|
Post by johnnyb on Mar 23, 2016 9:22:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Mar 23, 2016 10:11:37 GMT -5
Saw the reviews are pretty poor. My expectation is the same. I'm expecting to see Affleck kill it as Batman. Then I'm going to leave the theater, complaining about the same thing I've been complaining about for more than a year. Why aren't we getting Batfleck in a solo film with Leto and Robbie? I'm shooting for Saturday afternoon in IMAX 3D. Reviews never really affected me one way or the other honestly. I loved Lone Ranger, after the critics seemingly intentionally buried what was a good film imo. Empire Records, Van Wilder, ing Boondock Saints. Critics swing and miss all the time and they tend to have a hive mentality. I'm not saying BvS is going to be great despite critics, I'm honestly expecting a MoS like experience, but I've enjoyed tons of films that critics have hated. So seeing poor RT reviews doesn't change anything imo. And yeah, good or bad, this movie might make enough money despite itself. Look at Transformers. Revenge of the Fallen and Age of Extinction were absolutely atrocious films. Both made tons of money. We're still getting Transformers 5. To a slightly lesser degree, I'd argue the exact same about Iron Man 3. As long as they end up in the black, the studio will continue to pump these out. The merchandising alone is probably enough to keep them going steady. Financial success is something I love to see when a movie is good, but when a bad film from a brand name franchise manages to make tons of money, I'm never really surprised. Financial success is never a point of argument in regards to quality though, ever.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 9, 2024 11:20:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 10:16:57 GMT -5
Batman v Superman looks like it's going to be the worst movie ever.
Ben Affleck is the worst actor ever, that's for sure. He will ruin this movie just like he ruins every other movie he is in.
The movie looks cheap, like it was made on a lap top.
Superman's costume is too dark. It should be royal blue and red not navy blue and maroon. Also, Superman doesn't kill.
I'll probably go see it on Saturday.
|
|
|
Post by tylerbreezee on Mar 23, 2016 10:43:25 GMT -5
Saw the reviews are pretty poor. My expectation is the same. I'm expecting to see Affleck kill it as Batman. Then I'm going to leave the theater, complaining about the same thing I've been complaining about for more than a year. Why aren't we getting Batfleck in a solo film with Leto and Robbie? I'm shooting for Saturday afternoon in IMAX 3D. Reviews never really affected me one way or the other honestly. I loved Lone Ranger, after the critics seemingly intentionally buried what was a good film imo. Empire Records, Van Wilder, ing Boondock Saints. Critics swing and miss all the time and they tend to have a hive mentality. I'm not saying BvS is going to be great despite critics, I'm honestly expecting a MoS like experience, but I've enjoyed tons of films that critics have hated. So seeing poor RT reviews doesn't change anything imo. And yeah, good or bad, this movie might make enough money despite itself. Look at Transformers. Revenge of the Fallen and Age of Extinction were absolutely atrocious films. Both made tons of money. We're still getting Transformers 5. To a slightly lesser degree, I'd argue the exact same about Iron Man 3. As long as they end up in the black, the studio will continue to pump these out. The merchandising alone is probably enough to keep them going steady. Financial success is something I love to see when a movie is good, but when a bad film from a brand name franchise manages to make tons of money, I'm never really surprised. Financial success is never a point of argument in regards to quality though, ever. Where did you see them? I've been seeing that they're saying the movie was amazing..
|
|
|
Post by tylerbreezee on Mar 23, 2016 10:48:27 GMT -5
I got my tickets to BVS for Friday at 7. This theatre is a big Regal one so I'm not sure when I should get there. I saw Catching Fire opening night, I had to get there an hour earlier, but for the last two I got there an hour early and it wasn't that bad but HG's doesn't have nearly the fan base DC does.
|
|
|
Post by MacReady on Mar 23, 2016 10:53:23 GMT -5
Batman v Superman looks like it's going to be the worst movie ever. Ben Affleck is the worst actor ever, that's for sure. He will ruin this movie just like he ruins every other movie he is in. The movie looks cheap, like it was made on a lap top. Superman's costume is too dark. It should be royal blue and red not navy blue and maroon. Also, Superman doesn't kill. I'll probably go see it on Saturday. Cool story. I, for one, don't care what reviewers say; I'm still RIDICULOUSLY excited for this one. My anticipation is through the roof.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Mar 23, 2016 11:01:37 GMT -5
Saw the reviews are pretty poor. My expectation is the same. I'm expecting to see Affleck kill it as Batman. Then I'm going to leave the theater, complaining about the same thing I've been complaining about for more than a year. Why aren't we getting Batfleck in a solo film with Leto and Robbie? I'm shooting for Saturday afternoon in IMAX 3D. Reviews never really affected me one way or the other honestly. I loved Lone Ranger, after the critics seemingly intentionally buried what was a good film imo. Empire Records, Van Wilder, ing Boondock Saints. Critics swing and miss all the time and they tend to have a hive mentality. I'm not saying BvS is going to be great despite critics, I'm honestly expecting a MoS like experience, but I've enjoyed tons of films that critics have hated. So seeing poor RT reviews doesn't change anything imo. And yeah, good or bad, this movie might make enough money despite itself. Look at Transformers. Revenge of the Fallen and Age of Extinction were absolutely atrocious films. Both made tons of money. We're still getting Transformers 5. To a slightly lesser degree, I'd argue the exact same about Iron Man 3. As long as they end up in the black, the studio will continue to pump these out. The merchandising alone is probably enough to keep them going steady. Financial success is something I love to see when a movie is good, but when a bad film from a brand name franchise manages to make tons of money, I'm never really surprised. Financial success is never a point of argument in regards to quality though, ever. Where did you see them? I've been seeing that they're saying the movie was amazing.. www.rottentomatoes.com/m/batman_v_superman_dawn_of_justice/
|
|
|
Post by tylerbreezee on Mar 23, 2016 11:04:10 GMT -5
I guess to the critics its bad because reviews from people who saw the premiers say it was amazing. Critics shredded one of my favorite movies but I still thought it was amazing, so whateves. Guess they did the same to this
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 9, 2024 11:20:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 11:07:42 GMT -5
Batman v Superman looks like it's going to be the worst movie ever. Ben Affleck is the worst actor ever, that's for sure. He will ruin this movie just like he ruins every other movie he is in. The movie looks cheap, like it was made on a lap top. Superman's costume is too dark. It should be royal blue and red not navy blue and maroon. Also, Superman doesn't kill. I'll probably go see it on Saturday. Cool story. I, for one, don't care what reviewers say; I'm still RIDICULOUSLY excited for this one. My anticipation is through the roof. I'm happy for you and everyone else excited about this movie. I think it's going to stink just like Man of Steel, Batman Begins, and the Dark Knight Rises. All three of those movies were horrible and this one will be too. There were a few good parts in Man of Steel like when Jor El was flying around on that creature in the building but there weren't enough good parts to get me to watch the DVD copy of the movie I bought after seeing it in theatres and not liking it. The Dark Knight was really good though. Batman v Superman is going to be booty. After all go see it on Saturday I'm going to go to Target and buy all of the toys. Then I'm going to go home and play my own version of the movie which I think will be better.
|
|
|
Post by LtD73 on Mar 23, 2016 14:06:02 GMT -5
Batman v Superman looks like it's going to be the worst movie ever. Ben Affleck is the worst actor ever, that's for sure. He will ruin this movie just like he ruins every other movie he is in. The movie looks cheap, like it was made on a lap top. Superman's costume is too dark. It should be royal blue and red not navy blue and maroon. Also, Superman doesn't kill. I'll probably go see it on Saturday. Cool story. I, for one, don't care what reviewers say; I'm still RIDICULOUSLY excited for this one. My anticipation is through the roof. Same here, just ordered my ticket for Man Of Steel then Batman v Superman at midnight, I can't ing wait for it, I've grown tired of Marvels kid friendly cinematic universe so I'm welcoming this more dark/gritty DC Universe. 26 hours and I'll be starting my double feature
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Mar 23, 2016 14:16:29 GMT -5
There are a few reasons this movie is getting pretty poor reviews, in my opinion (having seen the movie): - This is not a Marvel movie. Tonally it is totally different. I mean that in a positive way... I don't think the tone being so much darker necessarily makes it a better or worse movie, but audiences that have been conditioned to the Marvel movies may not respond positively to this one.
