Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

    It'll be alright ben.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwXfv25xJUw


    Oh they blocked it! Nooooooo!
    I will not fall into despair! I will keep myself hearty, till freedom is opportune!

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

      Originally posted by nycscreenwriter View Post
      It'll be alright ben.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwXfv25xJUw


      Oh they blocked it! Nooooooo!

      lol, why even block it after 22 million views? It's done, let it live.
      "We're going to be rich!" - 1/2 hr COMEDY written/directed/edited by me, I also act in it.
      SUBTITLED
      Episode 1 (Beef pills)
      Episode 2 (African commercial)
      Episode 3 (Brenda's rescue)

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

        Originally posted by mdb View Post
        Yes, it was explained visually. Big planet. Smaller Death Star. Yavin wasn't a "gas" giant in the movie but it was a giant. People understand intuitively you can't just blow up anything no matter what the size.
        So the upshot of your argument is, this isn't a problem because you say it's not a problem (because you expect the audience to use their imaginations and draw their own conclusions, without narrative exposition), but the MOS business is a problem because you say it's a problem (because you don't expect the audience to use their imaginations and draw their own conclusions without narrative exposition).

        Well, that's convenient: you're judging solely on the basis of whether they satisfy things to your particular liking. And yet since people do go off on the internet and quibble about why the Death Star can't just blow up Yavin and then blow up the rebel moon, then obviously what satisfies things to your liking doesn't satisfy everyone.

        But the real issue remains: no time is wasted explicitly stating or explaining this business in A New Hope. And rightly so. The situation is presented as this-is-what-it-is, and the movie goes right on to the real drama. Because that's what most viewers want and enjoy, not theorizing about future tech that doesn't exist.

        Likewise in MOS, the movie generates a powerful dilemma, and the audience is gripped by the conflict that this dilemma generates. And anyone who want to ruminate about whether this fantasy tech from an alien planet squares with 21st-century tech, well, they can go off and obsess over it to their hearts' content. But the movie itself, rightly, avoids it and sticks to what matters: the emotional core of the story.

        The movie has no one to blame but its makers. They establish the Kryptonians as a space-exploring race with ships on multiple worlds. They are the ones that brought out the shovels and dug the plot hole.
        There is no "plot hole" at all. The movie presents this world as the Kryptonians' choice, and the dilemma builds powerfully from that.

        If you want to demand that fantasy/sci-fi tech from another planet somehow square with 21st-century tech, and need everything spoonfed to you rather than using a little imagination ("Zod insists on Earth because he wants to force Kal-El to make a choice between Krypton and his adopted home" -- literally anything is possible), well, that's you're right.

        But as the How It Should Have Ended clip about the 1977 Star Wars demonstrates, people can find such supposed "plot holes" based on wild speculation about fantasy-tech in any movie. You think your quibbles are oh-so-important, while others' quibbles are not significant, and I'm sure they think that their quibbles are the crucial ones. But to most viewers, that kind of minutiae is trivial compared to what they do enjoy: the characters, and the raw and real emotions that their conflicts generate. And good filmmakers know this, which is why they focus their attention on the human conflict and personal motivations, and just let the space-magic-science be the sleeve that facilitates it, rather than getting hung up on it.

        And so we agree.
        Not only anything so far.

        People punching each other. Buildings crashing. Explosions.
        Be it knights with swords or supermen with laser eyes, kinetic entertainment is part of filmmaking. But when it's driven by compelling and relatable emotional conflict, as it is in MOS and BvS, then it's much more rewarding.

        Is it your strategy to argue that the entire story has so many plot holes that one more doesn't make much difference? Because even granting the planet's destruction for whatever reason it was very, very odd that the super-dangerous criminals were the ones put in the penis rockets to escape death with almost everyone else stuck there.
        "Strategy"? I'm presenting my aesthetic POV and stating that the so-called "plot holes" that you're claiming actually aren't, neither to myself nor to most viewers, because rather, it is the story and the characters that captures one's attention.

        And when it comes to nailing down precisely what fantasy-space-tech can or can't do, quibbling about particulars is completely subjective: to you, the Yavin issue (not explained in the film) isn't a problem but the Kryptonian focus on earth is; to someone else, it's the opposite. But most viewers would say, rightly: "What I care about is Luke putting aside the computer and giving himself over to the Force," or "What I care about is Kal-El choosing to save Earth even as the cost of potentially bringing back the people of his own biological heritage," not "What's are the respective diameters and compositions of the Death Star, Alderaan, and Yavin," or "How much space-mileage can those Kryptonians get out of their vehicles"?

        Except there is nothing solid in Man of Steel or Batman v Superman. Just saying something doesn't make it solid or compelling or relatable.
        Just saying that there's "nothing solid" doesn't make it so. That's just you asserting your subjective taste. MOS and BvS are profoundly compelling and relatable.

        But that's what this has come down to: you making bald assertions of your subjective taste, which I reject because, frankly, I find the issues on which your taste seems to focus (fantasy-tech particulars, and a desire to have everything spelled out for you) ludicrous. But hey, if that is what you want to focus on, knock yourself out.

        Rebels vs. Empire was all those. Indy vs. Nazis was. John Mclaine vs. Hans Gruber was. From the previews (and comics) Tony Stark vs. Steve Rogers will be.
        I find Superman vs. Zod or Batman vs Superman just as compelling, or more, than most of those -- especially than the last one, in which I have no interest because I find neither character appealing or interesting.

        But you don't get to just say a few words and then avoid the issue and say it's "Done Deal" right? Even on a regular movie discussion board I personally wouldn't take that but on a screenwriting site it's even worse.
        "Get to"? You "wouldn't take it"? LOL.

        I'm not "avoiding" any issue. I'm pointing out that your so-called "issues" are spergy trivialities that aren't important to most viewers -- rightly and understandably so -- who are more focussed on characters and on story.

        We're supposed to be better about noticing the problems and thinking of how they could have been fixed instead of shoulder-shrugging and excusing them.
        Except that what you, specifically, are calling "problems" (i.e., "I can't square their fantasy-Krypton-tech with my science expectations") aren't.

        Superman, Zod, Batman, and Lex all had potential for true motivation but as you said, the people making the movies and too much of the audience didn't care.
        Wrong. I said that the audience doesn't care about your spergy fantasy-tech quibbling. It DOES care about motivation. And both MOS and BvS had it in abundance.

        Of course looking at the box office, especially of Batman v Superman, a large part of the not-audience did care and stayed away as a result.
        Dude -- it's made $780 million dollars. And I'd wager that an impression of the darkness of the film or the humorlessness of the film had much more to do with the difference between that and a billion than anything else (which I say with regret, as I far prefer that dark and serious tone to lighter fare -- and while not $1 billion people agree with me, $780 mil do, which is not bad).

        There is no i in tech-y. You should have spelled it "techie" instead.
        That is a deliberate choice on my part, because I find your whole avenue of inquire rather silly. There isn't a time-travel story ever written that can't be picked apart based on the illogic of time travel. But they succeed or fail based on the power of the story and the characters, not on tech-y quibbling.

        Still, audiences know when they are being manipulated. Even when their complaints don't mention it directly the core problem is not believe the situation.
        "Even when people's stated opinions don't support my contention, they still do." You go right on thinking that. And I'll stick to the likelier case, which is that the weakness of the characters and the lack of emotional power in the Phantom Menace story is the real issue -- as pertains to:
        The pod race sequence is a good example of another "abundantly established" situation where this one person on the entire planet had the only part needed to fix a spaceship and oh by the way Jedi mindtricks happen to not work on that species so they at least made an attempt which is more than Man of Steel.
        Which is a perfect example of you looking at the wrong things in storytelling. If Anakin had been a compelling character rather than an annoying brat, and if the story had had the kind of heart that the 1977 Star Wars did, THAT'S what would have made TPM a far better film.

        The point is the reason for the Superman versus Zod fight was not adequately or believably set up even if you don't care and are perfectly happy about how it was presented.
        It was both adequately and believably set up -- in fact, remarkably so -- on a far more compelling basis than most any other superhero-movie battle I've seen. With the exception of Nolan's films, most superhero-movie duels are based on trivial matters. But not in this case. The dilemma for Kal, having to so definitively choose his adopted world over the world and people of his biological heritage, and Zod's imperative -- his completely relatable and understandable fixation on the good of his people, even to the point of committing genocide -- this is infinitely richer matter than anything I've ever seen in, say, a Marvel film. It powerfully mirrors so many conflicts past and present in our own world, in which one people or another insist on inhabiting a specific land based on various claims and existential imperatives. Yet thankfully, it doesn't getso particular as to lock it down to a lone real-world analogy, but leaves it applicable to many.

        They establish Batman's motivation very well but they squander it. Deciding to kill Superman because there is a 1% chance he'll do something someday is weak.
        Given that it's the fate of the human race at issue -- no, it's not weak.

        Having superman trash the Batmobile and say it's over for the Bat is the screenwriters avoiding an actual discussion that would prevent the fight between the two they want to use to sell tickets.
        Powerful, visceral moment. What, should the two start dialoguing at one another? This isn't a play. Superman's inability to tolerate the Batman's violent approach is made abundantly clear.

        Superman saying "Martha" at the end of the fight instead of "Lex Luthor kidnapped my mother" before or at any point during the fight was to have more action to sell more tickets.
        It's quite clear that Superman wants to explain this, but expects Batman to stop fighting him first ("Stay down"). By the time he realizes he could lose, the gas makes it practically impossible for him to speak a single word.

        So subjectively you can be happy and satisfied. That's fine. You can dismiss logic and like what you want to like.
        I'm not "dismissing logic." I find that both films to make logical sense plot-wise and in their character motivations.

        Objectively, the reason many aren't going to see it a first time in the theater let alone seeing it the multiple times needed to get it over a billion dollars, is the makers of this and the previous Superman movie didn't execute the premise anywhere close to adequate let alone excellently.
        MOS made 670 million. BvS 780 mil. These movies executed their premises not just adequately, but excellently, to a lot of people.

        There is no doubt the resurrected Superman for Justice League will finally at least somewhat resemble the character that has survived in the comics for decades and been successful in other movies, TV shows, radio programs, cartoons, etc.
        If you mean, he'll be more like the tepid cardboard-cutout that he was in Superman Returns -- which tried so hard to copy the Donner films, and was an unwatchable disaster as a result -- then I dread it and don't look forward to it. But I'm delighted that, at the very least, Superman was depicted in a way that satisfied me in two movies, and that's likely more than I had any reason to hope for.

        As for the Christopher Reeve movies, yeah, that's the right approach -- for 1978.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

          And up next...

          Wonder Woman:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lGoQhFb4NM

          Justice League:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gglkYMGRYlE

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

            Originally posted by sherbetbizarre View Post
            Predictably, they've Marvel-fied it, filling it with stupid humor and self-conscious pauses, à la the unendurable Avengers flicks.

            Pass.

            And when this film disappoints at the box office, then maybe they'll realize that going the dark/serious route, as they did in BvS, was the right choice after all.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

              Originally posted by karsten View Post
              And when this film disappoints at the box office, then maybe they'll realize that going the dark/serious route, as they did in BvS, was the right choice after all.
              It's not about light vs. dark. It's about execution. BvS could have been stellar as a dark film, but it had too many flaws. The biggest of course being the "Martha" moment. If only someone hell-bent on murder could be so easily stopped. Maybe the leader of ISIS will stop too when he learns he and Obama have the same mom name.
              I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

                Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
                It's not about light vs. dark. It's about execution. BvS could have been stellar as a dark film, but it had too many flaws. The biggest of course being the "Martha" moment. If only someone hell-bent on murder could be so easily stopped. Maybe the leader of ISIS will stop too when he learns he and Obama have the same mom name.
                I will never understand this criticism, let alone agree with it. Unquestionably BvS has flaws -- as was covered extensively in this unaccountably necromanced thread. But the "Martha" moment is, for me, the emotional zenith and finest moment in the film. I'm not an emotional guy, and I never tear up in the cinema, but I very nearly did, at that point in the film, both times I saw the movie in the theatres.

                In any other case, with any other antagonist, no, it wouldn't be a consequential enough duality for dramatic effect. But the murder of Wayne's parents is the defining incident of his existence. It's a nightmare that he relives every night of his life (as explicitly seen in the movie). It is, in fact, the one and only thing that could have stopped Wayne at that moment.

                I am still in awe that a screenwriter discovered such a significant parallel in the Wayne/Kent mythos after decades of comic-book storytelling in which it went unnoticed. For me, it's a dramatic gap worthy of "Luke, I am your father."

                By contrast, the trailer for this upcoming Geoff Johns campfest of a Justice League flick looks like everything that makes the Marvel movies execrable. And I bet it won't even make Marvel numbers.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

                  Originally posted by karsten View Post
                  I will never understand this criticism, let alone agree with it. Unquestionably BvS has flaws -- as was covered extensively in this unaccountably necromanced thread. But the "Martha" moment is, for me, the emotional zenith and finest moment in the film. I'm not an emotional guy, and I never tear up in the cinema, but I very nearly did, at that point in the film, both times I saw the movie in the theatres.
                  Totally agree-- I loved that moment.

                  And from a screenwriting standpoint, I particularly appreciated how the writers used earlier scenes involving both Marthas that seemed so familiar (because of how often we'd seen variations of them in prior movies) to create a truly new and emotionally poignant moment of connecton.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

                    Originally posted by karsten View Post
                    I am still in awe that a screenwriter discovered such a significant parallel in the Wayne/Kent mythos after decades of comic-book storytelling in which it went unnoticed. For me, it's a dramatic gap worthy of "Luke, I am your father."
                    Agree 1000%. I loved that moment That's storytelling at it's barest root.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

                      In regards to "that particular moment of contention" I've challenged my friends who dismiss it to tell me how it could have been done better. None have.

                      It's an open invite.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

                        Originally posted by karsten View Post
                        Predictably, they've Marvel-fied it, filling it with stupid humor and self-conscious pauses, à la the unendurable Avengers flicks.

                        Pass.

                        And when this film disappoints at the box office, then maybe they'll realize that going the dark/serious route, as they did in BvS, was the right choice after all.
                        I'm thinking it's more that they've learned from their TV properties, which are mostly pretty light and fun.

                        But I also like the Avengers movies, so...who knows.

                        Wonder Woman looks great!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

                          Originally posted by karsten View Post
                          For me, it's a dramatic gap worthy of "Luke, I am your father."
                          Yes, it's easily comparable to the most epic line / scene in film history...

                          Look, the fact that so many people had a problem with the Martha moment is what's telling. Oddly enough, the line wasn't the problem, the setup leading up to it was. Unlike Superman, Snyder didn't establish how important Wayne's mom was to him. He didn't SHOW it effectively. Replace the "Apocalypse" vision with a flashback of a touching moment between Wayne and his mom when he was a boy, and the Martha moment would have had 3x more impact.
                          I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

                            Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
                            Yes, it's easily comparable to the most epic line / scene in film history...

                            Look, the fact that so many people had a problem with the Martha moment is what's telling. Oddly enough, the line wasn't the problem, the setup leading up to it was. Unlike Superman, Snyder didn't establish how important Wayne's mom was to him. He didn't SHOW it effectively. Replace the "Apocalypse" vision with a flashback of a touching moment between Wayne and his mom when he was a boy, and the Martha moment would have had 3x more impact.
                            Or even a young Bruce waking up from one of his nightmares - Alfred trying to console him as Bruce screams, "I've gotta save Martha!" (Although I do concede that Bruce not calling her mom would seem odd.)

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

                              Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
                              Yes, it's easily comparable to the most epic line / scene in film history...
                              Given how powerful I found that moment, yes, for me it is indeed comparable.

                              Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
                              Look, the fact that so many people had a problem with the Martha moment is what's telling.
                              Or not. These things have a snowball effect. Once a few critics establish a position as the "smart take," it becomes received wisdom, and few people wish to contradict it, for fear of running into a wall of snark about their supposedly unhip taste.

                              Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
                              Oddly enough, the line wasn't the problem, the setup leading up to it was. Unlike Superman, Snyder didn't establish how important Wayne's mom was to him. He didn't SHOW it effectively. Replace the "Apocalypse" vision with a flashback of a touching moment between Wayne and his mom when he was a boy, and the Martha moment would have had 3x more impact.
                              I can't imagine any viewers going into a BvS film these days unaware of how central the murder of Wayne's parents is to his existence.

                              Being robbed of his parents is the defining moment of his life. His every action, for the rest of his days, is explicitly driven by the ongoing pain of that moment, the never-to-be-healed, ever-bleeding emotional wound that his parents' death ripped open in him.

                              It is such commonplace knowledge about Wayne that I didn't even think that the replay of his parents' actual murder was necessary in this film -- but I still appreciated it being there, both because the sequence was better filmed than in any previous Batman movie, and because it further supported the very point that you are seeking: the centrality of the loss of his parents to Wayne's life.

                              And on top of that, we even see Wayne experience a nightmare, right in the middle of the film, in which he walks into his parents' mausoleum as a boy and black blood starts oozing from his mother's sarcophagus -- which, for heaven's sake, is prominently marked "MARTHA."

                              Short of a flashing on-screen "This is his life's grief!!" placard, I don't know how much more abundantly clear the centrality to Wayne's life of his sorrow at his parents' death could be. It is both abundantly known through decades upon decades of Batman comic books and films, and it is even visually established right in the movie.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

                                I saw the film, both theatrical (good, but with some obvious stuff missing) and Mr. Snyder's cut (TWICE, and planning for more). If the people who hated BvS wanted a Shane Black/William Goldman bromance between the two icons, instead of a Kevin Smith/Frank Miller/Sam Peckinpah bromance (two protagonists having similar goals, but have different methods), they weren't (or didn't want to) paying attention to the question Man Of Steel posed on a societal scale (even the sequel has that question in a way): can Superman exist in a post-Sept. 11 world? Definitely not the Chris Reeve rendition because the 1978 film was a pacifier to those were exhausted from the ills of Watergate, pollution, urban crime, immorality, etc. How can you do a film like that now with the presence of the Internet, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat & 24-hour cable news, especially in a world where bigots question the religious background of the current President of the United States because his name isn't WASPY, especially in a world where 15 years ago, genocide was committed on the world stage in the name of an externally misunderstood and internally mistreated religion?

                                Man of Steel looks at the fear of the unknown (Superman the unusual immigrant) while Batman vs. Superman builds on that fear and exposes the inanities and consequences of that fear. Superman is seen as "the enemy" by two men of power, one who cares for the human race (Bruce Wayne running through the fog of destruction in the film's first act echoes policemen & firefighters risking their lives 15 years ago) while the other does it for egomaniacal, self-serving reasons (despite the millennial chassis, Luthor's still a combo of Gordon Gekko & the current GOP Presidental candidate). There's also the element of heroism. Superman may save a child from a burning building or a family from a flood, but he's criticized for just existing by media pundits. Batman can put the fear into criminals (the Bat-Brand is a nod to Zorro and Batman scarring Luthor in Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Back), but he scares a good amount of the law-abiding populace of Gotham City, and no one, save for the Frank Capra-like Clark Kent, gives a damn.

                                With those factors, I can't see how that Zack Snyder "dropped the ball" on this project. Sure he likes comic books, but has a mature insight about them (his mom, who passed away some while back, got him a subscription of Heavy Metal magazine, while he was in college) and I respect that insight because he, with these two films & "Watchmen" (BvS the extended cut echoes a lot of the elements of the film's 215-minute cut), gives the superhero film a mature tone (Hey, I enjoyed "Deadpool" too, but blood splatters can't always be memorable).

                                Batman vs. Superman (extended cut) works, being smart, sexy (equalitarian love for Affleck, Cavill, Adams and Gadot), socially and politically conscious & action-packed. I
                                Last edited by Madbandit; 05-08-2017, 07:28 AM.
                                "A screenwriter is much like being a fire hydrant with a bunch of dogs lined up around it.- -Frank Miller

                                "A real writer doesn't just want to write; a real writer has to write." -Alan Moore

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X