Post: #26

I'm surprised nobody noticed that this thread was about Naan.




Man of Steel was long depressing, and I don't remember anything about it. This movie was too long too. Could have shaved off a good 30 minutes and it would still make about the same amount of sense.

Post: #27

(03-28-2016 08:55 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 08:53 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  I'm a big film buff and was at a major film festival a couple years ago and had the opportunity to discuss editing with William Goldenberg. He's an Oscar winning editor ( and has nominated 38 times so he knows his shit) and one of things we talked about directors fucking up a movie by doing their own editing. The example he gave me was ZERO DARK THIRTY He said the director (Kathryn Bigelow) actually had compiled over 12 hours of actual footage and because they's worked together on HURT LOCKER and it was in his contract that he had final cut she had relatively little input over the final product. She let a professional editor do what he does best...edit

This. I've heard Star Wars was a beneficiary of the same concept: Lucas shot a lot of footage, but his wife edited the footage (and from memory got an Oscar for it) and what emerges is a fantastic piece of work.

It makes sense. The editor doesn't have the same emotional investment or attachment to the movie. Their job is to know what works and what doesn't.

Post: #28

(03-28-2016 09:33 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 08:55 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 08:53 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  I'm a big film buff and was at a major film festival a couple years ago and had the opportunity to discuss editing with William Goldenberg. He's an Oscar winning editor ( and has nominated 38 times so he knows his shit) and one of things we talked about directors fucking up a movie by doing their own editing. The example he gave me was ZERO DARK THIRTY He said the director (Kathryn Bigelow) actually had compiled over 12 hours of actual footage and because they's worked together on HURT LOCKER and it was in his contract that he had final cut she had relatively little input over the final product. She let a professional editor do what he does best...edit

This. I've heard Star Wars was a beneficiary of the same concept: Lucas shot a lot of footage, but his wife edited the footage (and from memory got an Oscar for it) and what emerges is a fantastic piece of work.

It makes sense. The editor doesn't have the same emotional investment or attachment to the movie. Their job is to know what works and what doesn't.

If there's one shot that really, really works in the movie, it's one that was shown in the trailers: the shot of Bruce Wayne running into the dustcloud of his falling building. This was about as fantastic an illustration of the character and his situation as you could get. Normal people are terrified and run away when a building is collapsing close by them. Bruce Wayne runs towards the disaster. At full tilt. Not a moment's hesitation, not a moment's despair for all the people who must have died, he only cares about saving who can be saved. It works as a metaphor, too, I realise, sitting here a couple days after seeing the film: Wayne runs towards the disaster and figuratively into the "moral grey area" that Superman's existence creates within the film's universe. We can hear whispering the old adage: "Americans for generations have marched towards the sound of the guns." It's an extraordinary shot, and for once Snyder knows better than to pretty it up with slow motion bullshit: the shot sells Affleck as Batman ten times more than the most fanserviced suit ever could.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #29

(03-28-2016 06:25 PM)kbell Wrote:  Lex Luther was horrific. ... does not have a commanding presence like the character should.

Lex wasn't nearly as smart as he's supposed to be (he's supposed to make Tony Stark look like a moron) and there was no menace to the character. He was a little crazy - like a low-grade Joker - not the calm, reserved guy from either the comics or the JLU animated series.

(03-28-2016 06:25 PM)kbell Wrote:  Batman killed quite a few people in this. I liked that, no half measures, but out of character for him.

So did Supe - it's out of character for both. It's like Snyder and Goyer HATE the characters. Their version of Supe is completely different than anything we've seen - and not in a good way.

(03-28-2016 06:25 PM)kbell Wrote:  the bullet subplot seemed like it would have been more interesting if developed more.

Why would Lex take the time to set up Superman only to leave behind bullets that could easily be traced to him?

Commander: "Mr Luthor, we're ready to leave on this top secret mission to make Superman look like a bad guy, should we use untraceable standard NATO rounds?"

Lex: "No, use these bullets that are only made by my company."

Commander: "Are you sure? Are they special in some way? Will they help the mission?"

Lex "No, why do you ask?"

Snyder and Goyer: "Now THAT'S what we call plot development! Start clearing a space for our Oscar!"

(03-28-2016 06:25 PM)kbell Wrote:  Also the bats lifting him out of the hole was stupid too. Its was not well displayed the difference between a dream or real life either.

I'm pretty sure that was a dream sequence. Not sure about how Bats got a vision/dream about Parademons, Darkseid or the Flash.

Post: #30

It's OK.

Ben Affleck did surprisingly well as Batman/Bruce Wayne. All of the actors gave at least decent performances - even the chick who plays Wonder Woman and Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. I felt like that the movie came in as less than the sum of its parts but not awful.

