• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice

Gathomas88

Gathomas88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
18,803
Location
Charleston, South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Unfortunately, I'm working straight through till next Tuesday, so I won't have a chance to see this for the better part of a week. From what I'm seeing online, however, the word isn't good.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice*(2016) - Rotten Tomatoes

Low 30s on Rotten Tomatoes right now. People are calling it "boring," "overbloated," an "incoherent mess," and a "beautiful disaster." Ouch.

If anyone sees it, can you post a review? I'm curious to see what you think.

I'm hoping that it will be watchable at the very least. It'd really suck if this turned out to be a repeat of the whole "Amazing Spiderman" fiasco a few years back.
 
Last edited:
There may be a meaningful split between audiences and critics on this one and I won't partake for a long time anyhow.

But there seems to be a couple of arguments that are made about it by critics.

The first seems to rely on the assumption that Marvel's film formula must be the gold standard. That means aside from all of the smash smash we need to go "ha ha ha!" about something cutesy every 5-10 minutes. Those of us liking "darker" films (including Snyder's take on Watchman) reject that notion.

The second is much more worthy of discussion: overcrowding. In some ways Marvel films could have suffered from this fate much earlier than it did. Trying to get the whole gang together or introduce the whole gang in a 2-3 hour time frame is really tricky and more often than not fails. I was totally interested in the film through the teasers and the title of the film itself. A duel between Batman and Superman in the aftermath of Man of Steel is very much doable--and compelling. You could even have a little tease at the end of the film hinting at the need for something greater than their distrust of one another. Bing, good arc, easily doable. But then the first big trailer happened and we see that not only is there a Wonder Woman, but the whole notion of Batman v Superman is truncated in favor of yet another baddy......in addition to the slew of men and women superheroes with need for screen time to hint at further film ventures.

So you have to balance it all out, which is incredibly difficult. It's made all the more difficult because at least Marvel gave you previews via stand-alone films and didn't try to squish all of these people together until the Avengers. But you can definitely tell Warner (and Snyder) are wanting to do its take on what Marvel films has done. Maybe it should try it and have its lovely little world, but I'd be more than pleased if they resisted that temptation on the big screen and just focused on smaller stories. Let the growing tv platform provide those arcs. It's much more enjoyable instead of tedious (a fault Marvel films are quickly devolving into, in my view).

But hey, at least we are potentially going to get an actual sequel to Man of Steel and an Affleck-directed Batman film down the road, eh?
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
There may be a meaningful split between audiences and critics on this one and I won't partake for a long time anyhow.

But there seems to be a couple of arguments that are made about it by critics.

The first seems to rely on the assumption that Marvel's film formula must be the gold standard. That means aside from all of the smash smash we need to go "ha ha ha!" about something cutesy every 5-10 minutes. Those of us liking "darker" films (including Snyder's take on Watchman) reject that notion.

The second is much more worthy of discussion: overcrowding. In some ways Marvel films could have suffered from this fate much earlier than it did. Trying to get the whole gang together or introduce the whole gang in a 2-3 hour time frame is really tricky and more often than not fails. I was totally interested in the film through the teasers and the title of the film itself. A duel between Batman and Superman in the aftermath of Man of Steel is very much doable--and compelling. You could even have a little tease at the end of the film hinting at the need for something greater than their distrust of one another. Bing, good arc, easily doable. But then the first big trailer happened and we see that not only is there a Wonder Woman, but the whole notion of Batman v Superman is truncated in favor of yet another baddy......in addition to the slew of men and women superheroes with need for screen time to hint at further film ventures.

So you have to balance it all out, which is incredibly difficult. It's made all the more difficult because at least Marvel gave you previews via stand-alone films and didn't try to squish all of these people together until the Avengers. But you can definitely tell Warner (and Snyder) are wanting to do its take on what Marvel films has done. Maybe it should try it and have its lovely little world, but I'd be more than pleased if they resisted that temptation on the big screen and just focused on smaller stories. Let the growing tv platform provide those arcs. It's much more enjoyable instead of tedious (a fault Marvel films are quickly devolving into, in my view).

