itt: consternation and wailing about Zach Snyder's upcoming SUPERMAN/BATMAN film/sequel to MAN OF STEEL -- official title: BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE

Or Millar's, for that matter

i still dont quite get what was so incomprehensible about this film. its not like the basic plot was that complicated

then please explain what the senator's plot was. what did she want, what was the point of the hearings, and why did she back out of her deal w Luthor after giving him total access to highly classified materials.

if it isn't complicated then this should be easy for you.

i just have a hard time with a world that is SUPER CONCERNED about Superman as a homeland security concern and yet is fine with allowing a single senator to just hand over the UFO and dead alien body to whoever they want.

it's like they came up with every part of this plot separately and just edited them together with no thought about internal consistency. it's just sloppy writing.

Or Millar's, for that matter

badly drawn, full of references to government work and beer
oh wait n/m

this was fun! stupid, stupid, stupid fun.
blatantly fascist, kinda over-the-hill Affleck Batman was pretty entertaining.
a lotta effective stealing from Frank Miller and the recent videogames (Arkham series, Injustice)
favorite part for me was that wacky future dream sequence with Red Son Batman followed by crazy future Flash w/a Crisis-style warning.

not gonna defend the immense stupidity. but i will say during the super serious angry titular fight scene, Batman takes the time to rip a bathroom sink off of a wall and smack Superman in the back of the head with it. this is played completely seriously.

think people here may take Zach Snyder waaaaaaaay more seriously that he is actually taking these films. ya'll gotta chill

i'd be more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he'd previously shown any grasp of nuance or irony either onscreen or in interviews

"i'd be more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he'd previously shown any grasp of nuance or irony either onscreen or in interviews"

this is like wishing woody allen was better at shooting action sequences and using CGI. its just not what he does. but he does other things very well (if flawed).

xpost, i didnt actually care about the senator or what she was doing or why lol. maybe ive watched too many arthouse movies, but i didnt really care about the plot of this all that much, i just liked the mood/tone/feel etc etc of their scenes. i didnt go into the film expecting cohesion and properly explored/resolved plotlines. i just wanted to see a slightly diff kind of superhero movie. which is what i got.

i think my expectations were diff as i saw sucker punch fairly recently, and so knew what i was letting myself in for (ie incoherent plot, themes touched on then forgotten, confused messages, orgiastic visuals, seemingly incompatible parallel worlds smashed together, etc), and this didnt disappoint. i honestly feel like snyder is trying to do something new. hes a really skilled visual storyteller, just not that great at any other kind. i think he should maybe be working at rockstar games, as his films resemble not really trailers, but video game sequences, but i really like what he brings to big hollywood movies. it feels new. so what if certain characters come in and out and you dont know what or why theyre there.

ive a feeling the extended cut thats coming out on dvd later in the year could make it better, and maybe explain a few things (then again, maybe not lol).

"not gonna defend the immense stupidity. but i will say during the super serious angry titular fight scene, Batman takes the time to rip a bathroom sink off of a wall and smack Superman in the back of the head with it. this is played completely seriously."

this was an awesome scene lol.

this is like wishing woody allen was better at shooting action sequences and using CGI

i also wish this btw, hoping woody takes the director's chair for guardians of the galaxy 3

so what if certain characters come in and out and you don't know what or why they're there.

Right, but this isn't a documentary, they don't have to be there at all (but if you make everything have a purpose and streamline it, you get Mad Max, which you apparently don't rate?).

I admit this is not really a criticism of Snyder, who didn't write any of this.

im not sure if snyder has a grasp of irony or nuance. i dont care actually. as if every filmmaker has to pass some sort of humour exam. nolan didnt have much of a sense of humour either, but snyder at least directs with elan and energy, rather than nolan's leaden, po-faced trudge, which seemed doggedly intent on denying the audience any of those things.

i would say you actually need a *certain* level of stupidity (which i would say compensates for humour or irony) for a good superhero film, and synder at least provides that, with *sincerity*, whereas nolan seemed out to cleanse his batman films of anything resembling silliness.

"Right, but this isn't a documentary, they don't have to be there at all (but if you make everything have a purpose and streamline it, you get Mad Max, which you apparently don't rate?)."

what does it matter whether they *have* to be there or not? she IS there. and hunter's senator character provides a purpose, which is more or less to show you who eisenberg's lex luther is, and what give you a sense of what kind of villain he is. their exchange is also one of the film's most entertaining. and obv sets up the courtroom scene later on. so i would say she DOES have to be there.

i would say you actually need a *certain* level of stupidity (which i would say compensates for humour or irony) for a good superhero film, and synder at least provides that, with *sincerity*, whereas nolan seemed out to cleanse his batman films of anything resembling silliness

i think we're pretty much diametrically opposed on snyder and i don't think either of us are going to change our minds but i'd like to point out that snyder is also opposed to silliness to the extent that he mandated that superman's costume be modified to remove the iconic red trunks, which he thought looked stupid

also, having sincere intentions does not preclude at all the possibility that the work you're producing will be stupid, silly, or both

Luthor was pre-Riddler Jim Carey E. Nigma as a Redditor. what did the senator bring to his character?

i mean i didn't care about the senator either but unfortunately it was like 1/3 of the movie

maybe ive watched too many arthouse movies, but i didnt really care about the plot of this all that much

lol no you haven't watched too many arthouse movies.

"also, having sincere intentions does not preclude at all the possibility that the work you're producing will be stupid, silly, or both"

100% agree. snyder presents the film with sincerity, and seriousness, for which i accord him respect and appreciation, but much in the way i enjoy heavy metal or hardcore rappers, who give the air of absolute sincerity, that same sincerity actually makes some of the silliness better, rather than if it was presented with some deadpool-style knowingness. this film appears very adult, but its not that adult underneath its heavy veneer. which is better, IMO, than what nolan did, which was try to purge the material of its basic, primal adolescence entirely. the fact snyder doesnt try to act like hes being clever and knowing just gives the film a harder power. if it had a sense of 'irony' and 'nuance' that would probably be dampened. you like to see wrestlers entertaining, but you dont like them being too in on the joke. it ruins the illusion. the idea that someone BELIEVES in this. i need my stupidity to be sincerely felt and expressed. otherwise whats the point? its just hollow.

the red trunks removal issue i think is pretty acceptable. there are certain sartorial issues that would need to be dealt with for a modern audience. red trunks are one of those. its no diff than the diff in pumped-up-ness between affleck and cavill and keaton and reeve. different clothes/torsos for different eras. its what the audience demands.

"lol no you haven't watched too many arthouse movies."

well im staying away from rivette's out, sure.

You do that.

you big gangster.

I watched a cam of this. It's really bad, 2/10, worse than Superman IV and Batman Forever (but better than batman and robin). The plot is on the level of The Phantom Menace in terms of stupidity.

The 'theme' is how Superman and Batman are against each other but are actually alike. But
1. they have no real reason to be against each other because their similarities are blatantly obvious; the big fight is part of an idiot plot where they don't talk to each other; and Superman has no reason to approach Batman since his powers could have saved the day alone; and
2. they are alike because the script changes both characters into being alike, going way off-model with Batman and off-tone with Superman.

As far as Batman killing people, it happens blatantly only once, almost exactly like the end of Man of Steel where the hero is forced to do it. And they set it up as unplanned, with the gun just being what's available. Could Batman have reached into his belt and used one of his many non-lethal weapons? YES.

I counted 4 or 5 dream sequences and 3 flashbacks. There's a sequence of 2 or 3 dreams that was obviously a bunch of scenes they couldn't work into the finished film and should have been left as extras on the blu-ray, but they 'had' to include them in the film because they were in the trailer.

I was going to write a bit about how Wonder Woman did nothing, but that could be said about just about any character, plot or scene in this movie.

I'm training as an operator at a local volunteer-run cinema, and today nobody came for BvS (which everyone at the place found quite pleasing. The two biggest sellers were Deephan and Knight of Cups. #TradeSecrets) so I was allowed to train restart procedures for when the DCP crashes. Which meant that I caught two small glimpses of the film. In one, a judge got distracted from prosecuting Superman by a jar of tea. What's up with that? And in the other, Lex Luthor was crying over the dead body of Zod. Did he know him? I thought Jesse Eisenberg wasn't in that one?

The first half hour of the movie is a flashback to the judge as a small child bonding with her grandfather while making sun tea. If that helps.

wb execs was crazy over a preview screening, signed affleck for two batmovies
http://comicbook.com/2015/08/07/batman-v-superman-screening-gets-standing-ovation-affleck-gettin/

this also happened with the dailies for batman and robin, where they approved another schumacher batman movie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(1989_film_series)#Cancelled_sequels

the tea is urine, from a conversation the senator had with lex -- "i'm not drinking your piss" essentially. there is no reason for lex to put it there, or for lex to explode them all.

lex uses zod's body to make godzilla. no idea why he is sad in those scenes.

xpost Ooh, good catch.

Non-xpost Oh, yeah, I forgot that Lex pissed in the jar after he drank all of the sun tea. The editing of that whole sequence was confusing, to say the least.

wtf...

I know! It's a weird movie!

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-bros-mulls-releasing-films-881265

wow that's faster than i thought!

have all the superheroes die in the first Justice League movie, that'll do it

instead of a $250 million JLA, they should release five $50 million dollar films, two this year and three the next, with totally different creative teams and thrust, see what sticks
how about Sandman (treat it like a horror film / origin story), Wonder Woman (give it back to whedon with carte blanche license, hire kelly sue deconnick to punch up the script), New Gods (xerox the thor movies, stick in mister miracle as an audience surrogate, up the wacky factor), Lobo (rip off deadpool), Cyborg (redo robocop)
take snyder off everything but lobo.
Then reconfigure around what worked. THEN drop JLA.
you're welcome.

give Zack the Matter Eater Lad movie

my theory of what will actually happen: Suicide Squad will outperform newly conservative expectations, causing Warner (and their lenders) to double down and commit to a release schedule. Wonder Woman will do fairly well, loads of thought pieces about culture shifts, "the first 250 / 500 million dollar superhero movie... led by a woman!" Marvel will finally commit to a Black Widow movie for 2020 when ScarJo is 36 and they need to cast her replacement. Flash will NOT do well. JLA will NOT do well. Aquaman will BOMB.

Aquaman is going to be just 2 hours of him gutting and cleaning a fish

No one should be shocked that Zach Snyder made a Zach Snyder movie. Marvel's been smart handing its movies/money to sort of unproven blockbuster talents, whether the Russos, or Shane Black or Gunn or Whedon or hell Jon Favreau or Branagh or Peyton Reed (!). DC should give their stuff to people like, I dunno, Joe Carnahan, or even Darren Aronoskfy (not that he would say yes at this point), if they want to stay dark. Or hell, Katherine Bigelow (you never know, she could say yes). David Ayer seems like a good start for something different but Suicide Squad is already tainted by Zach.

Aqua ... man.
http://www.bubblegumdancer.com/images/2/aqua.jpg

first hour of aquaman is

http://explore.org/live-cams/player/brown-bear-salmon-cam-brooks-falls

much in the way i enjoy heavy metal or hardcore rappers,

you fucking abysmal idiot, this was supposed to be a comic book movie about people who wear primary colors to teach bad men a lesson without killing them

although thank you for helping me understand every fucking other fuckbulb who enjoyed this and its predecessor

how about Sandman (treat it like a horror film / origin story)

the sandman movie has been in development hell for forever. i believe all of the scripts were based on the corinthian being a big baddie.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt was actually actively developing a Sandman movie but just left the project recently why because WB/DC was being WB/DC, apparently.

Marvel's been smart handing its movies/money to sort of unproven blockbuster talents, whether the Russos, or Shane Black or...

― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, April 6, 2016

irl LOLs

Shane Black was a proven blockbuster talent from a screenwriting standpoint sure, but Iron Man 3 was only the second film he ever directed.

here's what JGL said

In a post on his Facebook page, Gordon-Levitt said the project’s shift to Warner offshoot New Line had led directly to his decision.

“A while back, David Goyer and I made a producing deal with Warner Brothers to develop a movie adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s Sandman,” wrote Gordon-Levitt, who had been in line to direct and possibly take an on-screen role. “Neil himself came on as an executive producer, we hired the excellent screenwriter Jack Thorne, and we started in on the ambitious task of adapting one of the most beloved and boundary-pushing titles in the world of comics. I was pleased with the progress we were making, even though we still had quite a ways to go.

“Recently, as you also might know if you like to follow these sorts of things, the sorta ‘ownership’ (for lack of a better term) of the Sandman material changed hands when Warner Brothers shifted the entire catalogue of Vertigo comics (an imprint of DC) to their subsidiary New Line. And a few months ago, I came to realise that the folks at New Line and I just don’t see eye to eye on what makes Sandman special, and what a film adaptation could/should be. So unfortunately, I decided to remove myself from the project. I wish nothing but the best for the team moving forward.”

i guess they went ahead with Lucifer instead which i have not yet watched but i can't imagine it'll be on next season

maybe they should just do alan moore's swamp thing though i can't imagine how that would work... i would actually be curious to see snyder's take there just for sheer presumed wtf

"you fucking abysmal idiot, this was supposed to be a comic book movie about people who wear primary colors to teach bad men a lesson without killing them

although thank you for helping me understand every fucking other fuckbulb who enjoyed this and its predecessor"

that was a very adult response. well done.

xpost I think the Lucifer show is actually doing okay, popularity wise. I look forward to Fox's upcoming Shade the Changing Man show that'll basically be a loose adaptation of Catch Me If You Can because what's intellectual property to DC but a thing that you can turn into another thing that barely resembles the original thing.

Several sources say Warner Bros. executives were convinced they had the goods with BvS and were shocked when negative reviews began pouring in.

lol bright bunch of guys there

"what more do people want? Batman? Superman? jars of pee?"

"maybe it should've been a bucket of pee?"

first i've heard of a Shade show, that sounds dumb as hell.
i have not gotten on board with the CW renaissance; too soapy and glossy but i'm glad it exists