It's an improvement over the TC for sure. The pacing is better (though still completely off at times, those dream sequences... Urghhh) and the expanding of subplots does the movie good and sets up character motivations much much better. I'd rate the TC 5/10 and the extended cut 7/10.
Well that's just because you guys didn't (and apparently haven't yet) get that they weren't Batman movies, but Bruce Wayne movies - which Nolan said right from the beginning.
Yeah, totally not a Batman movie. Bruce Wayne = Batman, no matter the semantics you want to get into. And don't start this, "you didn't get it" shit, because I guarantee you wouldn't react well if someone told you that you didn't "get" BvS. You can "get" something and still not like it. I know what Nolan gave us, and I didn't like it.
Easy there partner. It's going to take a lot more than THE TWO OF US
I'm looking to see if it's a good movie. Not this "bad batman movie" silliness. Like what kind of backwards mentality is that?
Does the cut make the movie better a la Kingdom of Heaven? Or are the issues from the TC still present throughout the film regardless of how much fat is on this thing?
There's a way to be a bad Batman movie while still being an overall good film. If a good film destroys (in someone's eyes) a character, that doesn't make it a bad film. It's like how Skyfall was a bad Bond movie, but still a good, well-made movie. Or take the Raimi Spider-Man movies (the first two, at least). Good, well-made movies. But to me, terrible Spider-Man movies.
The second question is up to you, but you admitted you won't watch it until much later so it won't be answered for a while.
But IS IT GOOD NOW?
The answer depends on you. If you don't like the dark deconstruction of your childhood heroes, this is not the movie for you. If you can see pass that, yes, it's an interesting and almost mature (with its flaws, and a very comic-y third act) take on a classic story that might be too convulted for his own good. But that's kinda its charm, it didn't take the easy route.
I'm waiting until the 19th to see the blu ray. I didn't care for the theater version and I doubt that this UC will fix my problems with the film, BUT I am going to give it a chance. My gut feeling could very well be wrong. Looking forward to what others think in the meantime while I wait for the 19th to roll around.
What does still not work?
- Some plot contrivances are still there.
- It might be too long.
-
The kryptonite spear retrieval by Lois is still a big hole.
There is no explanation as to why she goes for it.
- We still have no idea how Lex knew who Batman/Superman were.
- The Martha moment is still good on paper, bad on execution.
- It's a sloooooow burn. It starts more like a thriller than an action movie.. then turns into a generic action movie in the third act.
- The motivation/knowledge to create Doomsday is still MIA.
- Superman is a little too tortured by everything. Poor guy.
- The dream scenes are jarring and have no place in the narrative
- The JL cameos are still out of place.
- The action is kind of lackluster and lacks physicality.
-
Nope. This isn't a new sandwich. You're getting a bigger burger, but no extra toppings. The scenes that were added just expand subplots that were already in the movie. You'll have a better grasp of what people were doing, but there aren't any cool things like that. There is a tiny thing with Lex that WB put up on YouTube awhile back. It's mainly just beefing up the first 2 acts of the film.
It's a conflicting experience because if someone wanted to watch this, I would have to recommend this cut because it lets you grasp the full scope of what they were attempting. But the pacing is even worse with the extra time added on.
Yup. Also, Snyder using the term "deconstructive" as a defense for BvS rubs me the wrong way for three reasons:
1) What, exactly, is being deconstructed here? I guess there's an effort to deconstruct the relationship between the people of earth and Superman... but as far as his actual character is concerned, I don't see it. What I do see is an arguable misinterpretation of Superman as a character. The same goes for Batman, whose philosophy is definitely challenged (if not flat out misunderstood by the filmmakers), but not really "deconstructed".
2) "People don't like their heroes deconstructed." Or, in other words, it's not that the film is tonally jumbled, narratively flawed and poorly put together - it's simply that it wasn't quite what audiences wanted! Otherwise, a job well done!
3) Deconstructive narratives are typically regarded as self-reflective, as well as structurally and thematically challenging. For Snyder to suggest that the film was dismissed by the majority of critics and some fans because it was "deconstructive" is basically like saying "2smart4u", which is bullshit.
I'll definitely watch the extended cut. Didn't *hate* the film as much as a lot of people, but man does Snyder's attitude strike me as pretentious in the midst of what is clearly a huge shift in direction moving forward.
Dude should just come out and say "Yeah - I had my head up my own ass a bit," and so much good faith would be restored.
There's a way to be a bad Batman movie while still being an overall good film. If a good film destroys (in someone's eyes) a character, that doesn't make it a bad film. It's like how Skyfall was a bad Bond movie, but still a good, well-made movie. Or take the Raimi Spider-Man movies (the first two, at least). Good, well-made movies. But to me, terrible Spider-Man movies.
Is the film good? Regardless of how the characters were adapted from the comic? Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were good films because of how the characters and story were handled despite what the source material said. It's an adaption so things like that will change for better (Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight) or worse (Spider-Man 3, X-Men The Last Stand).
To me, the source material doesn't even factor into the conversation because the move is going to stand on its own no matter what. Most people seeing this don't know the ins and outs of these characters as well as most here would believe and they don't care either. I don't care about the source material as I go into these things, I just want the movie to be good. BvS was a bad movie with unlikable characters and a senseless plot. If BvS Ultimate Cut somehow undoes that, that's great! But if it still suffers from this, then why bother?
What still doesn't work?
- Some plot contrivances are still there.
- It might be too long.
-
The kryptonite spear retrieval by Lois is still a big hole.
There is no explanation as to why she goes for it.
- We still have no idea how Lex knew who Batman/Superman were.
- The Martha moment is still good on paper, bad on execution.
- It's a sloooooow burn. It starts more like a thriller than an action movie.. then turns into a generic action movie in the third act.
- The motivation/knowledge to create Doomsday is still MIA.
- Superman is a little too tortured by everything. Poor guy.
- The dream scenes are jarring and have no place in the narrative
- The JL cameos are still out of place.
- The action is kind of lackluster and lacks physicality.
-
Wait, America nukes their savior and that's what you got out of it? If anything, its that Superman exists because good men are a rarity. It's the reason Bats tries to kill Clark afterall.
Yup. Also, Snyder using the term "deconstructive" as a defense for BvS rubs me the wrong way for three reasons:
1) What, exactly, is being deconstructed here? I guess there's an effort to deconstruct the relationship between the people of earth and Superman... but as far as his actual character is concerned, I don't see it. What I do see is an arguable misinterpretation of Superman as a character. The same goes for Batman, whose philosophy is definitely challenged (if not flat out misunderstood by the filmmakers), but not really "deconstructed".
2) "People don't like their heroes deconstructed." In other words, it's not that the film is tonally jumbled, narratively flawed and poorly constructed - it's simply that it wasn't quite what audiences wanted! Otherwise, a job well done!
3) Deconstructive narratives are generally self-reflective, and thematically challenging. For Snyder to suggest that the film was dismissed by the majority of critics and some fans because it was "deconstructive" is basically like saying "2smart4u", which is bullshit.
I'll definitely watch the extended cut. Didn't *hate* the film as much as a lot of people, but man does Snyder's attitude strike me as pretentious in the midst of what will clearly be a huge shift in direction going forward.
Dude should just come out and say "Yeah - I had my head up my own ass a bit," and so much good faith would be restored.
Is the film good? Regardless of how the characters were adapted from the comic? Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were good films because of how the characters and story were handled despite what the source material said. It's an adaption so things like that will change for better (Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight) or worse (Spider-Man 3, X-Men The Last Stand).
To me, the source material doesn't even factor into the conversation because the move is going to stand on its own no matter what. Most people seeing this don't know the ins and outs of these characters as well as most here would believe and they don't care either. I don't care about the source material as I go into these things, I just want the movie to be good. BvS was a bad movie with unlikable characters and a senseless plot. If BvS Ultimate Cut somehow undoes that, that's great! But if it still suffers from this, then why bother?
Gah. I was afraid of this, but thanks for putting this together anyways.
That's really going to be entirely up to you. There's nothing anyone can say that will matter more than your own opinion on it. I'm a massive champion of the UC, if I had the ability I'd give you my Vudu credentials to check it out but, alas, that wouldn't work.
I really don't mean to come across as hostile about the film, if it seems that way. I just feel really strongly about it, but in the opposite way most do.
My bad. Still, she's his wife, and the producer of the movie. Doesn't really change the substance of what I'm saying. That's clearly the line being towed by the filmmakers.
What still doesn't work?
- Some plot contrivances are still there.
- It might be too long.
-
The kryptonite spear retrieval by Lois is still a big hole.
There is no explanation as to why she goes for it.
- We still have no idea how Lex knew who Batman/Superman were.
- The Martha moment is still good on paper, bad on execution.
- It's a sloooooow burn. It starts more like a thriller than an action movie.. then turns into a generic action movie in the third act.
- The motivation/knowledge to create Doomsday is still MIA.
- Superman is a little too tortured by everything. Poor guy.
- The dream scenes are jarring and have no place in the narrative
- The JL cameos are still out of place.
- The action is kind of lackluster and lacks physicality.
-
Doesn't Clark supposedly give her a look like get rid of the spear, and when she sees Doomsday eye blasting everything she realises it's Kryptonian in origin.
That's really going to be entirely up to you. There's nothing anyone can say that will matter more than your own opinion on it. I'm a massive champion of the UC, if I had the ability I'd give you my Vudu credentials to check it out but, alas, that wouldn't work.
I really don't mean to come across as hostile about the film, if it seems that way. I just feel really strongly about it, but in the opposite way most do.
My bad. Still, she's his wife, and the producer of the movie. Doesn't really change the substance of what I'm saying. That's clearly the line the filmmaking team is towing.
Nah, I got you but it was just amusing to me, haha. Zack did basically admit maybe his view of the characters was not what people wanted. It was one of the rare times where what he said sounded smarter than what his wife said.
Doesn't Clark supposedly give her a look like get rid of the spear, and when she sees Doomsday eye blasting everything she realises it's Kryptonian in origin.
Doesn't Clark supposedly give her a look like get rid of the spear, and when she sees Doomsday eye blasting everything she realises it's Kryptonian in origin.
The first part is true, but she doesn't see a fire blast, she sees an energy explosion. I mean, you could guess she is using her detective abilities to make a super quick conclusion, but it could have been executed better. I bet the script said that she saw some Kryptonian stuff, but it isn't translated well by the SFX team.
Doesn't Clark supposedly give her a look like get rid of the spear, and when she sees Doomsday eye blasting everything she realises it's Kryptonian in origin.
Nah, there's no look. She clearly makes the same assumption of Doomsday's origin as Batman does. I don't know why people take such issue with it. Yea it's a bit unnecessary but made sense just because it was Lois. She loves Clark and wanted to get rid of the one thing that can kill him then realized they need it to kill Doomsday (who was not around when she threw it away) so she tries to go back for it. If Batman had thrown it away and then was like "shit, my bad" that would be really weird.
I'm still feeling the idea that the "dead" Robin is Dick Grayson and that he's not actually dead but instead became The Joker we see in Suicide Squad, since Dick becoming The Joker happened in The Dark Knight Strikes Again, and we all know how much Snyder loves Miller...
Not particularly. It's an extremely clunky way of putting Lois in danger(again). Why even write that she tosses the spear in a convenient pool? Just leave it on the ground.
Not particularly. It's an extremely clunky way of putting Lois in danger(again). Why even write that she tosses the spear in a convenient pool? Just leave it on the ground.
I'm still feeling the idea that the "dead" Robin is Dick Grayson and that he's not actually dead but instead became The Joker we see in Suicide Squad, since Dick becoming The Joker happened in The Dark Knight Strikes Again, and we all know how much Snyder loves Miller...
Man, I hope it's just Jason. Seeing as Snyder likes Miller so much, I hope he reads The Dark Knight Returns - The Last Crusade; that's a damn good Batman story that would hopefully inform Snyder's perspective of Frank Miller's Batman.
Wait, America nukes their savior and that's what you got out of it? If anything, its that Superman exists because good men are a rarity. It's the reason Bats tries to kill Clark afterall.
No, I didn't get that out of the movie at all. But it's in the title of the thread and was repeatedly batted around the last OT as supposedly the moral of the movie.