But hey, at least we are potentially going to get an actual sequel to Man of Steel and an Affleck-directed Batman film down the road, eh?
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly. Watchmen is a great movie, IMO, and Man of Steel was decent. The fact that several of the reviewers I read slammed them alongside BvS was sending up some "red flags" for me to say the least.

I don't care if the film is dark and brooding, or even a little bit on the overly long side. I care if it's an unwatchable mess, like the second rebooted Spiderman sequel turned out to be. That's going to be the major test here, especially given the concerns regarding "overcrowding" you mentioned above.

I guess I'll just have to wait and see. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
There may be a meaningful split between audiences and critics on this one and I won't partake for a long time anyhow.

But there seems to be a couple of arguments that are made about it by critics.

The first seems to rely on the assumption that Marvel's film formula must be the gold standard. That means aside from all of the smash smash we need to go "ha ha ha!" about something cutesy every 5-10 minutes. Those of us liking "darker" films (including Snyder's take on Watchman) reject that notion.

The second is much more worthy of discussion: overcrowding. In some ways Marvel films could have suffered from this fate much earlier than it did. Trying to get the whole gang together or introduce the whole gang in a 2-3 hour time frame is really tricky and more often than not fails. I was totally interested in the film through the teasers and the title of the film itself. A duel between Batman and Superman in the aftermath of Man of Steel is very much doable--and compelling. You could even have a little tease at the end of the film hinting at the need for something greater than their distrust of one another. Bing, good arc, easily doable. But then the first big trailer happened and we see that not only is there a Wonder Woman, but the whole notion of Batman v Superman is truncated in favor of yet another baddy......in addition to the slew of men and women superheroes with need for screen time to hint at further film ventures.

So you have to balance it all out, which is incredibly difficult. It's made all the more difficult because at least Marvel gave you previews via stand-alone films and didn't try to squish all of these people together until the Avengers. But you can definitely tell Warner (and Snyder) are wanting to do its take on what Marvel films has done. Maybe it should try it and have its lovely little world, but I'd be more than pleased if they resisted that temptation on the big screen and just focused on smaller stories. Let the growing tv platform provide those arcs. It's much more enjoyable instead of tedious (a fault Marvel films are quickly devolving into, in my view).

But hey, at least we are potentially going to get an actual sequel to Man of Steel and an Affleck-directed Batman film down the road, eh?
Click to expand...

I find this a fundamental misunderstanding of what critics are saying. They're saying it lacks 'fun', not gags. The Nolan Batman movies had 'fun' in them, whether it was Bruce and Alfred playing off each other or Bruce play acting the billionaire playboy. It made the serious stuff have meaning. Man of Steel had less 'fun', in my opinion, but there's still Superman flying for the first time to make you feel some kind of joy.

Looking at the reviews it actually takes the worst of both worlds when it comes to Marvel vs DC. It lacks less and less fun like MoS offered but also cruses it under the weight of world building that Iron Man 2 offered. I am not looking forward to this movie, but I'll just have to see the car crash for myself.
 
I enjoyed it. Better than Man of Steel, not to the level of the Nolan Batman movies.

If you go in expecting a Marvel movie, you're going to be disappointed. But you set yourself up for that. At their hearts, Marvels big movies and DC's big movies are both "action" movies. However, Marvel tosses in a dose of comic tropes while I think DC tends to throw more drama tropes in. That holds true here.

I wasn't really digging the movie at first, something felt off...then something clicked for me. Take this as an "alternate universe" story, similar to Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns (which clearly influenced portions of this). Once I did that, things kind of settled in. Everyone...especially Batman and Lex...are "off" from what you expect and know out of the characters and they feel weird. But once you accept that alternate reality notion and view them within the prism of this universe, as opposed to the comics, they actually work very well (Batman more than Luther).

Is it flawless? No. Are there some major problems? Sure. The movie simultaneously felt too long and yet rushed. It felt disjointed to me, as if it was filled with multiple acts that didn't flow from one to another well. It had some plot holes. And it also is CLEARLY establishing and overall universe and is a "set up" movie, with a lot of things that would be annoying had I not have the knowledge that more movies are coming. But overall, it was a good action flick that was generally engrossing and did a good job juggling all the big players.
 
Zyphlin said:
I enjoyed it. Better than Man of Steel, not to the level of the Nolan Batman movies.

If you go in expecting a Marvel movie, you're going to be disappointed. But you set yourself up for that. At their hearts, Marvels big movies and DC's big movies are both "action" movies. However, Marvel tosses in a dose of comic tropes while I think DC tends to throw more drama tropes in. That holds true here.

I wasn't really digging the movie at first, something felt off...then something clicked for me. Take this as an "alternate universe" story, similar to Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns (which clearly influenced portions of this). Once I did that, things kind of settled in. Everyone...especially Batman and Lex...are "off" from what you expect and know out of the characters and they feel weird. But once you accept that alternate reality notion and view them within the prism of this universe, as opposed to the comics, they actually work very well (Batman more than Luther).

Is it flawless? No. Are there some major problems? Sure. The movie simultaneously felt too long and yet rushed. It felt disjointed to me, as if it was filled with multiple acts that didn't flow from one to another well. It had some plot holes. And it also is CLEARLY establishing and overall universe and is a "set up" movie, with a lot of things that would be annoying had I not have the knowledge that more movies are coming. But overall, it was a good action flick that was generally engrossing and did a good job juggling all the big players.
Click to expand...

Good review Zyph, thanks for that.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Unfortunately, I'm working straight through till next Tuesday, so I won't have a chance to see this for the better part of a week. From what I'm seeing online, however, the word isn't good.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice*(2016) - Rotten Tomatoes

Low 30s on Rotten Tomatoes right now. People are calling it "boring," "overbloated," an "incoherent mess," and a "beautiful disaster." Ouch.

If anyone sees it, can you post a review? I'm curious to see what you think.

I'm hoping that it will be watchable at the very least. It'd really suck if this turned out to be a repeat of the whole "Amazing Spiderman" fiasco a few years back.
Click to expand...

Well look who they picked to be Batman: Ben Afleck... Geezus! Bad casting.

As for the whole plot (which I've already seen in the cartoon version) hard to allow for a mechanized Batman really standing up to Superman absent the kryptonite advantage. :shrug:

I'll still watch it tho...when it's $4.99 on cable.
 
Looks awful.

Another idiotic superhero film aimed at 12 year old boys.
 
They used to be such friends.

worldsfinest01.jpg
 
It was just an utter bore.

There are so many fundamental movie making mistakes it's not worth going into scripting.

An example is that they have this traditional set-up scene where Perry is searching for Clarke in the office, asking in a comical manner where does Clarke go all the time? Movie making logic would say you should cut to a scene where Superman is being Superman. It's ****ing basic movie making.

But the next scene has zero connection. The previous scene had zero connection.

It was just a random scene.
 
Craptastic. Batfleck was about the only redeeming thing in the film.
 
They put too much into it and it affected the pacing by a lot. There was a lot of stuff they could have cut out like the flashbacks and the dream sequences and it wouldnt have affected the plot at all. By the time the real fight begins the audience was bored already. I gotta admit I was impressed by Ben Affleck- he is way better than Christian Bale was in the role, which is surprising.

Superman seems kinda dumb in this movie. The guy who runs the Daily Planet also seems like an idiot because he cant seem to figure out that Clark Kent and Supes are one and the same. Aquaman and the Flash are wasted in very short cameo roles. And the worst thing is that Batman doesnt care about killing people- he just guns them down in his batwing or lets them die- that isnt like him- otherwise, why would he use his fists? He would be using a gun. This movie would have been a lot better if they cut out the dream sequences and replaying Batman's origin again- everybody knows it by now so why keep going with it?

For the record, I liked Man of Steel but the rest of Snyder's movies have been pretty bad. I dont have faith in Goyer as a director either so I have modest expectations for Suicide Squad.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Well look who they picked to be Batman: Ben Afleck... Geezus! Bad casting ~
Click to expand...

Affleck 0 from 3 then by the looks of it?

When I heard he was in I mentally told myself not to bother. Hopefully Hollywood will learn from this and never cast him as a superhero again but 3 bad movies later, you wonder.
 
PoS said:
They put too much into it and it affected the pacing by a lot. There was a lot of stuff they could have cut out like the flashbacks and the dream sequences and it wouldnt have affected the plot at all. By the time the real fight begins the audience was bored already. I gotta admit I was impressed by Ben Affleck- he is way better than Christian Bale was in the role, which is surprising.

Superman seems kinda dumb in this movie. The guy who runs the Daily Planet also seems like an idiot because he cant seem to figure out that Clark Kent and Supes are one and the same. Aquaman and the Flash are wasted in very short cameo roles. And the worst thing is that Batman doesnt care about killing people- he just guns them down in his batwing or lets them die- that isnt like him- otherwise, why would he use his fists? He would be using a gun. This movie would have been a lot better if they cut out the dream sequences and replaying Batman's origin again- everybody knows it by now so why keep going with it?

For the record, I liked Man of Steel but the rest of Snyder's movies have been pretty bad. I dont have faith in Goyer as a director either so I have modest expectations for Suicide Squad.
Click to expand...

Holy Cow Batman... using a gun!!!! What happened to Zimm! Zaam! KaPOW!




I guess I'll wait till it's free on HBO. :-(
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Affleck 0 from 3 then by the looks of it?

When I heard he was in I mentally told myself not to bother. Hopefully Hollywood will learn from this and never cast him as a superhero again but 3 bad movies later, you wonder.
Click to expand...

Or you could watch the movie and see that Affleck was just fine in this role.
 
PoS said:
They put too much into it and it affected the pacing by a lot. There was a lot of stuff they could have cut out like the flashbacks and the dream sequences and it wouldnt have affected the plot at all. By the time the real fight begins the audience was bored already. I gotta admit I was impressed by Ben Affleck- he is way better than Christian Bale was in the role, which is surprising.

Superman seems kinda dumb in this movie. The guy who runs the Daily Planet also seems like an idiot because he cant seem to figure out that Clark Kent and Supes are one and the same. Aquaman and the Flash are wasted in very short cameo roles. And the worst thing is that Batman doesnt care about killing people- he just guns them down in his batwing or lets them die- that isnt like him- otherwise, why would he use his fists? He would be using a gun. This movie would have been a lot better if they cut out the dream sequences and replaying Batman's origin again- everybody knows it by now so why keep going with it?

For the record, I liked Man of Steel but the rest of Snyder's movies have been pretty bad. I dont have faith in Goyer as a director either so I have modest expectations for Suicide Squad.
Click to expand...

Watchmen was OK. 300 was dreadful.
 
As others have said, it was disjointed to a distracting degree.


Affleck kind of meh as Batman imo.


I'm not really letting anything out of the bag, if you've seen previews by saying

the fight scene between Batman and Superman could have been better. They modeled it somewhat on the graphic novel I read in the 80s, but the fight in that book was better. So were the reasons for it.


The flip-focus on Superman-as-flying-disaster-area by Bruce Wayne was an interesting perspective, insufficiently explored as a motivator.


All in all, it was okay. I was reasonably entertained. It had potential to be a lot more though.
 
BTW, I finally got around to watching new Stars War movie...it sucked. Not an original bit in the whole film.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Affleck 0 from 3 then by the looks of it?
Click to expand...

0 for 3?

Daredevil
Batman v Superman (though I'd contest that this was hardly a "bad" movie, and that Afleck was one of the better parts)
????

What was the third?

In terms of name brand superhero movies, this one is definitely above most of the sewer dwelling "Bad" ones over the years.
 
Kobie said:
Watchmen was OK. 300 was dreadful.
Click to expand...

I didnt like Watchmen, I thought it was a piss poor adaptation of the awesome comic book by Alan Moore.
 
PoS said:
I didnt like Watchmen, I thought it was a piss poor adaptation of the awesome comic book by Alan Moore.
Click to expand...

I honestly thought the ending of the film was better than the Space Octopus
 
Alright... I just got back from seeing it.

My opinion? It was "okay" with some "eh" features here and there.

I don't think it was as good as the first Avengers film, or Deadpool, but it's hardly the "disaster" people are making it out to be either. It just has some pacing issues, takes itself a tad too seriously, suffers from a few mildly annoying "Snyderisms," and has some clunky plot elements. It more than redeems itself by the end, however.


Pros

- Cavil is fine as Superman, as usual.

- Affleck as Batman (or - rather - Bruce Wayne) is actually one of the highlights of the film. He has a certain weary, low-key, cynical and unhappy intensity about him which serves the character well.

He's a bit more kill-happy (or, at the very least, more blasé with regard to the consequences of extreme violence) than usually depicted, and some people have been complaining that he seems to come off as being a "psychotic thug" as such. To that, I say - where the former is concerned - it's a little jarring at first, but you ultimately get over it, and - to the later - yea, that's kind of the whole point. He's Batman, he's supposed to have "issues," and that is clearly what Affleck was going for in his performance.

Hell! They even bring up Bruce Wane's (so far ignored in cinema) promiscuity... Albeit in a subtle way. He casually mentions at least one tryst, and more than once, we see an anonymous, faceless, and basically irrelevant female body sharing his bed in the morning scenes. The implication being that these women ultimately mean as little to the film as they do to Bruce himself. It's clever, and I appreciate that; basically James Bond without the romanticization of such behavior that usually entails.

It's also interesting to note that this version of Bruce's parents (played, amusingly enough, by Maggie and Negan from 'The Walking Dead') are actually shot because they try to fight back. I wonder what we're meant to take from that.

- Wonder Woman was pretty good, I thought. Her "formal" introduction was actually one of the best scenes in the movie.

First off, Gal Gadot is freaking gorgeous (just throwing that out there lol).

Secondly, she fit the right balance with regard to personality and performance. She didn't come off as being "over the top"/"in your face" in her abilities, or overly butch. She was simply serious, and competent, while remaining distinctly feminine. They left it at - as "matter of factly" as they could - which worked surprisingly well. Her abilities, when she finally appeared in costume, didn't strain suspension of disbelief at all for that reason (IMO, anyway).

- The actual fight between Batman and Superman is decent enough (the best they could do without making it seem ridiculous, I suppose).

- The final battle with Doomsday is cool, and pretty well done. They even corrected one of Man of Steel's more glaring flaws by accounting for civilian, collateral, damage, and moving the fight out of the city's populated areas. They also set it at night, so the effects are less obvious.​


Cons

- The dream sequences. Ugh. They're hokey, add very little, and tack an extra thirty minutes on to the film's running time. All I can figure is that they're meant to set something up in a sequel (given the appearance of a 'time traveler' in the final one).

- Lex Luthor. His plan ultimately turns out to be interesting, but I really didn't like Jessie Eisenberg's performance nevertheless.

Put bluntly, Loki, he is not. He comes off as being an annoying little twerp more than anything else. They should have stuck with Kevin Spacey. Lol

- Some of Batman's more heavily choreographed fight scenes really stretched suspension of disbelief (see 'annoying Snyderisms' above). Why is Batman able to skitter along ceilings like freaking Spiderman? Is it one of his "wonderful toys?" Establish it then. For that matter, it looks like a lot of the goons he fights deliberately hesitate before pulling the trigger for no reason other than plot convenience. This whole aspect of the film could have been handled better.

- Lois Lane still feels like a bit of a "third wheel." There are also waaaay too many convenient plot elements revolving around her.

How does she always know precisely where Superman is? How does he always know precisely where she is? That could have probably used an establishing scene of some sort (no, Africa really wasn't good enough).

- Some of the lines meant to feel "deep" and "thought provoking" fall short of the intended mark.

- The ending third of the film feels a bit rushed in comparison to what came before.

- I think introducing Doomsday and Darkseid this early in the game is a bit pre-mature.​

....

In any eventuality, it's leaps and bounds better than any of the "Fantastic 4" movies, or cinematic train wrecks like "Daredevil," and the "Amazing Spiderman 2." I'm okay with that. :shrug:

Overall: 6.8 out of 10
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom