Batman v Superman - New Clip
- Thread starter EroticSushi
- Start date
- Status
SocksAndShoes
Banned
Criminy that dialogue is fucking awful.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Lets not go that far. Sucker Punch was a 2/10 movie. Right at the bottom of the Snyder pile
Dawn of the Dead: 7/10
300: 3/10
Watchmen: 5/10
Owls of whatever: 5/10
Sucker Punch: 2/10
Man of Steel: 5/10
Can we revoke his Oscar? I've seen enough BvS trailers to know this guy is a hack.
lol.....
None of that was hard for me to think of. It was all on first reaction to the clip. It's a bad clip. If the movie ends up being good, that's still a bad clip.
Nah. Watchmen is probably his best movie especially the director's cut and definitely ranks among the better comic book movies (and why he even landed the Man of Steel job). 300 is highly enjoyable with a unique look to it at the very least.
Watching the new Rise of Empire made me realize how much better 300 was. Gerard Butler carried that movie with ridiculous charisma.
Rest is about accurate though.
BadAss2961
Member
Sucker Punch was some of the coolest shit i've seen in recent years. You'd think comics/manga geeks would back Snyder more than they do. The guy even has good taste in music considering the soundtracks of Watchmen and SP.
Main issue with Zack Snyder is that all of his movies lack a soul. They are pretty and visually have something interesting going on in them (with the exception of Man of Steel, that movie looked really dull) with the occasional nice action scenes but the heart and souls are lacking. The only character I cared about in a Zack Snyder movie was King Leonidas.
The One and Done
Member
Such a divisive movie. Don't think I'll understand the level of hate. I get if you don't like it. But some of the vitriol is just absurd I feel
This has to be a parody post.
BadAss2961
Member
I don't know, that's never really been an issue for me with his movies. He specializes in a genre that mostly relies on style points, fun, and rarely has soul in its performances or characters worth caring about.
The movie looks so damn good. Like, I can go back and watch the samurai or World War 1 scenes at any time and awe at the impressively captured action and spectacle. Its inspired dreamworlds. The memorable soundtrack and their places in the film... Now say i'm gonna watch The Avengers or something, what the hell is there to be impressed about now?
Lol always so salty
I'm always angry.
BadAss2961
Member
I smiled as soon as I saw the bump, last post by "guek."
Salty bait still tastes salty, bruh
I don't understand why people constantly allude to Avengers being a shallow movie, or atleast an especially shallow movie. For all the jokes and shit that Whedon specializes in, he actually understands what a narrative arc is and instills it in every character (or nearly so). Loki and Thor have a minor subplot where Thor keeps trying to turn Loki away from his evil path. It's basically got 3 scenes to it, but it's there. Captain America and Iron Man obviously have their differing view on what a good leader does in terms of philosophy. Tony thinks it's just being clever enough to solve any problem (which Rogers fulfills by taking command of the avengers to direct what their jobs are best suited to do) and Rogers thinks it's about being able to do the right thing even when your own life is on the line (which Tony fulfills by being willing to sacrifice himself to deliver the nuke). Black Widow has the red in her ledger introduced with the Loki scene and resolved in her talk with Hawkeye, cementing her motivation for why she is an avenger that is trying to save lives. Hawkeyee himself is pretty straightforward. Loki made him his bitch, so now Hawkeye wants to dick him over as much as he can. Banner is convinced that he can't be help to anyone, until the invasion happens, where he learns to accept hulk as necessary. Even Nick Fury gets development as we discover if he is someone trustworthy or someone who will askew morality for security, which makes his decision to not watch over the Avengers meaningful.
These tidbits are happening constantly as the movie goes by, centered around the main plot of stopping Loki, but there are constant gears turning that simply do not stop. Whedon doesn't waste a minute of the audiences time because stuff is happening constantly. These are all done in small increments, but you don't need much space to have a character arc, or else flashfiction would be worthless. It may be small, but it's competent. Avengers 2 does it as well, but this isn't a marvel thread, so I'm just using it as a point of comparison to...
Man of Steel failed to do that when it had 2 hours to spend on nothing but a single character. Clarks character arc is handled quite poorly as the film is largely about him seeking for someone to tell him what to do. He listens to Pa Kent against his instincts, he listens to Jor-el, more willingly since it's what he wanted to do anyway, but he doesn't do it until he gets Jor-El's permission, and he even goes to a priest to let him know what to do when he's confused. He even has conflicts about listening to Zod. And, broadly speaking, I don't think he ever breaks away from that. Or if he does, it's never really supplemented why he chooses to make one decision over the other. "Krypton had it's chance". This is huge. This is Zod's entire thesis for his characters existance in the movie, and it's central to the identity that Clark has to struggle with. So, what, so because some Kryptonians made bad decisions, that means they, not as individuals but as a species, deserved to die, and that's why he brings down the ship only after that one moment's hesitation? People bitch about the buildings and shit, but I always found that to be the more startling decision Superman made. He didn't frame it as something that needed to be done to save humanity even though it was, 'Krypton had it's chance' carries the implication that they deserved their fate of extinction and didn't deserve a second chance. Jor-El told him to take care of Earth, in a broad way, because that's his new life with Krypton gone. But does that mean that he's fulfilling his fathers will? If so, at what point did he become his own agent of destiny instead of listening to every parental figure barking orders at him? Or if has he come to this judgement on his own, then how? Why does he feel this way? Where was the theme of finality that would make this particular and very important character conclusion that the Kryptonians deserve extinction meaningful? How was this climax of his character arc earned at all?
So. We have different writers now....but Snyder couldn't handle the character arc of one character who had a whole movie to himself. They now technically have atleast 3 main heroes (the titular characters, plus Wonder Woman), plus any side characters tehy bring along (Alfred, Perry White, Lois Lane, etc), in addition to the rest of the Justice League that shows up at the end (Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman, and... Cyborg iirc? I still find it wierd he's part of the justice league instead of teen titans).
If BvS is able to handle character arcs on the level of Avengers, it will be a good turn out. But you know....it's hard to be more than cautiously optimistic at best. They need to learn how to develop and conclude character arcs. Even minor characters of Avengers recieved that.
These tidbits are happening constantly as the movie goes by, centered around the main plot of stopping Loki, but there are constant gears turning that simply do not stop. Whedon doesn't waste a minute of the audiences time because stuff is happening constantly. These are all done in small increments, but you don't need much space to have a character arc, or else flashfiction would be worthless. It may be small, but it's competent. Avengers 2 does it as well, but this isn't a marvel thread, so I'm just using it as a point of comparison to...
Man of Steel failed to do that when it had 2 hours to spend on nothing but a single character. Clarks character arc is handled quite poorly as the film is largely about him seeking for someone to tell him what to do. He listens to Pa Kent against his instincts, he listens to Jor-el, more willingly since it's what he wanted to do anyway, but he doesn't do it until he gets Jor-El's permission, and he even goes to a priest to let him know what to do when he's confused. He even has conflicts about listening to Zod. And, broadly speaking, I don't think he ever breaks away from that. Or if he does, it's never really supplemented why he chooses to make one decision over the other. "Krypton had it's chance". This is huge. This is Zod's entire thesis for his characters existance in the movie, and it's central to the identity that Clark has to struggle with. So, what, so because some Kryptonians made bad decisions, that means they, not as individuals but as a species, deserved to die, and that's why he brings down the ship only after that one moment's hesitation? People bitch about the buildings and shit, but I always found that to be the more startling decision Superman made. He didn't frame it as something that needed to be done to save humanity even though it was, 'Krypton had it's chance' carries the implication that they deserved their fate of extinction and didn't deserve a second chance. Jor-El told him to take care of Earth, in a broad way, because that's his new life with Krypton gone. But does that mean that he's fulfilling his fathers will? If so, at what point did he become his own agent of destiny instead of listening to every parental figure barking orders at him? Or if has he come to this judgement on his own, then how? Why does he feel this way? Where was the theme of finality that would make this particular and very important character conclusion that the Kryptonians deserve extinction meaningful? How was this climax of his character arc earned at all?
So. We have different writers now....but Snyder couldn't handle the character arc of one character who had a whole movie to himself. They now technically have atleast 3 main heroes (the titular characters, plus Wonder Woman), plus any side characters tehy bring along (Alfred, Perry White, Lois Lane, etc), in addition to the rest of the Justice League that shows up at the end (Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman, and... Cyborg iirc? I still find it wierd he's part of the justice league instead of teen titans).
If BvS is able to handle character arcs on the level of Avengers, it will be a good turn out. But you know....it's hard to be more than cautiously optimistic at best. They need to learn how to develop and conclude character arcs. Even minor characters of Avengers recieved that.
BKatastrophe
Member
Jaime Reyes will be sold to Nickelodeon. Or Viacom.
