That kind of sucks. I guess it's a limitation of digital formats. Either that or download two copies.
I wish the movie file itself could contain all the clips, and just branch out as it needed to. Guess it won't make it a universal file then though.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Batman v Superman Ultimate Cut |OT| - Men are still good (out now)
- Thread starter Ahasverus
- Start date
That kind of sucks. I guess it's a limitation of digital formats. Either that or download two copies.
I wish the movie file itself could contain all the clips, and just branch out as it needed to. Guess it won't make it a universal file then though.
I bet you anything that I can find opinions in within 3 posts, posting only 1 at a time, that you go "No, people who think that are idiots".
Opinions being subjective doesn't stop them from being potentially asinine. There is a significant difference between opinions that have a wealth of evidence to support them and ones that are clearly lacking in any kind of rational grounding.
And that's what makes discussions interesting to me. If all that was to be said about something is "I like this" "I don't like this" "Okay." "Okay.", there wouldn't be a point to discussion boards.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
It's not irrelevant if someone makes a claim, which is why you saw so many comments in response to that one. In that case, you can't simply say something and expect to hide behind the facile and circular "it's my opinion because only I matter" defence.
See:
I'm silently judging everyone that thinks this is a good movie.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Not anymore, you aren't. Congrats on being a better person than all those idiots who like this movie, though.
But they're both emotionally unstable characters, he's playing a crazy guy saying illogical things to stir up a response from another crazy guy with a fetish for playing protector. Another man would laugh it off and say he obviously can't be held responsible for that shit, but this guy jumps into a bat suit of a night to go protect random people from random violence because he lost his parents to such an event.
Someone earlier in this thread was saying that when Clark gets in the tub with Lois, the tub overflowing is meant to symbolize his moral conflict as Superman.
Huh?!
Oh for Christ's sake.
It's in the film, it's not reaching. Lex and Bruce are corporate entities. Look at their office spaces, Bruce has regular cubicles, while lex has a communal familial Google thing. But look at how they treat their people in a crisis, Bruce shows genuine worry, and rushes to save them. Lex uses Mercy as a pawn, sacrificing her to make a message. Then think about the meta human logos, do you really think lex doodled those in between stilted monologues? He's got a whole art department at his whim. But that art department is still creating by the book, since they've been compartmentalized. They probably think it's packaging for some new product. And this of course ties into creating this movie, and the steps wb takes to make a palatable movie for the masses, which ties back into superman trying to please everyone.
So not only do you not know how to critically analyze, you shit post at things you don't understand.
is there any more of that scene in the UC?
Oh my god, you were serious. I was so sure you were going to reply with "guys, I was kidding..."
I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
You ever hear of Narcissus?
That's a lot like you, except instead of your reflection, it's this movie.
Why is are you so proud of your ignorance?
Boombloxer
Member
Just finished. Better than the TC, some of the same problems remain. 6/10 from 3-4/10.
The Batman scenes are just better than anything else, except the final battle.
The Batman scenes are just better than anything else, except the final battle.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
I never watched the TC, went in mostly blind to the UC. Quite the film. I wouldn't say it's a great film, but it's not bad either. I thought there were a lot of scenes that felt unnecessary or confusing (Africa, basically every dream sequence), but most of the film didn't feel bloated or unreasonably paced to me. Visually arresting, thick on the symbolism. It does feel like three hours though, and three hours for a film that doesn't quite make total sense is a lot of time to spend. I'm strongly guessing that the TC would have cut out a lot of the scenes I liked - the softer moments - and so I'm definitely glad I watched the UC.
That was me. I was comparing the orgy scene in watchmen to the tub scene, where Dr Manhattan works while fucking Laurie, where as Clark decided to only be with lois. The overflow represents the consequence of him being there for just her, like the Africa scandal, which is why they question them being together and him "being" superman. If he always has an ear for her, what else is he gonna miss? Which is the heart of that, "I want wasn't looking" line.
If you don't agree with someone else's opinion, I would suggest ignoring it unless you can actually provide a counter argument other than "I think it's bad and look at these other people who also think it's bad. You are wrong." That's not discussion, it's belittling. It adds nothing and poisons actual discourse. If you visit thread X, chances are the people in that thread will like X. If you do not like X, maybe you should not visit thread X.
I'm happy to admit that I've overanalyzed the shit out of the some films because I had to write papers about them. There's a great joy in finding meaning within things, whether it's poetry, books, film, music, etc.
Well....you're right.
though I'm legitimately impressed by the olympics level mental gymnastics Atrocious is performing. I'm quoting his posts less out of a desire to belittle and more legitimate astonishment.
But you're right, I'll stop I guess.
You should really check out watchman director's cut if you haven't. It has a lot of similar shots and scenarios that are reused in both MoS and BvS, especially if you want to understand more of Snyder's perspective and visual language.
SirPinkyNose
Member
Yes it's longer and borderline R-rated.
Discotheque
Banned
Dat amy adams though. Also he may get made fun of a lot for his hairline but honestly Clark Kent looks like a peak human imo.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
After watching this, I just can't understand why they cut the bulk of these scenes out. Still have my problems with it, but I'll bump it to a 6.5. What was the studio thinking? Just weird..
I've seen it
I think the overflow mainly represents how introducing mass into a full tub displaces water, but ok.
I'm showing connections in my posts logically, you know, like how you're supposed to critically analyze art. If you see a break in the logic, I'm more than open and welcome to discuss it. Film analysis is firmly my bag, and my main forum of discussion is deep into the philosophical aspects of these films, using zizek quotes among other things. If you "know" more than me, I'm all ears as I'm my self a philosopher and love to learn. But currently your confirmation bias has been clearly leading your thoughts. You're coming at me from an anti intellectual bent of "trying hard," and frankly you look sad.
It's a movie, all of that was planned and happened for a reason. It's written in the script. Tying it to coincidence is not what critical analysis is about.
Doctor Ironic
Member
Is that supposed to be a comeback, or
what? no...
Gordon Shumway
Banned
I see BvS threads remain the best lol..
Look, from experience, I know how to get a feel for argumentative styles. Not just that, but I've seen you debate others and have even engaged with you a bit myself. And though you clearly think otherwise, I know when trying to argue with a person would be like trying to fill an leaky bucket with water. Now if we were arguing something I feel is important, I'd engage in the debate despite the hopelessness of a sane resolution. But as it is, with all due respect and in my subjective opinion, I just see you as someone who has an irrational perception of this movie.
I'm trying to be as nondickish as I can reasonably be in saying this, because you seem genuine in your desire to engage and that's a good thing. However, I've also had fundamentalists that were genuine in their desire to engage debates about god and I know before ever beginning them that those debates never go anywhere. That's how I see any potential debate with you. So while I commend you for trying to reach out, I don't think your positions are reasonable, and trying to reason it out with you will be more of a headache for me than I care to have. I just don't think it's worth it.
If it helps, try to imagine I am a sapient BvS dvd, so instead of taking this badly, just think of this as me heroically and magnanimously saving you from several hours of reading, typing, and unproductive mental exhaustion.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
I think you overestimate how much detail is put into scenes. The reason is simply put, that scene is mostly to show how Lois and Clark's relationship has progressed since Man of Steel.
broncobuster
Banned
Hairline jokes aside, they should let him keep his Clark hairdo in the future. Not a fan of the slicked back and shiny look.
I didn't say it was a coincidence, did I? I wouldn't expect Snyder to be surprised by the sight of water overflowing when Cavill threw his massive frame into the tub. I'm sure it was written into the script and everyone on set that day knew what was going to happen before they started rolling. I just think that bit was nothing more than a light romantic moment between Clark and Lois, and not a deep visual metaphor for Clark's crisis of conscience.
Critical analysis should also be honest, as in an honest reading of the film discussed. That doesn't mean I think you're a liar or that you're bullshitting all of us, I believe you believe your interpretations, but I also believe you're reaching a whole hell of a lot and extrapolating bigger existential meanings out of very simple scenes where those meanings don't exist. That's your prerogative of course, I'm not going to dictate to you how to watch the movie or how to enjoy the movie, but I also think it's rather -- dare I use the word? -- pretentious to jump to the conclusions you do and cast the veil of "critical analysis" over it, as if the rest of our dumb plebe minds just aren't able to glimpse the secrets of the universe in this movie that you can.
Connecting the dots is different from forcing the dots together to make them seem more meaningful. Like, maybe Rick McCallum really does believe that every shot in The Phantom Menace is a work of art densely packed with layers of meaning. But I don't see that reflected in that film. Same thing here.
Discotheque
Banned
forreal. he looks beautiful as clark kent and then as superman it's not very flattering. kind of goes against the idea of clark kent vs. superman doesn't it?
Critical analysis doesn't concern itself with the effort the creator put into an image, just that the image is there and readable, and follows a certain logic the critic decides on. But besides that, Zack Snyder is an art house director with a love of genre films, he's most definitely put more details into scenes and their meaning than I could gather. Critical analysis is about the viewer finding meaning in art, from whatever their view point is. No one is wrong unless it severely deviates from the text of the film, like saying Clark isn't a Jesus allegory.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
You say this, and yet you keep saying:
Which is it? You cannot argue that an image is readable and does not rely on authorial intent while simultaneously say that Zack Snyder intended for certain details to be embedded in the readable image.
You're taking a very hypocritical stance to justify your readings wherever convenient.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
One. Just like the one chance that Superman gets every time he chooses to save someone.
Enough that Amy Adams probably got all pruny fingers.
Actually, if Zack Snyder is supposed to be this savant director where every frame he has matters, whats the hidden meaning of Amy Adam's nip slip and was Amy Adams aware it was part of his artistic vision?
Being able to string two things together to form a unique idea is not the same thing as critical analysis. Creating symbolism, which you really love to do, is not the same as identifying symbolism in the themes within a work of art.
If, for example, Lois symbolized Clark's selfish indulgence at the cost of jeopardizing global security rather than actually just BEING that thing in one singular instance at the beginning of the movie, we'd then see that symbolism logically carried out throughout the film in order to make a statement. We don't. Clark is not later forced to make a choice between Lois and the world, and his choice of saving Lois in Africa had no lasting consequences on anything as far as theme goes. It propelled a senate hearing and played into Lex's plans but those are just things that happened, they aren't symbolic representations of Clark's selfishness manifesting as real world events. Clark ultimately chooses to sacrifice himself for the world, and therefore Lois by proxy, but that action has zero bearing on the question posed in the bathtub scene by Lois, namely whether or not Clark can both love Lois and be Superman. If anything, it's running away from that question by using death to avoid answering the primary dilemma. Clark can choose both but there are no consequences for him because he's dead now. It circumvents the question Lois poses because it's eliminating having to choose between Lois and the rest of the world by grouping the two options together, an option at that very moment during the fight with Doomsday but not one possible on the global stage. For the bath tub overflowing to have thematic symbolism, we'd have to see the theme established by that symbol come full circle in other ways but that never happens. That leaves us with two interpretations, either it's a half baked symbol that was used once and then discarded or it was just done because it looks good and gave more action to an otherwise static scene.
I'm saying both. Some movies, are purely corporate driven to make everything hit all quadrants of the audience. To analyse these films, usually typo have to assume death of the author. With other films, which ate driven largely by one voice, Snyder, Gunn, Wright, Nolan, etc, that director's voice is going to be over everything. The second set of directors micromanage everything in their image, from script to marketing(not always the case of course for less influential directors). In this case you can assume some of it was intentional, but unintentional moments are just as valid. The only thing that matters I'd your logic tying the subjects together.
bigboss370
Member
i don't see any flaws in this line of thinking, not sure why others are jumping on it. is it a "because its too good to be true" kinda thing where you don't want to give credit based on your personal feeling about the quality of movie?
"Either be their hero or don't be, you owe them nothing."
He clearly makes a choice to kill himself to save the world ending his relationship with lois. It's the point of their scene at the end when he says good bye. You're taking Clark's choice for granted. The Africa plot only happens because lex knows Clark will rush across the world to save her.
And I don't care if you think I'm being pretentious, this film asks more questions than a typical blockbuster and I find it extremely fascinating. Film analysis is all about finding "bigger existential" meanings, especially in a film where a man prays to the "creator of heaven and earth" while laser beam eyes destroy the building he's standing in.
Except he literally equates Lois with the rest of the world, meaning he's not choosing between the two. He dies for Lois as much as for the world. While noble, it absolutely circumvents the initial dilemma of having to choose between the two. The truth is the movie simply does not care about the questions posed in the first half once Superman is forced to fight Batman. That's also why the third act feels so disassociated with the rest of the movie.
.....Fine. FINE! I'll ask you one talking point sincerely.
You do realize you can do this to ANY film, correct? If I were looking at this from as abstract lens as you are, connecting every random event with each other, I can make any film be existential. Using these techniques, I could make the similar claims of deeper meaning about Thor the Dark World. I could make claims of deeper meaning about The Room. Because all I need to do is talk about grander, more abstract themes and connect random bits of imagery. It's really, really easy and you can find that kind of 'bigger existential meaning' in literally any film.
No one is stopping you, which is the great thing about critical analysis. It's why the transformers are some of my favorite films now.
The room is one of my favorite films ever as well lol, seen it 5 times in the theater.
benjipwns
Banned
bad example
MegaManTrigger
Banned
Your entire argument assumes that there is a presumed binary between films that are corporate commodities and films that are driven by director voices, and that both cannot be simultaneous. This stance is strange and illogical considering that directors are creating in order to commercialize and maximize profits for their employer. Sure, they have the ability to create art, but that doesnt mean theyre not also engaging in maximizing the value of the intellectual property. The directors you list are perfect examples of engaging in art and increasing the value of their corporate commodity.
With regards to critical analysis, you still cannot say that you can do both. Its fine to say that a film can only be read as is, and that authorial intent is irrelevant. But you cannot be convenient in your interpretations and choose when it is okay to regard or disregard authorial intent, otherwise where is the logic and consistency? Its even worse now that you presume theres a binary in films as commodities of art vs. corporatism, when in actuality, its more intertwined.