- It's very much an inside baseball type of movie. By that I mean most audiences are going to jump into this without a ton of information, which is one of the growing pains associated with world-building from the inside out instead of more organically like the MCU. As a longtime DC fan I understood everything that was going on but to the average person who only knows the very basics about Batman and Superman, a lot of this movie might not make sense.
- And honestly, it's just about the Zack Snyderist Zack Snyder movie ever, both good and bad. The good being that it's visually spectacular and really looks different than everything else out there. It is better than Man of Steel because they're letting Zack be Zack. The flip side of that, though, is that those spectacular visuals and action scenes sometimes come at the expense of more coherent storytelling.
All of that said, I really enjoyed the movie and from what I've heard from others that have seen it more than once, it improves upon repeat viewing. Can't wait to see it again tomorrow night.
|
|
|
Post by Word™ on Mar 23, 2016 16:30:06 GMT -5
There are a few reasons this movie is getting pretty poor reviews, in my opinion (having seen the movie): - This is not a Marvel movie. Tonally it is totally different. I mean that in a positive way... I don't think the tone being so much darker necessarily makes it a better or worse movie, but audiences that have been conditioned to the Marvel movies may not respond positively to this one.
- It's very much an inside baseball type of movie. By that I mean most audiences are going to jump into this without a ton of information, which is one of the growing pains associated with world-building from the inside out instead of more organically like the MCU. As a longtime DC fan I understood everything that was going on but to the average person who only knows the very basics about Batman and Superman, a lot of this movie might not make sense.
- And honestly, it's just about the Zack Snyderist Zack Snyder movie ever, both good and bad. The good being that it's visually spectacular and really looks different than everything else out there. It is better than Man of Steel because they're letting Zack be Zack. The flip side of that, though, is that those spectacular visuals and action scenes sometimes come at the expense of more coherent storytelling.
All of that said, I really enjoyed the movie and from what I've heard from others that have seen it more than once, it improves upon repeat viewing. Can't wait to see it again tomorrow night.
That is easily the poorest excuse a DC fan can make.. I haven't read one review that dislikes BvS because it's not a Marvel movie or not like a Marvel movie. Everything I read has to do with the pacing, the story, the editing, the character development, and the direction.. And you mentioned the world building, alot of the reviews talk about how forced it feels. People are extremely accepting of movies that differentiate from the norm of whatever genre.. I don't think anyone on this planet is expecting BvS to be crafted like a Marvel film.
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Mar 23, 2016 18:41:25 GMT -5
There are a few reasons this movie is getting pretty poor reviews, in my opinion (having seen the movie): - This is not a Marvel movie. Tonally it is totally different. I mean that in a positive way... I don't think the tone being so much darker necessarily makes it a better or worse movie, but audiences that have been conditioned to the Marvel movies may not respond positively to this one.
- It's very much an inside baseball type of movie. By that I mean most audiences are going to jump into this without a ton of information, which is one of the growing pains associated with world-building from the inside out instead of more organically like the MCU. As a longtime DC fan I understood everything that was going on but to the average person who only knows the very basics about Batman and Superman, a lot of this movie might not make sense.
- And honestly, it's just about the Zack Snyderist Zack Snyder movie ever, both good and bad. The good being that it's visually spectacular and really looks different than everything else out there. It is better than Man of Steel because they're letting Zack be Zack. The flip side of that, though, is that those spectacular visuals and action scenes sometimes come at the expense of more coherent storytelling.
All of that said, I really enjoyed the movie and from what I've heard from others that have seen it more than once, it improves upon repeat viewing. Can't wait to see it again tomorrow night.
I don't think movie goers have been conditioned in any way. Dark Knight was a darker movie and was great, while Dark Knight Rises was a darker movie and ended up being a disappointment to most viewers. It all has to do with story and development. Marvel took there time and built everything to the Avengers movie. People knew what to except going in and Marvel didn't need to explain what was happening because they did that in the previous 4 movies. I love Marvel and DC but from the moment I heard about this movie I was skepticle. DC knows they are 10 years behind Marvel and WB is trying to catch up in one movie. They should have simply took Marvel's blueprint and taken there time. No I haven't seen the movie but will Friday night, but reviews seem to be confirming my initial thoughts. I hope I'm wrong and that this is a hit. I think Batfleck could be the best live action Batman yet.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Mar 23, 2016 19:25:32 GMT -5
There are a few reasons this movie is getting pretty poor reviews, in my opinion (having seen the movie): - This is not a Marvel movie. Tonally it is totally different. I mean that in a positive way... I don't think the tone being so much darker necessarily makes it a better or worse movie, but audiences that have been conditioned to the Marvel movies may not respond positively to this one.
- It's very much an inside baseball type of movie. By that I mean most audiences are going to jump into this without a ton of information, which is one of the growing pains associated with world-building from the inside out instead of more organically like the MCU. As a longtime DC fan I understood everything that was going on but to the average person who only knows the very basics about Batman and Superman, a lot of this movie might not make sense.
- And honestly, it's just about the Zack Snyderist Zack Snyder movie ever, both good and bad. The good being that it's visually spectacular and really looks different than everything else out there. It is better than Man of Steel because they're letting Zack be Zack. The flip side of that, though, is that those spectacular visuals and action scenes sometimes come at the expense of more coherent storytelling.
All of that said, I really enjoyed the movie and from what I've heard from others that have seen it more than once, it improves upon repeat viewing. Can't wait to see it again tomorrow night.
I don't think movie goers have been conditioned in any way. Dark Knight was a darker movie and was great, while Dark Knight Rises was a darker movie and ended up being a disappointment to most viewers.It all has to do with story and development. Marvel took there time and built everything to the Avengers movie. People knew what to except going in and Marvel didn't need to explain what was happening because they did that in the previous 4 movies. I love Marvel and DC but from the moment I heard about this movie I was skepticle. DC knows they are 10 years behind Marvel and WB is trying to catch up in one movie. They should have simply took Marvel's blueprint and taken there time. No I haven't seen the movie but will Friday night, but reviews seem to be confirming my initial thoughts. I hope I'm wrong and that this is a hit. I think Batfleck could be the best live action Batman yet. The Dark Knight Rises was a disappointment because it just wasn't very good. But it's worth noting what else happened in between TDK and Rises: six Avengers movies made in as mainstream a fashion as possible. TDKR did well financially, in part, because The Dark Knight was so freaking good (and popular). Had TDKR come out in 2008 in the wake of Batman Begins, I bet it isn't a billion dollar movie. I don't disagree with any of the rest of your points... the movie, even with several release date adjustments and a substantial delay, comes across as being rushed. I still really, really liked it but I won't deny that it's big screen reverse-engineering and there are some growing pains associated with that.
|
|
|
Post by Word™ on Mar 23, 2016 20:52:39 GMT -5
I don't think movie goers have been conditioned in any way. Dark Knight was a darker movie and was great, while Dark Knight Rises was a darker movie and ended up being a disappointment to most viewers.It all has to do with story and development. Marvel took there time and built everything to the Avengers movie. People knew what to except going in and Marvel didn't need to explain what was happening because they did that in the previous 4 movies. I love Marvel and DC but from the moment I heard about this movie I was skepticle. DC knows they are 10 years behind Marvel and WB is trying to catch up in one movie. They should have simply took Marvel's blueprint and taken there time. No I haven't seen the movie but will Friday night, but reviews seem to be confirming my initial thoughts. I hope I'm wrong and that this is a hit. I think Batfleck could be the best live action Batman yet. The Dark Knight Rises was a disappointment because it just wasn't very good. But it's worth noting what else happened in between TDK and Rises: six Avengers movies made in as mainstream a fashion as possible. TDKR did well financially, in part, because The Dark Knight was so freaking good (and popular). Had TDKR come out in 2008 in the wake of Batman Begins, I bet it isn't a billion dollar movie. I don't disagree with any of the rest of your points... the movie, even with several release date adjustments and a substantial delay, comes across as being rushed. I still really, really liked it but I won't deny that it's big screen reverse-engineering and there are some growing pains associated with that. Yet, The Dark Knight Rises remains a critical success even 4 years after its release.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Mar 23, 2016 21:40:52 GMT -5
The Dark Knight Rises was a disappointment because it just wasn't very good. But it's worth noting what else happened in between TDK and Rises: six Avengers movies made in as mainstream a fashion as possible. TDKR did well financially, in part, because The Dark Knight was so freaking good (and popular). Had TDKR come out in 2008 in the wake of Batman Begins, I bet it isn't a billion dollar movie. I don't disagree with any of the rest of your points... the movie, even with several release date adjustments and a substantial delay, comes across as being rushed. I still really, really liked it but I won't deny that it's big screen reverse-engineering and there are some growing pains associated with that. Yet, The Dark Knight Rises remains a critical success even 4 years after its release. Well it's not like reviews of it are suddenly going to change... I personally think it's a lousy movie and I know more people that disliked it than liked it. The larger point I'm trying to make is that this movie shouldn't be compared to Marvel when deciding whether it's successful or not. Marvel by and large makes very commercially safe movies. DC, in what I want to believe is a creative choice, doesn't do that so they're going to be very polarizing.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Mar 23, 2016 21:46:56 GMT -5
I havent even see the movie yet and I like it. I dont care about critics or pacing or anyone else opinion...its ING BATMAN!!!
|
|
|
Post by Word™ on Mar 23, 2016 22:21:47 GMT -5
Yet, The Dark Knight Rises remains a critical success even 4 years after its release. Well it's not like reviews of it are suddenly going to change... I personally think it's a lousy movie and I know more people that disliked it than liked it. The larger point I'm trying to make is that this movie shouldn't be compared to Marvel when deciding whether it's successful or not. Marvel by and large makes very commercially safe movies. DC, in what I want to believe is a creative choice, doesn't do that so they're going to be very polarizing. This movie isn't being compared to Marvel, tho.. None of the critical reviews I've read has said anything about it not being enough like Marvel. And while I'm at it, I think calling Marvel "commercially safe" is bias towards a more "creative" or edgy DC brand that hasn't proven itself in the slightest. Marvel established a movie universe by taking a HUGE risk.. They gambled their life when they built towards The Avengers. Nothing they did was commercially safe.. Some of their movies might have started to follow a formula, but this is completely after the fact. Warner Bros is doing everything in their power to risk nothing. And because they are not taking any risk, playing the short game instead of the long game, they are looking at back to back critical failures.. Which is flat out awful when trying to establish a franchise.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Mar 23, 2016 22:48:56 GMT -5
Well it's not like reviews of it are suddenly going to change... I personally think it's a lousy movie and I know more people that disliked it than liked it. The larger point I'm trying to make is that this movie shouldn't be compared to Marvel when deciding whether it's successful or not. Marvel by and large makes very commercially safe movies. DC, in what I want to believe is a creative choice, doesn't do that so they're going to be very polarizing. This movie isn't being compared to Marvel, tho.. None of the critical reviews I've read has said anything about it not being enough like Marvel. And while I'm at it, I think calling Marvel "commercially safe" is bias towards a more "creative" or edgy DC brand that hasn't proven itself in the slightest. Marvel established a movie universe by taking a HUGE risk.. They gambled their life when they built towards The Avengers. Nothing they did was commercially safe.. Some of their movies might have started to follow a formula, but this is completely after the fact. Warner Bros is doing everything in their power to risk nothing. And because they are not taking any risk, playing the short game instead of the long game, they are looking at back to back critical failures.. Which is flat out awful when trying to establish a franchise. Virtually every review I read has some variation of "it's joyless, too dark, not enough humor", that's what I mean by Marvel conditioning. Tim Burton's Batman movies would get BvS reviews today... Iron Man was a game-changer. And I'll just agree to disagree about Marvel's approach vs. DC's.
|
|
Cameron Stone
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 16, 2013 18:16:15 GMT -5
Posts: 2,014
|
Post by Cameron Stone on Mar 23, 2016 23:58:07 GMT -5
While there was still plenty of humor in it, Captain America Winter soldier was a much more serious film than the rest of the MCU and it remains one of the most loved in the franchise.
You can be more serious without being joyless. It's Batman/Superman/Wonder Woman on screen together in live action finally. There should be some semblance of awe, wonder and at least a bit of fun to that.
I like the DC comics more than Marvel, but Marvel is killing it in the movies. Snyder is just the wrong man to being Justice League to life. They way they are gong none of them are going to have different personalities, they'll all just be dark, serious and grumbling. Seeing the Justice League together likely won't feel as awesome as it should.
I just really wish they didn't hitch to Snyder. Terrio is an awful writer as well.
I do look forward to the Wonder Woman movie though. Gadot was awesome, and I have a feeling that film is going to be a lot more enjoyable.
|
|