Early impressions start rolling out for Batman v. Superman

Status
Not open for further replies.
He becomes a lot better if you erase Lex Luthor from your mind and assume that he's playing the true villain of the movie: Max Landis.

6xQx9YT.gif
 
Devin Faraci suggesting this movie is anything less than an absolute trainwreck that makes the human race collectively give up on cinema is utterly bizarro. This is Bizarro World.
 
It's not hard to be better than Val Kilmer or George Clooney's Batman. Nor is it probably hard to be better than gravel voice always-has-his-mouth-open Christian Bale Batman. The only real competition Affleck has is Michael Keaton.
Keaton has to have one of the most overrated performances of all time. He was a pretty bad Bruce and great Batman. The guy acts nothing like Bruce. With his acting ability, I have to accept that he never read a comic because the guy didn't seem to know shit about Bruce Wayne based on his portrayal. He was a 1 dimensional cool rich guy with no depth at all during Bruce's portrayal. Bale always did Bruce as an amazing job but had that awful Batman voice as Batman.

Keaton was solid, Bale was pretty good. All other Batmans were awful.
 
Are Early impressions ever not positive for these types of movies?

Well, no, they're almost always positive, but it's still encouraging that SOMEONE liked it, especially once it's critics you might know and/or respect.

Then again, there's also the infamous "honeymoon" phase... The Star Wars prequels had some of the most hysterically funny reviews in hindsight, praising it from here to the moon as this absolutely transcendent, near-religious experience with high scores and acclaim. Reality hadn't sunk in yet before the hype died down.
 
Affleck always looked pretty good and he's had a pretty good career since Daredevil lol. I thought Eisenberg came off as the worst from the trailers but it's not like I wasn't going to see the movie. Gotta stay loyal to my man Bats.
 
Well, I like MoS. So unless this is at the same level of the Green Lantern, then I'm fairly confident Ill like this also.

Bring it on!
 

I took that as pure sarcasm
That they all said it was awful, and that's what he was excited for. Everyone's reaction to a bad superhero movie.

But maybe I'm wrongly interpreting him, because the dude is never clear or consistent about anything ever.

If the movie turns out to be good, they need to fire whoever made those initial awful trailers.
 
It looks okay, but why do we keep getting movies from a director whose biggest fans expect at-best C- reviewed films from him?
 
Well, no, they're almost always positive, but it's still encouraging that SOMEONE liked it, especially once it's critics you might know and/or respect.

Then again, there's also the infamous "honeymoon" phase... The Star Wars prequels had some of the most hysterically funny reviews in hindsight, praising it from here to the moon as this absolutely transcendent, near-religious experience with high scores and acclaim. Reality hadn't sunk in yet before the hype died down.
Everyone wanted SW to be great though, a lot of people have been shitting on BvS before they ever saw it.
 
The thing is, this movie has had the most anti-hype ever. Really.

Agreed, Marc Bernardin has criticized the mvoie via the trailers a lot and he's given it a thumbs up on Twitter which, of course, doesn't say much, but at least he liked it.

I just want this to be better than MoS man.
 
So what are you gonna say if the critics come out and give it a positive review? That they're bunch of idiot fanboys too?

I won't, though my opinion will still be the ultimate say on my impression, but I'm more willing to trust actual critics than a bunch of comic nerds granted an early screening. Do you think they would be granted such a screening if the big wigs thought they'd spread bad word?
 
The thing is, this movie has had the most anti-hype ever. Really.

You know, you're partially right for most of the "hardcore" internet crowd...

But for kids and teenagers and casual viewers? I don't think they care at all. They know Batman is in it and that's all they'll EVER need to hear.

I asked my 11, 12, and 14 year old cousins about this just yesterday and they were all super-pumped to see this film. They don't care about getting Superman "right", or whether the acting is good, or whether the story makes sense... you couldn't find a group of kids more hyped to see Batman and Superman fight, regardless of whatever excuse they come up with. It could literally be a match of rock 'em, sock 'em robots and they'd still be hyped.

I get the feeling that's most people off of message boards.
 
None of these things are for kids. Zero.

(maybe Sky High? That's like, the one exception I can think of)

I dunno Bobby maybe not all of them but my friends who are parents swear that their favorite babysitter is the first Avengers movie. It has whatever je ne sais quois is required to engage a two year old for the duration, which is pretty impressive for a 2+ hour movie.
 
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you haven't watched any Batman vs Superman trailers.

Or watched Man of Steel.

Or read any recent Superman comics.

Or watched any CBMs or read any comics in general. The last comic book movie that was pointedly made for children was Batman & Robin in 1997. Even the likes of Big Hero 6 were more all-audiences with plenty of stuff for adults to enjoy.
 
Keaton has to have one of the most overrated performances of all time. He was a pretty bad Bruce and great Batman. The guy acts nothing like Bruce. With his acting ability, I have to accept that he never read a comic because the guy didn't seem to know shit about Bruce Wayne based on his portrayal. He was a 1 dimensional cool rich guy with no depth at all during Bruce's portrayal. Bale always did Bruce as an amazing job but had that awful Batman voice as Batman.

All Batmans were awful. Keaton was solid, Bale was pretty good.

I'm actually in the opposite camp regarding Bale's Bruce and Keaton's Bruce. Bale's felt really one dimensional and fake to me while Keaton's felt like it had some life behind it, granted that could be Keaton's natural charisma oozing into the performance a bit. The scene in the 89 Batman where he's in that armory with Knox and Vale is a good example of this, I was also a fan of how Keaton's Bruce just walks into Christopher Walken's board room in Batman Returns and immediately starts grilling Walken about his ties to the Penguin like any snobby business executive might. That stuff made Keaton's Bruce feel like an actual person and I can't think of anything Bale's Bruce did that was like that.

I know playboy Bruce Wayne is supposed to be just a cover for Batman - but Keaton's Bruce actually felt like a second person while Bale's Bruce felt like a really fake persona.
 
I won't, though my opinion will still be the ultimate say on my impression, but I'm more willing to trust actual critics than a bunch of comic nerds granted an early screening. Do you think they would be granted such a screening if the big wigs thought they'd spread bad word?

So am I to understand you think that literally every person who has seen the movie thus far was hand selected by WB because they are fanboys?
 
So am I to understand you think that literally every person who has seen the movie thus far was hand selected by WB because they are fanboys?

Yes, that is 100% what I am saying...

Let me put it this way, random movie goer already foaming at the mouth to watch the movie is going to have a less objective opinion of the film than an actual critic.
 
In short:

The trailers are deceptive
Batfleck is best live-action Batman to date
Gal Gadot steals the show

http://comicbook.com/2016/03/21/first-reactions-to-batman-v-superman-are-very-positive/

Does this affect anyone's RT prediction?
https://twitter.com/carlcunningham/status/711720615896600576 said:
Carl Cunningham
‏@carlcunningham
I love Keaton more than anyone, but this is the best live action Batman ever. And it's not even remotely close. #BatmanvSuperman

Hired PR man impressions
facepalm.gif
 
Yes, that is 100% what I am saying...

Let me put it this way, random movie goer already foaming at the mouth to watch the movie is going to have a less objective opinion of the film than an actual critic.

Except critics have already seen the movie and have given positive impressions. Also, you don't seem to know how these things work, lol. The fan screenings haven't even happened yet. That's tonight.
 
I'm actually in the opposite camp regarding Bale's Bruce and Keaton's Bruce. Bale's felt really one dimensional and fake to me while Keaton's felt like it had some life behind it, granted that could be Keaton's natural charisma oozing into the performance a bit. The scene in the 89 Batman where he's in that armory with Knox and Vale is a good example of this, I was also a fan of how Keaton's Bruce just walks into Christopher Walken's board room in Batman Returns and immediately starts grilling Walken about his ties to the Penguin like any snobby business executive might. That stuff made Keaton's Bruce feel like an actual person and I can't think of anything Bale's Bruce did that was like that.

I know playboy Bruce Wayne is supposed to be just a cover for Batman - but Keaton's Bruce actually felt like a second person while Bale's Bruce felt like a really fake persona.
What.. HOW? Seriously, how did you get to that conclusion? I can't even fathom how someone can have this perspective. Where was Keaton ever shown have a semblance of personality other than cool rich guy. Every scene with Alfred you see the real Bruce with Bale.
 
In short:

The trailers are deceptive
Batfleck is best live-action Batman to date
Gal Gadot steals the show

http://comicbook.com/2016/03/21/first-reactions-to-batman-v-superman-are-very-positive/

Does this affect anyone's RT prediction?

I honestly would take impressions from fans with a grain of salt.

I mean wasn't there a time where fans thought the prequels of Star Wars were good? Not to say the impressions are 100% wrong because they could be right.
 
My friend went to the NYC premiere yesterday, and the first thing out his mouth was that Wonder Woman was the best part of the movie. That surprised me, too!

But she deserves to be the best thing in the movie!! It's been way too long. Bats and Supes already had decades worth of movies. So I'm glad that WW is one of the best things (if not the best) in BvS.
 
I dunno Bobby maybe not all of them but my friends who are parents swear that their favorite babysitter is the first Avengers movie. It has whatever je ne sais quois is required to engage a two year old for the duration, which is pretty impressive for a 2+ hour movie.

I get you: My nephews and nieces used apparently used to request The Two Towers (that one specifically) to watch when they were around 3 or 4. But there's a difference between kids being able to appreciate a thing, and that thing being made for those kids.

Superhero movies might be okay for kids to watch, but that doesn't mean these movies are actually being made for them. They're being made for their parents, with concessions to subject matter that allow their parents to bring them without feeling some sort of way about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom