Is it me or was Perry White/Lawrence Fishburne's role drastically expanded with just 30 seconds here and there of additional dialogue? I don't remember him having much screen time in the TC and being bumbed: he was one of the best parts of MoS.
Same with Lois, it's just like these little short bits of dialogue morphed her from a damsel in distress with nothing to do back into the badass reporter she was in MoS; the TC is just a mess.
Calm down. All I mentioned was what I noticed. You make it sound like I specifically singled this out so as to say "OMFG THIS IS WHY BVS IS SHIT" when I never did. You might want to be less sensitive about a movie.
Also, just because a movie features a flying alien, and a human bat, doesn't mean that physics should be thrown out the window.
Calm down. All I mentioned was what I noticed. You make it sound like I specifically singled this out so as to say "OMFG THIS IS WHY BVS IS SHIT" when I never did. You might want to be less sensitive about a movie.
Also, just because a movie features a flying alien, and a human bat, doesn't mean that physics should be thrown out the window.
No, you haven't explained anything, because you're arguing against a point that no one made. No one said that Batman only killed dent. Not me, and no one I've read in this thread.
I'd say your attacking a strawman, but strawmen arguments are usually caricatured versions of someone elses argument. Here, it seems you made up an opposing argument wholesale and are arguing against that. Because no one said Nolan's Batman hands were clean but for Dent's death.
I never even implied that you said that. I was making a point to disprove your idea of trilogy Batman having exceptions to his rule rather than just a few kinks in Nolan's execution. This also screws up your argument about him "sometimes" failing to avoid random kills. None of that is part of any of the scripts, just entirely made up by you.
at no point willfully executes anyone. You want to respond to THIS argument maybe?
There's nothing to respond to here. No one ever said that BvS Batman didn't deliberately kill people, especially with it being part of the story and all... Talk about strawmen.
I hope Ben Afleck works with this team of stunt people/ coordinators/ choreographers on his Batman movie. I agree, this was one of the greatest Batman moments in a live action film.
Not in fight scenes where you have a human vs. another human. Snyder loves to mention how he tries to make fight scenes realistic in the sense of imagining how it would work in the real world. He's said this in MOS too in regards to Superman's powers.
I never even implied that you said that. I was making a point to disprove your idea of Nolan's Batman having exceptions to his rule rather than just a few kinks in the execution. This also screws up your argument about him "sometimes" failing to avoid random kills. None of that is part of any of the scripts, just entirely made up by you."
Okay, you really don't seem to understand my argument, because I am not saying there are any exceptions to his rule. I'm saying there is a distinction between the general idea of killing and executions. Both involve the deaths of people, but there is a difference in intent.
From your posts, it seems you just legitimately don't see any difference between the accidental killing of a person in the chaos of combat vs the intentional killing of a person where it's avoidable. Which is kind of scary.
There's nothing to respond to here. No one ever said that BvS Batman didn't deliberately kill people, especially with it being part of the story and all... Talk about strawmen.
Yeah, there's something lost in communication here, because for hte last few points, I've been talking specifically about Nolan's batman. I wasn't referring to BvS batman at all except to say that he is distinct from Nolan's. And that he's a cunt.
Not in fight scenes where you have a human vs. another human. Snyder loves to mention how he tries to make fight scenes realistic in the sense of imagining how it would work in the real world. He's said this in MOS too in regards to Superman's powers.
Snyder really isn't that good a fight choreographer....generally speaking, anyway. I made a MoS post a while back analyzing his fight with Zod, and how it is completely disconnected from his character. He makes claims about how he is a soldier and knows how to fight, but the way he engages Superman is in no way reminiscent of that. It's not even reminiscent of a street fighter, he's literally making maneuvers that he would have been completely incapable of doing while being trained on Krypton.
Snyder can occasionally make something look cool, but an important part of fight choreography is to have it be representative of the characters in some way, and Snyder usually doesn't deliver on that.
I hope Ben Afleck works with this team of stunt people/ coordinators/ choreographers on his Batman movie. I agree, this was one of the greatest Batman moments in a live action film.
Snyder really isn't that good a fight choreographer....generally speaking, anyway. I made a MoS post a while back analyzing his fight with Zod, and how it is completely disconnected from his character. He makes claims about how he is a soldier and knows how to fight, but the way he engages Superman is in no way reminiscent of that. It's not even reminiscent of a street fighter, he's literally making maneuvers that he would have been completely incapable of doing while being trained on Krypton.
Snyder can occasionally make something look cool, but an important part of fight choreography is to have it be representative of the characters in some way, and Snyder usually doesn't deliver on that.
Snyder doesn't do the fight choreography himself. He sets a basic template because he knows what he wants to film but he has fight choreographers who make that happen. In the MoS special features there's a part dedicated to explaining Zod, Jor-El and Superman's fighting style and how it applies to their individual characters.
Cw tries to way hard to be serious with it's plot, but has none of the actual consequences on screen. It's just another marvel movie with some decent action scenes and Spider-Man. They should've focused on just the hulk if they wanted to go this route of accountability, would've set up ragnarok more, and the split could be over locking banner away. Then you don't have to act like the several minutes of film devoted to the avengers explicitly saving almost everyone didn't exist. The SnyderCU said fuck that noise, for better or worse, real stakes and consequences.
Cw tries to way hard to be serious with it's plot, but has none of the actual consequences on screen. It's just another marvel movie with some decent action scenes and Spider-Man. They should've focused on just the hulk if they wanted to go this route of accountability, would've set up ragnarok more, and the split could be over locking banner away. Then you don't have to act like the several minutes of film devoted to the avengers explicitly saving almost everyone didn't exist. The SnyderCU said fuck that noise, for better or worse, real stakes and consequences.
Maybe this is why I didn't really enjoy CW. Neither me or the people I went to see it with thought much of it to be honest. It might have been because it came out after BvS when real stuff happened that affected the world. I didn't get any feelings of consequence after CW. When it was over I was just like, 'Is that it?''
Snyder doesn't do the fight choreography himself. He sets a basic template because he knows what he wants to film but he has fight choreographers who make that happen. In the MoS special features there's a part dedicated to explaining Zod, Jor-El and Superman's fighting style and how it applies to their individual characters.
It's wierdly inconsistent. The Faora fights were really good (even if her character was crap) and was atleast closer to what I would imagine trained Kryptonians would fight like.
Then they had that whole Zod mess where he frog leaped a building and I was wondering wtf they were thinking.
Okay, you really don't seem to understand my argument, because I am not saying there are any exceptions to his rule. I'm saying there is a distinction between the general idea of killing and executions. Both involve the deaths of people, but there is a difference in intent.
From your posts, it seems you just legitimately don't see any difference between the accidental killing of a person in the chaos of combat vs the intentional killing of a person where it's avoidable. Which is kind of scary.
Yeah, there's something lost in communication here, because for hte last few points, I've been talking specifically about Nolan's batman. I wasn't referring to BvS batman at all except to say that he is distinct from Nolan's. And that he's a cunt.
That's because Nolan's rule is often misunderstood, though it's not helped by the fact that he often phrases it as "I won't kill"
What he actually means is "I will not execute". Which is different. Killing the middle of a fight, where he cannot be expected to have realistic control over a situation, is one thing. In that, he merely does everything he can to avoid killing while still completing his objective, but is not always successful. He always tries to incapacitate rather than kill.
You're pivoting away from that story you made up about 'kills' and 'executions' in the trilogy. Muddling up the communication. There was no distinction to be made about Batman's kills in the trilogy because he wasn't written to have killed anyone but Dent... Everything you're saying is really just an effort to prop up Nolan's Batman at this one's expense, but you're misguided on some points.
Again, it's pointless to compare kills or intent between the two because Snyder is intentionally going the opposite direction on that front as part of the story he's trying to tell.
Yeah, there's something lost in communication here, because for hte last few points, I've been talking specifically about Nolan's batman. I wasn't referring to BvS batman at all except to say that he is distinct from Nolan's. And that he's a cunt.
He is distinct from Nolan's in that it's Ben Affleck in the role, and Snyder directs a harder demeanor and character overall. But ultimately, it isn't that far off. You could easily take Nolan's Batman, bring him back out of retirement, and write him into a story similar to this one where he loses his faith and becomes a cunt. You couldn't do that with Adam West and have it fit.
Point is, even if you really hated Batman in BvS, he is salvageable. That's kinda the point of his arc... He was wrong, he sees that, and he's ready to redeem itself.
Watching this GIF over and over again, I couldn't figure out why I was so confused about the orientation and placement of the characters in the scene. Then I realised that camera is blatantly breaking the 180 degree rule after Batman jumps over the box. Why? This is pretty fucking basic camera stuff.
Watching this GIF over and over again, I couldn't figure out why I was so confused about the orientation and placement of the characters in the scene. Then I realised that camera is blatantly breaking the 180 degree rule after Batman jumps over the box. Why? This is pretty fucking basic camera stuff.
Watching this GIF over and over again, I couldn't figure out why I was so confused about the orientation and placement of the characters in the scene. Then I realised that camera is blatantly breaking the 180 degree rule after Batman jumps over the box. Why? This is pretty fucking basic camera stuff.
Here's what I replied to initially... You're pivoting away from that story you made up about 'kills' and 'executions' in the trilogy. Muddling up the communication. There was no distinction to be made about Batman's kills in the trilogy because he wasn't written to have killed anyone but Dent... Everything you're saying is really just an effort to prop up Nolan's Batman at this one's expense, but you're misguided on some points.
I disagree. He obviously is culpable in the deaths of various people. The movie doesn't have to outright literally say "I killed this guy. And that guy. And that guy." in order for it to have happened. We see it happen. More than that, you're taking the "Dent" admission out of context. He says it in the same breath as he said he killed all the people Dent killed, which is obviously untrue in any way.
So it seems the main crux of our disagreement is that you percieve Nolan's films as 'pretending' he hasn't killed people other than Dent. For me, that's kind of very obviously wrong, but whatever. If you're viewing the film that differently from how it happened, I'm not sure what to do with you.
Again, it's pointless to compare kills or intent between the two because Snyder is intentionally going the opposite direction on that front as part of the story he's trying to tell.
You're claiming that it's pointless to compare the two because they are different. That's....pretty silly, especially when you're very next point is how close Snyder and Nolans' visions are to each other.
So yeah, I disagree. They're very comparable, Snyder's just compares very unfavorably. Not just in terms of likability, but in terms of how the arc is written.
He is distinct from Nolan's in that it's Ben Affleck in the role, and Snyder directs a harder demeanor and character overall. But ultimately, it isn't that far off. You could easily take Nolan's Batman, bring him back out of retirement, and write him into a story similar to this one where he loses his faith and becomes a cunt. You couldn't do that with Adam West and have it fit.
Sure I can. It'd just be a very dark campy comedy instead of a light campy comedy. You could argue that itself wouldn't fit, but in that case, I argue that the loss of Nolan's idealistic tone wouldn't fit the narrative themes of Nolan's universe. The idealism is pretty central to the thesis of the character.
Point is, even if you really hated Batman in BvS, he is salvageable. That's kinda the point of his arc... He was wrong, he sees that, and he's ready to redeem itself.
Any character is salvagable, but only in the hands of a good writer. Zack Snyder isn't. His idea of a character gone good is Batman taking his same cruel and sadistic methods and pointing them at the right guy instead of the wrong guy. It's telling that in the UC,
Superman is mad at Batman over a lie (In that he circumvents law to carry out his own sentences on criminals),
but by the end,
the lie becomes truth (Batman circumvents the law to carry out his own sentence on Lex Luthor).
In Zack Snyder's hands, his redemption arc is to do the thing Superman was angry over him doing and then preparing for the next invasion by an alien force (darkseid) because Lex Luthor scares him into it. What a turnabout.
I'm not going after Snyder's take just because I personally dislike grimdark batman. I also didn't like Miller's Batman in TDKR, but I would say he was well written there, so I don't have huge issue with him. But this is a character that is irrationally paranoid and pointlessly destructive, who then is supposedly turned around at the end of the Superman for nonsensical reasons, and says then proceeds to apply the same methods to the new targets. He's badly written in addition to being a cunt.
I have to admit, this sequence is too distracting for me: how the hell does Batman put so much weight in moving the box, but it easily ricochets off of the goon? The box should have crashed onto the wall. Someone failed in the physics department...
If you can imagine it doesn't bounce off the goon, that Batman is still on the other end of the lines and he heaves it back towards himself just after it hits the goon. Works for me.
Watching this GIF over and over again, I couldn't figure out why I was so confused about the orientation and placement of the characters in the scene. Then I realised that camera is blatantly breaking the 180 degree rule after Batman jumps over the box. Why? This is pretty fucking basic camera stuff.
The opening is fantastic. I like how the Wayne murders are shot (heh heh). Then the tie in to Man of Steel is great. It's really tense and I love the man on the ground perspective. And I how Bruce is portrayed, running into the chaos to save people without a thought.
Oh here's Jimmy Olsen. Oh, he's gone. That's actually kind of shitty. I hope Jenny is his sister.
Though the extended sequence here adds quite a bit.
Jimmy Olsen is a shitty spy though. Oh, his nickname was Talon, huh?
I would actually illustrate a picture but I can't right now. The cut between the shot of Batman slamming the dude's head into the crate and the closeup of the crate switches the established orientation of the camera. Unless clearly re-established in a wide or something, you want to keep the camera on one side of the action, so it's clear who is facing who, and what direction characters are moving in.
Consider a basic conversation between two people. If you're cutting between close ups of the two characters talking to each other, but one shot is on the opposite side of the action, it'll appear as if they're facing the same direction, not facing each other. This applies to action as well, maybe even more so - because of the fast cuts, it's important that the viewer is well oriented so the action is easily digestible.
Here, because the camera cuts to the opposite side of the scene when the cut to the close up of the crate happens, Batman goes from moving to the left side of the screen to all of a sudden moving towards the right side of the screen. So it feels like he's turned around even though that's not what's supposed to be happening - he's supposed to be continuously moving in one direction towards the goons.
This isn't a major problem in this scene here, but it makes you wonder - if they can't get this fairly rudimentary sequence down pat, what are they doing with the rest of the action?
I assure you that had they corrected the orientation, it would feel like there's more momentum for Batman, because he would be moving harmoniously towards the left side of the screen for the whole way, building in momentum. Crossing the line breaks all the momentum, because now Batman is moving to the right.
This .gif reminds me why I disliked that fight so much. Beyond the weird angle changes, Batman pulling the box over his head is broken into three shots: starting to pull it, then a quick cut to it going over his head, then the box hitting the goon. But they're all from roughly the same angle, so the edits don't feel needed, and instead feel jarring. If that were one shot, panning from Bats to the pasted goon as the box sailed over his head, it would have looked awesome, instead of a jumble.
You mean when he swings Superman into those pillars? That definitely looked weird.
The only problem I have with the crate shot is the amount of centripetal force required to plant himself and then swing the crate overhead would be massive, regardless of how much help he's getting from the grapple gun. Physics doesn't really work that way, but physics is rarely accurate in movies so I find it hard to care too much.
Lex's motivations are still muddy at best in the UC but the implication seems to be he wants to disgrace Superman by forcing him to kill for selfish reasons.
Nah. When he shoots it into the goon's shoulder to pull him over. Long shots and close ups don't match at all. So in one shot he's turning right, and the other he's turning left. It's maybe two seconds and can be called pedantic but it stuck out to me.
This .gif reminds me why I disliked that fight so much. Beyond the weird angle changes, Batman pulling the box over his head is broken into three shots: starting to pull it, then a quick cut to it going over his head, then the box hitting the goon. But they're all from roughly the same angle, so the edits don't feel needed, and instead feel jarring. If that were one shot, panning from Bats to the pasted goon as the box sailed over his head, it would have looked awesome, instead of a jumble.
I would actually illustrate a picture but I can't right now. The cut between the shot of Batman slamming the dude's head into the crate and the closeup of the crate switches the established orientation of the camera. Unless clearly re-established in a wide or something, you want to keep the camera on one side of the action, so it's clear who is facing who, and what direction characters are moving in.
Consider a basic conversation between two people. If you're cutting between close ups of the two characters talking to each other, but one shot is on the opposite side of the action, it'll appear as if they're facing the same direction, not facing each other. This applies to action as well, maybe even more so - because of the fast cuts, it's important that the viewer is well oriented so the action is easily digestible.
Here, because the camera cuts to the opposite side of the scene when the cut to the close up of the crate happens, Batman goes from moving to the left side of the screen to all of a sudden moving towards the right side of the screen. So it feels like he's turned around even though that's not what's supposed to be happening - he's supposed to be continuously moving in one direction towards the goons.
This isn't a major problem in this scene here, but it makes you wonder - if they can't get this fairly rudimentary sequence down pat, what are they doing with the rest of the action?
Ah, I see what you mean. Appreciate the explanation. Never occurred to me how that breaks up the momentum even though I did feel it lacked some 'oomph'.
Nah. When he shoots it into the goon's shoulder to pull him over. Long shots and close ups don't match at all. So in one shot he's turning right, and the other he's turning left. It's maybe two seconds and can be called pedantic but it stuck out to me.
Lex's motivations are still muddy at best in the UC but the implication seems to be he wants to disgrace Superman by forcing him to kill for selfish reasons.
As far as anyone figures, the Batman is basically a terrorist that some endorse because he targets criminals.
As far as victims go, I doubt that too many people would shed too many tears over his death. I mean, we already have people saying he's responsible for the deaths of the people in Africa, on both sides.
So.....I'm just trying to imagine, if Superman killed the Batman....who'd really care?
As far as anyone figures, the Batman is basically a terrorist that some endorse because he targets criminals.
As far as victims go, I doubt that too many people would shed too many tears over his death. I mean, we already have people saying he's responsible for the deaths of the people in Africa, on both sides.
So.....I'm just trying to imagine, if Superman killed the Batman....who'd really care?
As far as anyone figures, the Batman is basically a terrorist that some endorse because he targets criminals.
As far as victims go, I doubt that too many people would shed too many tears over his death. I mean, we already have people saying he's responsible for the deaths of the people in Africa, on both sides.
So.....I'm just trying to imagine, if Superman killed the Batman....who'd really care?
Lex cares. I think it's just on principle to bring Superman down a notch symbolically. It's supposed to tarnish his godhood. I don't really buy into it too much but a lot of the BvS fans seem to love Lex's grandiose posturing.
Found it really dumb that the chief dignitary at freaking Superman's funeral was the Secretary of....something. You're telling me the President wouldn't attend?
Found it really dumb that the chief dignitary at freaking Superman's funeral was the Secretary of....something. You're telling me the President wouldn't attend?
Bah. I don't see why everyone loves this alfred so much.
He's practically a stereotype of Alfred. Barely does anything the whole movie except provide tech support and snark at Bruce. Which he's good at, admittedly, but it's a one trick pony. Even if we just count Batman Begins, Michael Caine gave his character such a larger range of interactions.
Lex cares. I think it's just on principle to bring Superman down a notch symbolically. It's supposed to tarnish his godhood. I don't really buy into it too much but a lot of the BvS fans seem to love Lex's grandiose posturing.
I assure you that had they corrected the orientation, it would feel like there's more momentum for Batman, because he would be moving harmoniously towards the left side of the screen for the whole way, building in momentum. Crossing the line breaks all the momentum, because now Batman is moving to the right.
Bah. I don't see why everyone loves this alfred so much.
He's practically a stereotype of Alfred. Barely does anything the whole movie except provide tech support and snark at Bruce. Which he's good at, admittedly, but it's a one trick pony. Even if we just count Batman Begins, Michael Caine gave his character such a larger range of interactions.
As far as anyone figures, the Batman is basically a terrorist that some endorse because he targets criminals.
As far as victims go, I doubt that too many people would shed too many tears over his death. I mean, we already have people saying he's responsible for the deaths of the people in Africa, on both sides.
So.....I'm just trying to imagine, if Superman killed the Batman....who'd really care?
eh.......I didn't feel it. Or even if I did, I didn't care. He can be as dangerous and menacing as he wants, it doesn't help much when all he does is play tech support when helping Bruce out.
I'm also unsure how good idea it is to make all Alfreds these hardcore badasses. Not that they can't be, I like Gotham's Alfred fine, but you generally want Alfred to contrast Bruce in some way. If Bruce is a gruff hardass taking advice from Alfred who is a grizzled hardass, you're not going to get much in the way of dynamic interaction. It'll mostly be an echo chamber.
Plus I can't escape the feeling that Iron's Alfred just doesn't give that much of a shit. He disagrees with Bruce going after Superman, but he doesn't put up much of a fight about it. It's just..."you should probably not do this thing. You're going off the hinges a bit" "Grrr, I'll kick his ass" "Alright, master Bruce, have it your way."
It's especially noticable after the BvS fight. He doesn't sound relieved or happy he's okay or anything, even though he fully expected him to die in this fight. It's just "Okay, next mission is in a warehouse? Okay, I'll google maps it then"
Bah. I don't see why everyone loves this alfred so much.
He's practically a stereotype of Alfred. Barely does anything the whole movie except provide tech support and snark at Bruce. Which he's good at, admittedly, but it's a one trick pony. Even if we just count Batman Begins, Michael Caine gave his character such a larger range of interactions.
But he's already convinced himself that Superman is a god or he is but he can't be both good and all powerful or
Uhh, Caine did the following: make breakfast and give advice. That is about it Calling Irons one trick pony but naming Caine Alfred as the better one...yeah no. Irons did way more. He actually helps on missions, does research, builds stuff and still takes care of Bruce etc. If anything Caine was the stereotype Alfred; the loveable grandpa figure. And at least he didn't bail on Bruce...
