*** BATMAN v SUPERMAN Spoiler Discussion/Reactions ***
76,948 Views |
645 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by wesag
quote:Steppenwolf is connected to Darkseid though, correct?
People have been saying Darkeid but I hope its not because that is a terrible adaptation. It is probably Steppenwolf
Yes, Steppenwolf is from Darkseids elite. I think they are also related.
Damn forgot about Darkseids father... Could be Yuga Khan...
quote:quote:Well close, but I consider my self a casual movie goer and I do anticipate the next one if I'm entertained by the current one. And if you're entertained, why should you be frustrated at all? Because the critics say you should? And no, I'm not calling you a sheep. I really am curious.
Is this what it feels like to be a casual movie goer? Where you just watch something for two+ hours, are completely unaffected by it, and have absolutely no interest in the next one until you find yourself sitting in the theater again? Because that's how I feel right now. Kind of entertained, knowing I should be way more frustrated than I am, but also knowing this sh*t will never change, and just kind of numb to it overall.
It has nothing to do with critics. Why do so many people here think that if I, or anyone else, doesn't like something, it's because we're listening to or agreeing with critics?
- First of all, I can tell whether something is good or bad on my own. I don't need a critic to spell it out for me. I know storytelling/movie-making inside out, and can come to whatever conclusion I come to via my own knowledge, experience, and expertise.
- Secondly, I want to be entertained by a good movie, not a bad one. I want be able to appreciate and marvel at the care and cleverness that went into making a well-told story. For me, it's not enough just to be mildly entertained by something that was subpar, something that could have been so much better. Every movie I see, I want to LOVE. And that love can only come from something that is smart and well-made. I'm just incapable of loving crap movies. I can find the experience enjoyable, sure, but that's not enough for me.
- Third, the product in theaters affects the overall market. Meaning that if a crap movie makes $166 million opening weekend, over time, studios will care less and less about producing a quality product, if they don't have to. If the masses will show up no matter what they put out, as long it has Batman or Superman in it, who gives a sh*t if it makes any sense? It especially affects the script phase in that regard. More and more studios are doing the bare minimum when it comes to the script. They'll put all kinds of ridiculous R&D into developing the technology to make sure the 10,000 moving parts in a Transformer are technically accurate and proportioned, but when it comes to the foundation of the entire endeavor - the script - it's like, "Who cares?! We have a deadline to meet! Write it on the fly!" I f***ing hate that attitude, and the success of movies like Batman v Superman only perpetuate that trend.
- Finally, on a more personal note, as someone who is striving to make movies for a living, it frustrates me to no end that this is what someone like Zack Snyder does with his opportunity. It's as simple as that. He's in an enviable position, and isn't making the most of it.
Collider seems to think it is Steppenwolf.
http://collider.com/batman-v-superman-deleted-scene/
Can anyone explain what the Mother Boxes are? I have never heard of these. I am going to assume that this is when Lex said "Teach me" to the computer.
http://collider.com/batman-v-superman-deleted-scene/
quote:
So this scene appears to come after Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor has descended into a lake of space goo inside General Zod's crashed ship (henceforth known as "the goo ship") to create Doomsday. We follow some soldiers into the ship, and they're first greeted by some massive monster that resembles the Independence Day aliens, only he appears to be made of the same material that we saw in Man of Steel when Jor-El's ghost was telling Clark the story of his people.
Sowhat is this thing and what in the world is going on? Our own Dave Trumbore surmises this might be the comics character of Steppenwolf, uncle to supervillain Darkseid, and that he may be holding Mother Boxes, objects of mysterious power that also have a Darkseid connection. So it's possible that this deleted scene explains why Luthor is magically alluding to Darkseid's impending arrival at the end of the film without any context as to how or why Luthor knows who Darkseid is.
Can anyone explain what the Mother Boxes are? I have never heard of these. I am going to assume that this is when Lex said "Teach me" to the computer.
And that is basically how the World's Finest became the stuff of legends..... And leveled a good portion of a city.
quote:Just had almost this exact same discussion with a friend of mine.
- Finally, on a more personal note, as someone who is striving to make movies for a living, it frustrates me to no end that this is what someone like Zack Snyder does with his opportunity. It's as simple as that. He's in an enviable position, and isn't making the most of it.
quote:I feel that way about most current music performers (not gonna call them artists). Especially watching some of the talent on American Idol and The Voice. How some of the crap gets out on the radio while truly talented folks struggle baffles me to no end.quote:
- Finally, on a more personal note, as someone who is striving to make movies for a living, it frustrates me to no end that this is what someone like Zack Snyder does with his opportunity. It's as simple as that. He's in an enviable position, and isn't making the most of it.
Interesting (more context for that deleted scene)...
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/03/28/theres-already-a-bvs-deleted-scene-online
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/03/28/theres-already-a-bvs-deleted-scene-online
Orlando Ayala Cant Read
Joined:
May 17, 2004
Posts:
69,631
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
i think these comic book movies sometimes go overboard thinking the entire audience knows the ins and outs of their comic book world. most people don't.
quote:quote:quote:Well close, but I consider my self a casual movie goer and I do anticipate the next one if I'm entertained by the current one. And if you're entertained, why should you be frustrated at all? Because the critics say you should? And no, I'm not calling you a sheep. I really am curious.
Is this what it feels like to be a casual movie goer? Where you just watch something for two+ hours, are completely unaffected by it, and have absolutely no interest in the next one until you find yourself sitting in the theater again? Because that's how I feel right now. Kind of entertained, knowing I should be way more frustrated than I am, but also knowing this sh*t will never change, and just kind of numb to it overall.
It has nothing to do with critics. Why do so many people here think that if I, or anyone else, doesn't like something, it's because we're listening to or agreeing with critics?
- First of all, I can tell whether something is good or bad on my own. I don't need a critic to spell it out for me. I know storytelling/movie-making inside out, and can come to whatever conclusion I come to via my own knowledge, experience, and expertise.
- Secondly, I want to be entertained by a good movie, not a bad one. I want be able to appreciate and marvel at the care and cleverness that went into making a well-told story. For me, it's not enough just to be mildly entertained by something that was subpar, something that could have been so much better. Every movie I see, I want to LOVE. And that love can only come from something that is smart and well-made. I'm just incapable of loving crap movies. I can find the experience enjoyable, sure, but that's not enough for me.
- Third, the product in theaters affects the overall market. Meaning that if a crap movie makes $166 million opening weekend, over time, studios will care less and less about producing a quality product, if they don't have to. If the masses will show up no matter what they put out, as long it has Batman or Superman in it, who gives a sh*t if it makes any sense? It especially affects the script phase in that regard. More and more studios are doing the bare minimum when it comes to the script. They'll put all kinds of ridiculous R&D into developing the technology to make sure the 10,000 moving parts in a Transformer are technically accurate and proportioned, but when it comes to the foundation of the entire endeavor - the script - it's like, "Who cares?! We have a deadline to meet! Write it on the fly!" I f***ing hate that attitude, and the success of movies like Batman v Superman only perpetuate that trend.
- Finally, on a more personal note, as someone who is striving to make movies for a living, it frustrates me to no end that this is what someone like Zack Snyder does with his opportunity. It's as simple as that. He's in an enviable position, and isn't making the most of it.
This x 1000000000
I can be "entertained" while watching a movie but still come away frustrated because of the wasted potential. Man of Steel was a perfect example of this and it sounds like Snyder doubled down on the wasted potential in BatsVsSupes.
quote:All that great source material and all they did was wipe their asses with it.
This x 1000000000
I can be "entertained" while watching a movie but still come away frustrated because of the wasted potential. Man of Steel was a perfect example of this and it sounds like Snyder doubled down on the wasted potential in BatsVsSupes.
quote:
WB released a deleted scene
Anyone know who that is?
It's https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steppenwolf_(comics)
Basically he's one of Darkseid's henchman and one of the New Gods. Previously he has killed both Superman and Wonder Woman in the comics.
quote:
Collider seems to think it is Steppenwolf.
http://collider.com/batman-v-superman-deleted-scene/quote:
So this scene appears to come after Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor has descended into a lake of space goo inside General Zod's crashed ship (henceforth known as "the goo ship") to create Doomsday. We follow some soldiers into the ship, and they're first greeted by some massive monster that resembles the Independence Day aliens, only he appears to be made of the same material that we saw in Man of Steel when Jor-El's ghost was telling Clark the story of his people.
Sowhat is this thing and what in the world is going on? Our own Dave Trumbore surmises this might be the comics character of Steppenwolf, uncle to supervillain Darkseid, and that he may be holding Mother Boxes, objects of mysterious power that also have a Darkseid connection. So it's possible that this deleted scene explains why Luthor is magically alluding to Darkseid's impending arrival at the end of the film without any context as to how or why Luthor knows who Darkseid is.
Can anyone explain what the Mother Boxes are? I have never heard of these. I am going to assume that this is when Lex said "Teach me" to the computer.
Mother Boxes are a New God invention. They are sentient living computers with extraordinary powers that would allow a normal human to go toe to toe physically with a New God. For instance, Cyborg merged with a Mother Box in the one scene during the movie.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Box
Think "Infinity Stone"
Writing my impressions before I read this thread or any reviews.
1. Is this the best-casted bad movie ever? Casting is good all the way around. I was hesitant on Gadot, but think she really pulled it off.
2. Speaking of WW, man, she was forced in there (warning, this may be a theme). She had no narrative arc. She added nothing in particular to the battle. Anything she did could have been done just as easily, if not better, by Bruce/Bats.
3. The exposition using dreams was super, SUPER lame. What is it with WB and relying on this tool? They had some visuals they wanted to use and used dreams to cram it all in. I'd also like to now formally accuse WB of including some of those scenes just because they would look cool in the trailers.
4. This is some if the worst pacing in any movie I've ever seen. Disjointed is the word I'd use. The story was just all over the place.
5. The lead up to the big BvS showdown made NO sense. Lex wanted Supes to kill Bats so the world would think he is a killer, but the world already thought that thanks to his thing in Africa or wherever (why is Lex equipping his undercover security guys with super secret high tech ammo, btw?). He wants to just subjugate Supes, which I suppose I get, but he was already in the process of creating Doomsday. A process which was going to complete whether Superman did Lex's bidding or not. What exactly is Lex trying to accomplish?
6. You do the Death of Superman story in his SECOND movie? More cramming. It also means Supes goes from hero to villain to hero all in one film. No development.
7. Way to blow your load on Lex in one movie, WB. He gets introduced, hatches an evil scheme (actually two evil schemes, we learn at the end... maybe three if you count stirring up BvS and then Doomsday separately) and lands in jail in like 20 minutes of screen time.
8. I think WB expects to hit us with a big twist down the road that Joker is actually Robin gone insane. I also feel like they've tipped their hand on this in a serious way and it won't surprise anyone, thanks in large part to Bruce's speech about good guys staying good.
9. I know this isn't unique in this film, but Mr. No Guns Batman sure used a ton of guns. He was blowing the hell out of people.
I'm sure I could go on. For every good moment like the coolest Batmobile and Batwings to date, there was a real head scratcher like wasting the inclusion of Mercy (another great Bruce Timm creation, I believe).
What a big pile of meh.
Edit: Forgot point #10. TDK was filmed in the sunshine compared to this. Saw it in 3D which makes it worse, but this has to be the darkest (meaning actual light levels) movie I've ever seen. It was hard to see what was happening on the screen at times. I just assume this was to mask all the CG flaws.
1. Is this the best-casted bad movie ever? Casting is good all the way around. I was hesitant on Gadot, but think she really pulled it off.
2. Speaking of WW, man, she was forced in there (warning, this may be a theme). She had no narrative arc. She added nothing in particular to the battle. Anything she did could have been done just as easily, if not better, by Bruce/Bats.
3. The exposition using dreams was super, SUPER lame. What is it with WB and relying on this tool? They had some visuals they wanted to use and used dreams to cram it all in. I'd also like to now formally accuse WB of including some of those scenes just because they would look cool in the trailers.
4. This is some if the worst pacing in any movie I've ever seen. Disjointed is the word I'd use. The story was just all over the place.
5. The lead up to the big BvS showdown made NO sense. Lex wanted Supes to kill Bats so the world would think he is a killer, but the world already thought that thanks to his thing in Africa or wherever (why is Lex equipping his undercover security guys with super secret high tech ammo, btw?). He wants to just subjugate Supes, which I suppose I get, but he was already in the process of creating Doomsday. A process which was going to complete whether Superman did Lex's bidding or not. What exactly is Lex trying to accomplish?
6. You do the Death of Superman story in his SECOND movie? More cramming. It also means Supes goes from hero to villain to hero all in one film. No development.
7. Way to blow your load on Lex in one movie, WB. He gets introduced, hatches an evil scheme (actually two evil schemes, we learn at the end... maybe three if you count stirring up BvS and then Doomsday separately) and lands in jail in like 20 minutes of screen time.
8. I think WB expects to hit us with a big twist down the road that Joker is actually Robin gone insane. I also feel like they've tipped their hand on this in a serious way and it won't surprise anyone, thanks in large part to Bruce's speech about good guys staying good.
9. I know this isn't unique in this film, but Mr. No Guns Batman sure used a ton of guns. He was blowing the hell out of people.
I'm sure I could go on. For every good moment like the coolest Batmobile and Batwings to date, there was a real head scratcher like wasting the inclusion of Mercy (another great Bruce Timm creation, I believe).
What a big pile of meh.
Edit: Forgot point #10. TDK was filmed in the sunshine compared to this. Saw it in 3D which makes it worse, but this has to be the darkest (meaning actual light levels) movie I've ever seen. It was hard to see what was happening on the screen at times. I just assume this was to mask all the CG flaws.
quote:
8. I think WB expects to hit us with a big twist down the road that Joker is actually Robin gone insane.
You're the second person I've seen say thIs, and it makes zero sense to me. What did you see in the movie that made you think this? Or is this based on a storyline in the comics?
Ok, back from my 7pm screening. First off, the good:
- Batfleck vs thugs was by far the highlight of the film. Give me two hours of that directed by Affleck and I might finally be a happy Batman fan. I was critical of his casting but he was really good.
- Jeremy Irons was nails as Alfred.
- Gal Gadot was solid in the action sequences and isn't hard to look at. Apparent WW's other superpower is tight dresses.
- Concept behind the Aquaman and Flash clips was cool, though the Aquaman clip could've been a bit more interestingly thought out IMO.
And the bad:
- So. Freakin'. Complicated. It felt like this film took forever to get where it was going and wandered all over the board in the process. If the main plot device was simply "Luthor develops kryptonite weapon under guise of world protection but really wants to kill Superman because of some evil plan" or something similar that could've worked. Goodness that was a ton of exposition.
- Batman and guns is just rule 1, no. No idea how self proclaimed comic fan Snyder rationalized that one.
- Some shots would've had so much more impact had they not been all over the trailers, WW's "save" of Batman in particular.
- Hey Bruce, that employee you personally saved appears to be very mentally unstable, is refusing his checks and is sending really threatening messages to you. Sorry, forgot to mention it.
- Luthor...ugh. Tech mogul decides wants to kill Superman and create an evil being for some reason? He just had no logical motivation, and the way Eisenberg played him had a bit of potential but ended up being just kind of annoying.
- Kryptonian ship as story device annoyed me in MoS and it wasn't much better this time. Need to know something? We'll just cue the narrator...err, ship!
- Why kill Supes? We all know he isn't going to stay dead.
- Dream sequences were a bit of a mess. I'd much rather have just seen Flash in the video clip.
- WW felt very stuck into the story with no real reason to be there. And while she was pretty good, we really need a Diana with at least a bit more muscle on her.
- JLA setup conversation at the end felt reallllly forced.
As a whole it had some fun parts but was just a cluster of a story. Unfortunately pretty forgettable.
- Batfleck vs thugs was by far the highlight of the film. Give me two hours of that directed by Affleck and I might finally be a happy Batman fan. I was critical of his casting but he was really good.
- Jeremy Irons was nails as Alfred.
- Gal Gadot was solid in the action sequences and isn't hard to look at. Apparent WW's other superpower is tight dresses.
- Concept behind the Aquaman and Flash clips was cool, though the Aquaman clip could've been a bit more interestingly thought out IMO.
And the bad:
- So. Freakin'. Complicated. It felt like this film took forever to get where it was going and wandered all over the board in the process. If the main plot device was simply "Luthor develops kryptonite weapon under guise of world protection but really wants to kill Superman because of some evil plan" or something similar that could've worked. Goodness that was a ton of exposition.
- Batman and guns is just rule 1, no. No idea how self proclaimed comic fan Snyder rationalized that one.
- Some shots would've had so much more impact had they not been all over the trailers, WW's "save" of Batman in particular.
- Hey Bruce, that employee you personally saved appears to be very mentally unstable, is refusing his checks and is sending really threatening messages to you. Sorry, forgot to mention it.
- Luthor...ugh. Tech mogul decides wants to kill Superman and create an evil being for some reason? He just had no logical motivation, and the way Eisenberg played him had a bit of potential but ended up being just kind of annoying.
- Kryptonian ship as story device annoyed me in MoS and it wasn't much better this time. Need to know something? We'll just cue the narrator...err, ship!
- Why kill Supes? We all know he isn't going to stay dead.
- Dream sequences were a bit of a mess. I'd much rather have just seen Flash in the video clip.
- WW felt very stuck into the story with no real reason to be there. And while she was pretty good, we really need a Diana with at least a bit more muscle on her.
- JLA setup conversation at the end felt reallllly forced.
As a whole it had some fun parts but was just a cluster of a story. Unfortunately pretty forgettable.
quote:quote:
8. I think WB expects to hit us with a big twist down the road that Joker is actually Robin gone insane.
You're the second person I've seen say thIs, and it makes zero sense to me. What did you see in the movie that made you think this? Or is this based on a storyline in the comics?
*Potential comics and video game spoilers*
Basically, in the comics the third Robin (I think) was this ***** named Jason Todd. Joker tortures him for days, and then kills him. Batman gets all sad and angsty about it.
Flash forward years later, and there's a new vigilante named Red Hood in Gotham. He's basically Batman meets the Punisher, as he kills the **** out of bad guys with guns.
He has a serious problem with Batman, because it turns out... it's Jason Todd! Making history as he's the first ever comic book hero to return from the dead.
In the final game of the Arkhamverse, they invented a new villain called the Arkham Knight... Hence the name of the game, "Arkham Knight"
It was a big deal as the games are wildly popular and this was a brand new villain invented just for the game. And as the game played out, and to literally no ones surprise... the Arkham Knight turns out to be, *spoiler alert* ... Jason Todd.
So back to the Joker is Jason Todd theory... Well this story has been kinda done before. And I'm pretty sure the main logic behind it is Joker branded a "J" on Jason Todd's face:
now look at Leto's Joker's face:
I think there's more reasoning behind it... but it's a solid theory.
Also, Batman: Under The Red Hood is really, really good. Definitely worth checking out.
Any chance the Arkham Knight becomes a character in a movie? Or is he really just a video game only character
quote:quote:
8. I think WB expects to hit us with a big twist down the road that Joker is actually Robin gone insane.
You're the second person I've seen say thIs, and it makes zero sense to me. What did you see in the movie that made you think this? Or is this based on a storyline in the comics?
Joker has some tats that are hard to explain and bears scars that look like they might match up with the damage to the suit.
Joker is also young. Too young to be a thorn in Batman's side for 20 years.
Finally this just seems like something WB would try to pull off. It's not from the comics at all.
quote:
Any chance the Arkham Knight becomes a character in a movie? Or is he really just a video game only character
Strictly video game.
That's a shame. I thought he was pretty great
Only way it is Jason Todd is if they completely destroy the Orginal Joker and Harley Quinn story line.
Seconding the Under the Red Hood recommendation, best of WB's animated stuff that I've seen (also loved Year One and Return of the Joker).
Oh, and Todd was the second Robin, just for clarification, preceded by **** and followed by Tim Drake (Red Robin).
Oh, and Todd was the second Robin, just for clarification, preceded by **** and followed by Tim Drake (Red Robin).
quote:
Seconding the Under the Red Hood recommendation, best of WB's animated stuff that I've seen (also loved Year One and Return of the Joker).
Oh, and Todd was the second Robin, just for clarification, preceded by **** and followed by Tim Drake (Red Robin).
Agreed... it's in a class by itself.
Yes you're right... second Robin. I hate all Robins.
To this day I was still hoping we'd get a Nightwing movie with Joseph Gordon Levitt
quote:
Only way it is Jason Todd is if they completely destroy the Orginal Joker and Harley Quinn story line.
It's not like Joker's origins are super concrete (and have never been depicted as per the comics on screen), but yes... I expect WB to blow that up in the name of "twist."
I hate these phakers more and more each day. Don't mess up the love story of Puddin and Harley
quote:Because basically Snyder wants Batman to form and lead the JL. Here's a quote from Collider:
- Why kill Supes? We all know he isn't going to stay dead.
quote:
"We had a version that we talked about where [Superman] justthis isn't it, but where he got frozen and shot into space or something, so he's kinda gone. Because one of the big things I wanted to make sure of was that as we went into Justice League, Bruce Wayne was the one who was gathering the Justice League. I thought it was really important to have Bruce Wayne be the samurai who goes and finds the other samurai, that to me was important. And with Superman around it's kinda hard, because Superman's Superman so it's kinda hard for Bruce to be like, 'Yeah I wanna put a Justice League together'. It's like, 'Okay, but maybe Superman should be doing that. You're just a guy. You're a cool guy, don't get me wrong, but you're just a guy.'"
http://collider.com/batman-v-superman-ending-justice-league/
Yeah.
After reading the thread, it's funny how many of us used the word "disjointed."
Also agree with another poster about people not understanding how RT works or what those results mean.
Also agree with another poster about people not understanding how RT works or what those results mean.
quote:
After reading the thread, it's funny how many of us used the word "disjointed."
Also agree with another poster about people not understanding how RT works or what those results mean.
I know exactly how Rotten Tomatoes works
Featured Stories
See All
Ags host Buckeyes with an early-season Quad 1 opportunity at stake
by Olin Buchanan
Players to Watch: No. 15 Texas A&M vs. New Mexico State
by Olin Buchanan
8:22
15h ago
1.6k
34:11
10h ago
690
Reed Report: Preparing for Friday's marquee showdown vs. Ohio State
by Luke Evangelist
Bid on Legacy Club tickets to Saturday's Texas A&M vs. NMSU game!
by Texas Aggies United