I admit that I only watched it to get through the last 3 hours of intermittent fasting so I could break at 10PM. But if you feel like killing some time, it will entertain.

I wouldn't have gone to see it myself otherwise but would have if friends had said "let's go". If cable or netflix has it on, give it a watch if you're in the mood for an action flick.

I think that the critics vindictively wanted to tear it apart since they think Zack Snyder time-they-can-never-get-backed raped them with Sucker Punch. They wanted revenge. It certainly deserved a certification of fresh on rottentomatoes.com at just above 60%. I've seen far worse. I enjoyed it far more than the first two fantastic fours, which had about the same score.

We need to remember that the critics and journalists do collude. Just look at how they went after Captain Capitalism and ROK over Mad Max: Feminist Road and Social Justice Wars: The Faggoting Awakens.

Post: #31

(03-28-2016 10:19 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 06:25 PM)kbell Wrote:  Lex Luther was horrific. ... does not have a commanding presence like the character should.

Lex wasn't nearly as smart as he's supposed to be (he's supposed to make Tony Stark look like a moron) and there was no menace to the character. He was a little crazy - like a low-grade Joker - not the calm, reserved guy from either the comics or the JLU animated series.

I'll have to avoid this thread due to spoilers but I'm not surprised they went with a low rent Joker style villain.

Serious question for anybody who has seen it - do you see the setup right now as being conducive to good sequels?

I'm not going to rule out that it's possible for the first movie in a series to suck somewhat while it places a context for the rest of the story to kick ass.

Post: #32

(03-28-2016 09:17 PM)kbell Wrote:  

I'm surprised nobody noticed that this thread was about Naan.

IRT Supernaan

Post: #33

(03-28-2016 11:32 PM)Hades Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 10:19 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 06:25 PM)kbell Wrote:  Lex Luther was horrific. ... does not have a commanding presence like the character should.

Lex wasn't nearly as smart as he's supposed to be (he's supposed to make Tony Stark look like a moron) and there was no menace to the character. He was a little crazy - like a low-grade Joker - not the calm, reserved guy from either the comics or the JLU animated series.

I'll have to avoid this thread due to spoilers but I'm not surprised they went with a low rent Joker style villain.

Serious question for anybody who has seen it - do you see the setup right now as being conducive to good sequels?

I'm not going to rule out that it's possible for the first movie in a series to suck somewhat while it places a context for the rest of the story to kick ass.

Doing some clicking around on the Net, it appears that the inclusion of the "setup" scenes was not part of the original vision of the film. Per this Collider page:

Quote:In an interview that will be on Collider soon, producer Deborah Snyder revealed to us that this Flash sequence didn’t become part of the movie’s script until the middle of production, when Zack Snyder and Co. were in the midst of developing the outline for Justice League and Snyder sparked to the idea of including this bridge of sorts between the two movies. So this makes us think that we’ll get to see the other side of this Flash sequence in that 2017 superhero team-up film.

That's why the scenes with other metahumans come across as bolted on at the last minute: because, at least in the Flash's case, that's pretty much exactly what they were. Again, the film is trying to serve too many functions: it wants to introduce Batman, have him take on Superman, have him make friends with Superman, introduce Lex Luthor, give Superman a chance to fight Lex Luthor and/or Doomsday, introduce Wonder Woman, and then give Batman, Wonder Woman, and Superman some reason to form the Justice League.

I don't have a problem with setting up for future films. Despite its other sins, Star Wars: The Farce Awakens did a masterful job of that by making the entire film a Macguffin quest for a cameo of Mark Hamill. My main issue is that it's just not done well in BvS. The rationale for the Justice League forming at all comes down to Batman's one line right at the end of the film: "Just a feeling." Even sitting in the theatre I lost suspension of disbelief at that point.

Is the setup conducive to good sequels? Maybe -- but the whole thing feels a lot like building an airplane while it's taking off.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #34

A much better movie (assuming you wanted to keep the elements of this one) would have been to have Bats and Supe fighting in the first 45 minutes. This fight attracts WW's attention and she comes to town. Bats and Supe resolve their differences and TOGETHER investigate Lex's plan, it's connection to their original fight and find hints of Darkseid's involvement. Once they discover what Lex up to, it's too late, Doomsday is created and the ending follows as seen.

Having both the BvS and Doomsday fights at the end created huge pacing problems in the movie giving us over 2 hours of setup with very little action (in a superhero action movie) followed by 45 minutes of destruction porn.

Post: #35

(03-28-2016 11:32 PM)Hades Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 10:19 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 06:25 PM)kbell Wrote:  Lex Luther was horrific. ... does not have a commanding presence like the character should.

Lex wasn't nearly as smart as he's supposed to be (he's supposed to make Tony Stark look like a moron) and there was no menace to the character. He was a little crazy - like a low-grade Joker - not the calm, reserved guy from either the comics or the JLU animated series.

I'll have to avoid this thread due to spoilers but I'm not surprised they went with a low rent Joker style villain.

Serious question for anybody who has seen it - do you see the setup right now as being conducive to good sequels?

I'm not going to rule out that it's possible for the first movie in a series to suck somewhat while it places a context for the rest of the story to kick ass.

It sets up sequels - whether they're good or not is another story. Since you haven't seen it, maybe I should say why but it does end on a bit of a cliffhanger.

Post: #36

I actually really enjoyed it but there were a number of issues I had with it..

Lex Luthor is suppose to be a rich, large and strong villain. What we get is a small, frail villian who talks about "daddy" repeatedly. I would've liked to see the actor who played Kingpin in Dare Devil Season 1 (vincent d'onofrio) instead we got a mad scientist type Lex Luthor which is not how I envisioned him.

Ben Affleck was great as Batman and Henry Cavill was a reasonable Superman though I find him about as boring as it gets he played the role well.

Lois Lane was way to old compared to what I'd expect to be Supermans girlfriend. I expect Supermans girlfriend to be 25-30 not 40+.

Gal Gadot in my opinion was a very good Wonderwoman.

Post: #37

They're already releasing deleted scenes.

Post: #38

(03-28-2016 11:41 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 09:17 PM)kbell Wrote:  

I'm surprised nobody noticed that this thread was about Naan.

IRT Supernaan

IRT Supernaan and Spidernaan

Post: #39

(03-29-2016 12:57 AM)lavidaloca Wrote:  Lois Lane was way to old compared to what I'd expect to be Supermans girlfriend. I expect Supermans girlfriend to be 25-30 not 40+.

On the other hand, she does have bigger tits than Gal Gadot and had at least a little more to show of them in that bathtub scene.

Amy Adams is 41 - within reason, I'd call her a Wall resister if not a Wall survivor. Check out some shots from Night at the Museum 2 where they squeeze her into jodphurs, she's got a pretty fucking nice ass for that age.



But yes, it's a bit odd that she's banging Cavill, who's 32.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #40

I've just watched this and found it even worse than the reviews here. This is a horrible clusterfuck of a movie that makes zero sense and inspires zero emotion. Even the action sequences are horrible because of over-reliance on explosions and collapsing buildings.

Some random comments - SPOILERS FROM THIS POINT ON:

- More than half of the movie could be cut and the nonsensical story would not suffer one bit. All the time spent on the bullet plot and whatnot was totally pointless. There are way too many dreams, hallucinations and visions.

- The filming and editing is really bad - scenes are rushed and chaotically jumping around while shots (segments which together make a scene) are slow and fake. This is probably a consequence of Snyder's insane obsession with imitating the (already quite autistic) comic book panels shot-for-shot.

- Lex Luthor is possibly the most unconvincing villain in cinematic history. Some hipster faggot menacing and hatching plans of world domination? Please. Also, his lines sound like someone threw a dictionary into a random number generator.

- Out of all the new DC superheroes to introduce in this movie, Wonder Woman is possibly the worst choice. The movie already suffers boredom from containing the overpowered and immortal Superman, and Wonder Woman (despite being a pleasant and well-acted character overall) doesn't help.

- Ben Affleck as Batman turned out fine (although I'm not sure why his eyes are glowing), but Jeremy Irons as Alfred seems wooden and needlessly antagonistic. He doesn't seem loving or devoted at all and the characters don't even seem to like working together.

- Action sucks, with most of it consisting of A) explosions B) buildings collapsing and C) people being thrown around or performing stupid ramming attacks. Is Superman capable of doing anything except charging someone through a wall?

- Instead of keeping the enemy roster low-key, the movie straight-out jumps to planet-destroying monsters. Watching planet-destroying monsters endlessly ramming each other is NOT fun at all.

Conclusion: 2/10, WNW

Post: #41

(03-31-2016 06:40 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Is Superman capable of doing anything except charging someone through a wall?

Be nice if they had a villain Supe had to OUTTHINK as he fought him.

I guess they did in a sense. He had, and failed, to outthink Batman and ended up getting his ass kicked.

Post: #42

I liked the movie.

I loved the music/score throughout the movie. Snyder clearly copied Superman's interpretation in the movie from the way he portrayed Dr. Manhatten in Watchmen.

Almost identical comparison to God, by having a bunch of TV giving a bunch of philosophical implications of his existence.


Also the whole framing Superman to make him look like a badguy was a copy of Ozymandias in Watchmen framing Dr. Manhatten, making it look he destroyed all the major cities in the world.

For anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about...go watch the Watchmen.

Post: #43

The movie was awful...

Spoilers..



Batman is ready to kill Superman -- until its revealed that their mothers shared the same name.

Really? Great plot..

Post: #44

(03-31-2016 11:19 PM)Nascimento Wrote:  The movie was awful...

Spoilers..



Batman is ready to kill Superman -- until its revealed that their mothers shared the same name.

Really? Great plot..

Jesus christ that sounds like fan fiction hack writing. I'm not going to see this pile of shit in the theater anyways. Just the trailer itself looked lame.

Post: #45

It was...a...



It was like a decent soup, then they decided to put everything they found in the kitchen in there hoping to make it better. Only just to ruin the very basic soup. Like chicken noodle but they thought adding cat food would make it taste better.

The premise was weak in the first place - so it could have only been a decent movie, then they just started fucking it up.

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


1) First of all Superman could do better than Lois Lane, 2 years has been rough on her.
2) If she would have killed the monster at the end, I would have just walked out.
3) The script had so many fucking flaws - he can hear her pounding for help while underwater - but can't hear batman reloading his kryptonite grenade launcher??

Post: #46

(03-31-2016 08:45 PM)VforVlad Wrote:  For anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about...go watch the Watchmen.

Watchmen was a very good movie with an interesting plot, clever dialogues and great character balance between the immortal and ordinary characters, plus vastly superior filming, editing and effects.

Whether it's due to Zack Snyder adapting the material better, the material itself being better, DC having more/less control over the production, I really can't say, but the great Watchmen and this clusterfuck of a movie seem hardly comparable. Just try contrasting the quiet menacing presence of Ozymandias with the arrogant nervous wreck that is Lex Luthor.

Post: #47

(04-01-2016 03:40 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(03-31-2016 08:45 PM)VforVlad Wrote:  For anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about...go watch the Watchmen.

Watchmen was a very good movie with an interesting plot, clever dialogues and great character balance between the immortal and ordinary characters, plus vastly superior filming, editing and effects.

Whether it's due to Zack Snyder adapting the material better, the material itself being better, DC having more/less control over the production, I really can't say, but the great Watchmen and this clusterfuck of a movie seem hardly comparable. Just try contrasting the quiet menacing presence of Ozymandias with the arrogant nervous wreck that is Lex Luthor.

Shortest answer I suspect is the script. David Hayter gets comics (he was also responsible for the X-Men and X-Men 2 scripts). He wrote the original incarnation of the script, and Alan Moore (who otherwise hated the whole fucking idea) said that the way Hayter wrote it was about as close as you could get to a faithful adaptation of his story.

Hayter was originally slated to direct and write it, but pulled out over creative differences. Alex Tse then redid the script. Dave Gibbons (who did the artwork) was an adviser on the film.

As movies go, it's a decent shot at adapting a comic book, but I think it's Watchmen's brilliance as a graphic novel, and Moore/Gibbons' brilliance as inadvertent storyboaders, that shines through more than Synder's filmmaking skills. The film has the same gloomy mis en scene all through it. We can perhaps breathe a sigh of relief that it didn't make much over its production budget, guaranteeing it'll never have a sequel.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #48

(04-01-2016 04:04 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  As movies go, it's a decent shot at adapting a comic book, but I think it's Watchmen's brilliance as a graphic novel, and Moore/Gibbons' brilliance as inadvertent storyboaders, that shines through more than Synder's filmmaking skills. The film has the same gloomy mis en scene all through it. We can perhaps breathe a sigh of relief that it didn't make much over its production budget, guaranteeing it'll never have a sequel.

That opening credits scene for Watchmen is pretty great though and really reminds you of the graphic novel. Zach Snyder hasn't really done anything on that level in a long time though. His work has a flamboyant style over substance feel to it much like Michael Bay's shit.

Post: #49

Post: #50

(04-01-2016 12:43 AM)samsamsam Wrote:  1) First of all Superman could do better than Lois Lane, 2 years has been rough on her.
2) If she would have killed the monster at the end, I would have just walked out.
3) The script had so many fucking flaws - he can hear her pounding for help while underwater - but can't hear batman reloading his kryptonite grenade launcher??

Re: #3 How the fuck did anyone figure out that Luthor was responsible for the bombing? That was the perfect crime. It was like they sent him to prison just so they'd have an excuse to make him bald.

And how was Superman able to pick up the kryptonite pike that incapacitated him 30 mins earlier and fly with it?

The writers blew their load by using Doomsday and then butchering his origin/powers. A better choice for the climatic fight would've been Metallo. Luthor could've built him for the gov't as a Superman deterrent but embedded software that would let him manually control the robot. Or Solomon Grundy since they clearly wanted a super-strong creature who could cause massive damage.

But DC live-action movies are hit or miss:

They're direct-to-dvd films are very good, much better than Marvel's: