• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

I enjoyed Batman v Superman more than Civil War, who is with me?

Are you with me?


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are aware this is not actually a response, right?



Of all the BvS threads you've been in I'm surprised you seem to think talking like that leads to anything. How many people on either side of the argument about BvS have insulted the other? How many of those people received some sort of penalty/punishment?

Well there was this guy who got banned for this:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=201473752&postcount=4963

lmao fucking hyperbole around here god damn. pathetic post

It is hyperbole, but it is painfully obvious that BvS was chopped to bits in the editing room.
 
You are aware that posting a picture of a cartoon rabbit reading a love letter to his cartoon human wife written crudely on Marvin Acme's will, itself written in ACME Disappearing-Reappearing ink and deeming the ownership of Toon Town return to the Toons that inhabit it in the case of his death which in this case happened at the hands of Judge Doom who is actually an evil Toon and killed Eddie Valiant's brother with a piano and a cartoon shoe with a barrel of Dip may possibly indicate that my post was not intended as an in-depth response and more of a jape?

This was an elaborate way to say, "I know." Which was pointless. Much like the post I quoted.
 
I don't know

what does Armond have to say

Despite the supergeeks’ arguing either against working for the restrictive capitalist government or for their own sense of doing right and correcting injustice, the fact is, nothing here has gravitas. Civil War is politics as adolescents misperceive social/global crisis. This has been going on for so long (ever since Hollywood realized the bounty to be had in cajoling comic-book culture’s ready audience; since, say, the 1978 Superman film, then 1989’s Batman) that, by now, the brainwashing is complete. The trivializing has grabbed such hold that when a genuine pop artist like Zack Snyder deepens comics lore into visionary, moral art (the profound Man of Steel and Batman v Superman), many fanboys, and critics, react with anger, resentment — and ignorance.

To praise Civil War as entertainment is to accept its puerile conflicts. This is the moral reduction that has happened to American youth culture in the wake of the generational dissents of the Vietnam War. Movies as violent as the Marvel flicks are not pacifist but are proof of anti-military sentiment — such as became evident in the confused Ferguson protestations about “militarized police,” a foolish, redundant term exploited by manipulative media outlets and politicians. Civil War furbishes aggression simply to excite viewers who are as programmed as poor Bucky.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...rheroes-dumbed-down?target=author&tid=1152026

welp, there you have it
 
lmao fucking hyperbole around here god damn. pathetic post

Have you read about how this movie was edited?

Apparently it's not too far from the truth. And you can easily tell that it was cut and pasted together to form one movie, despite the fact that there is little coherence.
 
Nope, BvS was just so disappointing overall, while Civil War was just an all round well made movie.

BvS had some great moments but the bits in-between that were supposed to glue it all together were just poorly edited and it all felt rushed, something a movie that's nearly 3 hours long shouldn't feel.

It really should have been split into a few movies, mainly MoS 2 and a Batman movie, let the universe and characters build up and then worry about the Justice League setup after. It would have let characters have more screen time and storylines develop much more than what BvS gave us. I mean, even the actual Batman v Superman part of the movie was about 10 mins total, then they tried to cram in the Death of Superman story into the last 20 mins.

Love or hate the Marvel (MCU) movies, you can tell they have planned their movies well for the most part, which has allowed them to create a series of movies and characters that all connect and interact very well together. DC on the other hand, just tried to get to the end result without the build up / solid foundation from past movies and it fell apart.
 
I haven't seen either, but the answer is always Thor 2.

Also Russo Bros >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zack Snyder
 
Yeah, BvS is a mess in terms of pacing and editing

Editing may very well be, but that's stuff I don't even think about while watching a movie, it doesn't affect my opinion, to me just everything looked cool, but the substance also matched the style I'd say. Pacing I don't know, I liked it, there is an event at the beginning that you would expect near the end, that instantly grabbed me and afterwards it felt like this calm before the real storm while not being boring at all.
 
I'm a huge DC fanboy .. but no. Sorry dude, BvS dropped too many notes to get my vote.

Also Russo Bros >>>>> Snyder
 
Editing may very well be, but that's stuff I don't even think about while watching a movie, it doesn't affect my opinion. Pacing I don't know, I liked it, there is an event at the beginning that you would expect near the end, that instantly grabbed me and afterwards it felt like this calm before the real storm while not being boring at all.

off topic - i'm still curious what you thought about my Batman Begins > Dark Knight logic :P
 
why must you take part in the moral decay of our society

i will gladly take the opposite side of everyone in the National Review

that he loves BvS & MoS and hates Civil War is just icing on the cake

In the end all that really matters about any tv show/movie whatever:

How does it make you feel?

what a reductionist viewpoint

there are a great many more aspects to film/shows/albums/books than just that
 
I haven't seen civil war but I loved BvS. It doesn't really matter it's ok to enjoy two movies
From two different companies, it's not a contest.

You get that sound logic out of here! Only rampant hyperbole is allowed here. That being said, im waiting for this first look shit to be over for civil war so I cant speak
For it yet, but im very confused about how I feel about bvs. There were parts I loved. battfleck in particular, but other things I hated, like the pacing.
 
In the end all that really matters about any tv show/movie whatever:

How does it make you feel?

You're right. Here is how BvS made me feel:

13860188463166nysj.jpg


Also didn't you just claim
I'd pay money to browse GAF in a reality where BvS got decent reviews, I wonder how many people think for themselves.
 
i will gladly take the opposite side of everyone in the National Review

that he loves BvS & MoS and hates Civil War is just icing on the cake



seems reductionist

some people strive to understand films/shows/books/etc to a deeper level than that

if poor pacing doesn't bother you, that's great but it is a valid aspect of film that people should be encouraged to comment on

poor pacing does bother me, I said I don't notice sub par editing.


Bruh

You just said you'd pay to travel to an alternate reality where BvS reviewed well

Well I'd pay to travel to an alternate reality period.
 
I thoroughly enjoyed both movies.

Civil War was a lot more 'fun'. The airport scene was hilarious at times, the action was cool. I also really liked the villain. Black Panther was amazing and I really liked Spiderman. RDJ's performance was great, especially at the end of the movie.

However I find myself more excited to rewatch BvS. The action was amazing, the cinematography, framing, score were all beautiful. I loved this iteration of Batman, killing be damned. Yes there are inconsistencies throughout the movie, I hope this will be fixed by a directors cut. I also hope the directors cut removes the Wonder Woman email scene all together - screams of WB interfering to set up the universe.

I had a lot more fun watching Civil War, but I feel time will be very kind towards BvS. People will reflect and see parts they really enjoyed - again, this could be helped should the Director's cut deliver.
 
Bruh

You just said you'd pay to travel to an alternate reality where BvS reviewed well

This would be quite interesting actually.

Upon release of reviews all I saw on twitter was:

'LOL Knew Ben Affleck would be an awful batman' and stuff of this sort. Interesting that people on social media rarely read the content of reviews they cite.

Few reviews like MovieBob i felt were over the top hyperbolic, the movie was not that bad. The GAF post about how the movie didn't 'earn the right' to have the cool shot of Batman, Superman and Wonder woman was also quite lame.
 
Well I respect that opinion, I'm saying that reviews don't matter, but that I would want to see how much they affect the concensus.

The problem is the only reason you are saying this is because the majority of people didn't like the movie and you did.
 
what a reductionist viewpoint

there are a great many more aspects to film/shows/albums/books than just that

There are, and I appreciate them if they are good, I'm also disappointed if they are bad, I know how bad Arrow and sometimes Flash is, really corny and shitty, some of those teen drama scenes are torture, but I still enjoy watching the shows for lots of reasons and these reasons outweigh the bad stuff.

With Batman v Superman however, I was entertained throughout, nothing seemed corny, what I especially enjoyed was how they captured the reactions of the common people, it was a theme throughout and helped making the over the top action more believable, that Neil DeGrasse Tyson cameo for example, that made it feel like real life for a split second.
 
Heres a list of Bullshit that was in the BvS movie:

..

Some of the point as I have made could be explained. But most of them are borderline stupid. However, I liked Batmans realisation of both monsters sharing the name Martha.

Overall, I understand why some people like the movie. But calling it the best comic book movie ever made or comparing it to Marvels strongest offerings is foolish.

I think half your points are tenuous at best. I see a refusal to even contemplate on the film's merits. But let's have a conversation, because I think the film is more nuanced than what's expected from the genre. There's a lot of good stuff.

-The scene in Africa is stupid beyond belief. Why is Lois alive as a witness? Why does Superman get blamed for the deaths considering he doesn't need to use bullets?

I thought this scene was the first piece of evidence that the film is unafraid to take us to a very real, very contemporary, place. Journalists interview these labelled "terrorists" all the time. This Lois Lane has balls of steel. And Superman wasn't blamed for the gunfight; considering the main piece of dialogue that happened immediately after was a description of the local militia gunning down a village, due to Superman's intervention. I particularly liked how in this cinematic world, there's a lot of pain and consequences... Which hasn't really been addressed in the MCU until Avengers 2.

-Lois and Clark bathtub scene. Did the conversation have to take place their?

LOL. What's wrong with this scene? Lois is taking a bath, probably the first one since being in the middle of bullets and desert. It shows how comfortable they are in front of each other, and it was quite poignant when Lois tries to spell it out for Clark that there's things to consider when saving the day. Do you have a girlfriend, a wife? It's one of the most authentic scenes in the movie.

-When Lex puts a toffee in the Senators mouth. Is this really Lex's attitude?

See, I loved that character moment. It's a power play. A government man (to his gloom) is literally eating out of the hands of this enigmatic sociopath.

-Lex starts killing his assistants now? (Mercy)

Lex, in every piece of media, has been established to kill his cohorts. This isn't the first time Mercy has been killed. As for the film, it would make sense to lessen the suspicion on him if his dear assistant was caught in the blast.

-Why would Batman leave his Batarang after stealing the Kryptonite

It's his middle finger to Lex. I thought that was a definitive statement, and inspired by his animated version who does the same.

-Lex's plan to persuade Superman to battle Batman was coincidently just when he kidnapped Martha?

The plan wouldn't exactly work if Superman thought something was amiss any sooner.

-Superman cant use his X-ray vision to locate Martha?

Why is this even an issue? Superman is surrounded, in all 360 degrees, by a loud, dense city. People have a hard time finding each other in large Minecraft map, even if they make a bright-ass structure, screaming to be found.

-Lex gets his design team to associate logos to the justice league members. WUT. Also, unveiling the justice league members through email...in a movie? Really?

Those logos are already part of the character's appearance... I'll give you the email scene, though it bothered me less than the large majority.

-Lois throwing the spear and then retrieving it (WHAT?). and some how deducing that the spear kills Doomsday. How does she even know this considering she didn't even see Doomsday?

Lois explicitly watches the events unfold from the alien ship twice. Remember how she urges Perry to evacuate the Daily Planet building? It's not rocket science to deduce that the weapon that carved a scar in Superman's face (when nothing is able to), could be used to fight an entity that's emerged from a Kryptonian ship..

-Why the hell didn't Batman retrieve the spear (maybe using the Bat plane?) instead of luring Doomsday back to the original location?


He did. I think you're confusing the order of events. Batman first sees Doomsday when it had crashed landed. He goes for the spear, while simultaneously leading it back to the original location.

-Also, as HISHE explained. Superman and Doomsday were in space. Why didn't he just throw that monstrosity into space?

I really don't understand the question. This was Superman's first major point of attack; to "throw him in space." Even taking himself out if the need had arisen, which it did.

-Lois being the Damsel in distress and Superman saving her.

Lois had already proved to be a formidable ally, without the need of wearing tight leather. She's shown as a balbuster. She's also the first person to head into danger half the time. In fact, she rescues Superman twice in the film. But I guess the damsel in distress trope is really stuck in your frontal lobe for none of that to matter.

-Lex being so obsessed with Superman's death he will forgo his own security by unleashing Doomsday in front of himself and Superman.

It was a shock, even to Luthor, that his own blood child would try to kill him. Classic villainy usurped by their folly and blind want. How this bothered anyone is beyond me.

-Why the hell was the death of Superman even needed considering he is revived? Maybe this alleviates Batmans sadism by applying a no kill rule? Who the hell knows.

Without saying a word, and without spelling it out, the film killed "Clark Kent." I don't recall any comic book film where we see a pained mother of a dead hero. And the dialogue exchanged between Bruce and Diana was wicked, c'mon.

-Lastly...DING DING DING DING DING!


The best performance of his career. Tied with the music? And the painting in his daddy's office being flipped so the Devil is coming from the sky? That scene, and its allusion, was really fucking cool.
 
I think half your points are tenuous at best. I see a refusal to even contemplate on the film's merits. But let's have a conversation, because I think the film is more nuanced than what's expected from the genre. There's a lot of good stuff.

-The scene in Africa is stupid beyond belief. Why is Lois alive as a witness? Why does Superman get blamed for the deaths considering he doesn't need to use bullets?

I thought this scene was the first piece of evidence that the film is unafraid to take us to a very real, very contemporary, place. Journalists interview these labelled "terrorists" all the time. This Lois Lane has balls of steel. And Superman wasn't blamed for the gunfight; considering the main piece of dialogue that happened immediately after was a description of the local militia gunning down a village, due to Superman's intervention. I particularly liked how in this cinematic world, there's a lot of pain and consequences... Which hasn't really been addressed in the MCU until Avengers 2.

-Lois and Clark bathtub scene. Did the conversation have to take place their?

LOL. What's wrong with this scene? Lois is taking a bath, probably the first one since being in the middle of bullets and desert. It shows how comfortable they are in front of each other, and it was quite poignant when Lois tries to spell it out for Clark that there's things to consider when saving the day. Do you have a girlfriend, a wife? It's one of the most authentic scenes in the movie.

-When Lex puts a toffee in the Senators mouth. Is this really Lex's attitude?

See, I loved that character moment. It's a power play. A government man (to his gloom) is literally eating out of the hands of this enigmatic sociopath.

-Lex starts killing his assistants now? (Mercy)

Lex, in every piece of media, has been established to kill his cohorts. This isn't the first time Mercy has been killed. As for the film, it would make sense to lessen the suspicion on him if his dear assistant was caught in the blast.

-Why would Batman leave his Batarang after stealing the Kryptonite

It's his middle finger to Lex. I thought that was a definitive statement, and inspired by his animated version who does the same.

-Lex's plan to persuade Superman to battle Batman was coincidently just when he kidnapped Martha?

The plan wouldn't exactly work if Superman thought something was amiss any sooner.

-Superman cant use his X-ray vision to locate Martha?

Why is this even an issue? Superman is surrounded, in all 360 degrees, by a loud, dense city. People have a hard time finding each other in large Minecraft map, even if they make a bright-ass structure, screaming to be found.

-Lex gets his design team to associate logos to the justice league members. WUT. Also, unveiling the justice league members through email...in a movie? Really?

Those logos are already part of the character's appearance... I'll give you the email scene, though it bothered me less than the large majority.

-Lois throwing the spear and then retrieving it (WHAT?). and some how deducing that the spear kills Doomsday. How does she even know this considering she didn't even see Doomsday?

Lois explicitly watches the events unfold from the alien ship twice. Remember how she urges Perry to evacuate the Daily Planet building? It's not rocket science to deduce that the weapon that carved a scar in Superman's face (when nothing is able to), could be used to fight an entity that's emerged from a Kryptonian ship..

-Why the hell didn't Batman retrieve the spear (maybe using the Bat plane?) instead of luring Doomsday back to the original location?


He did. I think you're confusing the order of events. Batman first sees Doomsday when it had crashed landed. He goes for the spear, while simultaneously leading it back to the original location.

-Also, as HISHE explained. Superman and Doomsday were in space. Why didn't he just throw that monstrosity into space?

I really don't understand the question. This was Superman's first major point of attack; to "throw him in space." Even taking himself out if the need had arisen, which it did.

-Lois being the Damsel in distress and Superman saving her.

Lois had already proved to be a formidable ally, without the need of wearing tight leather. She's shown as a balbuster. She's also the first person to head into danger half the time. In fact, she rescues Superman twice in the film. But I guess the damsel in distress trope is really stuck in your frontal lobe for none of that to matter.

-Lex being so obsessed with Superman's death he will forgo his own security by unleashing Doomsday in front of himself and Superman.

It was a shock, even to Luthor, that his own blood child would try to kill him. Classic villainy usurped by their folly and blind want. How this bothered anyone is beyond me.

-Why the hell was the death of Superman even needed considering he is revived? Maybe this alleviates Batmans sadism by applying a no kill rule? Who the hell knows.

Without saying a word, and without spelling it out, the film killed "Clark Kent." I don't recall any comic book film where we see a pained mother of a dead hero. And the dialogue exchanged between Bruce and Diana was wicked, c'mon.

-Lastly...DING DING DING DING DING!


The best performance of his career. Tied with the music? And the painting in his daddy's office being flipped so the Devil is coming from the sky? That scene, and its allusion, was really fucking cool.

I like this post :)
 
This would be quite interesting actually.

Upon release of reviews all I saw on twitter was:

'LOL Knew Ben Affleck would be an awful batman' and stuff of this sort. Interesting that people on social media rarely read the content of reviews they cite.

Few reviews like MovieBob i felt were over the top hyperbolic, the movie was not that bad. The GAF post about how the movie didn't 'earn the right' to have the cool shot of Batman, Superman and Wonder woman was also quite lame.

i agree, a good movie is a good movie with or without buildup
 
I think half your points are tenuous at best. I see a refusal to even contemplate on the film's merits. But let's have a conversation, because I think the film is more nuanced than what's expected from the genre. There's a lot of good stuff.

-The scene in Africa is stupid beyond belief. Why is Lois alive as a witness? Why does Superman get blamed for the deaths considering he doesn't need to use bullets?

I thought this scene was the first piece of evidence that the film is unafraid to take us to a very real, very contemporary, place. Journalists interview these labelled "terrorists" all the time. This Lois Lane has balls of steel. And Superman wasn't blamed for the gunfight; considering the main piece of dialogue that happened immediately after was a description of the local militia gunning down a village, due to Superman's intervention. I particularly liked how in this cinematic world, there's a lot of pain and consequences... Which hasn't really been addressed in the MCU until Avengers 2.
What intervention, he punched one guy and saves Lois. I took it as because superman took out these guys it led to a power vacuum allowing another group to attack a village. How was any of this Superman's fault and why would they blame him when these guys were killed with guns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom