Maybe the extended version will establish that he figured out who Batman was after that scene?
He most have known for some time. He was sending letters to Bruce Wayne.
Maybe the extended version will establish that he figured out who Batman was after that scene?
He most have known for some time. He was sending letters to Bruce Wayne.
Maybe the extended version will establish that he figured out who Batman was after that scene?
Lex had enough of suspicion on Batman identity to intercept Wallace checks, for a duration of…. at least 9 months (going by the amount of checks we are shown). The party happens after Wallace get's arrested for defacing Superman statue, while the party is a nice way to confirm or debunk that suspicion, one should also note the absence of Batman folder (and Superman's for that matter) on Lex's research into metahumans. The absence of files can be contributed to Lex a)knowing Batman to be human, b)predicting Batman to steal the files and removing them beforehand, not to alarm Bruce, c)combination of both.
Guys, raking a few tires off the top of a garbage fire doesn't put it out. It just makes for less smoke and slightly less odor.
What's the best film in the the world ever made in your opinion ?
That is a highly loaded question.
The correct answer is Space Jam.
@Purple:
The correct answer is Space Jam.
Legend has it that Orson Welles had a vision of Michael Jordan hanging out with Bugs Bunny towards the end of his life, and attempted to destroy his vast body of work because he felt that he could never top that.
Cooler heads prevailed, however, and Welles contented himself with his true masterpiece; Transformers The Movie.
What's the best film in the the world ever made in your opinion ?
The critical consensus is generally either Citizen Kane or Vertigo, and the public opinion generally leans closer to Star Wars.
Personal opinions are going to vary wildly, because someone can have a personal best film while still acknowledging there are other better films out there. In my case its Castle of Cagliostro but I'll readily admit that Kane, Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, Seven Samurai, etc. are better movies.
Whatever the response, BvS is still a terrible movie and there are thousands of other films better than it is.
"No, I don't think so. Mr. Kane was a man who got everything he wanted and then lost it. Maybe 'Rosebud' was something he couldn't get or something he lost. Anyway, it wouldn't explain anything. I don't think any word can explain a man's life. No, I guess 'Rosebud' is just a piece in a jigsaw puzzle. A missing piece."
"It is gods who weep. They see us killing each other over and over since time began. They can't save us from ourselves."
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
AND INTRODUCING:
"The red capes are coming, the red capes are coming!!!"
@Purple:
The correct answer is Space Jam.
If only the rest of the world had came along and slammed, but they simply didn't want to jam.
Surely the jar of piss or "Martha!" are the take away moments that will be this film's legacy.
Michael sits alone on a rock. The camera closes in on him, his face blank. His marriage is dead. His unborn child is dead. Fredo is dead. He is at the top of the world, but there is no one with him.
Ethan returns his niece to her family, but does not enter the house with them to celebrate. Clutching his wounded arm, Ethan walks back out into the deserts, knowing that he doesn't belong in the world anymore. He likely dies alone.
Kambei sees the villagers celebrating their victory, but reflecting upon his fallen comrades' graves, he admits that the victory is not the samurais' and their time is coming to an end. An uncertain future awaits the remaining samurai and indeed all of Japan.
Lex Luthor is a skinhead and makes impotent bell noises.
@Cyan:
Legend has it that Orson Welles had a vision of Michael Jordan hanging out with Bugs Bunny towards the end of his life, and attempted to destroy his vast body of work because he felt that he could never top that.
Cooler heads prevailed, however, and Welles contented himself with his true masterpiece; Transformers The Movie.
Excuse you. That's The Transformers: The Movie. And he was lucky to be a part of the second greatest animated film ever.
…
I'll go away now.
You are a hero's hero, Purp.
Don_Freces' loaded question reminds me of the time in one of the Oscar threads we once had here (2012/2013?) where someone said the awards were meaningless (not an unreasonable assertion in and of itself) because Harry Potter wasn't nominated for one (ELL-OH-ELL)
Whatever the response, BvS is still a terrible movie and there are thousands of other films better than it is.
Not to argue that there are better movies (and not to take 'what's your favorite? well it's shit!!11" stance), but don't you think "terrible" is a bit too harsh of a word?
More like "a bit average" or "not as good as it could have been" ? Do you really hate is as much as a human being (or as a comic artist?).
Because there are truly terrible movies (including superhero movies) which barely any of you had seen, because they are made all the way down here. And they are eye-bleedingly horrible, and not even fun in "indian spider-man" way. And it sound really really really (really) unfair to lump decent (but flawed) movie on the same level.
What's the best film in the the world ever made in your opinion ?
i know you're not asking me but i want to answer this. to me, it's a tie between Pulp fiction and Momento.
…and maybe Dark Knight returns.
...and Die Hard.
...Fargo has a place in that tie as well.
...and Pusher 3, Fight Club, and Croupier could be snuck in that tie too.
holyshit... it's almost as if this question can't be answered either objectively or subjectively.
The critical consensus is generally either Citizen Kane or Vertigo, and the public opinion generally leans closer to Star Wars.
Yeah, I know that pretty well. And actually, there is also The Night of the Hunter, which is IMO better than Citizen Kane and Vertigo.
But I didn't mean to start a debate or whatever on "what's the best film ever made?". I intended to know what kind of people despise BvS that much. Are they Tarantno's fan ? Kubrick ? Bergman ? Tarkovski ? Coppola ? P.T. Anderson ? Inaritu ? Welles ? and so long….
The BvS-bashing is preposterous, as the MoS-bashing was. I'm not saying there are fabulous, but the bashing is ridiculous. I don't mean to start something and defend the movie, I'm affraid some will call me "DC fanboy blablabla" and I don't want a headache. But seriously, this movie doesn't deserve this much hate.
holyshit… it's almost as if this question can't be answered either objectively or subjectively.
It can. The bester movie ever made is one of these:
-The Night of the Hunter
-Citizen Kane
-Vertigo ( or Psycho, I d'ont recall which one it was, but I think it's Psycho. Don't remember though ).
I intended to know what kind of people despise BvS that much. Are they Tarantno's fan ? Kubrick ? Bergman ? Tarkovski ? Coppola ? P.T. Anderson ? Inaritu ? Welles ? and so long….
I thought the answer is pretty simple: in my experience people who like to pile on BvS aren't necessarily film connoisseurs or patrons of highbrow/critic-friendly cinema - they're Batman/Superman/both fans who disapprove of what (Live-Action Film) DC (or maybe even more specifically Snyder) is doing to the characters.
I think most of the people that hate BvS don't believe it's as bad they make it sound. it's more to do with the potential there was for it to be incredible, based on subject matter, actors, studio, whatever. At a time where Marvel is succeeding in the genre in a very appealing way, BvS took a different approach and bombed with it. So maybe the movie wasn't "terrible" in the grand scheme of things, it was terribly disappointing. And people feel robbed of what could have been. So maybe it's more of a 5/10, but it could have been something that redefined what a 10/10 means. In the genre, at least.
I thought the answer is pretty simple: in my experience people who like to pile on BvS aren't necessarily film connoisseurs or patrons of highbrow/critic-friendly cinema - they're Batman/Superman/both fans who disapprove of what (Live-Action Film) DC (or maybe even more specifically Snyder) is doing to the characters.
You mean, people saying "Batman doesn't kill. He killed. Then the movie is garbage. " ?
What's the best film in the the world ever made in your opinion ?
There are so many different ways to judge films, I don't know that I could ever pick a single one to call "the best".
You mean, people saying "Batman doesn't kill. He killed. Then the movie is garbage. " ?
I'm sure most folks found Batman to be the LEAST of their concerns when it comes to finding faulty characters in this movie; And it wasn't that hard when you have a not-so-bald Luthor running around.
I intended to know what kind of people despise BvS that much. Are they Tarantno's fan ? Kubrick ? Bergman ? Tarkovski ? Coppola ? P.T. Anderson ? Inaritu ? Welles ? and so long….
Trying to narrow down people who hate BvS to a specific subtype of film-fans is a pretty ludicrous excersise, and looks to me like an attempt to find some shorthand that can be used to dismiss said hatred. "Oh, the haters are all Kubric fans with expectations of X, so of course they are dissatisfied because BvS didn't go for X" etc.
@Don_Freecs:
The BvS-bashing is preposterous, as the MoS-bashing was. I'm not saying there are fabulous, but the bashing is ridiculous. I don't mean to start something and defend the movie, I'm affraid some will call me "DC fanboy blablabla" and I don't want a headache. But seriously, this movie doesn't deserve this much hate.
Of course there are objectively worse film than BvS and MoS, but such movies are often decidedly less mainstream. BvS is a high-profile blockbuster tentpole featuring two of the most recognizable fictional characters of all time, so of course that gets more discussion going because many people see it, and many people care about it and what it means for DC and superhero movies in general. Kevin Smiths upcoming Yoga Hosers looks like a complete abomination, likely much worse than BvS, but people don't give a shit and its going to be instantly forgotten. Not everyone has as low a bar for "Terrible" as Birdemic or The Room, because most people don't watch ever that kind or that many movies.
@Daz:
Not everyone has as low a bar for "Terrible" as Birdemic or The Room, because most people don't watch ever that kind or that many movies.
And having the plank so high one can't even pretend to think that anything below isn't bad taste, is good and normal because…?
@Daz:
Trying to narrow down people who hate BvS to a specific subtype of film-fans is a pretty ludicrous excersise, and looks to me like an attempt to find some shorthand that can be used to dismiss said hatred. "Oh, the haters are all Kubric fans with expectations of X, so of course they are dissatisfied because BvS didn't go for X" etc.
I didn't say that. But whatever, I won't get into this. I'm sure everyone said how much they despise the movie months ago ( because, you know, Lex has hair and all… ) . And I don't mind being called whatever you wanna call me. And you are too many... I can only be wrong.
There are even people saying Transformers = BvS....
Just waiting for the bluray now.
truce.
Oh let's not dreg up the Man of Steel debate, I really don't feel like defending that one all over again. BvS I can't really defend at least not until I see the director's cut. But I'll fight tooth and nail for Man of Steel.
And also there is a phrase I've learned and believe in when it comes to rating film….All film is subjective.
Meaning there is no true factual method to determine what is a good and bad film because everyone is different. Everyone has different likes, dislikes, tastes, preferences, genres, etc etc.
So asking the question what is the best film or your favorite film(two completely different questions) will be answered by everyone differently because everyone has different criteria. The same goes for music, literature, art, comedy, anything having to do with the arts.
I gave Man of Steel a 9/10, it's in my top 10 favorite superhero movies, some days it's in my top 5. To me it's the best live action Superman movie to date.
I gave Batman v Superman a 6/10. It had tons of flaws and I'm not going to get into a pissing match to defend it but I still liked the movie.
I gave Man of Steel a 9/10, it's in my top 10 favorite superhero movies, some days it's in my top 5. To me it's the best live action Superman movie to date.
That's a really amazing trick considering Superman isn't in the film.
But then, "best live action Superman" doesn't have a whole lot of competition really. Everyone agrees 3 and 4 were bad, and Returns has been pretty much forgotten. And the Molemen is black and white so no one has seen it.
1 and 2 were good, but they have aged and really reflect the 70's that they were made in. The characters are perfect, but the actual films are a little weaker and the effects don't hold up.
Yeah I know, he had only been on the job for 24 hours and lacked the 10-20 years of training with Jor-El in the Fortress of Solidtude (I forget the exact number).
1 and 2 were good, but surprisingly I've found that MoS and 2 have a lot of the same issues.
Yeah I know, he had only been on the job for 24 hours and lacked the 10-20 years of training with Jor-El in the Fortress of Solidtude (I forget the exact number).
That was and still is a non response, a terrible excuse. It's not about how well he uses his powers in a crisis. Chris Reeves Superman barely used any powers in the first film, (and he failed to stop one of the nukes!). It's not about Zod's superior forces being able to beat him down, since in Superman II he completely lost to Zod and his group in the second film thanks to being outnumbered, until he used a trick on them. And its not about how fancy an action scene you can have, since any high budget film can have fancy action nowadays.
Its about what he, as a person, does.
Superman IS Clark Kent. He may pretend to bumble around some as Clark, but the wholesome qualities, the personality, the unironic taking of cats from trees? (Not having others snarking about it… UNironic. That's the point.) the putting of civilians ahead of himself. If he'd TRIED, at least once, to protect civilians ahead of himself or move the fight out of the city? The super polite still helps out his mother guy. That's the upright Kansas farmboy. That doesn't take training, or need to be shown on the battlefield. Clark Kent is about more than just how well he punches guys. Same for Peter Parker.
And the guy throughout MOS, nor its sequel, was not Clark Kent.
honestly if snyder didn't obnoxiously shove in the jesus symbolism everywhere in that movie, and didn't make superman do some stupid shit like not save his father or keeping the fight with zod in the city where thousands of people were killed because of it…i'd say it's a pretty forgettable movie.
the animated movies and the cartoon are way better.
C'mon guys. When are you going to accept that Pumaman is, objectively, the best superhero movie?
Michael Jordan is the greatest superhero of all time. He believed he could fly, and he believed he could touch the sky. What up, Superman?
C'mon guys. When are you going to accept that Pumaman is, objectively, the best superhero movie?
I was just talking to someone about that movie lol. Why nobody could pronounce puma. They kept saying it weird. Pee -you-ma
C'mon guys. When are you going to accept that Pumaman is, objectively, the best superhero movie?
Because that's not Meteor Man.
Not to argue that there are better movies (and not to take 'what's your favorite? well it's shit!!11" stance), but don't you think "terrible" is a bit too harsh of a word?
More like "a bit average" or "not as good as it could have been" ? Do you really hate is as much as a human being (or as a comic artist?).Because there are truly terrible movies (including superhero movies) which barely any of you had seen, because they are made all the way down here. And they are eye-bleedingly horrible, and not even fun in "indian spider-man" way. And it sound really really really (really) unfair to lump decent (but flawed) movie on the same level.
Batman Vs Supermans fails on a fundamental basic level. Leave it's terrible comic-book-interpretation on the side, and you will be left with a movie that is a mess narrative-wise and has problems with focus and throws to million different things without having any idea of what to do with them. This movie could have been about a simple ideological difference between two characters, but instead it was a complete mess with the main conflict being the most laziest plot device in recent history.
There is absolutely nothing decent about this movie.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
There are so many different ways to judge films, I don't know that I could ever pick a single one to call "the best".
Completely agreed. There are just sooo many different styles, genres, execution etc…. that makes it impossible to choose one absolute best.
C'mon guys. When are you going to accept that Pumaman is, objectively, the best superhero movie?
Pumaman.
Pumaman.
Can do whatever a puma can.
Leave it's terrible comic-book-interpretation on the side, and you will be left with a movie that is a mess narrative-wise and has problems with focus and throws to million different things without having any idea of what to do with them. This movie could have been about a simple ideological difference between two characters, but instead it was a complete mess with the main conflict being the most laziest plot device in recent history.
Watched civil war for the second time and yes this is the best superhero movie to date.
The irony here can be cut with a knife.
The irony here can be cut with a knife.
Well, not really? Civil War actually was about a simple ideological difference between its two main characters, both of whose viewpoints were carefully setup over the MCU films that came before. You seem to suggest that Civil War made exactly the same or worse mistakes as Batman vs. Superman did, but maybe you should elaborate, as it's not at all clear how, at least to me. It's of course debatable if it's the best superhero movie ever (imho not, because the film does drag a little too much for a good twenty minutes) but it did avoid most mistakes Dawn of Justice made.
Yes, Batman vs. Superman, and Captain America: Civil War had a lot of the same elements and themes in them.
Civil War just managed to actually balance those elements and characters you can invest in, while presenting an actual cohesive narrative, all while being supported by its backlog of a dozen movies worth of setup.
Well, not really? Civil War actually was about a simple ideological difference between its two main characters, both of whose viewpoints were carefully setup over the MCU films that came before. You seem to suggest that Civil War made exactly the same or worse mistakes as Batman vs. Superman did, but maybe you should elaborate, as it's not at all clear how, at least to me. It's of course debatable if it's the best superhero movie ever (imho not, because the film does drag a little too much for a good twenty minutes) but it did avoid most mistakes Dawn of Justice made.
Those are two nearly identical comic book movies about two grown-up men throwing childish tantrums for 2,5 hours, played by villain.
All the things he said apply to Civil War in full if you think about it. But its praised, and BvS is forever subject of hate and is "objectively terrible".
And its completely obvious why.
And its completely obvious why.
Because one was better made than the other?
It's like a teacher giving a class assignment on a subject, and two different stuents turn in papers on it. One is well researched, has citations, and is neatly typed and double spaced.
While the other is delivered in jar of piss that says "I hate you" written in crayon.
If you're going to claim there's some sort of bias against DC while people love marvel, that's absolute nonsense, since Batman Begins and Dark Knight wwere well recieved, while Marvel has had its fair share of films people haven't cared for like Thor and Hulk. Marvel has also had the Avengers which everyone loved and DC has had Green Lantern. Fox has had X-Men films that have been all over both ends of the spectrum, and same for spiderman.
It's not company bias, or the genre itself being the problem, its that one movie was done well and with respect to the characters and general cinematic and storytelling sensibilities, and one wasn't.
That the movies came out within a month of each other is pretty crazy, but doesn't change the fact one was done well and the other wasn't.
Let's be honest: I slept through both, comic movies are fast food tier, and I blame Alan Moore wizard powers for everything.
Then maybe you shouldn't be involved in the discussion at all?
Because one was better made than the other?
Probably, but not by miles like you making it sound.
Then maybe you shouldn't be involved in the discussion at all?
I can at least be somewhat objective because I don't have any really strong feelings to one or the other, but honestly can't comprehend what was so bad with BvS, since you all act like it's second coming of The Mask 2. You don't see me in Warcraft thread, replying to obvious bait precisely because I liked that movie a lot.
but honestly can't comprehend what was so bad with BvS.
it was bad. the plot was nonsensical, the mood was all gloomy for no reason at all, character didn't act like their comic counter parts at all.
batman wants to kill superman, stabs people with knifes, kills them with his plane's machine guns and decides to spare superman's life over the stupidest of reasons.
superman was a complete idiot. he could've saved those people from the bomb because he can hear things and see beyond physical objects but nope the plot demands he doesn't.
the plot also demands that people somehow blame him for this bomb attack for no reason, when it was said that it came from that guy's wheel chair. did they investigate the wheelchair guy to reveal that he had been working for lex luther to arrest him? off course not, that would make too much sense.
oh and superman just followed luther's command when he took his mother hostage and went over to kill batman without actually trying anything to find his mother. is it really this easy to control superman? he could commit atrocities if worse people kidnapped his mother.
both of them were manipulated by very obvious tricks that should make a normal person questions them.
lastly doomsday, he came out of nowhere and the way he was "revived" was just too stupid. why does luther's blood make him change? they should've just put him in that weird blob and said that it revived him somehow, it would still be stupid but much less than magical revival blood.
and there much more i don't remember.
Let's be honest: I slept through both, comic movies are fast food tier, and I blame Alan Moore wizard powers for everything.
Then maybe just maybe you shouldn't bother with topics that you clearly have no idea of what people are even saying?
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Probably, but not by miles like you making it sound.
I can at least be somewhat objective because I don't have any really strong feelings to one or the other, but honestly can't comprehend what was so bad with BvS, since you all act like it's second coming of The Mask 2. You don't see me in Warcraft thread, replying to obvious bait precisely because I liked that movie a lot.
Civil War is miles and miles better than BvS. One is a movie that despite being a comic-interpretation can still stand on it's own due to it's characters as well as their reasons and ideological difference that was build up from previous movies and wasn't just pulled from writer's ass. While the other is a complete mess on a basic narrative level with dark and gritty and "no fun allowed" approach.
Objectively BvS is bad. For crying out loud the main conflict in that movie is solved through "Martha?!" …. "Martha..." .... "Yes Martha"..... "Ok lets stop everything because our mothers have the same name"..... That is downright lazy and shitty writing. I can't comprehend when people try to somehow defend this mind-bloggingly stupid movie that clearly was made to wank Zack's own dark and gritty approach with absolute no fucks given about the characters. It's essentially like the Fant4stic but received a little well because it features fight scene between two of the most popular comic characters.
Had this movie been about some other not-well-known superheroes and it would have been a Fant4stic-level of bad with everyone bashing the living shit outta it but it's Superman and Batman so fans gotta make excuse and justify this lazy jar of piss. The scene with Lex and the jar of piss sums up the entire thought process that went into this movie.
Seriously, you can just compare the villains in the two movies and you immediately see the difference in quality. Not even arguing that Baron Zema is the best Marvel villain so far, but still: Daniel Brühl gives a very subdued portrayal that actually makes Zemo appear like a regular human being instead super evil mastermind. Jesse Eisenberg on the other hand acts like a cheesy crazy scientist character from a 50's movie on drugs.
Zemos motivations are well-explored at the end, directly tie into the ideological conflict of the movie and make the audience sort of sympathize with him. Luthor….I still don't get why he does the things he does. I guess he is just evil and insane and that is enough reason to commit the most horrific crimes. And his end game is...bringing an uncontrollable monster to life (that would have immediately killed him if Superman wasn't there to save his ass!) for shits and giggles, I guess. Zemo at first seems to attempt something similar, but it is all a red herring: Instead he successfully manages to emotionally manipulate the main characters into fighting each other which is actually a much more interesting and unique plan for a comic book villain than "I create giant monster to crush you mwahahha".
Oh and to top it off, Luthor is the one that's one of the best and most well-known comic book villains ever. And they completely ruined him.
it was bad. the plot was nonsensical, the mood was all gloomy for no reason at all, character didn't act like their comic counter parts at all.
Subjective. That depends on where it lost you. The mood had its reason, there is nothing light about the events that unfold. Irrelevant in the context of existence of large amount of interpretations, including headcanons. A bunch of unsympathetic jerks or flawed beings trying their best to find their place in the world that isn't simple black and white, the interpretation will vary from viewer to viewer.
batman wants to kill superman, stabs people with knifes, kills them with his plane's machine guns and
And that behaviour is addressed and is condemned. Batman wants to remove Superman because he is projecting his own failure of upholding own morals onto Clark, with the increased magnitude of potential fallout we saw in a dream/vision. Symbolism is painful topic to touch when it comes to Snyder for many, but I find the Wayne manor to perfectly mirror Bruce own inner decay, prime condition in the beginning, empty burnt shell of previous self throughout the duration of movie, just Pillars and foundation remains in Knightmare. Word is WB put the glasshouse up for auction, hope we see the restoration of Wayne manor sometime in the future. Time will tell if it's the restoration and development of characters to their full glory or not.
decides to spare superman's life over the stupidest of reasons.
Because batman finally realized how far he'd gone? How hypocritical he is for projecting his shortcoming onto Superman? To murder the innocent because of your own preconceived fear of something outside your understanding or control.
the plot also demands that people somehow blame him for this bomb attack for no reason, when it was said that it came from that guy's wheel chair. did they investigate the wheelchair guy to reveal that he had been working for lex luther to arrest him? off course not, that would make too much sense.
To police there was no connection between Wallace and Luthor at the time, Lois investigation is what helped get him behind bars. People blame Superman for the reasons you yourself is giving-,
superman was a complete idiot. he could've saved those people from the bomb because he can hear things and see beyond physical objects but nope the plot demands he doesn't.
He simply must, because that's what Superman should be. All knowing, all seeing paranoic. Not. Clark felt awful enough to struggle looking in Wallace direction for more than an instance.
"As for Superman, he was in the room, but obviously failed to stop him."
"And so, we are left to wonder, If Superman was aware of the threat and did nothing, was he then complicit in the Capitol tragedy?"
Apart from discrediting Superman competence the bombing scene serves just enough of purpose to show that Superman is not all powerful, he can be distracted, x-ray or not it' finding the needle amongst a bunch of other identical needles. Enough for Lex to order the kidnapping of Martha, because he won't expect it and wouldn't know where to focus.
oh and superman just followed luther's command when he took his mother hostage and went over to kill batman without actually trying anything to find his mother. is it really this easy to control superman? he could commit atrocities if worse people kidnapped his mother.
Had Superman went to kill Batman there would have been no battle to be fair. It's unfortunate that there is no word on Director's cut containing that scene from the interview where Clark was overwhelmed by cries for help when attempting to look for his mother.
both of them were manipulated by very obvious tricks that should make a normal person questions them.
The foundation was all there for Lex to take advantage of.
lastly doomsday, he came out of nowhere and the way he was "revived" was just too stupid. why does luther's blood make him change? they should've just put him in that weird blob and said that it revived him somehow, it would still be stupid but much less than magical revival blood.
and there much more i don't remember.
Blood had little play in resurrection part, except it was done for Lex's own personal reasons. There was an interesting instance spotted in doomsday behaviour, but for now it's nothing more than coincidence.
Civil War is miles and miles better than BvS. One is a movie that despite being a comic-interpretation can still stand on it's own due to it's characters as well as their reasons and ideological difference that was build up from previous movies and wasn't just pulled from writer's ass.
For you and many more people, yes. Don't care about Civil War to comment on it. Motivations were apparent to me
While the other is a complete mess on a basic narrative level
Meaning the story flow felt jarring or it lost you.
with dark and gritty and "no fun allowed" approach.
Irrelevant. Fun was allowed. This is entirely subjective.
Objectively BvS is bad.
Does using the word "objectively" makes you feel more sure of your reasoning.
For crying out loud the main conflict in that movie is solved through "Martha?!" …. "Martha..." .... "Yes Martha"..... "Ok lets stop everything because our mothers have the same name"..... That is downright lazy and shitty writing.
Now here things hinge differently for different folks. What's your issue with that scene specifically. Jokes and mockery are all nice and well, but absolutely uncalled for, except for emotional outburst.
I can't comprehend when people try to somehow defend this mind-bloggingly stupid movie that clearly was made to wank Zack's own dark and gritty approach with absolute no fucks given about the characters.
Sorry that it's that hard for you to look at things outside your comfort zone to even entertain the notion that god forbid someone enjoys things you don't.
It's essentially like the Fant4stic but received a little well because it features fight scene between two of the most popular comic characters.
Had this movie been about some other not-well-known superheroes and it would have been a Fant4stic-level of bad with everyone bashing the living shit outta it but it's Superman and Batman so fans gotta make excuse and justify this lazy jar of piss. The scene with Lex and the jar of piss sums up the entire thought process that went into this movie.
Didn't see, didn't care about the comparison. The actual thought process is debatable, the movie should've been longer tbh.
There will never be anything objective about movies, them being the product of people's imagination. There is no universal formula for scoring movies, just your personal investment. Art will always be subjective.
Thank you Lef
Ok I'm about to watch this, let's see what they have in store.
Objectively BvS is bad.
@Lef:
There will never be anything objective about movies, them being the product of people's imagination. There is no universal formula for scoring movies, just your personal investment. Art will always be subjective.