Batman v Superman Shrugs Off Reviews, Heads For $180 Million Weekend

He's clearly moved away from his excessive use of slow motion and other camera tricks. He has a lot better focus on the action and it's much easier to follow what is going on in his films now. That scene with Batman and the thugs was one of the best Batman action scenes I have ever seen in a movie (a live action one at least). It looked like it was pulled right out one of the Arkham games. It seemed like how you'd expect Batman to fight and be able to take down so many people at once. No other Batman movie, even the Nolan ones, have managed to capture just how brutal of a fighter Batman can be.

All of the versions of Batman have been reflections of the character at different times. Adam West's version was based on a Batman confined by the Comic Book Code, in an era were comic books were silly and incredibly campy. An era where you'd see Batman turned into Bat-Baby or fight telepathic plants (I am not kidding). As you move into the late 80s with Burton's Batman you're post Watchmen, post Dark Knight Returns, in an era where comics are changing. DC is experimenting with darker takes on their characters and getting more serious with their stories. Comics were still a little cheesy and campy, but they had abandoned the Comic Book Code and were able to tell more in-depth stories. A few years prior to Burton's first Batman the very first major comic book crossover event story had happened with Crisis on Infinite Earths. Batman Returns was just insanely out of character and kind of bad. The Schumacker films were attempts to recapture the more fun era of comics and Batman, try to get back to Adam West while also mixing in some of that terrible 90s-ness of comics. On the TV side of things you had Batman: The Animated Series. A Batman that was almost 100% true to the character at that time. Moving to Nolan's trilogy. There were clearly hints to different types of Batman over the years. A little of the early to mid 2000s Batman with some influence from Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns and a few other stories. Nolan's Joker is straight out of both Alan Moore's The Killing Joke and Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth (if you haven't read that. do so). He also mixed in a tiny amount of realism to the movies that got progressively less real as time went on. I'd argue that Snyder's Batman is actually one of the MOST comic book Batmen that have been on screen. He was ripped right out of the pages of Dark Knight Returns. Everything he does in the movie feels like something that older, rather beaten down and broken, version of Batman would have done. His reaction to Superman and how Lex manipulated him? Yeah, that's totally Frank Miller's Batrman. Outside of the animated ones this is the most comic book Batman to ever exist outside of comics. The entire movie is EXTREMELY comic book-y. Especially with the grimdark tone that DC freaking loves to cram into everything these past five years (I'll be so fucking glad to see New 52 end in a couple months).
 
Batfleck wasn't terrible, the people that wrote this screenplay however should never ever work again. In order for ANY story to work all of the stories characters MUST have actual believable goals. The best superhero movies have villains who don't view themselves as just plain evil... and their motivations need to make sense at least to them. I still have no idea at all what this films lex had in his mind as a goal. I am still pretty confused as to why Batflecks goals where what they where... and the horrid deus ex machina that flips the "you must die" to an "I love you man" is laughable, seriously in one of the most unfun popcorn movies I have ever seen that was the only point in the film Where I heard any laughter in the theater. I could rant for a page about the ham fisted product placement, I'll just leave it there. As for the screenwriting which I know I already put down... you can tell the guys responsible never attended a basic writing class (or bothered reading a book on the subject). Really 5 dream sequences and one presented in a way where it was extremely confusing as I think that perhaps part of it wasn't supposed to be a dream... I mean even as a viewer who understood a good bit of what they where showing me from my nerd life, it was confusing. My wife was completely lost and I have been turning her geek for over 15 years now.

Going in I expected I would likely hate Batfleck and be ok with the overly dark yet still entertaining everything else. To my surprise coming out, I liked the Batfleck and mostly just feel sad for poor Ben who so badly wants to be a Superhero and just can't catch a break. I did however hate almost everything else. WW was fine even if her scenes where pretty forced at least I got a short lived "cool" when she shows up... even if we had pretty much been shown 50% of her screen time in trailers. I found myself beyond annoyed that the only other female characters in the film where shown as weak sad sacks who are in need of saving in almost every scene they're in. (seriously I think the only lois lane scene where she isn't in need of saving is a terrible Romantic scene where she starts saying something deep and gets distracted by a pretty flower) I considered if this was a half way decent film taking my preteen daughter to see this over spring break, but no no no that won't be happening.

I still have hopes the suicide squad film will be good... however after dishing out to go and see this. I will be waiting till I get a feel for the reviews for any DC film I ever go to see from here on out. If they can manage to score a 70 or better RT score I will bother, after this one they will have to prove its worth spending $ on from here out.
 
Last edited:
It is incredibly divisive. I figured that would be the case. The Marvel movies are fun, a little campy, and fairly light. They're what most people imagine when they think of superheroes. BvS on the other hand, is really none of those. It's not hard to see why opinions on it are so radically split. Doesn't help that WB wasn't able to spend several years building a universe like Marvel did.

This is a very good point. DC should have realized they needed to go slow. All the placement in this one feels extremely forced, as does the main plot.

I always felt DC had the better stable of Villains over marvel. I mean Luther is one of the best villains of all time, and they give us this version. Instead of spending so much time retelling batmans story and hinting at his inner turmoil, 10 min spent setting Luther up with an actual motivation... not to mention a well thought out plan could have made this a much better film. (what they did is akin to a hack novelist having their Villain cackling in act 3 with a "that was my plan all along... you stupid good guy")

Its to bad DC didn't go at this the other way around and do some of those smaller setup movies first. Clearly they didn't want to miss the chance to cash in.... 5-6 years of setup movies and they might have missed the whole Comic Book Movie blockbuster cycle. There is a real chance by 2022 no one will want to see another superhero movie ever again. :) lol
 
I have a feeling the vast majority of the first weekend take was the huge number of people who really wanted this to be a good movie, and who intentionally avoided reviews to minimize spoilers.

That would be me. Although I did see it was getting pretty lackluster reviews so that kind of softened the blow.

I didn't think it was a terrible movie. It could have been a whole hell of a lot worse. I'd give it an average/satisfactory score. I sure would like to see Zack Snyder not on the future movies but that's unlikely to happen.
 
Beat us over the head with his Origin? You mean the scene that is done within the opening credits? If it was a 20 minute retelling maybe I would agree, but not something that is over by the end of the opening credits. I will give you that they don't fully explain why he is so callous. But, it is touched on during the conversation with Bruce and Alfred. It's also hinted at with the shot of Robin's suit.
Batman-V-Superman-Robin-Suit.jpg


This is a post "A Death in the Family" batman.
The reason Batman is beatdown or callous is because he's been grinding bad guys for over 20 years with nothing to show for it. Get rid of one bad guy another takes his place.
On top of that he's got this super being that destroyed his building with workers he cared about I suppose.

The death of his parents was crucial for the film because, it tied in with superman's mother. both named martha. very shallow and thin I know, but that was the shared emotional universe between batman vs superman
 
critics hate it because it was a terrible movie... I watched it opening night and spent the entire time going "what?!"

I feel bad for Ben, he could have been a good batman if it wasn't for terrible writing and directing

what was wrong with Ben? I thought he was the best batman ever on film. He carried the haunted, beaten down, callous batman down pat.
 
Can somebody confirm whether or not Batman shoots up a bunch of guys execution-style with a gun? I heard that, and refused to see the movie - it's very much against the character. Even Frank Miller's Batman at his darkest isn't that bad. Unless the bullets are rubber.
stop reading, see the movie for yourself.
batman does nothing extreme that he hasnt done in any other batman movie.
 
Can somebody confirm whether or not Batman shoots up a bunch of guys execution-style with a gun? I heard that, and refused to see the movie - it's very much against the character. Even Frank Miller's Batman at his darkest isn't that bad. Unless the bullets are rubber.
Execution style? No, but he is definitely not afraid to use guns.
 
Can somebody confirm whether or not Batman shoots up a bunch of guys execution-style with a gun? I heard that, and refused to see the movie - it's very much against the character. Even Frank Miller's Batman at his darkest isn't that bad. Unless the bullets are rubber.
There are some scenes where he's in a flying vehicle and is using a gun and blowup in cars and people are by the cars.He has a gun that shoots some type of Krypton gas grenades. There's a scene where someone throws a grenade at him and he reflects it back to them. There's definitely nothing where he is executing guys ... It's definitely more darker than we are used to from Batman but I think he's getting old and just sick of it all. He's bitter and is starting to fight dirty.

I think the main reason people don't like the movie is because they have a preconceived opinion about Ben Affleck. I think he did fine and I do not think Christian Bale would of been the right choice for this Batman. He's better in a lead role.
.
 
not true.

400 million to break even which it already did over the weekend with its global tally.

800 million was to bank roll the other movies and really they will pay for themselves.

Your math is off. You are assuming that box office gross is profit... which it is not. The guys that put up big box theaters don't just get paid in popcorn sales. :)

They claim to have spent 250mil making it... which means they likely spent 250 mil promoting it world wide. Which puts the cost closer to 500 mil (even if you assume 400 mil box off still needs to be 800 to break even).

The way movies make money at the theater is also front loaded... meaning the Production company/distribution company get a higher % opening weekend, which then slowly goes down each weekend. That happens for 2 reasons 1) because the big production companies like WB can... cause what theater can survive it they don't show the block busters... and 2) as a way to keep theater owners pushing there movies for awhile even if newer bigger blockbusters come along.

Hollywood doesn't talk much about numbers cause they like it being a secret. They have lots of contracts that pay out based on profits... in the past even people like Eddie Murphy and funny enough Stan Lee have had to sue production companies that have claimed no profit on massive hits to get out of paying up.

This one cost a ton though in marketing and production no doubt... I think 800 mil is a conservative break even point. I would guess the real number is closer to 1 bil, and the studio is happy with that. They will make profit on the Disc and Internet sales and streaming deals for years. Never mind toys and all the licencing opportunities.

Unless people stop going completely in week 2 and sales stop around 500-600 mil (World wide) WB will be very happy with where they end up. They have to much riding on the future of the DC movies to say anything accept "where very very happy" anyway.
 
Can somebody confirm whether or not Batman shoots up a bunch of guys execution-style with a gun? I heard that, and refused to see the movie - it's very much against the character. Even Frank Miller's Batman at his darkest isn't that bad. Unless the bullets are rubber.

He's not afraid to fight dirty, he breaks limbs and makes sure they don't get up. I don't believe it is ever implied he directly executes or finishes anyone off but you can insinuate from the way he fights the bad guys that some people don't survive.

If you want to know the full spoiler.

The scene where he starts shooting people up was in a nightmare he was having.
 
stop reading, see the movie for yourself.
batman does nothing extreme that he hasnt done in any other batman movie.


Yar, you're probably right. I'm off today for Easter so maybe I'll convince the kid to go see it with me tonight.
 
I really don't know if they could have. Marvel has such a huge lead on them and, quite frankly, WB does not have an Iron Man or a Robert Downy Jr. They can't really build it off of yet another Batman movie and Man of Steel really failed to do so. With as dark as WB is trying to do things (even though they said JL would be a little lighter) I think they lack the fun that made Iron Man work.

You are also over looking the years of content they are ignoring or tossing out. Even now. They are making a cluster fuck and that is it. Arrow and the flash on the CW are both doing very well. Both of these shows have already introduced the Suicide Squad along with a few of the characters now being recast for the movie. Of course this is the multiverse so different Earth, thus different people. You have a flash that people like, again being recast new actor and nothing tied to the series.
You have Super girl that I thought was supposed to be the same world as the movies. Nope, again different Earth. Not even the same earth as Arrow and The Flash as the flash (from the CW series) has to travel to a new Earth to get to the one where super girl is at.

So they are making tv series that are not all related to each others, nor are they tied to the movies. They have been remaking movies over and over again instead of advancing the stores. How many times do we need to learn how superman came to be superman? How many times do we need to learn about batman and what happen to his family? If they had been moving forward with their stories they would be in about the same place as Marvel.
 
You are also over looking the years of content they are ignoring or tossing out. Even now. They are making a cluster fuck and that is it. Arrow and the flash on the CW are both doing very well. Both of these shows have already introduced the Suicide Squad along with a few of the characters now being recast for the movie. Of course this is the multiverse so different Earth, thus different people. You have a flash that people like, again being recast new actor and nothing tied to the series.
You have Super girl that I thought was supposed to be the same world as the movies. Nope, again different Earth. Not even the same earth as Arrow and The Flash as the flash (from the CW series) has to travel to a new Earth to get to the one where super girl is at.

So they are making tv series that are not all related to each others, nor are they tied to the movies. They have been remaking movies over and over again instead of advancing the stores. How many times do we need to learn how superman came to be superman? How many times do we need to learn about batman and what happen to his family? If they had been moving forward with their stories they would be in about the same place as Marvel.

While WB is making a clusterfuck out of it at times, I actually prefer how them keeping the TV and movie stuff separate. Agents of SHIELD is held back by having to be in the MCU and constantly having to react to the movies. The movies don't return the favor anyway so it's also a pretty massive mess.
 
Honestly, I really liked the ending to this film. I don't want to even compare it to the comic it's clearly based on as that gives the ending away. Ultimately, I like how they did it and I'm looking forward to addition films. As for Affleck, I think he nailed most aspects of the Bruce Wayne / Batman character. The only thing Keaton did better was make more adjustments between his mannerisms in and out of the suit. For Affleck, his voice and intimidating presence does all that for him. As for being better than Christian Bale, I agree completely. Then again I think Christian Bale is overrated as Batman. My biggest complaint with him is that he talks like he's gargling broken glass after smoking four packs of menthols.

I was mainly mixed on the ending.

I don't think Affleck did anything "better" than Keaton, both were extremely strong in their character, I think Affleck pulled off a more intimidating Batman though. Christian Bale just used that shitty voice to differentiate between the two characters, he acted the same as batman and bruce wayne except he just used throat cancer. I didn't like Batman Begins, Liam Neesan was good in it though, The Dark Night was good because of the Joker and The Dark Night Rises was good for just about everything except Christian Bale.
 
Rotton Tomatoes is not an accurate gauge for figuring out what movies are good and which aren't. It rates pieces of shit like Robot Jox and Millennium much higher than they should be.

It's a better gauge than one opinion on a forum, whether it be yours, mine or someone else's.

Just because you or I think a movie is good doesn't mean its universally good, it means it was good to us, and only us. If others agree, great, if not, that's their opinion, just like ours is. RT is an average of opinions, that's all. We can still disagree with it, and I sometimes do.

I just find it amazing that critics who likely had no clue ahead of time who Deadpool even was, ranked that higher than they are ranking 2 of the most well known comic heroes ever.

To me its kinda scary to see that.

I'm all set for a matinee showing this weekend for $5. I'll see if I agree or disagree with the RT average opinion after that. It should be interesting in any case. ;)
 
While WB is making a clusterfuck out of it at times, I actually prefer how them keeping the TV and movie stuff separate. Agents of SHIELD is held back by having to be in the MCU and constantly having to react to the movies. The movies don't return the favor anyway so it's also a pretty massive mess.

AOS was never intended to be anything more then a Movie marketing machine. The real comparison is all the rest off the marvel TV shows and movies. Agent Carter takes 2 characters everyone knows from an actual MCU movie and builds a show around them... they did not recast them at all making it very slick and seamless. The netflix shows are can be argued are the best Marvel shows. Daredevil is in the same universe... no actor sharing but the setting is clearly related to the films. Ditto for Jessica Jones and upcoming Luke Cage. What Marvel wisely has done is ensure that those shows are stocked with Movie quality actors, and the ones they intended to have possible movie appearances are already under contract for just that.

DC/WBs seem to just be a scatter shot of ideas. They throw everything at the wall and if it sticks great. Marvel seems to be much more methodical in their planning. They lock actors up in multi movie contracts... they cast TV shows to complement, and cast their TV shows as if those people will be playing those roles for years. (and lock those people in contract wise as well) I mean no offense to people like Stephen Amell or Grant Gustin, but honestly WB doesn't have a ton of faith in them either. Amell I think its hard to argue is exactly a great thespian, Gustin I agree with almost everyone that likes the Flash is a very good Flash. Clearly however WB doesn't agree... or have faith in his ability to play the role on a larger screen. (or why would they recast it).

The DC people should have taken control of their brand a long time ago... if they honestly want to compete and make Avenger style multi hero mash ups they can't be swapping actors in and out. I mean I am not even confident they where wise enough to lock their big stars up with contracts for follow up movies.
 
It's a better gauge than one opinion on a forum, whether it be yours, mine or someone else's.

Just because you or I think a movie is good doesn't mean its universally good, it means it was good to us, and only us. If others agree, great, if not, that's their opinion, just like ours is. RT is an average of opinions, that's all. We can still disagree with it, and I sometimes do.

I just find it amazing that critics who likely had no clue ahead of time who Deadpool even was, ranked that higher than they are ranking 2 of the most well known comic heroes ever.

To me its kinda scary to see that.

I'm all set for a matinee showing this weekend for $5. I'll see if I agree or disagree with the RT average opinion after that. It should be interesting in any case. ;)

There is no such thing as a "universal opinion" when it comes to subjective media. RT is not remotely an accurate average. Professional reviews are weighted by some system that RT refuses to talk about, that makes the "average" professional rating 100% useless. The user reviewers are equally as useless since people will bandwagon, organize massive down or upvote campaigns, or just rate randomly for "teh lolz". The same is true over on Metacritic. This is all without even getting into the actual quality of reviews and people's ability to discern why truly had the feelings they did about something. It's all pure emotion with no understanding or analysis.
 
Reviews and forums. Don't check them first if you want to enjoy yourself, read them afterwards for a good laugh.
 
The thing about RT is the % isn't a movie review.

Its a simple count of reviews scoring 1 if the review is over 50%... and 0 if its under. Its a very binary Good or Bad... count it up system.

Which honestly is a pretty good indicator of how well a movie is enjoyed universally.

It also means movies like this one that get a lot of 50/50 type reviews end up with a perhaps lowish RT score. A movie with 100 reviews where 10 guys give it a 60/100 and 90 people give it a 40/100 will have a terrible RT number. Which is what happened here... most critics gave it like a 2.5/5 stars type score which counts as a Rotten. I don't think there are many reviews that give it a complete zero.

If you looks at RT ... yes it has a 29% negative (meaning no better then 50/50)... but it also has an average Reviewed rating of 5/10. Its right on the line. The industry likes to use Cinemascore which gives it a B... but Cinemascore is an industry suck up of a company so if you subtract the 10-20 points from their score because they ask questions designed to boost the movies score and keep their customers (the studios) happy.......
it gets a C from Fans and Critics.
 
My son went with his cousin, while I stayed behind. He loved it. Said it was definitely worth watching.

I'm going to watch it this weekend. Take my other son to check it out.
 
what was wrong with Ben? I thought he was the best batman ever on film. He carried the haunted, beaten down, callous batman down pat.

huh? did you read what I wrote?? I said I feel bad for him because he did well as batman and bruce, but the terrible writing and directing made it all for nothing in the end
 
AOS was never intended to be anything more then a Movie marketing machine. The real comparison is all the rest off the marvel TV shows and movies. Agent Carter takes 2 characters everyone knows from an actual MCU movie and builds a show around them... they did not recast them at all making it very slick and seamless. The netflix shows are can be argued are the best Marvel shows. Daredevil is in the same universe... no actor sharing but the setting is clearly related to the films. Ditto for Jessica Jones and upcoming Luke Cage. What Marvel wisely has done is ensure that those shows are stocked with Movie quality actors, and the ones they intended to have possible movie appearances are already under contract for just that.

DC/WBs seem to just be a scatter shot of ideas. They throw everything at the wall and if it sticks great. Marvel seems to be much more methodical in their planning. They lock actors up in multi movie contracts... they cast TV shows to complement, and cast their TV shows as if those people will be playing those roles for years. (and lock those people in contract wise as well) I mean no offense to people like Stephen Amell or Grant Gustin, but honestly WB doesn't have a ton of faith in them either. Amell I think its hard to argue is exactly a great thespian, Gustin I agree with almost everyone that likes the Flash is a very good Flash. Clearly however WB doesn't agree... or have faith in his ability to play the role on a larger screen. (or why would they recast it).

The DC people should have taken control of their brand a long time ago... if they honestly want to compete and make Avenger style multi hero mash ups they can't be swapping actors in and out. I mean I am not even confident they where wise enough to lock their big stars up with contracts for follow up movies.

Agent Carter is....Okay. The Netflix Defenders shows have yet to have any impact, even a single line worth, on the movies. IF any of them ever actually show up in the movies or have an impact then it'll be a different conversation. I think the best thing Marvel did with the Netflix stuff is making it more smaller scale. Let them do what they do without needing to save the world or interact with the larger MCU. They do have better casting though, I will give you that. That said, I'm betting they also have bigger budgets. CW's budgets are probably in line with what the BBC give Doctor Who every year. Which is, not a huge amount. And, you're right, there is no way either Amell or Gustin could stand along side the movie actors. They're good TV actors, but not movie stars. Disney and Marvel save their pennies by hiring up and coming directors that have yet to make it big or by getting lesser known directors that have the style they're looking for. Either way they get people they can control and will follow exactly what Kevin Feige wants them to do (which is why Edgar Wright bailed on Ant-Man). It works well and I think WB was trying to copy that by putting Snyder in charge of the DDCU. However, Snyder probably can't handle that. He needs someone around to guide his ideas and the universe.

It took DC five years to figure out why people were pissed about New 52. I'd hate to see what Dan Didio, Jim Lee, and Geoff Johns would do to movies.
 
huh? did you read what I wrote?? I said I feel bad for him because he did well as batman and bruce, but the terrible writing and directing made it all for nothing in the end

It is easy to root for Ben now. The only thing the movie did for me was prove that he is capable of playing an interesting version of Batman that isn't at all the joke that was Daredevil. I understand they are going to let him Star Direct and Write a stand alone Bat movie. Which is great.

The dawn of justice has made me completely not care at all if the Justice League movies ever make it to screen... I do however want to see the Affleck Batman movie, he has proven he can write, he has proven he can direct, and now he has proven he can play the Bat. His take might be the best since Nolans Dark Knight.
 
I think the best thing Marvel did with the Netflix stuff is making it more smaller scale.
It took DC five years to figure out why people were pissed about New 52. I'd hate to see what Dan Didio, Jim Lee, and Geoff Johns would do to movies.

I agree with everything your saying. Your right the Netflix shows where planned to be smaller in scale, and none of those actors have shown up in any films at this point. My only point on that one is that even for those smaller enclosed netflix shows they cast actors more then capable of being put in a movie without any movie execs getting nervous, and they lock those actors down with movie options just in case. Don't get me wrong either I like the CW shows, they are fun for what they are. Its just a head scratcher that with their massive stable of heros and villains they allow a flash tv show knowing they are planning a new movie... or for the shows to use the Suicide Squad when they know they have that movie coming up. The Green Arrow was a great choice for TV. Even when that show first hit I thought, good DC is getting there stuff together here they have lots to draw from and don't have to repeat the same safe moves. Now seeing that they clearly had no real master plan at the time (cause I have even heard rumors of a Movie universe black canary) it just feels like they either choose green arrow with a dart board or more sadly as a reaction to hawkeye in the marvel movies.

All well I hope the Suicide Squad movie is as fun as it looks like it could be... and I hope Snyder learns some leasons for the next installments. (cause he did improve at least a bit style wise over Man of Steal IMO anyway) Perhaps by the time that movie is on the screen he won't feel the need to slow mo every single bullet casing... I mean seriously he slo moed the artillery casing in the last minutes of this one, WHY? lol Hopefully he will take the reviews in, and try and correct a few things. Cause as negative as I have been on the film, its mostly annoying in that you can see all the pieces are there to have made this a very good film. The story could have been hammered down very easily, and dialing down his style and the music and all the other things that are just done a little to much could likely have been done in the editing room.
 
There is no such thing as a "universal opinion" when it comes to subjective media. RT is not remotely an accurate average. Professional reviews are weighted by some system that RT refuses to talk about, that makes the "average" professional rating 100% useless. The user reviewers are equally as useless since people will bandwagon, organize massive down or upvote campaigns, or just rate randomly for "teh lolz". The same is true over on Metacritic. This is all without even getting into the actual quality of reviews and people's ability to discern why truly had the feelings they did about something. It's all pure emotion with no understanding or analysis.

The thing is emotions kind of matter. Not everyone is cerebral, so how someone is feeling about something may very well tell the tale of exactly how much they enjoyed it AND how good they thought it was. Not everyone is talented at putting their feelings into words. Heck, it's true for me, even. I try to be cerebral and objective, but I'm actually more of a feelings type of person. I tend to mix the two up a lot.

Anyway, after noise is removed, ratings and votes via users are good way to determine how much a movie is enjoyed "in general". What else are you going to compare this to? A never-ending debate between fanatics? For instance, in the SW movie thread that came about last time, Dan essentially silenced most opposition by posting long, somewhat zealous analyses that showed why he was in favor of the movie, and why he thought no one else's criticism made sense. The thing is, discussions like this rarely go anywhere and are essentially utterly dependent on the enthusiasm and wit of the most zealous member on either side. So giving well thought out responses full of some understanding only goes so far as well. You can't come to any objective conclusion through debate or pure critical analysis. There is no factual basis for any interpretation of any piece of work. Everything is up to interpretation, too, and thus whoever wins is the one who can most cleverly word his interpretation vs the other side (or be essentially tireless in defense thereof).

Load of hogwash, really. Critics tend to give well reasoned (though as always utterly subjective) interpretations of movies. Their opinions matter more to people who prefer analyzing in such a fashion. But that's not really most of the world, and obviously not everyone will agree with them. And none of them are really right; they're just right for a certain crowd.



As far my opinion on this movie... honestly I'm kind of surprised that it's getting lambasted as much as it is. I thought the last SW movie was pretty bad; left a horrible taste in my mouth. This was maybe just a bit worse.
"Awww, dat was yo mom's name too? Best budz 4 lyfe". *Throws away extremely powerful spear* *Jane--err Lois--picks up and throws it in random... well? Like seriously what the heck is that reservoir*
 
Last edited:
I agree with everything your saying. Your right the Netflix shows where planned to be smaller in scale, and none of those actors have shown up in any films at this point. My only point on that one is that even for those smaller enclosed netflix shows they cast actors more then capable of being put in a movie without any movie execs getting nervous, and they lock those actors down with movie options just in case. Don't get me wrong either I like the CW shows, they are fun for what they are. Its just a head scratcher that with their massive stable of heros and villains they allow a flash tv show knowing they are planning a new movie... or for the shows to use the Suicide Squad when they know they have that movie coming up. The Green Arrow was a great choice for TV. Even when that show first hit I thought, good DC is getting there stuff together here they have lots to draw from and don't have to repeat the same safe moves. Now seeing that they clearly had no real master plan at the time (cause I have even heard rumors of a Movie universe black canary) it just feels like they either choose green arrow with a dart board or more sadly as a reaction to hawkeye in the marvel movies.

All well I hope the Suicide Squad movie is as fun as it looks like it could be... and I hope Snyder learns some leasons for the next installments. (cause he did improve at least a bit style wise over Man of Steal IMO anyway) Perhaps by the time that movie is on the screen he won't feel the need to slow mo every single bullet casing... I mean seriously he slo moed the artillery casing in the last minutes of this one, WHY? lol Hopefully he will take the reviews in, and try and correct a few things. Cause as negative as I have been on the film, its mostly annoying in that you can see all the pieces are there to have made this a very good film. The story could have been hammered down very easily, and dialing down his style and the music and all the other things that are just done a little to much could likely have been done in the editing room.

Arrow might have been a reaction to Hawkeye but it was also a reaction to WB and CW trying to find a replacement for Smallville. When Grayson, a series about a teenaged Dick Grayson prior to becoming Robin going to high school (I wish I was kidding) thankfully failed to make it to series they ended up with Arrow. The Nolan trilogy was such a hit that WB and CW decided to make Arrow into Batman with a bow and it worked.

The thing is emotions kind of matter. Not everyone is cerebral, so how someone is feeling about something may very well tell the tale of exactly how much they enjoyed it AND how good they thought it was. Not everyone is talented at putting their feelings into words. Heck, it's true for me, even. I try to be cerebral and objective, but I'm actually more of a feelings type of person. I tend to mix the two up a lot.

Anyway, after noise is removed, ratings and votes via users are good way to determine how much a movie is enjoyed "in general". What else are you going to compare this to? A never-ending debate between fanatics? For instance, in the SW movie thread that came about last time, Dan essentially silenced most opposition by posting long, somewhat zealous analyses that showed why he was in favor of the movie, and why he thought no one else's criticism made sense. The thing is, discussions like this rarely go anywhere and are essentially utterly dependent on the enthusiasm and wit of the most zealous member on either side. So giving well thought out responses full of some understanding only goes so far as well. You can't come to any objective conclusion through debate or pure critical analysis. There is no factual basis for any interpretation of any piece of work. Everything is up to interpretation, too, and thus whoever wins is the one who can most cleverly word his interpretation vs the other side (or be essentially tireless in defense thereof).

Load of hogwash, really. Critics tend to give well reasoned (though as always utterly subjective) interpretations of movies. Their opinions matter more to people who prefer analyzing in such a fashion. But that's not really most of the world, and obviously not everyone will agree with them. And none of them are really right; they're just right for a certain crowd.



As far my opinion on this movie... honestly I'm kind of surprised that it's getting lambasted as much as it is. I thought the last SW movie was pretty bad; left a horrible taste in my mouth. This was maybe just a bit worse.
"Awww, dat was yo mom's name too? Best budz 4 lyfe". *Throws away extremely powerful spear* *Jane picks up and throws it in random... well? Like seriously what the heck is that reservoir*

Opinions are important, but you need understanding of your own tastes to back it up. In order to give a truly valuable take a movie you need to really understand what worked, what didn't work, and why that was the case for you. You don't have to be completely objective about it since reviews are based on your subjective opinion, but without some understanding of yourself and the movie it's hard to give an informative review. I'll be mulling over my thoughts on BvS for a long time. It's such a divisive movie that I really have no idea where my final thoughts will end up.
 
the movie is front loaded and will take a bigger then normal dive in Week 2...huge opening weekend doesn't mean much in the long term except for the bragging rights...BvS will not recoup its budget and will be considered a disappointment when final box office numbers are revealed

right on cue, even faster then I predicted...

Batman v Superman has set a new record for the worst Friday-to-Sunday drop for a superhero movie release in modern North American box office history...In dropping 55% from its $82 million Friday debut to its $37 million gross on Sunday, it pummeled all prior records for weakness in theatrical staying power...It even beat the nearly universally reviled and now long-forgotten Fantastic Four reboot, which dropped a comparatively modest 48% across its opening weekend in the summer of 2015.

You might be thinking that Sunday was the Easter holiday, which could account for the big Sunday drop...But that still wouldn’t explain the Friday-to-Saturday decline of 38%, which was the second worst opening Friday-to-Saturday drop in the annals of superhero releases
 
Execution style? No, but he is definitely not afraid to use guns.

This isn't really true at all. The only time he uses one is for the tracking device on the truck, he does use some of his adversaries weapons against them in the fight scene shown in the trailers but they were not kill shots it was all done to incapacitate people around the room. The only thing that comes moderately close is the scene with see spoiler tag below towards the end and even then I don't believe there was a death.
KGBeast/Martha

The "Knightmare" sequence did show him using guns like a normal person but that is a completely separate timeline/universe from the films main continuity and does not count. I don't get why I see all these people saying Batman/Bruce was shooting up / executing people throughout the whole film. That is certainly not the case and I would question if we were talking about / saw the same movie.

99% of the movies problems were pacing/editing, I'm hoping these are fixed by the Ultimate Cut. I was always a fan of the casting but Ben absolutely slayed both the Bruce/Batman roles and is absolutely, imo, THE onscreen Batman. Gal did the same with Wonder Woman, I'm so glad that they did her justice and executed that character so well. Gal is also incredibly vested in her source material and really understands what makes Diana who she is / makes her tick.

With all of the setup this movie has done I'm incredibly hyped for Justice League, we will finally see these beloved characters at a near perfect 1:1 with how they have been characterized in the last 5-10 (ish) years in comics and I believe Snyder will finally make a film that doesn't absolutely polarize it's critics / audiences. I believe shooting starts in the next week or two.

Bring on Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman. *side-note: I'm also really curious if they are going to use Junkie XL's awesome fucking Wonder Woman theme in her solo-movie or if that is going to just be reserved for JL Part 1 & 2.

I haven't stopped thinking about this movie/universe since I saw it opening night. Been waiting over 20+ years for this.
 
Last edited:
right on cue, even faster then I predicted...

Batman v Superman has set a new record for the worst Friday-to-Sunday drop for a superhero movie release in modern North American box office history...In dropping 55% from its $82 million Friday debut to its $37 million gross on Sunday, it pummeled all prior records for weakness in theatrical staying power...It even beat the nearly universally reviled and now long-forgotten Fantastic Four reboot, which dropped a comparatively modest 48% across its opening weekend in the summer of 2015.

You might be thinking that Sunday was the Easter holiday, which could account for the big Sunday drop...But that still wouldn’t explain the Friday-to-Saturday decline of 38%, which was the second worst opening Friday-to-Saturday drop in the annals of superhero releases

Harry Potter 7.5 and Furious 7 had similar drop offs as I recall. Those are two of the highest grossing movies of all time, worldwide. Domestic numbers are becoming less and less important these days. The real thing to pay attention to will be the weekend-to-weekend drop off internationally.
 
This isn't really true at all. The only time he uses one is for the tracking device on the truck, he does use some of his adversaries weapons against them in the fight scene shown in the trailers but they were not kill shots it was all done to incapacitate people around the room. The only thing that comes moderately close is the scene with see spoiler tag below towards the end and even then I don't believe there was a death.
KGBeast/Martha

The "Knightmare" sequence did show him using guns like a normal person but that is a completely separate timeline/universe from the films main continuity and does not count. I don't get why I see all these people saying Batman/Bruce was shooting up / executing people throughout the whole film. That is certainly not the case and I would question if we were talking about / saw the same movie.

99% of the movies problems were pacing/editing, I'm hoping these are fixed by the Ultimate Cut. I was always a fan of the casting but Ben absolutely slayed both the Bruce/Batman roles and is absolutely, imo, THE onscreen Batman. Gal did the same with Wonder Woman, I'm so glad that they did her justice and executed that character so well. Gal is also incredibly vested in her source material and really understands what makes Diana who she is / makes her tick.

With all of the setup this movie has done I'm incredibly hyped for Justice League, we will finally see these beloved characters at a near perfect 1:1 with how they have been characterized in the last 5-10 (ish) years in comics and I believe Snyder will finally make a film that doesn't absolutely polarize it's critics / audiences. I believe shooting starts in the next week or two.

Bring on Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman. *side-note: I'm also really curious if they are going to use Junkie XL's awesome fucking Wonder Woman theme in her solo-movie or if that is going to just be reserved for JL Part 1 & 2.

I haven't stopped thinking about this movie/universe since I saw it opening night. Been waiting over 20+ years for this.
So...
the scene on the dock after which he fires the tracker, and the cars that blow up after crashing that was caused from Batman firing the guns on the Batmobile at them, those people will just walk away and perfectly recover?
I never said or implied he carried around his own guns or purposefully killed people with the ones he used, just that he is not afraid to use them.
But I'm pretty sure in that rescue scene near the end of the movie that he does shoot someone in the face... Or I'm not remembering it right. There was a lot going on in that scene. And I don't think he was going for incapacitation when he shot the fuel tank on the flamer KGBeast was using.
 
The subject of Batman using guns needs to be addressed. First and foremost, Batman has been depicted using firearms many times over the years. Typically he uses them in a utilitarian fashion rather than offensively. The scene with him hanging out on the crane with the sniper rifle may be homage to a scene in the Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller in which Batman carried a rifle and shot his grappling hooks out of it. Batman's grapple gun was introduced into the comics after its debut in the 1989 Tim Burton Batman film. Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" came out in 1986 and predates the grapple gun. In this film it's used to fire a tracking device onto a vehicle which is very much in line with the character's typical use of firearms.

Bruce Wayne has also been depicted as shooting skeet with other Gotham socialites at least once in Batman the Animated series. Again this is a non-offensive use of a weapon. It's mostly done to maintain cover while he gathers information. He has an extensive array of firearms for testing purposes in the Batcave and integrates them into vehicles. When used in vehicles, the policy on firearms is relaxed quite a bit as guns are used for destroying defenses designed to stop vehicles or in order to cripple other vehicles or targets that he couldn't otherwise affect while armed. It's also worth noting that when Batman started in the 1930's, he used a .38 Caliber revolver which he carried on his utility belt. Early on the character was revised and stopped using firearms which became an integral part of the character's personality. Even so, Batman has broken this rule at least once. He used a gun on Darksied.

