Batman v Superman *spoilers from post 2434*

Penn

IncognitoMan wrote: »

I really think there's things in the film you could pick on more than the Martha scene. The reason for them to stop fighting was always likely to be a bit of a stretch so it could have been far far worse tbh.

Oh trust me, my biggest issue with the film is that Wally guy with his newspaper clippings where he's put red marks on clips of Superman and Bruce Wayne and for some reason, put a red box around his own name in one of the clippings.

Why did he put a red box around his own damn name?

smash

Didn't really know what to make of this one. I didn't want to see it in the cinema as the premise didn't really appeal to me and I thought it would be somewhat predictable so I watched it for the first time last night.

First thing was that Afflek didn't butcher the batman character which was good, although I don't think his build suited him for the role. He was just too stocky.

The movie itself lacked pace and lost my attention on too many occasions. The batman v superman fight itself was too short lived and end fight was too drawn out with just too much CGI.

Wonder Woman was hot, but I felt that her introduction was misplaced and character build up was non existent. Over all it was middle of the road and should have just been called 'the justice league' or something more fitting.

Slydice

Slydice wrote: »

Seriously though wtf with Batman and the cards? and Arkham and having friends there. I got this eerie feel like he's been turned by the Joker but was like nah no way!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100383431&postcount=560

Right at the end: Favourite Joke Batman

Coming later this month: Batman - The Killing Joke

I dunno... could they really be setting Batman up to have already been turned by Joker?!?! :eek:

Gwynplaine

Anyone spot yer man sitting beside the Senator at Superman's hearing?
He's in The Dark Knight, he's in Bruce's penthouse when the Joker turns up.

e_e

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

A complete 180!

The one thing I'll say - calling it Dawn of Justice, discussing Justice League soon afterwards, kind of negates the whole Superman being dead thing in this movie.

Penn

Gwynplaine wrote: »

Anyone spot yer man sitting beside the Senator at Superman's hearing?
He's in The Dark Knight, he's in Bruce's penthouse when the Joker turns up.

Pretty sure he's actually a real politician who is a huge Batman fan. That's how he got those cameos.

Found him there. Patrick Leahy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Leahy#Comic_book_fan

macslash

Anyone notice in Suicide Squad that when

Amanda Waller mentioned how Superman shared humans values, but that the next Superman might not and they need to be prepared; that this was a subtle hint at how Supes might return...

helimachoptor

Watched it last night, bar the B V S fight i thought it was pretty poor.

Batman went AWOL for the end fight

Brief_Lives

Everyone should watch the ultimate version... It's excellent...

Kirby

Its marginally better. Calling it excellent is hyperbole. It's still a mediocre film, at best.

Nervous Wreck

Kirby wrote: »

Its marginally better. Calling it excellent is hyperbole. It's still a mediocre film, at best.

I thought it was just a slightly longer pile of shít.



Funnily, Suicide Squad (which was also a turd) showed a better, more heroic, truer version of Batman in 3 very brief scenes than Batman v Superman did with 2.5 hours (or 3 hours in the UE).

Penn

helimachoptor wrote: »

Watched it last night, bar the B V S fight i thought it was pretty poor.

Batman went AWOL for the end fight

Yeah that really annoyed me. The three of them agree that the spear is the only way to kill Doomsday. Superman and WW start fighting Doomsday, and Batman makes absolutely no attempt whatsoever to go get the spear. At one point they even just show Batman watching the other two fighting Doomsday.

IncognitoMan

Brief_Lives wrote: »

Everyone should watch the ultimate version... It's excellent...

Yep, very enjoyable. The UE is the only version that should be shown to anyone from here on.

IncognitoMan

Only stumbled across this channel a few months ago but I've been waiting for this. Looking at the good instead of the bad.

Yeah, the extended edition just added some extra scenes, from what I could tell, but it didn't make it any more of a better movie.

jones

Totally disagree.

I liked BvS theatrical release in the cinema but it did have it problems. I think the extended sorts out a lot of the problems. In saying that i don't think its going to convert anyone who hated the original release. I think the extended is the superior version hands down

Drumpot

jones wrote: »

Totally disagree.

I liked BvS theatrical release in the cinema but it did have it problems. I think the extended sorts out a lot of the problems. In saying that i don't think its going to convert anyone who hated the original release. I think the extended is the superior version hands down

Exactly , The extended version was not brought out to change the minds of those who hate the movie, it was to enhance the movie for those either on the fence and wanted to like it or those who actually enjoyed it.

The TR was the studios commercially shredded version and the Extended version was the directors version. Cant blame the director for the studios meddling (like the studio obviously also did with suicide squad). I also think the director was given an awful lot to squeeze into the movie, to expand the universe, which wasn't ideal. Its not like a director wants to be limited to things like runtime and having to introduce new characters for the next movie.

jones

Drumpot wrote: »

Exactly , The extended version was not brought out to change the minds of those who hate the movie, it was to enhance the movie for those either on the fence and wanted to like it or those who actually enjoyed it.

The TR was the studios commercially shredded version and the Extended version was the directors version. Cant blame the director for the studios meddling (like the studio obviously also did with suicide squad). I also think the director was given an awful lot to squeeze into the movie, to expand the universe, which wasn't ideal. Its not like a director wants to be limited to things like runtime and having to introduce new characters for the next movie.

I cant help but wonder how the extended edition would of been received critically if it had been the one released in the cinemas. I think they would of made a lot more money plus a better starting point for JL

Ben Gadot

jones wrote: »

I cant help but wonder how the extended edition would of been received critically if it had been the one released in the cinemas. I think they would of made a lot more money plus a better starting point for JL

Probably would have been even more savaged for daring to go over 3 hours for a superhero film.

I enjoyed BvS and look forward to watching the extended cut, but I don't feel it was a good launchpad for the extended universe. They simply tried to do too much in one film and I feel that if they struggled to put together the cut they wanted upon release, then they deserve to be judged harshly on that.

I personally feel they threw in the towel on MOS2 too quickly, and I actually think that BvS minus Batman (or at least minimise and change his role), with Superman and Lex fleshed out properly, could have been an excellent film. The potential was there from what I saw on screen.

I don't believe this notion that you can't make a good Superman film.

Nervous Wreck

Drumpot wrote: »

Exactly , The extended version was not brought out to change the minds of those who hate the movie, it was to enhance the movie for those either on the fence and wanted to like it or those who actually enjoyed it.

The TR was the studios commercially shredded version and the Extended version was the directors version. Cant blame the director for the studios meddling (like the studio obviously also did with suicide squad). I also think the director was given an awful lot to squeeze into the movie, to expand the universe, which wasn't ideal. Its not like a director wants to be limited to things like runtime and having to introduce new characters for the next movie.

I completely disagree with most of this. The director's job is to make a good movie within the parameters set out by the studio. Snyder knew going in that he wouldn't be able to release a 3 hour cut of this movie and was unable to make a movie that made sense within those parameters. He failed, essentially. The extended cut adds little (the plot about the frame job is expanded upon and Jimmy Olsen is revealed as a CIA op) and subtracts a lot (30 extra minutes of my life, for example).

I don't see how you can reasonably say that he had a lot to cram in to the movie. He introduced Batman, Lex and Wonder Woman and did all three very clumsily. Compare that to Guardians of te Galaxy, which introduced Star Lord, Rocket, Groot, Drax, Gamora and Ronan, and did so very well. It's a complete cop out to say that the director had a hard job when they do a bad job.

Nervous Wreck

Ben Gadot wrote: »

Probably would have been even more savaged for daring to go over 3 hours for a superhero film.

I enjoyed BvS and look forward to watching the extended cut, but I don't feel it was a good launchpad for the extended universe. They simply tried to do too much in one film and I feel that if they struggled to put together the cut they wanted upon release, then they deserve to be judged harshly on that.

I personally feel they threw in the towel on MOS2 too quickly, and I actually think that BvS minus Batman (or at least minimise and change his role), with Superman and Lex fleshed out properly, could have been an excellent film. The potential was there from what I saw on screen.

I don't believe this notion that you can't make a good Superman film.

This.

They did a bad job with MoS and then just gave up and said "Batman will fix this" without considering hiring a better writer/director to make the sequel better. As much as MoS had its problems, I really wanted a sequel at the time.

Penn

I think the issue was it was supposed to be MoS2 (Superman V Lex + Doomsday), then they threw Batman in to make it BvS, then they threw the rest of the Justice League in to make it BvS:DoJ.

But each time they added to it, they didn't take old (and now unnecessary) stuff out. The Ultimate Edition might flesh out some of the side plots more, but they are side plots which don't need to be in the movie any more. Lois tracking down the bullet, Superman being blamed for the deaths in Africa, Wally... For me all that could have easily been cut from the film at a minimum.

The film didn't need to be longer, it needed to be shorter and far more focused.

Drumpot

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I completely disagree with most of this. The director's job is to make a good movie within the parameters set out by the studio. Snyder knew going in that he wouldn't be able to release a 3 hour cut of this movie and was unable to make a movie that made sense within those parameters. He failed, essentially. The extended cut adds little (the plot about the frame job is expanded upon and Jimmy Olsen is revealed as a CIA op) and subtracts a lot (30 extra minutes of my life, for example).

I don't see how you can reasonably say that he had a lot to cram in to the movie. He introduced Batman, Lex and Wonder Woman and did all three very clumsily. Compare that to Guardians of te Galaxy, which introduced Star Lord, Rocket, Groot, Drax, Gamora and Ronan, and did so very well. It's a complete cop out to say that the director had a hard job when they do a bad job.

If a director makes a good movie and a studio makes its own edits, I don't see how you can blame the director, particularly (like in many cases with Snyder movies) if the TR is interpreted inferior to the directors version.

I don't think he did a bad job on the movie at all, that's just like, your opinion man...

Comparing it to GOTG is like comparing apples and oranges.. It goes back to the comparison to Marvel movies which is not really constructive IMO. The marvel universe is a well oiled machine with nearly a decade of preparation and fine tuning. People are used to the now, generic, Marvel brand, but DC are trying to invent their own. Maybe you wont like the direction that they go (less humour, more dark).

In terms of GOTG, the characters introduced were not mainstream giants like Batman, Lex or WW. Look at how angry people got about Batman killing. People are already familiar and invested in the BvS characters which makes it harder to reinvent them on screen. Few people had any expectations on GOTG so I think it is more comparable with Deadpool then it is with BvS in terms of characters and expectation/hype.

Osmosis Jones

Drumpot wrote: »

Comparing it to GOTG is like comparing apples and oranges.. It goes back to the comparison to Marvel movies which is not really constructive IMO. The marvel universe is a well oiled machine with nearly a decade of preparation and fine tuning. People are used to the now, generic, Marvel brand, but DC are trying to invent their own. Maybe you wont like the direction that they go (less humour, more dark).

The difference between their cinematic universes isn't the tone of the movies they put out, its the fact that Marvel started slow and DC seem to be rushing into it. How many characters have we been introduced to in only 3 DC movies? It seems to be nearly as many as we've had in 13 Marvel movies so far.

Nervous Wreck

Drumpot wrote: »

If a director makes a good movie and a studio makes its own edits, I don't see how you can blame the director, particularly (like in many cases with Snyder movies) if the TR is interpreted inferior to the directors version.

I don't think he did a bad job on the movie at all, that's just like, your opinion man...

Comparing it to GOTG is like comparing apples and oranges.. It goes back to the comparison to Marvel movies which is not really constructive IMO. The marvel universe is a well oiled machine with nearly a decade of preparation and fine tuning. People are used to the now, generic, Marvel brand, but DC are trying to invent their own. Maybe you wont like the direction that they go (less humour, more dark).

In terms of GOTG, the characters introduced were not mainstream giants like Batman, Lex or WW. Also, few people had any expectations on GOTG so I think it is more comparable with Deadpool then it is with BvS in terms of characters and expectation/hype.

There's never been anything to suggest the studio had any undue involvement in the editing of BvS. I'm pretty sure, as with normal proceedings, it was the director and an editor who did it. Snyder trimmed the fat with his edit, as he should have, but was still left with an overlong, bloated mess of a film. That's his fault. If he'd been able to tell his story properly, he should have been able to do a coherent job of it in the first place.

Comparing it to GotG is indeed like comparing apples to oranges because GotG is a demonstrably better made film. The characters have real depth and motivation and their arcs make sense. But this isn't a Marvel v DC comparison - it's a comparison of 2 films in the same genre, attempting something similar. I would gladly compare BvS with a good film from DC's franchise but I'm short on examples...

I'm also baffled that you think GotG should have had an easier job of it because Batman, Lex and WW are so well established. This should have made Snyder's job MUCH easier than Gunn's but he still couldn't bring it home.

techdiver

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

There's never been anything to suggest the studio had any undue involvement in the editing of BvS. I'm pretty sure, as with normal proceedings, it was the director and an editor who did it. Snyder trimmed the fat with his edit, as he should have, but was still left with an overlong, bloated mess of a film. That's his fault. If he'd been able to tell his story properly, he should have been able to do a coherent job of it in the first place.

Comparing it to GotG is indeed like comparing apples to oranges because GotG is a demonstrably better made film. The characters have real depth and motivation and their arcs make sense. But this isn't a Marvel v DC comparison - it's a comparison of 2 films in the same genre, attempting something similar. I would gladly compare BvS with a good film from DC's franchise but I'm short on examples...

I'm also baffled that you think GotG should have had an easier job of it because Batman, Lex and WW are so well established. This should have made Snyder's job MUCH easier than Gunn's but he still couldn't bring it home.

GOTG just threw most of the characters into the movie and said "boom - here you go", there was sfa back story, apart from Quill.

I'm a fan of both marvel and dc in equal measure, but I firmly believe marvel get a much easier ride than dc. I'm not saying the DC movies have been better, but in reality the gushing over them by critics etc makes no sense to me.

They focus on the good in the marvel movies and the negative in the DC movies. In my view anyway.

Drumpot

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

The difference between their cinematic universes isn't the tone of the movies they put out, its the fact that Marvel started slow and DC seem to be rushing into it. How many characters have we been introduced to in only 3 DC movies? It seems to be nearly as many as we've had in 13 Marvel movies so far.

The tone actually is different. MOS and BvS are not really comparable to any Marvel movie in terms of Tone. They are much darker/bleaker and less humorous. Despite the carnage in Marvel movies, they still feel more child friendly.

And I agree completely that DC are rushing things, which is why I feel the director shouldn't be blamed if there is too much crammed into it.

Nervous Wreck

techdiver wrote: »

GOTG just threw most of the characters into the movie and said "boom - here you go", there was sfa back story, apart from Quill.

Not really. It certainly presented Quill's story more upfront but it also offered plenty of backstory for Drax and Gamora and enough for the others. It certainly didn't go deep into their back stories but it gave them motivation and that's more than enough.

techdiver wrote: »

I'm a fan of both marvel and dc in equal measure, but I firmly believe marvel get a much easier ride than dc. I'm not saying the DC movies have been better, but in reality the gushing over them by critics etc makes no sense to me.

They focus on the good in the marvel movies and the negative in the DC movies. In my view anyway.

I agree with you there. But the reason is, there's much more good in Marvel movies than bad. There's much more bad in DC movies than good. Te focus shifts to the majority of the content.

I'm dying for a good DCEU movie. I was devastated coming out of BvS. DC have SO much good stuff to work from; I hope they can do a better job in future.

pixelburp

techdiver wrote: »

GOTG just threw most of the characters into the movie and said "boom - here you go", there was sfa back story, apart from Quill.

I'm a fan of both marvel and dc in equal measure, but I firmly believe marvel get a much easier ride than dc. I'm not saying the DC movies have been better, but in reality the gushing over them by critics etc makes no sense to me.

They focus on the good in the marvel movies and the negative in the DC movies. In my view anyway.

IF Marvel get an easier ride, it's only because they've made more than a dozen films at this stage and bar a couple of known clunkers have been demonstrably good, entertaining films. The biggest complaint you can make about the MCU is that creatively they're very safe, banal films. They may skimp on the directing talent, but they can namecheck the likes of Joss Whedon, James Gunn, Shane Black and Edgar Wright (ish!) as writers.

DC have bankrolled, what, 3 of what's being called the 'Synderverse' and the best they can be described as is 'controversial'. Films you have really try to find the good.

How can you not focus on Marvel when they've been around longer and have a far better average hit/miss ratio than DC? There's no conspiracy or cognitive bias at play here.

As for GOTG, while sure they dropped the characters into the film without ceremony, everyone got little moments or scenes that fleshed them out and gave enough motivation and background to care. Back story doesn't need to be a ring-fenced into a dedicated scene to get the audience up to speed - any half decent writer should be capable of doing so within the main narrative.

- Dax is haunted & obsessed by his dead family and those that killed them. His obsession nearly dooms the team.
- Gamora is insecure and sad about being nothing more than a weapon of Thanos. Nobody can really trust her.
- Rocket's is basically a broken creature, masking his (probable) history of torture with brazen criminality.
- I am Groot.

See? All that came up within the movie, not a series of tedious, 10 minute flashbacks.

Drumpot

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

There's never been anything to suggest the studio had any undue involvement in the editing of BvS. I'm pretty sure, as with normal proceedings, it was the director and an editor who did it. Snyder trimmed the fat with his edit, as he should have, but was still left with an overlong, bloated mess of a film. That's his fault. If he'd been able to tell his story properly, he should have been able to do a coherent job of it in the first place.

Comparing it to GotG is indeed like comparing apples to oranges because GotG is a demonstrably better made film. The characters have real depth and motivation and their arcs make sense. But this isn't a Marvel v DC comparison - it's a comparison of 2 films in the same genre, attempting something similar. I would gladly compare BvS with a good film from DC's franchise but I'm short on examples...

I'm also baffled that you think GotG should have had an easier job of it because Batman, Lex and WW are so well established. This should have made Snyder's job MUCH easier than Gunn's but he still couldn't bring it home.

I think most people accept (even people who dislike Snyder), that the Extended cut was his cut of the movie. If you think otherwise, theres no point in discussing that topic further.

I enjoyed GOTG and BvS. . I dont consider them remotely comparable and don't like either of them for the same reasons. I consider GOTG a great family fantasy, I consider BvS a much darker comicbook action movie. I enjoyed the original superman from the 70s and the Nolan Batmans, but don't feel the need to benchmark them against this updated versions because in many ways they are completely different versions/universes of the characters.

I feel its fairly obvious that a movie that has more expectation, hype, and is reinventing much loved characters that has extremely passionate fans is harder to make then a movie being made by a studio that has perfected the ingredients in making a generically good comic book movie with little to no fanfare. For me, one of the most enjoyable things about GOTG was that I knew nothing about it and didn't even fancy the trailers!

BvS had uproar when it was announced Affleck as Batman. . Then there was uproar about the trailers. Uproar about loads of things. Before BvS was even released there was chaos and expected revolt against it. Some people decided to hate it before it was even released! GOTG , for many, came out of nowhere, had no baggage and had nothing to lose by failing. They protected the marvel universe by keeping it pretty much separate from its main one.

Mickeroo

[QUOTE=techdiver;100651714]GOTG just threw most of the characters into the movie and said "boom - here you go", there was sfa back story, apart from Quill.

[/QUOTE]

That's not true, by the end of the run time you know the back story of each and every member of the squad (apart from maybe Groot?) and the film managed to provide a character arch too with proper motivation as to why each of them are in the team. Quill get's more development because he's the main character but everyone in the film had their moment to shine. Suicide Squad is probably a better film to compare to Guardians than BvS but I don't think either film did a particularly good job of basic story telling, world building and character work.

I think the whole "Marvel get an easier ride from critics" stuff is nonsense, they get an easier ride because their films have generally been better. I've no issues with the tone or the direction Warner/DC are taking their films everything I dislike about them is from a pure film making point of view. Hell, I'm not even that fussed about the departures they've taken with the characters, the issue is they haven't fleshed them out or made them convincing or worthwhile from a story point of view imo.

Osmosis Jones

Drumpot wrote: »

BvS had uproar when it was announced Affleck as Batman. . Then there was uproar about the trailers. Uproar about loads of things. Before BvS was even released there was chaos and expected revolt against it. Some people decided to hate it before it was even released! GOTG , for many, came out of nowhere, had no baggage and had nothing to lose by failing. They protected the marvel universe by keeping it pretty much separate from its main one.

It was suggested by many that GotG would be the end of the MCU, that Marvel were totally out of ideas and scraping the bottom to find anything to turn into a movie, there was a lot of pressure on the relatively unknown franchise.

Ben Gadot

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

It was suggested by many that GotG would be the end of the MCU, that Marvel were totally out of ideas and scraping the bottom to find anything to turn into a movie, there was a lot of pressure on the relatively unknown franchise.

I thought it was the opposite that was said? That Marvel had positioned themselves into a spot where they could take on an offbeat venture. They had built the goodwill up to get people into seats so can't say that they didn't earn the chance to a risk.

Having said that I don't think there was anything particularly risky about the film itself. The acting and characters were great, story was standard enough. The way I saw things was that it was no more a gamble than any other studio releasing an original fantasy with unfamiliar characters.

techdiver

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think the whole "Marvel get an easier ride from critics" stuff is nonsense, they get an easier ride because their films have generally been better. I've no issues with the tone or the direction Warner/DC are taking their films everything I dislike about them is from a pure film making point of view. Hell, I'm not even that fussed about the departures they've taken with the characters, the issue is they haven't fleshed them out or made them convincing or worthwhile from a story point of view imo.

I think we may be focussing GOTG too much, but I just think that whilst it was a good movie, it is not as good as people make it out to be in the same way as BvS (especially the UE) is not as bad as people make it out to be. Once again just my opinion.

Marvel have had some mediocre to poor movies that have been well reviewed, (Iron Man 2 and 3, both Thors, AOU, Captain America: TFA). Some of them bored the **** out of me. The marvel cinematic universe is overrated by the fact they have had Iron Man, the first Avengers movie, TWS (which is actually slightly overrated too) and GOTG.

Penn

Drumpot wrote: »

BvS had uproar when it was announced Affleck as Batman. . Then there was uproar about the trailers. Uproar about loads of things.

In fairness though, once footage of Batfleck started being released the majority of people were on board with him or willing to give him a shot, as the uproar largely came from his Daredevil film. And there was uproar from the trailers mostly because they revealed far too much. Most of the final fight with Doomsday (and Wonder Woman being part of the fight) was in the trailers.

I would have given the film huge credit if they kept the Doomsday and WW stuff out of the trailers (keep it as BvS and show Diana Prince in the trailers but not WW in her battle outfit). That would have been a huge surprise and really amped me up for the final fight. But because of the trailers and promotional info, most of the final fight was just what had been in the trailers, with very little new.

Though in fairness, that's a criticism that applies to most movies these days. Trailers give away far too much.

Nervous Wreck

Drumpot wrote: »

I think most people accept (even people who dislike Snyder), that the Extended cut was his cut of the movie. If you think otherwise, theres no point in discussing that topic further.

This is absolutely unfounded! There's never been any hint of an indication given that the theatrical release was anything but Snyder's. The Ultimate Edition (nb *not* 'Directors Cut') is a money-grab that was always inevitable; Snyder has done the same in the past and WB have shown that they're happy to try get more sales with another release. Much in the same way as all of the LotR & Hobbit movies got extended editions, this is NOT indicative of a director being unhappy with what they released. Editing is a fundamental part of film making and there's always stuff that ends up on the cutting room floor. Cutting out the excess is as important as the stuff that's left in.

Nervous Wreck

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

This is absolutely unfounded! There's never been any hint of an indication given that the theatrical release was anything but Snyder's. The Ultimate Edition (nb *not* 'Directors Cut') is a money-grab that was always inevitable; Snyder has done the same in the past and WB have shown that they're happy to try get more sales with another release. Much in the same way as all of the LotR & Hobbit movies got extended editions, this is NOT indicative of a director being unhappy with what they released. Editing is a fundamental part of film making and there's always stuff that ends up on the cutting room floor. Cutting out the excess is as important as the stuff that's left in.

If WB were all about the money grabbing then they would do a Disney and reduce the theatrical version on Blu_ray and then 3 months later announce that they are reducing a special edition of said release. At least WB packaged both releases in one and didn't hold off in hopes of fans double dipping.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

If WB were all about the money grabbing then they would do a Disney and reduce the theatrical version on Blu_ray and then 3 months later announce that they are reducing a special edition of said release. At least WB packaged both releases in one and didn't hold off in hopes of fans double dipping.

In fairness Darko, Disney haven't done that with any of the Marvel movies. Not one.

Nervous Wreck

Penn wrote: »

In fairness Darko, Disney haven't done that with any of the Marvel movies. Not one.

They've also accepted their missteps and owned them, rather than trying to release alternate cuts to try undo their follies.

Drumpot

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

This is absolutely unfounded! There's never been any hint of an indication given that the theatrical release was anything but Snyder's. The Ultimate Edition (nb *not* 'Directors Cut') is a money-grab that was always inevitable; Snyder has done the same in the past and WB have shown that they're happy to try get more sales with another release. Much in the same way as all of the LotR & Hobbit movies got extended editions, this is NOT indicative of a director being unhappy with what they released. Editing is a fundamental part of film making and there's always stuff that ends up on the cutting room floor. Cutting out the excess is as important as the stuff that's left in.

http://batman-news.com/2016/06/28/batman-v-superman-3-hours-warner-bros-no/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fsw42prfp8

Snyder “It was in there until very recently, so all of it’s finished. It was really just a function of time, to be honest. Because the movie’s long now, long-ish—I don’t think it’s long, but when you get over two and a half hours the studio starts getting nervous. I’m not James Cameron who’s like ‘No it’s three hours, suck it!’, which is cool by the way. I just wanted to try and get it to a length that is work-able.”

So Snyder is "not James Cameron" and didn't have final say over the movies runtime. He made the movie and the studio told him to trim off 30 mins. Even in that interview, Snyder says the Extended cut is a better version and actually discusses how he has had "battles" with studios who want him to edit the runtime of his movies.

jones

I think it's fairly obvious Snyder wanted a 3 hour cut and the studio made him reduce its to 2.5 hours. Otherwise he butchered his own story just for kicks.

The cuts don't really make sense and made the theatrical version a bit of a mess story wise. A visually stunning mess but a mess

Nervous Wreck

Drumpot wrote: »

http://batman-news.com/2016/06/28/batman-v-superman-3-hours-warner-bros-no/

Snyder “It was in there until very recently, so all of it’s finished. It was really just a function of time, to be honest. Because the movie’s long now, long-ish—I don’t think it’s long, but when you get over two and a half hours the studio starts getting nervous. I’m not James Cameron who’s like ‘No it’s three hours, suck it!’, which is cool by the way. I just wanted to try and get it to a length that is work-able.”

This only serves to support my earlier point; of course WB weren't gonna let him release a 3 hour version. He knew that going in. He also knew they'd let him release an extended cut so he shot it anyway. But HE did the edit for the theatrical release. And the onus is on him to ensure that the theatrical release is up to scratch. Saying "I'd like to have been able to include everything" doesn't equate to the TR not being his cut. I'm baffled that you don't get this.

Nervous Wreck

Anyway, both versions of the movie are incredibly poor from a narrative, character and universe-building PoV. I can't remember how we got into the debate about the different cuts but the extended cut basically only serves to expand on a terrible, nonsense plot. I actually preferred the TR, though I found them both terrible.

IncognitoMan

You know the first 5 films in the MCU weren't upto much.

Iron Man
The Incredible Hulk
Iron Man 2
Thor
Captain America: The First Avenger

Apart from Iron man and possibly Captain America those are fairly forgettable films. DC is finding it's feet but I'd place MoS and BvS above at least 3 of those first 5 marvel films and if I'm being totally honest I'd watch both MoS and BvS before any of those 5 marvel films. (Although Iron Man would be very close, loved seeing that film in the cinema at the time)

This isn't a "I don't like marvel" thing because I do, I'm usually there within the first few nights of their films opening. It's just I generally think Marvel films are over praised and DC over criticized, the truth lies somewhere in the middle for both. Marvel's output isn't as great as its made out to be and DC's output isn't as bad as its made out to be.

Most of the marvel films are good to very good, that's it. I don't think they have done a truly great film, they certainly don't have a dark Knight... yet. But they also don't have a truly terrible one, they don't have a Green Lantern

I kind of wish DC would just aim their films towards a more mature audience from here and look to go after that market (18-40 year olds) instead trying to do Marvel light, I'd like the stories explored to be of a more mature nature. Leave marvel to the family fun audience and try something different would be my advice. It'll be next to impossible for DC to catch up and overtake marvel in what they are going for at this stage as they have had years of a head start.

But no doubt that WB will push towards a more Marvel/Disney style of film because they've seen it makes more money and you can then sell mountains of toys off the back of it. We'll all be worse off for it as well as there will be 3/4/5 comic book films out every year and they will all be formulaic and eventually will see most people turn away.

IncognitoMan

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I actually preferred the TR, though I found them both terrible.

You are the first man I've seen say that. Each to their own I suppose.

Ben Gadot

IncognitoMan wrote: »

You are the first man I've seen say that. Each to their own I suppose.

Probably only preferred it in truth because it took up less of his time.

Nervous Wreck

IncognitoMan wrote: »

You are the first man I've seen say that. Each to their own I suppose.

I thought they were both awful. But if someone gave me the choice of being kicked in the balls for 2.5 hours or being kicked in the balls for 3 hours, the choice would be very easy.

I preferred the TR because I felt the UE added nothing but some more detail into a nonsensical plot involving Superman being framed for shooting (wtf?!?!) a bunch of people using bullets that are exclusively made by Lexcorp.

techdiver

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I thought they were both awful. But if someone gave me the choice of being kicked in the balls for 2.5 hours or being kicked in the balls for 3 hours, the choice would be very easy.

I preferred the TR because I felt the UE added nothing but some more detail into a nonsensical plot involving Superman being framed for shooting (wtf?!?!) a bunch of people using bullets that are exclusively made by Lexcorp.

Major spoilers ahead for the UE!!

I'm sorry you are wrong there, you obviously hated the movie so much you weren't really going to give the UE a chance.

Additional story points:

1) Explains the frame up in the dessert properly
2) Expands on Wally and the fact that he didn't actually know about the bomb
2a) Lois discovering the above while investigating it.
3) The African woman recanting to the senator and her accepting that Lex orchestrated the whole lot before the hearing (this was missing from the TR).
3a) Her subsequently being killed by Knyazev for it.
4) Clark investigating Batman, meeting the widow of the branded man. This established more of the reason for the conflict and explains why he turned up during the chase between Batman and Lex's henchmen transporting the kryptonite.
5) Knyazev, going to the prison to arrange the killing of the branded prisoner. This was never explained in the TR as to why the Bat brand was a death sentence.
6) Lois investigating further about the bullet and putting the pieces together to tie it to Lex.

There are more that I can't think, of at the top of my head.

IncognitoMan

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I thought they were both awful. But if someone gave me the choice of being kicked in the balls for 2.5 hours or being kicked in the balls for 3 hours, the choice would be very easy.

I preferred the TR because I felt the UE added nothing but some more detail into a nonsensical plot involving Superman being framed for shooting (wtf?!?!) a bunch of people using bullets that are exclusively made by Lexcorp.

Nope that was the TC. In the EC it was shown that the bodies were set on fire and burnt to a crisp so as to make it look like superman took them out (heat vision). Then the soldiers showed up. Lois only had one of the bullets as it was lodged into a notebook she had.

It's actually one of the points most people praised the UE for addressing.