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.

 Frazzled wrote:
And of course the 1966 Batman was truly the greatest superhero movie of all time. Pow! BANG! THWAPP! HOLY BAD ACTING BATMAN!

I grew up on those. When I was a kid, my grandmother babysat me a lot, and that was in pretty heavy rotation. I'm not really sure why I liked it so much.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not really sure why I liked it so much.

Batman and Robin didn't irritate me as much as Batman Forever, for some reason ...

I surely had no complaints about Alicia Silverstone, myself.

Anyway, after Suicide Squad, I am now super ultra hyped for the Harley Quinn / Margot Robbie spin-off that was announced a while back.

 Frazzled wrote:

And of course the 1966 Batman was truly the greatest superhero movie of all time. Pow! BANG! THWAPP! HOLY BAD ACTING BATMAN!

I have an unholy love for the 60's batman, and I of course totally disagree about the bad acting. They knew just how to ham/camp it up without going too far. That is a tough line to walk.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think that a lot more thought went into the subliminal messages in the DC movies. There are A LOT of things in the background for the "thinking man" to digest. In BvsS for example, in the party scene where Bruce Wayne meets Clark Kent, look in the background. A rather obvious (and large) painting by an artist that specializes in the themes of this movie. Those themes include Power corrupting, today's heroes are tomorrow's villains, the powerless are often defenseless, and the obliviousness of those in positions of power.

TBH, that is typical Snyder. If you watch Sucker Punch, his magnum opus, Snyder has these beautifully-crafted shots and scenes, and they're all laid out with Chekov's Armory and so forth so that there aren't any surprises or confusion. As a director, Snyder is uniquely gifted, and I enjoy his work immensely. Technically speaking, he probably does the best short scenes of all the comic book movie directors. And the work he puts into building up to a panel-perfect shot is incredible.

The problem with DC's movies comes down to writing. We saw that in spades with BvS, and we're seeing it here with SS. Someone needs to hire someone who can do a better job with the story and screenplay. Where DC falls short is in the connective tissue. DC has these great scenes and moments, but they're not linked together in a way that has familiarity and connection.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
There just aren't as many DC movies out there, so you are more likely to remember the bad ones.

In theory, if there are fewer movies, who ever is in charge can spend more time on each, to ensure a higher-quality product.

The problem for DC is that they don't really have anyone in charge of things to ensure that the movies work well alone and/or as a group. Instead, we have what appears to be a lot of executive meddling to force a DCEU before it's ready.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
In that the Marvel movies are broadly entertaining and the DC ones are a chore to watch but have easter eggs for people who care about art?

I wouldn't call them that entertaining actually. Avengers was meh, Thor sucked balls (both movies), IM3 with extremely meh, and the second Avengers I saw on cable and it was work to watch the whole thing.

I liked X Men: Magneto (the first movie because...Fassbender) and we loved Deadpool, but we've skipped a bunch or have been less than impressed.

That's your opinion of them, not their intent. As far as I can tell the Marvel movies are aiming for mass entertainment with an occasional twist that revels in the silliness of the source material, and in that they succeed whether any particular individual likes them or not, while the DC films are intent on being super-serial edgelord-fests that spend their time tearing down their own source material to prove they're proper adult movies with artwork easter eggs and everything not silly kid comic stuff and Killing Joke was literature damnit take me seeerrriously!

They're like a three-hour(inevitable director's cut) version of that PvP Online "My parents are DEAD" comic, it's exactly the same kind of guff that turned me off comics in the 90's.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm talking about the recent ones, ie Dark Night Rises and on. Begins was pretty good, and while Dark Knight took itself entirely too seriously that version of Joker was so good it gets a pass. After that point though the DC movie project disappeared right up its own backside IMO.

Watched it over the weekend.

was a bit meh.

far too serous for a movie about crazy bad guy characters.

Harly could of been better, final boss could of been better, music choices could of been better.

i like deadshot and captain boomerang

I really liked the new jokers style from what little i saw imho.

Yes I liked the new joker. Daughter couldn't stand him. I think she just has something against men who occasionally try to kill their girl friends. Pff wimminz these days.

 gorgon wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


Re bad reviews, my favorite quote is this one:

Suicide Squad is worse than Batman v Superman. No, we didn't think it was possible either.

Suicide Squad is a slog of a movie. It’s the same piano key being struck at exactly the same volume, and exactly the same rhythm, for two hours

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12366370/suicide-squad-review-harley-quinn-will-smith-margot-robbie

That's a funny quote, but not in the way the reviewer meant it. Because he/she could simply said that it was a *one-note* film. Instead he/she wrote that little "zinger" obviously thinking it was an original concept.

I don't know how you got that impression at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:
Mommies don't let your babies grown up to be hipster doofii movie bloggers. There *are* writing jobs out there for people with talent that don't involve crapping all over other people's genuinely creative work in order to make a name for yourself.

No, let parents raise hipster movie bloggers, movie criticism, analysis, commentary, etc is a useful contribution to society and if someone releases something gakky it should be crapped on. It's not about making a name for yourself it's about being honest about how you feel (maybe with a

bit of heightening for entertainment purposes). Also I love how you how your criticism of film criticism involves you resorting to personal attacks, truly a bastion of insightful analysis and a real class act.

To move away from the complaining. I had a few thoughts.

Overall, the scenes with Batman in the film are all rather, well heroic. Alfreds point about the feeling of helplessness and good men turning cruel is all very evident as being something very much about BVS and the specific situation in BVSa and not Batfleck as a whole.

Additionally one of the earliest 'leaked' images of the film was Dick Greystone gravestone which very much ended up NOT being in the film and NOT in BVS Ultimate. Sure it could be one of the many cut Joker scenes of maybe it was either a fake... or they changed their minds and the hope for Jason Todd being the Robin is still possible...

There were several moments in the trailers that were not in the movie that I can think of offhand.

Did that gif the Batman and Robin Batgirl suit have a Bat Camel Toe?

I don't really understand the harsh reviews. I thought it was a very good movie, I was entertained the whole time and loved the characters. Granted, I never read a single comic of Suicide Squad and I didn't know all of the characters in there (I had no idea who was Cpt. Boomerang, El Diablo, Enchantress and the female japanese Punisher, Katana) so maybe that's why I'm so forgiving.

Loved the new Joker, dude was scary as f*ck!

Actually, the movie worked TOO well for me: I bought the Vol 1 of both the Suicide Squad and New Suicide Squad. Pretty damn good cool comics, I'll have to get the rest.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Avengers, Good movie, but not great

The hell?

Compel wrote:
Additionally one of the earliest 'leaked' images of the film was Dick Greystone gravestone which very much ended up NOT being in the film and NOT in BVS Ultimate. Sure it could be one of the many cut Joker scenes of maybe it was either a fake... or they changed their minds and the hope for Jason Todd being the Robin is still possible...

It's been confirmed, I think, that Jason Todd is the Robin whose suit is in the cave in BvS. I believe there was a set tour or something where it was mentioned offhand that 'you all know how that happened' or similar.

TheDraconicLord wrote:
Actually, the movie worked TOO well for me: I bought the Vol 1 of both the Suicide Squad and New Suicide Squad. Pretty damn good cool comics, I'll have to get the rest.

If you want more Squad action, check out the animated film Batman: Assault on Arkham, it's fantastic. Hilarious script, great action sequences and some excellent Batman/Joker stuff as well.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't know how you got that impression at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:
Mommies don't let your babies grown up to be hipster doofii movie bloggers. There *are* writing jobs out there for people with talent that don't involve crapping all over other people's genuinely creative work in order to make a name for yourself.

No, let parents raise hipster movie bloggers, movie criticism, analysis, commentary, etc is a useful contribution to society and if someone releases something gakky it should be crapped on. It's not about making a name for yourself it's about being honest about how you feel (maybe with a bit of heightening for entertainment purposes). Also I love how you how your criticism of film criticism involves you resorting to personal attacks, truly a bastion of insightful analysis and a real class act.

Actually, you're right. That line might not have been written out of sheer ignorance. The other possibility is that the writer thought it sounded snarkier and more tweet-worthy compared to simply stating the case in a professional manner. Either way, he/she was trying too hard.

I thought the rest of your post was satire at first, because I've never seen that crowd positioned as noble public servants before. Well, they aren't that. Bloggers and clickbait website writers can be the least professional and least knowledgeable people around. So when I see them getting snarky, mean, and tearing down the work of *genuine creative professionals*, yeah, it rubs me the wrong way.

Any simpleton doofus can throw stones in the form of snarky lines and 140 character turd nuggets. Now, it's entirely possible that simpletons throwing turds defines this era of humanity. Just look at the candidacy of Donald Trump. But that doesn't make it right or appropriate. One can be HIGHLY critical, but also keep it respectful and clinical.

But oh, the hypocrisy! How can I throw mild pejoratives their way while asking them to more professional, less destructive, and less self-promotional? Well, that's because this is a message board posting, and not something passing itself off as a professional critical review. Ta-da.

 gorgon wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't know how you got that impression at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:
Mommies don't let your babies grown up to be hipster doofii movie bloggers. There *are* writing jobs out there for people with talent that don't involve crapping all over other people's genuinely creative work in order to make a name for yourself.

No, let parents raise hipster movie bloggers, movie criticism, analysis, commentary, etc is a useful contribution to society and if someone releases something gakky it should be crapped on. It's not about making a name for yourself it's about being honest about how you feel (maybe with a bit of heightening for entertainment purposes). Also I love how you how your criticism of film criticism involves you resorting to personal attacks, truly a bastion of insightful analysis and a real class act.

Actually, you're right. That line might not have been written out of sheer ignorance. The other possibility is that the writer thought it sounded snarkier and more tweet-worthy compared to simply stating the case in a professional manner. Either way, he/she was trying too hard.

I thought the rest of your post was satire at first, because I've never seen that crowd positioned as noble public servants before. Well, they aren't that. Bloggers and clickbait website writers can be the least professional and least knowledgeable people around. So when I see them getting snarky, mean, and tearing down the work of *genuine creative professionals*, yeah, it rubs me the wrong way.

Any simpleton doofus can throw stones in the form of snarky lines and 140 character turd nuggets. Now, it's entirely possible that simpletons throwing turds defines this era of humanity. Just look at the candidacy of Donald Trump. But that doesn't make it right or appropriate. One can be HIGHLY critical, but also keep it respectful and clinical.

But oh, the hypocrisy! How can I throw mild pejoratives their way while asking them to more professional, less destructive, and less self-promotional? Well, that's because this is a message board posting, and not something passing itself off as a professional critical review. Ta-da.

Alright, I have to chime in here. Gorgon, I agree with you that most critics qualifications are anyone who can hold a pen, but that doesn't mean they don't have valid opinions. Second, don't get so high and mighty about "genuine creative professionals", because, let's be honest here, the guy did it to make money. This wasn't some self funded film, the guy did it because people paid him to. Besides, guess what? If you put something out for public sale, expect it to be critiqued to hell and back. That's the price you pay for being allowed to make something and sell it.

 jreilly89 wrote:
That's the price you pay for being allowed to make something and sell it.

I find critics like to think of themselves as a form of entertainment as well. (Sounds like some strange meme "Who are the critics of the critics?")
Like the news, controversy sells.
You cannot just say "I found it an entertaining film worth seeing.".
"Helpful" criticism is to point out the good and the bad to consumer types:
"If you are an active comic book fan this movie is for you."
"If you dislike a movie shifting between multiple character perspectives, you may want to give this a pass."

I remember "Pulp Fiction" blew my friend's mind because the timeline jumped around... he HATED it.

I remember going into "Leaving Las Vegas" being told it was a comedy (big lie there)... funny how your expectations can kill a movie.

 Yodhrin wrote:
it's exactly the same kind of guff that turned me off comics in the 90's

All spurred on by Alan Moore and Frank Miller. You raise a good point. Marvel is happy living in the present ("Marvel NOW") while DC, always the more conservative brand, clings to the Dark Age.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Avengers, Good movie, but not great

The hell?

Avengers is a good action flick, but it feels very cartoony and there's a significant lack of tension with the action scenes.

It's good, and enjoyable, but I would agree that it's not a great movie. Especially since it made other movies just a glorified commercial for that movie.

 Talizvar wrote:
"Helpful" criticism is to point out the good and the bad to consumer types:

Conceiving of criticism as a mechanism of market efficiency reduces it to marketing. On the other side of a thin line, criticism is about reflecting upon and understanding a movie, its themes and the artistic and technical means by which they are achieved. Most of what Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic aggregate tends toward the former, in my experience. Imagine if GEICO and Allstate relied upon quasi-independent third parties to make their insurance commercials; that's what passes for film criticism, all of which is further strained by another third party into a universally applicable (?) percentage score. Efficiency!

Pretty decent and relevant article.

http://www.dorkly.com/post/80005/suicide-squad-questions

Don't think this has been posted yet -- here are SS co-creator John Ostrander's thoughts about the movie.

http://www.comicmix.com/2016/08/07/john-ostrander-reviews-the-suicide-squad/

There's an F-bomb in there in case your workplace is sensitive about such things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Alright, I have to chime in here. Gorgon, I agree with you that most critics qualifications are anyone who can hold a pen, but that doesn't mean they don't have valid opinions. Second, don't get so high and mighty about "genuine creative professionals", because, let's be honest here, the guy did it to make money. This wasn't some self funded film, the guy did it because people paid him to. Besides, guess what? If you put something out for public sale, expect it to be critiqued to hell and back. That's the price you pay for being allowed to make something and sell it.

Pay has nothing to do with it.

What's the creative process for a movie reviewer? What creative ideas do they generate when writing a review? What inspiration is found? What original thing is created?

The answer is none, because that's not the nature of their work. Their job is focused on discussing the creative works of others, and not on being a generator of new ideas. Just like reporters aren't artists. Don't assume that someone is a creative professional because they're writing, lest we start equating medical textbook writers with William Shakespeare.

The scene in Birdman is very angry, yet somewhat relevant.

NSFW:

Just got back from watching it, went with my girlfriend and we both agreed that it was an utter piece of crap:

- The characters' backstory is well developed, but as soon as their roles' established the film rushes into the main story with the speed of an American at a buffet. It's almost as if the producers forgot about the plot and just tried to shoe-horn one in somewhere in the middle. Especially towards the end where the commander just realises "Guys, I totally forgot I placed a bomb exactly under the bad guys ages ago, I just didn't bother to tell you all until now", like what the hell?

- Cinematography was all over the place. Most of the combat takes place in the dark, with the occasional flash of gunfire or sparks. I could barely keep track of who was fighting who.

- The entire concept of Suicide Squad seems to focus solely on Deadshot and Harley. Diablo(?) does absolutely jack until the very end when suddenly he can transform into some sort of daemon, Mr. Croc for no reason decides to attack his own team-mates. Captain Boomerang just reinforces the aged Aussie stereotype and again, has minimal role in the storyline. Don't know where the hell Katana and Slipknot came from but as soon as they introduced Slipknot so quickly I knew he was just going to be killed off.

- Joker was a waste: They could remove all of his scenes from the film and nothing would change. The whole "kidnapping Harley" bit in the middle had no relevance to the plot at all and just seemed like filler material.

I think the main problem with this particular film was the producers had trouble finding the balance to appeal towards those who have minimal comic book/superhero knowledge (like myself) and die-hard fans.

Saw it tonight, movie was garbage from start to finish.

Lame story
Lame characters
Lame dialogue
Lame enemies
Lame villain

Not even Margot Robbie saved this movie for me.

 gorgon wrote:

Pay has nothing to do with it.

What's the creative process for a movie reviewer? What creative ideas do they generate when writing a review? What inspiration is found? What original thing is created?

The answer is none, because that's not the nature of their work. Their job is focused on discussing the creative works of others, and not on being a generator of new ideas. Just like reporters aren't artists. Don't assume that someone is a creative professional because they're writing, lest we start equating medical textbook writers with William Shakespeare.

That depends entirely on the style of the review. Plenty of reviewers these days create and edit their own video reviews. Some write critique in a comedic style, riffing on their own criticisms. Are documentary filmmakers not artists in your mind?

I know it suits "creatives" and those who idolize them to believe they're super-special-snowflakes adding something magical to the human experience and critics(and anyone else they decide to define as not being a "creative", using criteria that seems to morph from moment to moment like goalposts equipped with their own site-to-site transporter) are just nasty, pointless meanies who try to tear people down, but the reality is "art" is a collective hallucination or in some cases a wilful self-delusion driven by ego, the result of the same process of the application of skill and iterative creativity that most people use everyday.

The history of art is a history of fads and fashions, of arbitrary distinctions between the worthy and the supposedly-mundane being made by people entirely too convinced of their own magnificence.

If something can through the application of skill generate a product that elicits enjoyment, why is that not art, while an empty white room in a gallery with static being played into it is? Which of course just illustrates how meaningless the term is in the end.

I definitely think movie reviewers can be creative in and of their own. I own a lot of Roger Ebert's books, and they're all very good reads; even for movies I have not seen and that I know I will never watch, because they are a pleasure to read. He would never write a run-on sentence like I just did, for example.

Obviously there is a bit of a span between a Pulitzer price winning writer and a neckbeard mouthbreathing into a mic on YouTube, but there definitely is a top end where they do generate creative ideas - their ideas about the filmmaking process, if nothing else.

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/4wq2iy/my_brother_who_is_a_lawyer_and_i_are_going_to_sue/

My brother (who is a lawyer) and I are going to sue WB and DC for false advertising, misleading visual images and gaining a profit from us and millions others due to these acts. Our case has been accepted. We begin 11.08.16

uh huh.

best of luck there.


should see the film myself tomorrow.

When Predators came out, I sent an email to Regal Cinemas asking for a refund for $8.80. My basis for calculating this was that in the trailer there was a scene showing 15 predator lasers on Adrian Brody, and the movie only featured 4 Predators. As the ticket was $12, I worked that out as 80 cents per Predator, and so the film had failed to deliver on an advertised $8.80 of Predators.

I got 2 free passes. So maybe these guys should try out of court first, if they can give some metrics.

But Predators? That movie wasn't so terrible as SS, was it?

(I check! 64%)

Still, good on getting those passes!