Furthermore, you have to understand that any Batman story outside of the mainstream comic book are not canon to the "prime" version of the character's life and story. Every TV show, movie, animated series, or comic appearing outside that mainstream continuity takes place in an alternate universe. Those alternate versions of the character aren't subject to the same rules that the primary version of the character in the main DC comic book continuity is. Films like Tim Burton's Batman, The Dark Knight Trilogy and Batman V. Superman Dawn of Justice may resemble the character we are familiar with, but aren't necessarily the same. The Batman in Tim Burton's film had a reputation for throwing criminals off of buildings. Whether or not this is true isn't expressly stated in the film's context. The only time we see him kill is with regard to the Joker. It's also likely that the Batmobile's raid on Axis Chemicals cost lives. The Dark Knight Trilogy's version didn't kill anyone, but refused to save Ras Al Ghul which would be unusual given that he wouldn't have known that Ras was likely immortal or could be resurrected. Of course we don't know if that's the case in that universe either, although it is implied in places.

The Dawn of Justice version of the character seems to borrow a lot from the Thomas Wayne Batman from the Flashpoint universe. That version carries guns and kills people without a whole lot of thought. He's basically like Batman and the Punisher rolled into one. Again, this Batman (Dawn of Justice) doesn't actually shoot people directly. Deaths in vehicle crashes, or from shooting at vehicles seem to be more incidental than intentional. Disregard for human life seems to be Zack Snyder's thing. While this seems out of character for Superman and Batman, I think these interpretations are somewhat more realistic. Doing what they do, I don't think every death would be preventable the way they often are in other stories. When translating comic to film, certain concessions have to be made to ensure the suspension of disbelief. Incidental deaths and collateral damage would be a natural effect of Superhero "justice." This is one of the many reasons why vigilantes are discouraged and even illegal in the real world.

In any case, I always keep in mind that differences in the character's behavior and circumstances are inevitable when it's used in different media and especially when it's written by different production teams and staff. I enjoy it for what it is, even when it doesn't match up with all my preconceived notions about a character. The only time I find this problematic is when a character is portrayed so differently that it isn't recognizable. Lex Luthor in this film is so different from his usual portrayal that I just don't see it as "Lex" at all. A character done right is recognizable by his or her actions without even seeing them. In contrast, a character that isn't written right won't be recognizable even when you see them and their name is spoken.

The Punisher in Marvel's Daredevil series is an example of a character done right in TV/Film. You know it's the Punisher by his handiwork well before he's seen on screen and given a name in dialog. Lex Luthor in this film is the polar opposite of the Punisher in the MCU. He's not recognizable at all.
 
Last edited:
So many gigantic plot holes and for a movie featuring two superheros in its title, there was an incredible lack of action.

Snyder and his wife need to leave comic book movies alone for a long while.

On a brighter note, Affleck makes a great Batman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Youn
like this
Well, the poor reviews and mixed word of mouth are finally taking their toll on the second weekend ticket sales for Warner Bros.’ Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice...This morning, BvS woke up from a hangover to learn that it’s on its way to a -70% weekend drop of $50.7M...That fall-off is one of the steepest for a superhero film, topping the -69% posted by 20th Century Fox’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine...All this despite the fact that Bruce and Clark have the Friday-Sunday period all to themselves, without any new wide threats from the other major studios...BvS’ Friday-to-Friday decline is even bigger at -72%
 
Finally saw this movie, and really, the trailer is all you need to see. Wonder Woman and her crazy drum music were literally the best parts of it. The reasoning for Batman vs Superman to fight didn't make any sense at all.

I can't even recommend this movie as being something mindless and action packed - because the actions bits are separated by long stretches of tedium.

You owe me $20 Kyle Bennett!
 
Well, the poor reviews and mixed word of mouth are finally taking their toll on the second weekend ticket sales for Warner Bros.’ Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice...This morning, BvS woke up from a hangover to learn that it’s on its way to a -70% weekend drop of $50.7M...That fall-off is one of the steepest for a superhero film, topping the -69% posted by 20th Century Fox’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine...All this despite the fact that Bruce and Clark have the Friday-Sunday period all to themselves, without any new wide threats from the other major studios...BvS’ Friday-to-Friday decline is even bigger at -72%

Yep. Though, Harry Potter Deathly Hallows Part 2 had a 76% weekend-to-weekend drop off domestically. We need to wait until the international numbers come in to see where the trend is really going. Depending on how a movie does international numbers can be 2 to 3 times as high as domestic theatrical gross. The international drop off will be a big indicator if it will reach a billion or not. We can tell one thing though: It will do better than Man of Steel. It's under 100m away from Man of Steel's entire worldwide theatrical gross. So...That's something. Depending on how things go internationally this weekend it might end up on track to beat Dark Knight (1.004b) and Dark Knight Rises (1.08b).

Finally saw this movie, and really, the trailer is all you need to see. Wonder Woman and her crazy drum music were literally the best parts of it. The reasoning for Batman vs Superman to fight didn't make any sense at all.

I can't even recommend this movie as being something mindless and action packed - because the actions bits are separated by long stretches of tedium.

You owe me $20 Kyle Bennett!

If their fight didn't make sense then you clearly weren't paying attention. The reasons were fairly obviously stated.
 
If their fight didn't make sense then you clearly weren't paying attention. The reasons were fairly obviously stated.

Sorry you're right. I should've said "any logical reason to fight".

Batman deciding to finally kill superman because a madman he employed killed a bunch of people in an attempt to kill superman was the catalyst?

If that's this batman's thinking he should've killed the Joker years ago.

Too bad these two superbros couldn't just talk before they fought. Probably would've cleared up a lot of grief.

And Gotham is right across the bay from metropolis? Why didn't supes just fly over there and arrest batman instead of trying to bash him with an editorial as Clark Kent?

Sorry for ranting, I'm still trying to get my head around this movie.
 
Back
Top