I have no idea how rights work in this context
I feel like Cap is being an idiot by not telling Tony whats going on and instead decides that Tony will not understand. This is after watching Tony take the same actions that eventually lead to Ultron. He could have trusted Tony and the rest of his team that he also happens to be the leader of. Hopefully this isn't the full conflict, because its just the "I couldn't trust you understand" plot all over again. I would hope it had something to do with how they are handling the inhumans that are popping up everywhere in AoS, but I doubt it.
The conflict between Batman and Superman seems less manufactured. These are two heroes that do things very differently. Batman beats criminals until their half dead and spreads fear through the city. Superman is an almost unstoppable alien with an unknown power limit that also stops crime and saves lives. Superman spreads hope by his actions and fear because he is alien.
There is no reason why these two should like or trust each other. Batman sees Superman as a potential threat and Superman sees Batman as a unjust force. Something causes Superman to tell Batman tor retire and maybe that causes the fight. We just have to wait and see.
I just went back and watched those scenes. Jesus Christ, the man knows his action. Perfect use of slo-mo too imo.
I actually have not got the plot point of Luthor trying to publicy humiliate anyone. That has never been directly implied in a trailer. Certainly not as directly as the politics. The Sokovia accords was shown for a split second as well.. and in my eyes, the Batman Superman grudge match IS politics. Batman is basically the acting government, he seems to have the same motives. He fears Superman and wants him controlled, just like the government, in BvS and Civil War.
It's not just from the marketing, it's because you have seen the MCU, you understand it and have connections already. DCU obviously have to build their world quicker, which is the choice they made. Makes the marketing of the movie harder I guess, and the public more skeptical of it all connecting with them in the end
I'm not going to respond to your thesis of character arcs between Man of Steel and Avengers. For two reasons, 1) Whedon wrote AND directed Avengers. Snyder did not write Man of Steel. Which leads in to point 2) You compared a historically decent to good writer to a historically decent to bad writer. Then blamed Snyder for the writing. While that is completely 100% valid for Avengers (and by association AoU) that does not fit with Snyder and Goyer. A more apt comparison would be against Sucker Punch which Snyder did write and despite the general opinion of the movie the main characters did have complete arcs as you described.
With BvS you now have what we can only call a good writer because his one and only script won an Academy Award. Whether or not that talent translates to an entirely different genre of movie is yet to be seen so it's a bit early and a little unwarranted to start blaming Snyder for the pitfalls of a movie's script that hasn't even released.
I'm not blaming Snyder, I'm just explaining why I'm cautious towards him because of his history. That Snyder didn't write some of this doesn't really matter to me. Plenty of great movies have come from a seperate team of writers vs directors and plenty of shitty movies came from a creator that both directed and wrote. And my comparison to Avengers wasn't to show how awesome Whedon is, but demonstrate why it succeeds at the movie (The character arcs). I don't particularly care how character arcs get in BvS, so long as they do. Whether that's because of Snyder or Goyer or Terrio is immaterial to me, so long as they're there. And the fact that they didn't have it with Synder's MoS is troubling to me and cause to worry, because it's not a clear cut thing. Even if Terrio is a good writer, it might by the director/producter telling him "No, we just need an action scene there, you can cut this character scene no prob" and stuff like that.
You're perfectly right in that I have no reason to get angry about the pitfalls of a movie that's not out. But I am outline what I need from BvS, at a minimum, for it to work for me.
Which I can agree with at some level. It's not like I am personally confident that BvS will be an outstanding movie. For all anyone knows it could be awful. We will find out when people start sharing impressions from the early screenings a week before the movie is out.
but isnt superman literally an illegal alien
I've seen illegal Mexicans side with trump because they hate Muslims... so it's not outlandish
Triggerhappytel
Member
Yeah, not a fan of this clip. Henry's delivery is totally flat and expressionless (maybe that'll be part of the narrative somehow?) and I don't like Batman's voice here at all. I don't mind if he has the robotic voice when he has his set of metal armour on and big helmet because it makes sense that his speech could pass through a modulator close to his mouth, but here it just looks odd because he's not wearing any equipment.
Voice modulators attach on the throat. The US military already has them in circulation. It's not like Navy SEALS shout to one another across combat zones.
It's not exactly new technology...
And it's not exactly decoration...
I'm actually surprised Nolan didn't do it first, considering the heavy emphasis on abandoned military tech. Now tell me how the modulation doesn't make sense again?
A throat microphone =/= a voice modulator. The modulated voice would have to be broadcast via a speaker. I can't see a speaker on Batman's cowl even if he does have a throat mic on.
HiredN00bs
Banned
Why is everyone bitching over the delivery and vocal effects? The most terrible thing that stands out in this clip is the offensively terrible dialogue. This clip convinced me to intensely protest anyone's attempt to get me to see this movie.
Sibersk Esto
Banned
I miss "Some motherfuckers always trying to ice skate uphill."
ViewtifulJC
Banned
You will only look really hard with that mic if you're manly grizzled Hollywood movie star Bruce Willis. Otherwise its a fedora for your neck.
You sound like you care way more about not seeing the movie than anyone would about getting you to see it. Haha, I swear some of you sound like you are just a joy to be around.
L
Lord Virgin
Unconfirmed Member
That is offensively terrible dialogue? Damn, you probably don't like a lot of movies then. Certainly no comicbook movies, none.
MDSLKTR
Member
See I found that line totally corny and out of place with the rest of the trailer tone, was there backlash for it in the gaf thread?
Of course not
It's Superman talking to Batman while standing on top of a Batmobile while bitching about him going to a bat signal. What exactly are people expecting out of the dialogue? The premise is fucking ridiculous so there is never going to be award winning conversations.
……forgetit
Member
I actually prefer the Iron Man line because it sounds like him taking the piss out of a friend while Batman was just making empty threats to a guy that could melt him from orbit. I don't know the whole context of the Batman scene but it's REALLY cringy for me.
BlackGoku03
Member
Ok. Talk to me like a 5 year old.
Why is the dialogue terribly offensive? What would better fit the scene considering the context of what happens before or after?
L
Lord Virgin
Unconfirmed Member
Batman, in the face of a God that just kicked his car like it's a toy and ripped it apart, after being threatened and 'shown' mercy, promises to Superman (and himself) that he will take him down. No fear nothing. That is cringy and an empty threat? Sure.
The context seems to be, and this might be a mild spoiler (it's unconfirmed).
Batman's heading home from some crimefighting and Superman appears out of nowhere to kick his car and tell him to stop.
So, basically, Batman has no other option that to issue vague threats and start the clock on his prep time.
The only thing that makes the scene cringy is how it's shot to feel like a completely empty threat. The line itself is whatever, and Stark's perfect teeth line is a much better line in the context of those characters, but this this scene in particular has no bite to it. That's why people find it cringy, because it doesn't feel like it's at all a credible threat.
……forgetit
Member
Sorry, but this is seriously how it comes off to me
If that's the context it still bothers me, Batman wouldn't say anything in that situation. Just stare him down. I feel like it's against his character to make stupid threats that at the moment he can't even begin to back up.
Said it before, but I don't think Batman is threatening Superman.
I think he is making a promise to himself.
And to jump ahead to the movie, it makes sense that when he calls Superman out on his terms.. he does it with the Bat-signal.
Could be wrong, but listening to the musical cues it sounds like an escalation when he says the line not the end of it.
We shall see (or some of us, I guess) when the movie comes out.
As for his voice, I thought he was wearing that tech Cowl or is that just for MechaBatman?
I think he is making a promise to himself.
And to jump ahead to the movie, it makes sense that when he calls Superman out on his terms.. he does it with the Bat-signal.
Could be wrong, but listening to the musical cues it sounds like an escalation when he says the line not the end of it.
We shall see (or some of us, I guess) when the movie comes out.
As for his voice, I thought he was wearing that tech Cowl or is that just for MechaBatman?
……forgetit
Member
I'll be honest, I think the whole movie is going to bea shit show, but I'll still be there day one at Midnight to see two of my favorite superheroes in the same movie. I want it to be good SOOO badly, but I'm just not seeing it coming out well.
I'm gonna fix a few of those...
300 8/10 honestly a great film
Watchmen also 8/10 a great film
OWLS: 9/10 you didn't even watch this one honestly probably his best work.
The rest I won't argue.
Wtf? One is an empty threat and another is a realistic desire. Terrible comparison.
I'm not a writer, I don't have to have a "better" scene written to criticize it. If you want a comparison though, it strikes me as something that was written by someone who almost exclusively watches anime supercuts on youtube set to Linkin Park.
"Do you bleed? You will"? I mean.... its trying so hard to be badass that it just is corny to me.
You can counter with motivations or the scene or whatever else reason you enjoy it- but for me, the execution is off. To pull off dialogue like that, the tone and framing has to be perfect, and this isn't doing it for me.
- Status