. The "Knightmare" sequence was stunning visually, IMO. I think I read that part was filmed in IMAX? I caught a regular showing, but that would be something to see.

Which kinda leads me to mention that I also enjoyed the easter eggs. Some very subtle, others not so subtle, but something only a DC fan would probably understand. And I'm sure I missed more.

@Compel -- I dunno about your assessment...I think it creates categories that aren't there. I've been a fan of the Superman character for 4 decades. I'm the guy who immediately got excited to see the shattered moon in MoS, knowing that it was the moon that Jax-Ur blew up. I'm the guy who immediately wondered and still wants to ask Goyer or Snyder if Russell Crowe's fighting moves were intended to represent Klurkor. I was the kid who learned in elementary school that other kids would look at you funny if you're playing Superman and bring up Super-Ventriloquism. And I liked this film, don't have deep rooted issues with it, and really want to see it again, because I have a hunch that it's going to shine more the second time through. I'm actually inclined to suggest that people with such issues with some of Snyder's decisions in the last two films really AREN'T as big of a Superman fan as they think they are...it's more likely that they're mega-attached to a certain version of the character at a given point in time. *shrug* He's been different things at different times...I think a "megafan" understands and rolls with that.

Okay, that was crazy long and it's very late. Looking forward to discussing it in the days to come.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
My spoilery thoughts.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS Darn page previews. SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS

Spoiler:

I think it's entirely possible that Lex is under Darkseid's control to an extrent. - He clearly knew more than he was letting on, going by his crazy rant at the end.

Future dude was the Flash. - Who I think was a big miscast. Looks more like indie rockband style dude than a police forensic detective.

The "big things" that would annoy megafans.
While, I wouldn't say Batman really directly kills anyone in the film, except perhaps but blowing up flamethrower dude. But there were *way* too many situations where he pretty much almost certainly was responsible for peoples death. - EG, Batwing machine guns hit the front of a truck, exploding it. He was clearly not shooting at the truck cab, but it's *really* unlikely that anyone there could have survived that explosion.

Part of it does seem intentional though. - The Batman for the majority of the film feels so completely hopeless that he effectively just doesn't care anymore. He's not going to kill someone, but he just doesn't care about the consequences of what the does. - This is highlighted / shown to be intentional by the discussion about the Batman brand being a deathmark.
- Alfred does call him out on it though and, can be assumed to be working on him about this for future films. Plus, the ending does suggest that he's rediscovered 'hope' now.

Incidentally, how the flip did I never notice Martha Kent and Martha Wayne. That was really well done.

Not sure that Lex Luthor knowing *everyones* secrets was the best move though.

I did like the justice league 'videos' though. Kinda tells you the basics of what you need to know without having to delay by going through the whole Marvel style origin movie stuff. I'm looking forward to the Justice League films.

I think the "Lois Lane is key" tends to refer to various interpretations of Superman (Such as in Injustice: Gods Among Us), where Lois is one of Clark's real ties to humanity. Specifically, if she were to ever suffer a violent death, the world would be screwed. Presumably in Justice League, Batman will be faced with a choice at some point to do something like either (A) Save Lois or (B) Defeat Darkseid. In the dream sequence / future, he chooses Option (B), resulting in Lois dying and Clark becoming evil - eg, worse than Darkseid. Whereas, the correct choice is (A), perhaps resulting in Darkseid continuing to be a threat (but temporarily defeated, due to power of friendship), but Superman stays on the line of Truth, Justice and the American way.

Spoileryness done!

It's too late for me to reply to this, but Great Rao, I'm doing it anyway!

Regarding your point about a certain female...



And regarding Lex...

 Sigvatr wrote:
How could I forget the most important thing?

Spoiler:

The movie's core plot point is Superman's and Batman's mother both having the same name. I am not kidding. Really.

I don't see that as a fair or accurate characterization based on the meaning of those words. It is "a key fact upon which the title conflict changes."



Regarding the inclusion of the other JL characters, if it HAD to be done, was there a way they could have done it better? The film was crowded as is, so while the approach they took might feel "tacked on," at least it didn't crowd the movie even more by including them in the story.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Audience members were personally invested into BvS by having to pay for their tickets, line up for midnight screenings, finagling pre-screenings. The only people doing that are hardcore DC fans. That 25% did not like it speaks volumes.

Actually, those of us who liked it more than the *dire* reviews are more than capable of making sound judgments about the film without having 13 dollars spent or a history with these characters in other mediums render us hopelessly biased. That's a really cute assertion, though.

One could even more easily question the motivations and biases of someone who jumps into a discussion to slag a movie that they haven't actually seen and namedrop unrelated films from another studio.

 Alpharius wrote:

Saw it - and rather enjoyed it!

I'm really not sure what movie all the reviewers who rate this one at 'horrible' actually saw...

But I'll admit to being a bit biased!

I predicted bad reviews to a friend of mine the day before the embargo lifted, and it had nothing to do with what I expected from the movie. One strike is that it's Zack Snyder. Some critics just have it in for the guy. Strike two is about the framing of the movie. Had they just written and marketed it as a Marvel-style smash up, thrown in more yuks, etc., I think critics would have backed off. By trying to work in some heavier stuff and pathos, the reviewers took the gloves off. They don't watch and critique Zootopia in the same way that they do The Revenant, right? Same thing.

The film has its flaws without question. The creators also took some chances and made some interesting decisions. But some of them are molehills that got turned into mountains by certain reviewers. And when you see reviews laying into aspects like the visuals and cast (beyond some of the choices that Eisenberg made)...well, yeah, then I really have no idea what movie they screened.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Much of what I have read about it or seen elsewhere I generally agree with. I liked it but didn't love it. It has moment of greatness but also some low points. The first part of the movie seemed to be where the ambition and interest were as it set out to deal with the effects of MoS as well as showing Batman investigating what was happening in the background. The latter part where they tried to shoehorn in follow up film lead ups was less focused or interesting.

I thought the fight with Doomsday was nice but it seemed a waste of Doomsday in a lot of ways.

Gal Godot was ok: not great, not awful, just ok.

Putting Gotham and Metropolis so close to each other seemed kind of odd.

Overall I think people should see it if they are interested, just know that it is a flawed film going in.

Welcome to the 'liked it even if I didn't love it" club! And in addition to your last statement, it almost needed to come with a "MoS Knowledge Required" label. I now finally understand what Snyder meant by calling it a MoS sequel, even though it's obviously not MoS 2.

Regarding the battle with Doomsday (this is for anyone)...

nkelsch wrote:


I am going to do Warner Brothers a favor, this movie could have easily been 3 separate movies. They squandered and opportunity to build a coherent universe for a rushed mess.

Spoiler:

Spring 2016: Batfleck which Batman returns to Gotham after being dead for a long time from the Nolandverse. The existance of superman forces his hand. When he returns, he finds Wayne manor destroyed aand John blake no where to be seen. It seems a new 'Batman'has been doing stuff in his absense. The Leauge of Shadows has been cloning Bruce Wayne.

This can have Batman vs Batwing and the introduction of Damien Wayne. Full-on Batman baatfleck movie with the same action effects used in BvS.

Fall 2016: Suicide Squad. Perfect movie. Leave the origins of this joker a mystery but follow the return of the joker story arcs where JaredLeto is John Blake, corrupted and driven mad by the Heath ledger joker.

Winter 2017: Superman - Take basically everything from BvS about government issues and Lex Luther and make a self contained movie with no batman. Luthor gets control of the alien ship (Which is basically braniac) and takes that wounded dude and does alll his gak to frame batman. Luthor stays 'legal' so braaindead sups can't put him in jail. First Villian is Metallo. Disabled dude survive the explosion and is rebuilt with a robot body by krypton tech and heart of kyrptonite. Battle ensues, Metallo at the bottom of the ocean or some crap. Movie ends with Lex being 'Meh, I have broken no law, you have no proof' and superman doing the 'i am waatching you.' thing.

Summer 2017: Stand Alone Wonder woman movie. Maybe even her 1918 retro movie which sets her up having a reason to 'watch' mankind until present.

Winter 2017: Batfleck 2: Real BvS. Jared Leto joker decides to enuse chaos by plotting bat vs superman using basically Lex's poorly thought out plan from this movie. Joker would kidnap a mom to force them to fight. He would punk Lex luthor to steal his kryptonite. Make it a Joker plot which is foiled in the end and Bat and Supes go their separate ways. Luthor is mad as gak.

Spring 2018: Make a nother isolated movie, Cyborg and the mothercube I guess. That is the most darkseid-related.

Fall 2018: Superman 2: Braniac. Luthor is mad, and attemps to ressurect Zod (not make a lame clone) with mind control stuff so it obeys him (opposed to murdering him immediatly). Bizzaro is born. Luthor uses Bizarro to stage crimes to frame superman. Fight ensues, Nuke scene happens, Bizarro turns ugly and broken. During this Luthor is freaking out and Braniac activated shortly when zod was revived as bizarro. Braniac begins doing his own crazy gak. Cyborg is introduced as his motherbox is the only thing combating braniac's world-wide control. Teamup, braniac defeated. Boomtube opens, Apokalips exposed.

Winter 2019: Suicide Squad 2: Luthor is defeated, lost his empire and hates superman. Amanda Wallace declares war on Superman on behalf of the US government. A crapton of villains attempt to assassinaate Superman and Hijinks ensue.

Summer 2019: Flash Movie: Flash is living a fun happy life as a hero in his city. Everyone loves him, He beats up on Bommerange aand cold and other fun stuff. But he time travels to the future for macguffen reason and sees 'justice lords' and apocalypse. Full on lobotomy Superman, Old man bruce wayne, Evil everyone. Flash helps batman bring sense to justice lord superman but it is too late. He watches everyone get killed by darksied and flaash goes back to regular time and hunts down batman.

Winter 2019: Justice League: Combine Supes, bat, Cyborg, Flash, Wonderwoman and BAM, you got a movie franchise with Darkseid and apokalypse being the major antagonist.

I dunno, I feel like your list would make some things worse.

1) BvS certainly may have been rushed, but making 9 movies before JL (or is it 13 including MoS and the Nolan films under your plan?) seems like at least twice as many as is needed.

2) This Batman doesn't need to be the Nolan Batman, and going down that path just limits these filmmakers creatively and probably leads to more confusion. I think that one of the successes of this film was its establishment of Batfleck, and note that we'll get more of his backstory filled in with Suicide Squad.

3) The John Blake/Robin/Joker fanboy stuff is terrible and incredibly convoluted. I don't see how introducing that would address the most common issues people have had with the DCEU so far.

IMO, the issues with BvS are almost entirely story related. It was always going to be somewhat of an issue given how much ground BvS had to cover, but I think some of them were also fixable and don't represent some fatal flaw in WB's approach to the whole shebang. We're going to learn more about Batman and the world of the villains in SS, and WW will have her own feature before JL. Let's see where the enterprise is at that point. I had my doubts about Marvel after stinkbombs like IM2, Thor, etc. and they managed to rally and string together some better films.

And I liked this film - warts and all - much more than IM2.

 reds8n wrote:

Spoiler:

The bit where you see Cyborg being "made"... that looked like it might be a Mother Box there that fixes him perhaps ?

Almost definitely! Like I think I said in my 'War and Peace' rambling review, I believe that I may have unconsciously punched the air in the theater when that showed up. Fortunately the theater had stadium seating, so no injuries or brawls resulted.

So in the "Knightmare" sequence...



Seems like audience reviews -- while not stellar -- are still tracking a good bit higher than those of the critics.

 Alpharius wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


I think the reason Wonder Woman is such a hit with audiences is because she seems to be the only character who actually has any fun in the movie.

I've read that a few times.

Given Batman's origin and some peeks into his past here and the whole setup of the film - no surprise that he's rather...angry.

Superman is also shown as conflicted and unsure as to whether or not he should even be 'Superman' - a theme that's repeated throughout the movie. So no surprise that he's rather conflicted as well.

Wonder Woman?

Well, something so awful happened that she basically exiled her self for almost 100 years.

But yes, she appears to enjoy a good fight too!

I think that what they wanted to show us at the end is a re-energized Bruce who's found the better parts of himself again (see the scene in the cell), AND who now has a defined purpose for being Batman beyond crime in Gotham. I dunno, I just really like the idea of him getting organized and prepping for what's to come. Clearly these guys get that about the character from what we saw in the fight against Supes. Anyway, it's almost like someone or something chose wisely to send him those visions...?

Meanwhile, we have (presumably, given the final scene) a more experienced Superman with a much-improved relationship with the public and government. Much about WW isn't clear, but presumably she's discovered some very good reasons why she should get re-engaged in "man's world." I doubt JL will be sweetness and light, but going forward these characters might be the more familiar, positive forces that people want to see.

Regarding WW, I understand the argument for giving her a solo film first. However, I hazard to guess that WB wanted to interest us (and especially younger males) with this WW before her solo film hits theaters. The track record with female superhero films is very poor, although obviously limited. I can imagine some trepidation on the studio's part, given the investment. Note how much farther down the road Marvel is with their franchise, and they won't have something similar for what, a couple more years yet? It would appear that they're also wary of the risks, despite having a character and actress (ScarJo) clearly capable of heading a successful film.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:

Saw it - and rather enjoyed it!

I'm really not sure what movie all the reviewers who rate this one at 'horrible' actually saw...

But I'll admit to being a bit biased!

 gorgon wrote:


And regarding Lex...

Spoiler:

I took it more to mean that he got all the info from the Kryptonian library, got to the part about the New Gods -- especially the naughty ones -- and it kinda blew his mind. Almost like a Lovecraft character rolling around gibbering after being confronted with that kind of cosmic horror. Darkseid is pretty much cosmic horror, after all. And Lex was already off his rocker about a single Kryptonian. Then he probably got hit with stuff like the existence of the Anti-Life Equation, etc.

Personally I loved the note it struck at the end with Bruce aware that something's coming, and starting to make plans. We're talking about Batman with advanced warning...that gak is in the bag.

I think I might have actually fist-pumped seeing the Mother Box during the Cyborg sequence.

Spot on stuff there Gorgon - I think you've nailed it!

Well, most of it?

It still appears that Lex knew...almost everything about almost every one pre-Kryptonian Scout Ship.

Well...so about that....(deleted scene ahead)...

 Alpharius wrote:
I read that the budget on this movie was around $250 million, and that an additional $150 to $180 million was spent on 'advertising and promotion'.

I then read that the fill will need to pull in $800 million world wide in order to 'break even'.

Huh?

What (obviously) am I missing?

Well...it certainly wasn't spent on paying off film critics.

I'd be inclined to chalk that up to a dire analysis. Hard to believe that they'd paint themselves into that kind of corner.