Support NeoGAF

[IconGrist]

I don't actually have too much of a problem with it, I just think that killing him off so quickly didn't need to happen and there are smarter ways to handle that scene.

I agree but as it stands in the movie I took no issue with Supes doing that himself.

 

[dragonyeuw]

I didn't have any expectations to the Batman vs Superman fight, since I knew Bats would rely on kryptonite weaponry to stand a chance. (That said, I thought it was ridiculous how he kept himself away from the kryptonite spear and relied on the gas grenade launcher, he should have kept at least a solid piece of the rock with him).

Of course, the most sensible thing to do would have been to weave krytonite within the armor and/or equip the suit with a retractable kryponite spear, instead of trying to strategically steer the fight towards its location. It's only a movie, I guess lol.

I don't actually have too much of a problem with it, I just think that killing him off so quickly didn't need to happen and there are smarter ways to handle that scene.

Like the ending of MOS, the execution of the idea was more the problem than the idea itself.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

He still viewed it as his responsibility. Have you ever known Superman to let other people handle that? In a movie full of "un-Superman" like things that was not one of them.

When a lot of lives is on the line, I prefer Superman to let go of his ego. Give the task to the best person, not the person who feels the most responsible.

This is as stupid and conceited as the typical "don't help; this is between me and him" in action stories. I suppose it's considered heroic, somehow.

 

[IconGrist]

When a lot of lives is on the line, I prefer Superman to let go of his ego. Give the task to the best person, not the person who feels the most responsible.

This is as stupid and conceited as the typical "don't help; this is between me and him" in action stories. I suppose it's considered heroic, somehow.

It's more like, "I can't ask you to do something I'm not prepared to do myself."

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

It's more like, "I can't ask you to do something I'm not prepared to do myself."

That sentiment only works when everything is equal. Just holding that spear is making him wobbly on his feet.

 

[IconGrist]

That sentiment only works when everything is equal. Just holding that spear is making him wobbly on his feet.

lol All the more emphasis on it. "I did it and I was fucked from the get go. Quit whining."

 

[Blackhead]

He still viewed it as his responsibility. Have you ever known Superman to let other people handle that? In a movie full of "un-Superman" like things that was not one of them.

what makes you think Superman felt responsible for Doomsday because it was Kryptonian? And if he really felt responsibility for all things Krytopnian why did he not do anything to secure the very dangerous ship basically left unguarded in the city?

 

[DaveH]

That sentiment only works when everything is equal. Just holding that spear is making him wobbly on his feet.

Why would you assume Wonder Woman's immunity? "I thought she was with you?" "There are others. / The metahuman thesis? Living among us, gods among men, the basis of our myths and legends." Superman knows the Scout Ship arrived on Earth 20,000 years ago. It's not unreasonable for him to think she's a distant cousin equally susceptible to Kryptonite... he's literally never faced or seen super powers outside of a Kryptonian context. The very fact that people still consider the possibility of Kryptonian origin for Wonder Woman makes it plausible Superman might consider the same.

 

[IconGrist]

what makes you think Superman felt responsible for Doomsday because it was Kryptonian? And if he really felt responsibility for all things Krytopnian why did he not do anything to secure the very dangerous ship basically left unguarded in the city?

Superman learned a very dark lesson earlier in the movie about not keeping his eye on the ball when Capitol Hill blew up in his face. He wasn't concerned about the ship before because he didn't deem it worth being concerned about. All he cared about was saving lives (in some capacity) and Lois. 2 years have gone by and nothing bad happened with the wrecked ship so he left it alone. When shit went south he realized he's been a pretty shitty hero thus far and his ignorance, naivety and basically laziness had led up to this. That's what I mean by it being his mess and why he feels responsible. When he tells Lois that this is his world that's him finally embracing the Earth as his home.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

lol All the more emphasis on it. "I did it and I was fucked from the get go. Quit whining."

Then plain and simple, that's just an ego-trip under the justification of responsibility. Like I said, I prefer him to let go of his ego.

Why would you assume Wonder Woman's immunity? "I thought she was with you?" "There are others. / The metahuman thesis? Living among us, gods among men, the basis of our myths and legends." Superman knows the Scout Ship arrived on Earth 20,000 years ago. It's not unreasonable for him to think she's a distant cousin equally susceptible to Kryptonite... he's literally never faced or seen super powers outside of a Kryptonian context. The very fact that people still consider the possibility of Kryptonian origin for Wonder Woman makes it plausible Superman might consider the same.

Honestly, him just assuming this thing put him under an even worse light on the subject of conceitedness...

 

[DaveH]

Honestly, him just assuming this thing put him under an even worse light...

Not really, just shows the lack of empathy in your assumptions. He doesn't have 75 years of history with Wonder Woman. He has 22 years of knowing the only "magic" in the world is Kryptonian. He doesn't have 70 years of history with Kryptonite. He known about it for all of 10 minutes.

Right now they're hanging on by a thread with a two-metas to one Doomsday. For all Superman knows, exposing Wonder Woman to this exotic material will make her as wobbly as him, taking your temporary advantage to zero. This isn't a time to test if she's immune. Batman blew his load. You won't have a second chance.

But sure... let's judge the in-story decisions like they've been reading comics for decades.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

Not really, just shows the lack of empathy in your assumptions. He doesn't have 75 years of history with Wonder Woman. He has 22 years of knowing the only "magic" in the world is Kryptonian. He doesn't have 70 years of history with Kryptonite. He known about it for all of 10 minutes.

Right now they're hanging on by a thread with a two-metas to one Doomsday. For all Superman knows, exposing Wonder Woman to this exotic material will make her as wobbly as him, taking your temporary advantage to zero. This isn't a time to test if she's immune. Batman blew his load. You won't have a second chance.

But sure... let's judge the in-story decisions like they've been reading comics for decades.

If he could afford to do his entire goodbye speech to Lois, he could afford to simply confirm this assumption. Him just running with it and using it as a rationale to sacrifice himself is conceited, and put him in a worse light.

 

[IconGrist]

If he could afford to do his entire goodbye speech to Lois, he could afford to simply confirm this assumption. Him just running with it and using it as a rationale to sacrifice himself is conceited, and put him in a worse light.

Tough crowd. He was recovering from nearly drowning. It wasn't like he was hanging out watching Diana get slapped around and having a water cooler conversation.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

Tough crowd. He was recovering from nearly drowning. It wasn't like he was hanging out watching Diana get slapped around and having a water cooler conversation.

That doesn't change anything? It's hardly a fight that's "hanging on by a thread with a two-metas to one Doomsday" when one of said metas could actually afford to do the entire save-Lois-retrive-spear-drown-goodbye-speech side scene in the middle of it.

 

[DaveH]

he could afford to simply confirm this assumption.

You're ridiculous. Proof you're starting from the conclusion rather than thoughtfulness. How exactly? Ask her, "Are you susceptible to this?" "I don't know." "OK. Let me expose you to it. And if we're both weakened and Doomsday kills us, I guess that will be a good test."

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

You're ridiculous. Proof you're starting from the conclusion rather than thoughtfulness. How exactly? Ask her, "Are you susceptible to this?" "I don't know." "OK. Let me expose you to it. And if we're both weakened and Doomsday kills us, I guess that will be a good test."

Attack Doomsday, tell Wonder Woman to use the spear, distract Doomsday alone, then if Wonder Woman got wobbly when picking the spear, rethink that strategy. Trying to explore options is more thoughtful than just doing a suicide run as your first choice, hoping that you'll last long enough to win.

 

[DaveH]

Attack Doomsday, tell Wonder Woman to use the spear, distract Doomsday alone, then if Wonder Woman got wobbly when picking the spear, rethink that strategy.

Except by the time you enact that strategy, Doomsday goes nuclear again, kills Lois, kills Batman, and destroys the man-made spear.

Wonder Woman was uniquely capable of keeping Doomsday still. At no point during the battle did Superman show he can keep Doomsday in place. At best, he could move Doomsday out of reach, which also meant out of the reach of Wonder Woman, the spear, and Batman's last grenade.

Doomsday had to be pinned for Batman's grenade to reach and suppress the next flare.

 

[IconGrist]

Attack Doomsday, tell Wonder Woman to use the spear, distract Doomsday alone, then if Wonder Woman got wobbly when picking the spear, rethink that strategy.

I can't get behind this line of thinking because if you do it once you have to do it all the time and then every conflict lacks conflict. Every decision is the perfect decision. You can't write characters like that. Especially a character that has been pushed hard as an amateur like Superman has.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

Except by the time you enact that strategy, Doomsday goes nuclear again, kills Lois, kills Batman, and destroys the man-made spear.

Wonder Woman was uniquely capable of keeping Doomsday still. At no point during the battle did Superman show he can keep Doomsday in place. At best, he could move Doomsday out of reach, which also meant out of the reach of Wonder Woman, the spear, and Batman's last grenade.

Doomsday had to be pinned for Batman's grenade to reach and suppress the next flare.

All these are hypotheticals with more hoops to jump compared to "maybe Wonder Woman isn't a kryptonian."

I can't get behind this line of thinking because if you do it once you have to do it all the time and then every conflict lacks conflict. Every decision is the perfect decision. You can't write characters like that. Especially a character that has been pushed hard as an amateur like Superman has.

It's precisely because this conflict lacks conflict and pressure that I have problem with how it's handled. Show Wonder Woman actually hanging by the thread or incapacitated. Or show Doomsday jumping out of reach and endangering the city and Superman's "I'm the one who have to do it" becomes much more sensible.

 

[DaveH]

All these are hypotheticals with more hoops to jump rather than "maybe Wonder Woman isn't a kryptonian."

Hypotheticals raised by you, ignoring the basic truth of the situation and imputing knowledge on the characters they couldn't possibly have. So he should make absurd assumptions in another direction just because it supports an argument you want to make. Sad.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

I can't get behind this line of thinking because if you do it once you have to do it all the time and then every conflict lacks conflict. Every decision is the perfect decision. You can't write characters like that. Especially a character that has been pushed hard as an amateur like Superman has.

It's precisely because this conflict lacks conflict and pressure that I have problem with how it's handled. Show Wonder Woman actually hanging by the thread or incapacitated. Or show Doomsday jumping out of reach and endangering the city and Superman's "I'm the one who have to do it" becomes much more sensible.

Hypotheticals raised by you, ignoring the basic truth of the situation and imputing knowledge on the characters they couldn't possibly have. So he should make absurd assumptions in another direction just because it supports an argument you want to make. Sad.

I am attempting to provide my arguments in a neutral manner. If you found my tone derisive, then I apologize. I'm seeking some friendly conversation and if we are unable to do it without personal, judgmental quips seeping through, then I don't think there's any value in continuing it.

 

[IconGrist]

It's precisely because this conflict lacks conflict and pressure that I have problem with how it's handled. Show Wonder Woman actually hanging by the thread or incapacitated. Or show Doomsday jumping out of reach and endangering the city and Superman's "I'm the one who have to do it" becomes much more sensible.

She was having issues keeping him at bay. It wasn't desperate by any means but he was knocking her around much harder than she was knocking him. Her best moves in that fight was her gauntlet blast which moved him like 5 feet and cutting his arm off which turned out to make matters worse. Superman was the one landing the big moves. Taking that, lack of knowledge of what WW can fully endure, feelings of responsibility for the situation at large and it's not a stretch to see why Superman thought it had to be him.

I can fully understand the logic of it didn't have to be him to us but there wasn't enough information available to him to assuredly say so.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

She was having issues keeping him at bay. It wasn't desperate by any means but he was knocking her around much harder than she was knocking him. Her best moves in that fight was her gauntlet blast which moved him like 5 feet and cutting his arm off which turned out to make matters worse. Superman was the one landing the big moves. Taking that, lack of knowledge of what WW can fully endure, feelings of responsibility for the situation at large and it's not a stretch to see why Superman thought it had to be him.

I can fully understand the logic of it didn't have to be him to us but there wasn't enough information available to him to assuredly say so.

As a disclaimer, I am not claiming that the moment itself makes no sense. It's not really hard to imagine how Superman arrived to that conclusion. But as I said, I prefer he didn't. If Superman really needs to die there, I prefer to leave the theater thinking "yes, that's really how it's supposed to be". I think a fictional sacrifice needs to feel immediate and desperate. I think it needs a moment of "oh God what else can they do now" instead of "well, this is going kinda badly."

Yes, every decision is not necessarily the perfect decision. But if the decision results in a character's death, I wish there's some thought and care put into it, if not by the character in question, then by the film creators. In that sense, it's similar to how Lois threw the spear away and just minutes after attempted to retrieve it only to almost drown. Yes, logically it could happen. But on screen, coupled with the pacing and the circumstances around it, it still feels like contrived, unnecessary struggle.

 

[IconGrist]

As a disclaimer, I am not claiming that the moment makes no sense. It's not really hard to imagine how Superman arrived to that conclusion. But as I said, I prefer he didn't. If Superman really needs to die there, I prefer to leave the theater thinking "yes, that's really how it's supposed to be". I think a fictional sacrifice needs to feel immediate and desperate. I think it needs a moment of "oh God what else can they do now" instead of "well, this is going kinda badly."

Yes, every decision is not necessarily the perfect decision. But if the decision results in a character's death, I wish there's some thought and care put into it, if not by the character in question, then by the film creators. In that sense, it's similar to how Lois threw the spear away and just minutes after attempted to retrieve it only to almost drown. Yes, logically it could happen. But on screen, coupled with the pacing and the circumstances around it, it still feels like contrived, unnecessary struggle.

I'm not arguing the death shouldn't have happened. I didn't like it any better than anyone else. I agree a little bit more impact should have been given as well. It just kinda happened. I just mean in context the reason behind his sacrifice made sense to me 'in-character'.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

I'm not arguing the death shouldn't have happened. I didn't like it any better than anyone else. I agree a little bit more impact should have been given as well. It just kinda happened. I just mean in context the reason behind his sacrifice made sense to me 'in-character'.

Then we're back at the initial argument again, haha.

I actually think it makes sense in-character, just... the character is nonsense? I that makes sense.

I think ultimately, whereas you feel that his sacrifice is heroic and responsible, it comes off as egocentric and self-serving to me instead. Even if that's the kind of a person Superman is, I cannot empathize with the "responsibility means taking everything into one own's hand" sentiment and all those scenario I proposed are attempts to make that aspect feels less pronounced and less a deciding factor of a pivotal moment.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

Finally saw it myself. Waiting this long and hearing all the negative impressions, I thought maybe I'd end up being ok with it as I usually do when I wait to see movies like this, but nope. It just sort of frustrated me. There was WAY too much crammed into this movie at the cost of not being able to get invested really in any part before you're herded into something else entirely. I had some trouble following some of the threads as someone who knows most of the 800 comic references they threw in there, I can't imagine some random dude off the street being able to process all of this. I also though the CG was too heavy-handed and the super serious first half was made pretty pointless by the cartoony comicbook fight at the end against what seemed to be a troll from LotR.

I thought about how to improve the movie and I think I would have completely focused on just Batman and Superman. Lex could have still been involved, but I would have put Wonder Woman into the background like the other Justice League members (Even though she was good in her scenes). The Batman v Superman scene could have played out almost the same, but I would have had Lex pop up and finish Supes off right there when Batman hesitated at the end of their fight. They could have revealed a big incoming threat at that point like Brainiac or something and Batman would realize how screwed everyone is since their best hope just bit the dust.

Batman still could have saved Martha, but he would have to deal with his responsibility involving Superman's death by putting together the rest of the League to face whatever's coming. In the sequel they could have all banded together and fought whatever big threat was there, but ultimately lose just to have Jesus Superman show up and save the day at the last second.

This makes it so that Batman realizes the world needs someone like Superman to protect the world and thus redeems Superman at the same time as shit would be way worse without him and would have probably been a lot more fun to watch then trying to cram every single damn thing into one movie.

What a mess. At least there were some great moments in the movie, but they were all pretty much overshadowed by the clutter.

 

[TheBear]

Saw this last night. Was prepared for a disaster but I kinda liked it. On reflection there are much worse movies in the MCU so I'm not sure what all the fuss about.

Anyway, my thoughts:

Very impressed with Affleck and no expectations going in. He looked fucking huge, which is what Batman should look like. Just a large, strong man who will fuck your shit up. Kudos to Affleck for putting the work in. His Bruce Wayne wasn't very convincing though but not distracting to the movie.

Cavill got very little empathy, mostly because superman is a dick which I think is the point. Ok performance I guess

What the fuck was that scene in the desert? Who's the guy in the bubble? That wasn't explained at all

Bat vs Supes fight was pretty rad but shortlived, and the right man won. Bats taking down luthors henchman was super rad

Wonder Woman was pretty random. Was hoping to see the invisible plane but I guess we can't have everything.

Michael Cera just played himself again. It was ok I guess but I don't quite understand his overall motivation

Last fight was pretty meh. Fucking pissed though at the trailers that basically spoil the last fight. The whole premise of the movie is that batman wants to kill superman, yet the trailer shows them working together so it's obvious they patch things up. And Supes dying was unexpected but I didn't really care plus they hedged their bets at the end anyway.

Overall, it was an enjoyable romp. There was some plot holes and convenience but it's a comic book movie so it didn't bother me. The justice league reveal was a bit underwhelming though and they have a real problem with interesting villains. Doomsday was a total snore for example

Three spuds out of five

 

[IconGrist]

Then we're back at the initial argument again, haha.

I actually think it makes sense in-character, just... the character is nonsense? I that makes sense.

I think ultimately, whereas you feel that his sacrifice is heroic and responsible, it comes off as egocentric and self-serving to me instead. Even if that's the kind of a person Superman is, I cannot empathize with the "responsibility means taking everything into one own's hand" sentiment and all those scenario I proposed are attempts to make that aspect feels less pronounced and less a deciding factor of a pivotal moment.

That I think is a conversation reserved for a thread about Superman as a character, lol.

 

[RaySpencer]

Saw this last night. Was prepared for a disaster but I kinda liked it. On reflection there are much worse movies in the MCU so I'm not sure what all the fuss about.

Anyway, my thoughts:

Very impressed with Affleck and no expectations going in. He looked fucking huge, which is what Batman should look like. Just a large, strong man who will fuck your shit up. Kudos to Affleck for putting the work in. His Bruce Wayne wasn't very convincing though but not distracting to the movie.

Cavill got very little empathy, mostly because superman is a dick which I think is the point. Ok performance I guess

What the fuck was that scene in the desert? Who's the guy in the bubble? That wasn't explained at all

Bat vs Supes fight was pretty rad but shortlived, and the right man won. Bats taking down luthors henchman was super rad

Wonder Woman was pretty random. Was hoping to see the invisible plane but I guess we can't have everything.

Michael Cera just played himself again. It was ok I guess but I don't quite understand his overall motivation

Last fight was pretty meh. Fucking pissed though at the trailers that basically spoil the last fight. The whole premise of the movie is that batman wants to kill superman, yet the trailer shows them working together so it's obvious they patch things up. And Supes dying was unexpected but I didn't really care plus they hedged their bets at the end anyway.

Overall, it was an enjoyable romp. There was some plot holes and convenience but it's a comic book movie so it didn't bother me. The justice league reveal was a bit underwhelming though and they have a real problem with interesting villains. Doomsday was a total snore for example

Three spuds out of five

Micheal Cera? I think you saw a different movie, haha.


Sounds like a lot of negatives for you, what were your positives?

 

[Alandrus Sun]

Has anyone seen this site yet? Dr Akward gives great incite into Lex's Motives in this weeks episode.

http://www.manofsteelanswers.com

Yo WTF is this? Is this seriously like an hour and forty-four minute podcast explanation of Lex Luthor in the film? That's about as long as the fucking movie! Listen, if the explanation is truly that long then it should be evidence right there of the massive fucking problem that is Lex Luthor in the film.

EDIT:

In the Empire podcast link I posted in one of the other threads (the one where he says that heroes lose credibility if they have conversations in costume) Snyder also said he didn't like the idea of secret identities. He finds the concept "ridiculous", so that Lex knowing them beforehand is not a big deal.

This is how I imagine how it will be treated from now on, considering he's setting the basics of that. Clark is dead, literally speaking. I imagine that facet is simply not coming back.

You've got to be kidding me.

"I hate Superman."
"Okay."
"I also hate the concept of silly old secret identities."
"Gotcha."
"I think superheroes talking in their costumes is kind of embarrassing and ridiculous."
"Alright."
"I actually hate all comic books except the ones with lots of titties and blood. You know some of that stuff I think I read in one of that Miller guys comics"
"Noted."
"So can I be put in charge of the entire DC Cinematic Universe?"
"You bet. Where would you like us to dump your truck of money?"

 

[IconGrist]

Yo WTF is this? Is this seriously like an hour and forty-four minute podcast explanation of Lex Luthor in the film? That's about as long as the fucking movie! Listen, if the explanation is truly that long then it should be evidence right there of the massive fucking problem that is Lex Luthor in the film.

Look, I'm not defending the podcast there (I haven't listened to it), nor am I defending the portrayal of Lex in BvS BUT if you don't see how someone can talk about a character for a couple of hours than you have obviously not been involved in any such talks. They can go all day if you let them.

 

[Lokimaru]

Yo WTF is this? Is this seriously like an hour and forty-four minute podcast explanation of Lex Luthor in the film? That's about as long as the fucking movie! Listen, if the explanation is truly that long then it should be evidence right there of the massive fucking problem that is Lex Luthor in the film.

People are complicated.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Yo WTF is this? Is this seriously like an hour and forty-four minute podcast explanation of Lex Luthor in the film? That's about as long as the fucking movie! Listen, if the explanation is truly that long then it should be evidence right there of the massive fucking problem that is Lex Luthor in the film.

Are you really putting forth the argument that a characterization that allows for very in-depth, detailed explanations and examinations of is proof of bad writing?

 

[Alandrus Sun]

Look, I'm not defending the podcast there (I haven't listened to it), nor am I defending the portrayal of Lex in BvS BUT if you don't see how someone can talk about a character for a couple of hours than you have obviously not been involved in any such talks. They can go all day if you let them.

Of course YOU CAN, you can make a movie that is four hours long. However, a podcast much like a film should be trimmed to an appropriate length for your listeners or broken into several parts spanning weeks or days. I haven't listened to it yet but how could they think talking about one aspect of a super long film for nearly two hours is acceptable or even warranted? I will say that I've listened for about a minute and the dude talks about how much depth BvS has and how he has seen it a bunch of times now. The fact that anyone could sit through that movie once, let alone twice, kind of keys me in to the type of bullshit I'm likely about to hear as I embark on this fanboy crazed podcast.

Are you really putting forth the argument that a characterization that allows for very in-depth, detailed explanations and examinations of is proof of bad writing?

The entirety of the Mr. Plinkett Phantom Menace review doesn't even run that long and they are dissecting one character, a character that enjoys putting jolly rancher's into grown men's mouth. We arent dissecting Charles Foster Kane here and even then I would think that a near 2 hour analysis would be too long for that character.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

I have no feeling about it either way, but Snyder not liking the concept of secret identities explains why it's treated trivially in both movies.

 

[TheBear]

Micheal Cera? I think you saw a different movie, haha.


Sounds like a lot of negatives for you, what were your positives?

It was pretty fun and I thought Batman was done really well. I do think it has problems and I could pick holes in it forever but overall it had some fine action and it entertained me.

I have to say though, I'm not a huge Batman nerd so correct me if I'm wrong, but does he usually just straight up fuckin murder bad dudes? I thought it was a bit of a leap for him to want to kill Superman as well. Like, he just decided that because he is too powerful he gotta go. I know there was more to it than that but I don't think they really drove the point home

Also, 'our mothers have the same name!' is a pretty weird reason to back out of murder

 

[IconGrist]

Of course YOU CAN, you can make a movie that is four hours long. However, a podcast much like a film should be trimmed to an appropriate length for your listeners or broken into several parts spanning weeks or days. I haven't listened to it yet but how could they think talking about one aspect of a super long film for nearly two hours is acceptable or even warranted? I will say that I've listened for about a minute and the dude talks about how much depth BvS has and how he has seen it a bunch of times now. The fact that anyone could sit through that movie once, let alone twice, kind of keys me in to the type of bullshit I'm likely about to hear as I embark on this fanboy crazed podcast.

Good god, get a grip.

 

[Alandrus Sun]

Good god, get a grip.

The man just said Man of Steel was an "impeccable" movie that is "bullet proof" to criticism.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Of course YOU CAN, you can make a movie that is four hours long. However, a podcast much like a film should be trimmed to an appropriate length for your listeners or broken into several parts spanning weeks or days. I haven't listened to it yet but how could they think talking about one aspect of a super long film for nearly two hours is acceptable or even warranted? I will say that I've listened for about a minute and the dude talks about how much depth BvS has and how he has seen it a bunch of times now. The fact that anyone could sit through that movie once, let alone twice, kind of keys me in to the type of bullshit I'm likely about to hear as I embark on this fanboy crazed podcast.



The entirety of the Mr. Plinkett Phantom Menace review doesn't even run that long and they are dissecting one character, a character that enjoys putting jolly rancher's into grown men's mouth. We are dissecting Charles Foster Kane here and even then I would think that a near 2 hour analysis would be too long for that character.

So, the character has no depth because... he force feeds people candy, and because of that, there's no merit to a long analysis, because...

...

uh, anyway, nothing merits in-depth disucssion and analysis, because... 2 hours is just too long to take to talk about any one character no matter what because...

...

I got nothing.

Snyder not liking the concept of secret identities explains why it's treated trivially in both movies.

It's not like it's an attitude unique to him.

 

[IconGrist]

The man just said Man of Steel was an "impeccable" movie that is "bullet proof" to criticism.

Big whoop. He liked the movie. Sue him.

 

[Alandrus Sun]

Big whoop. He liked the movie. Sue him.

It keys me in to the merit of his analysis, if you believe a widely criticized movie is "impeccable" and "bullet proof" to many of the "common criticism" levied against it, something tells me that you are not an impartial critic.

So, the character has no depth because... he force feeds people candy, and because of that, there's no merit to a long analysis, because...

uh, anyway, nothing merits in-depth disucssion and analysis, because... 2 hours is just too long to take to talk about any one character no matter what because...

I take it all back, Lex Luthor is such a well written, complicated, and compelling character that we mere mortals could not possibly have understood his motivations and actions upon merely watching the film. Nay, he is so utterly esoteric that it requires equally high minded individuals to break down and explain to us peons through a two hour podcast what exactly was the deal with his character. Every frame in which his visage was cast upon is so completely crammed with philosophical undertones, biblical imagery, and Gothic muses that they must be carefully broken down and discussed piece by piece.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

It's not like it's an attitude unique to him.

I'm not criticizing him; I don't have any strong feeling about it either way. The vast majority of characters in superhero movies nowadays don't even have secret identities, yar? I just felt it a little weird here because the Batman and Superman I am familiar with (from the Arkham games and Superman Returns) make a big deal about it.

It's simply an "oh I see" moment.

The entirety of the Mr. Plinkett Phantom Menace review doesn't even run that long and they are dissecting one character, a character that enjoys putting jolly rancher's into grown men's mouth. We are dissecting Charles Foster Kane here and even then I would think that a near 2 hour analysis would be too long for that character.

Regardless of whether Lex Luthor is deserving of such examination, I don't think a dissection of any little thing of a fictional work going for hours is not that unheard of. Especially on podcasts that tend to digress a lot.

 

[IconGrist]

It keys me in to the merit of his analysis, if you believe a widely criticized movie is "impeccable" and "bullet proof" to many of the "common criticism" levied against it, something tells me that you are not an impartial critic.

Is that so strange though? How many people here talk the same way about other movies? People keep telling me GoTG is perfect, and Iron Man 3 is the best of the MCU and The Dark Knight Rises is an incredible end to a trilogy and I find those to be just as ridiculous as calling Man of Steel "impeccable" but I see no reason to outright ignore everything any of those people have to say. I just don't happen to agree with it. That's that. You on the other hand seem quite up in arms that someone could A) love Man of Steel and B) love Batman v Superman enough times to see it more than once. I only kinda liked BvS and I've seen it 3 times. I loved Deadpool and only saw it once. Means nothing and isn't a metric.

I look at it like this - Even if I absolutely disagree with every syllable this guys utters about Lex at least it's a viewpoint I can use to better establish my own opinion of the character for use when I discuss him with others. It's not like it's going to physically hurt me and if I got the time to kill, fuck it. You know how many ridiculously long ass posts with equally ridiculous content I read on this forum? Really no different.

I take it all back, Lex Luthor is such a well written, complicated, and compelling character that we mere mortals could not possibly have understood his motivations and actions upon merely watching the film. Nay, he is so utterly esoteric that it requires equally high minded individuals to break down and explain to us peons through a two hour podcast what exactly was the deal with his character. Every frame in which his visage was cast upon is so completely crammed with philosophical undertones, biblical imagery, and Gothic muses that they must be carefully broken down and discussed piece by piece.

Now you're just being a silly billy.

 

[Alandrus Sun]

Is that so strange though? How many people here talk the same way about other movies? People keep telling me GoTG is perfect, and Iron Man 3 is the best of the MCU and The Dark Knight Rises is an incredible end to a trilogy and I find those to be just as ridiculous as calling Man of Steel "impeccable" but I see no reason to outright ignore everything any of those people have to say. I just don't happen to agree with it. That's that. You on the other hand seem quite up in arms that someone could A) love Man of Steel and B) love Batman v Superman enough times to see it more than once. I only kinda liked BvS and I've seen it 3 times. I loved Deadpool and only saw it once. Means nothing and isn't a metric.

I look at it like this - Even if I absolutely disagree with every syllable this guys utters about Lex at least it's a viewpoint I can use to better establish my own opinion of the character for use when I discuss him with others. It's not like it's going to physically hurt me and if I got the time to kill, fuck it. You know how many ridiculously long ass posts with equally ridiculous content I read on this forum? Really no different.



Now you're just being a silly billy.

1. GoTG is not perfect, anyone who says so is deluded. It's a decent fun movie, it is by no means perfect or God's greatest gift to Earth.

2. Nobody calls IM3 the best of the MCU.

3. And on GAF TDKR is considered just above garbage despite the general critical consensus being that it is a good film. I consider it a great end to the TDK trilogy but I would never consider it perfect or above criticism, it has problems but I still think it's one of the best of the trilogy. That is different than saying it is "impeccable" and "bullet proof" to all criticism.

I'm 15 min into this analysis and this guy hasn't even really begun to discuss the film or Luthor instead treating me to a definition of criticism, the appropriate way to go about criticizing a movie, the correct way to look at a movie as opposed to simply looking to hate it, that taste is subjective, and further qualifiers that he isn't sure yet if BvS is a masterpiece and that he isn't saying everyone else is wrong.

 

[IconGrist]

1. GoTG is not perfect, anyone who says so is deluded. It's a decent fun movie, it is by no means perfect or God's greatest gift to Earth.

2. Nobody calls IM3 the best of the MCU.

3. And on GAF TDKR is considered just above garbage despite the general critical consensus being that it is a good film. I consider it a great end to the TDK trilogy but I would never consider it perfect or above criticism, it has problems but I still think it's one of the best of the trilogy. That is different than saying it is "impeccable" and "bullet proof" to all criticism.

I'm 15 min into this analysis and this guy hasn't even really begun to discuss the film or Luthor instead treating me to a definition of criticism, the appropriate way to go about criticizing a movie, the correct way to look at a movie as opposed to simply looking to hate it, that taste is subjective, and further qualifiers that he isn't sure yet if BvS is a masterpiece and that he isn't saying everyone else is wrong.

I didn't say you said those things. I'm just saying those are things that have been said to me, multiple times, right here on this very forum. Can't be that hard to find either because I tend to see it a lot, haha.

-----

Well, what you are hearing is someone in love with a product but trying to maintain some semblance of grounded criticism even if it only exists as noises from his mouth. If I had a nickel...

 

[Alandrus Sun]

I didn't say you said those things. I'm just saying those are things that have been said to me, multiple times, right here on this very forum. Can't be that hard to find either because I tend to see it a lot, haha.

-----

Well, what you are hearing is someone in love with a product but trying to maintain some semblance of grounded criticism even if it only exists as noises from his mouth. If I had a nickel...

I know I've never said such things I'm saying anyone who does is an individual who shouldn't be taken seriously. You're making a false equivalency.

Guy A says: Man of Steel is perfect, there is no valid criticism against his film.

I go that is completely nonsensical and not in any way the view point of a rational impartial critic. You go, "well some guys on GAF said GoTG is a perfect movie." What does that matter? Both individuals are deluded.

 

[IconGrist]

I know I've never said such things I'm saying anyone who does is an individual who shouldn't be taken seriously. You're making a false equivalency.

Guy A says: Man of Steel is perfect, there is no valid criticism against his film.

I go that is completely nonsensical and not in any way the view point of a rational impartial critic. You go, "well some guys on GAF said GoTG is a perfect movie." What does that matter? Both individuals are deluded.

You care way too much about a statement. My point is making a statement like that, however much you disagree with it, does not mean their entire opinion should just be outright dismissed.

Also, just for fun, how entirely sure are you that you are a rational and/or impartial critic?

 

[MaybeBurger]

just got approved but was gunning to post re: this

saw this on opening night and we enjoyed the hell out of it. Went into it expecting what we got and it was entertaining and didn't actually feel too long either. Wonderwoman was great if underutilised.

I watched redletter media and/or some random podcast (probably geekbox) and agree that the JLA reveal should come after as post credit scenes. that's it. Probably the one thing they should change.

Great movie. Very entertaining. Will watch an R cut/buy the bluray.

 

[Alandrus Sun]

You care way too much about a statement. My point is making a statement like that, however much you disagree with it, does not mean their entire opinion should just be outright dismissed.

Also, just for fun, how entirely sure are you that you are a rational and/or impartial critic?

A rational and "impartial" critic judges a movie first and foremost on its own merits, as opposed to looking for things to like or dislike about the film. Obviously, no one can be totally "impartial about anything but when we use the phrase "impartial," everyone understands that that means. While a critic of BvS can indeed criticize the movie for its crazed adaptations of these characters at the end of the day they must also be willing to accept and judge the movie as its own thing. BvS is one of those truly horrible movies that fails on multiple levels, it is why you see so many nitpicky things cropping up in this thread. It fails both on a high level and a low level.

On a high level it fails for many critics as a competent, coherent and decent film. The editing is scatter shot, the writing is all over the place, character motivations make no sense and seem to change on a dime, there are too many subplots which aren't tied together to a satisfactory conclusion, etc. These are the fundamental problems with the film outside of "Batman is murderman" and "Lex Luthor is now a Joker copy." Now, once the film is exposed as bad on a high level that leads to nitpicking of everything else on the film on a low level. However, if the film were a decent movie on a high level while there would still be nitpicky complaints regarding the adaptations of these characters it likely wouldn't be categorized as a bad movie. It might perhaps be labeled a "bad" Superman movie but not a bad movie altogether.

In any event, I've listened to just over an hour of this podcast and I think I'm done it's exactly what I expected, the ramblings of a deluded fanboy looking for positive things in the movie that are not there. He shifts and quibbles about every critique levied against the film lapping it up to either people, "not understanding" what was going on or "misinterpreting" a scene. He goes so far as to argue that Superman didn't kill that warlord in the beginning but merely dragged him behind him as he went through the wall. That was the point I realized I needed to stop listening as he had abandoned all logic in his pursuit of clearing BvS of all critique.

 

[IconGrist]

A rational and "impartial" critic judges a movie first and foremost on its own merits, as opposed to looking for things to like or dislike about the film. Obviously, no one can be totally "impartial about anything but when we use the phrase "impartial," everyone understands that that means. While a critic of BvS can indeed criticize the movie for its crazed adaptations of these characters at the end of the day they must also be willing to accept and judge the movie as its own thing. BvS is one of those truly horrible movies that fails on multiple levels, it is why you see so many nitpicky things cropping up in this thread. It fails both on a high level and a low level.

On a high level it fails for many critics as a competent, coherent and decent film. The editing is scatter shot, the writing is all over the place, character motivations make no sense and seem to change on a dime, there are too many subplots which aren't tied together to a satisfactory conclusion, etc. These are the fundamental problems with the film outside of "Batman is murderman" and "Lex Luthor is now a Joker copy." Now, once the film is exposed as bad on a high level that leads to nitpicking of everything else on the film on a low level. However, if the film were a decent movie on a high level while there would still be nitpicky complaints regarding the adaptations of these characters it likely wouldn't be categorized as a bad movie. It might perhaps be labeled a "bad" Superman movie but not a bad movie altogether.

In any event, I've listened to just over an hour of this podcast and I think I'm done it's exactly what I expected, the ramblings of a deluded fanboy looking for positive things in the movie that are not there. He shifts and quibbles about every critique levied against the film lapping it up to either people, "not understanding" what was going on or "misinterpreting" a scene. He goes so far as to argue that Superman didn't kill that warlord in the beginning but merely dragged him behind him as he went through the wall. That was the point I realized I needed to stop listening as he had abandoned all logic in his pursuit of clearing BvS of all critique.

Well, to be fair that warlord didn't die. Superman specifically says he didn't kill anyone. No one but Lois believes him but that's another point entirely since he was being framed.

I don't know about it being a horrible movie. That sounds like hyperbole to me. There are definitely problems though.