You need to watch his masterpiece.

lazycrockett said:

^Everyone wants to shit on the Cage as Superman idea, but I would be really interested in what Burton would have done with the Superman "Americana" idea.

^^^^^^^^^^^

OK, here's what I would like to know - of the 2 1/2 hours, how much of it is backstory, i.e. the origin or Batman and/or Superman?

^I hear we get to see Bruce's parent shot yet again. Its like really who by now doesn't know the backdrop to Bruce's fixation.

lazycrockett said:

^I hear we get to see Bruce's parent shot yet again. Its like really who by now doesn't know the backdrop to Bruce's fixation.

No kidding. If they get that over with in three minutes or less, no problem. I have no idea why Hollywood wants to spend half a movie explaining why someone is a superhero. Just get to the ass-kicking already.

breakdown2k14 said:

babynoz said:

I hate most of Tim Burton's work, so nope.

U hate beetlejuice ,batman returns ,Edward scissorhands ,and Nightmare before Christmas ?

Yes, no, yes and yes.

RodeoSchro said:

EmmaMcG said:

RodeoSchro said:

OK, here's what I would like to know - of the 2 1/2 hours, how much of it is backstory, i.e. the origin or Batman and/or Superman?

There is no origin story here. The death of the Waynes takes up about 30 seconds screen time and that's right at the beginning of the movie. There are a few things that are touched on briefly that goes some way to explaining why Bruce Wayne is a more violent and serious Batman, like a Robin suit hanging in the Batcave which heavily hints at Joker having killed him. Also, Bruce Wayne says at some point that there are very little good guys left, some are dead and others didn't stay good, again, I think a reference to Robin being dead and Bruce's former friend Harvey Dent turning to crime. But these are just little hints of things that have gone on up to this point. He's already been Batman for 20 years at the beginning of the movie so there's no need to show his origins.

OK good, thanks! I was kind of enjoying "Man of Steel" last night but got bored with an hour of ridiculous tripe about Superman's upbringing. And Kevin Costner letting himself get Killed By Tornado instead of letting his son save him? Totally ridiculous!

But anyway, I might give this movie a shot. Team Superman!

These critics smh.

I liked the film alot! I actually just watched Man of Steel two weeks ago for the first time and this is basically a sequel to Man of Steel. I really liked them showing what Bruce Wayne was doing when the incidents downtown were taking place and how it affected his thoughts on Superman. I also liked Wonder Woman. She is bad!! Cant wait for her movie. They tied in some sneak peeks of other villans to come in Justice League very smart, in which Batman using his drive to spy on Lex Luther's system.

I am not a big fan of this Lois Lane, her acting is not that great in this film. It was better in Man of Steel I admit. Ben Affleck IMO did a good job and beefed up for the role. He looks great. He has that dark and angry persona needed after we just completed the Dark Knight series. Even killed enemies when needed. This is the Batman I been waiting for...I would have liked to see him do a little more. His fighting scenes were alright...probably was a stunt double.

I give it a 8 out of 10

RodeoSchro said:

lazycrockett said:

^I hear we get to see Bruce's parent shot yet again. Its like really who by now doesn't know the backdrop to Bruce's fixation.

No kidding. If they get that over with in three minutes or less, no problem. I have no idea why Hollywood wants to spend half a movie explaining why someone is a superhero. Just get to the ass-kicking already.

They did. They did a little in the beginning and skipped right to where he is already Batman and situated.

lazycrockett said:

^I hear we get to see Bruce's parent shot yet again. Its like really who by now doesn't know the backdrop to Bruce's fixation.

Thomas Wayne is played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan. It's not that long of a scene

EmmaMcG said:

RodeoSchro said:

OK, here's what I would like to know - of the 2 1/2 hours, how much of it is backstory, i.e. the origin or Batman and/or Superman?

There is no origin story here. The death of the Waynes takes up about 30 seconds screen time and that's right at the beginning of the movie. There are a few things that are touched on briefly that goes some way to explaining why Bruce Wayne is a more violent and serious Batman, like a Robin suit hanging in the Batcave which heavily hints at Joker having killed him. Also, Bruce Wayne says at some point that there are very little good guys left, some are dead and others didn't stay good, again, I think a reference to Robin being dead and Bruce's former friend Harvey Dent turning to crime. But these are just little hints of things that have gone on up to this point. He's already been Batman for 20 years at the beginning of the movie so there's no need to show his origins.

Once again the last season of the Super Friends did a very great job in Batman parents getting killed

in the episode called the fear.

EmmaMcG said:

I never paid much attention to Super Friends. The name of it just sounds silly so I assumed it was a show aimed at really young children and didn't give it much thought. I was raised on the Batman animated series from the 90's and the Superman animated series, then later, Static Shock and The Justice League. But kpowers has convinced me to give it a watch. I may have misjudged it.

Well not really young kids. They did have some silly stories and good stories but had to toned down stuff because of the time back then from parent groups complaining about violence on Saturday morning cartoons. It was on for many seasons but I do recommend 3 seasons. The Season in which the Super friends vs The legion of Doom, just fun seeing alot of bad guys and good guys fighting each other. The second to the last season (which they call it the superfriends the legendary super powers show) which introduces Fire Storm and Dark Seid and the last season (which they call it the Galactic Guardians) the last season they were making the stories a little bit more darker and for an older audiences and introduces Cyborg. IMO Cyborg appearnce in the last season of the Super Friends help his popularity and thus making him apart of todays Justice league line up. The only thing bad about the last season is that there were only 8 episodes. I really like the direction it was going and then it ended.

[Edited 3/28/16 17:25pm]

EmmaMcG said:

I never paid much attention to Super Friends. The name of it just sounds silly so I assumed it was a show aimed at really young children and didn't give it much thought. I was raised on the Batman animated series from the 90's and the Superman animated series, then later, Static Shock and The Justice League. But kpowers has convinced me to give it a watch. I may have misjudged it.

Oh yeah I forgot to mention that I like the story line of Dark Seid trying to make Wonder Woman his bride

purplethunder3121 said:

breakdown2k14 said:

kpowers said: yes!!!! I'm very glad that film never got made

Amen! Thank God he only did the dud on the motorcycle.

He was good as Ghost Rider, not for superman. Cage looks like a vampire Superman

kpowers said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Amen! Thank God he only did the dud on the motorcycle.

He was good as Ghost Rider, not for superman. Cage looks like a vampire Superman

That's a picture from a nightmare. Maybe Cage could play Bizarro... In a muscle suit of course.

kpowers said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Amen! Thank God he only did the dud on the motorcycle.

He was good as Ghost Rider, not for superman. Cage looks like a vampire Superman

Actually, come to think of it, Nicholas Cage once played a man who thought he was a vampire in Vampire's Kiss...

kpowers said:

babynoz said:

I didn't much care for it either.

....................................................... go Steelers

For me, it's the greatest comic book in history. I understand the artwork was drab and unconventional for Bats but the story was incredible.

I went into BvS with these premises:

1. It's a superhero movie, not 81/2 or The Godfather.

2. Man of Steel was good, but not great, and except for the very first film of its kind, it is steep hill to climb to get the Supes mythos right.

3. Zack Snyder can make a great film good and a good film awful.

4. The DC film Universe is already about a decade behind the Marvel Universe, they haven't set the film up properly, and WB waited entirely too long to get their act together on this.

And that's the central problem with BvS -- It tried to mash Phases 1-3 into one film. Snyder's grasping to make a Serious Film actually made it worse because there was entirely too much brooding and grasping for symbolism with the dream sequences. So while the plotline was very rushed, the film took a long time getting to the payoff -- revealing the other heroes -- which made it clumsy.

That being said, I enjoyed it! Cavill still seems to be finding his way into making Superman a real personality, but Affleck makes a great Batman (very Frank Millerish) and Gal Gadot exceeded my expectations as Wonder Woman (loved her theme music). Lane, Fishburne and Irons shone, while Adams is as good a Lois Lane as can be asked for. As for Eisenberg, I blame his uneven Luthor on the compressed plot. Overall, it was a competently done adaptation of some of DC's best plotlines. Though this should have been launched with the Dark Knight trilogy.

of

purplethunder3121 said:

kpowers said:

He was good as Ghost Rider, not for superman. Cage looks like a vampire Superman

Actually, come to think of it, Nicholas Cage once played a man who thought he was a vampire in Vampire's Kiss...

He looks like Thor's brother Loki though,

namepeace said:

kpowers said:

....................................................... go Steelers

For me, it's the greatest comic book in history. I understand the artwork was drab and unconventional for Bats but the story was incredible.

In history? Interesting.

You got some 'splainin to do...I'm gonna re-examine the story because you don't say stuff lightly.

namepeace said:

I went into BvS with these premises:

1. It's a superhero movie, not 81/2 or The Godfather.

2. Man of Steel was good, but not great, and except for the very first film of its kind, it is steep hill to climb to get the Supes mythos right.

3. Zack Snyder can make a great film good and a good film awful.

4. The DC film Universe is already about a decade behind the Marvel Universe, they haven't set the film up properly, and WB waited entirely too long to get their act together on this.

And that's the central problem with BvS -- It tried to mash Phases 1-3 into one film. Snyder's grasping to make a Serious Film actually made it worse because there was entirely too much brooding and grasping for symbolism with the dream sequences. So while the plotline was very rushed, the film took a long time getting to the payoff -- revealing the other heroes -- which made it clumsy.

That being said, I enjoyed it! Cavill still seems to be finding his way into making Superman a real personality, but Affleck makes a great Batman (very Frank Millerish) and Gal Gadot exceeded my expectations as Wonder Woman (loved her theme music). Lane, Fishburne and Irons shone, while Adams is as good a Lois Lane as can be asked for. As for Eisenberg, I blame his uneven Luthor on the compressed plot. Overall, it was a competently done adaptation of some of DC's best plotlines. Though this should have been launched with the Dark Knight trilogy.

of

I hope to see it on Thursday but I think the main issue is what you said about them trying to play catch-up. They may as well relax about that and do their own thing because as far as them ever being able to catch up, that ship has sailed.

My problem with supes is that he's not Tom Welling....so yeah, I still got baggage that I need to let go of.

namepeace said:

kpowers said:

....................................................... go Steelers

For me, it's the greatest comic book in history. I understand the artwork was drab and unconventional for Bats but the story was incredible.

Once again we know a lot of people love Frank Millers Batman but there are some that don't like it

namepeace said:

I went into BvS with these premises:

1. It's a superhero movie, not 81/2 or The Godfather.

2. Man of Steel was good, but not great, and except for the very first film of its kind, it is steep hill to climb to get the Supes mythos right.

3. Zack Snyder can make a great film good and a good film awful.

4. The DC film Universe is already about a decade behind the Marvel Universe, they haven't set the film up properly, and WB waited entirely too long to get their act together on this.

And that's the central problem with BvS -- It tried to mash Phases 1-3 into one film. Snyder's grasping to make a Serious Film actually made it worse because there was entirely too much brooding and grasping for symbolism with the dream sequences. So while the plotline was very rushed, the film took a long time getting to the payoff -- revealing the other heroes -- which made it clumsy.

That being said, I enjoyed it! Cavill still seems to be finding his way into making Superman a real personality, but Affleck makes a great Batman (very Frank Millerish) and Gal Gadot exceeded my expectations as Wonder Woman (loved her theme music). Lane, Fishburne and Irons shone, while Adams is as good a Lois Lane as can be asked for. As for Eisenberg, I blame his uneven Luthor on the compressed plot. Overall, it was a competently done adaptation of some of DC's best plotlines. Though this should have been launched with the Dark Knight trilogy.

of

I think DC is behind but is catching up. DC is way ahead of Marvel in Animation movies and on TV

I've read way too many negative reviews on this, including one with every spoiler there is. And they all have one common complaint - this movie is not fun.

You know, there's a reason why these characters are called SUPERheroes. They are SUPER. They are BETTER. That means in all areas, not just in their physical traits. They are more moral, more upbeat, more upstanding, more EVERYTHING that is better. That's what makes them SUPERheroes.

Superman does not commit murder. Batman does not commit murder. The title of this movie might have the names "Batman" and "Superman" in it, but the characters are not Superman and Batman.

Pass.

RodeoSchro said:

EmmaMcG said:

RodeoSchro said:

I've read way too many negative reviews on this, including one with every spoiler there is. And they all have one common complaint - this movie is not fun.

You know, there's a reason why these characters are called SUPERheroes. They are SUPER. They are BETTER. That means in all areas, not just in their physical traits. They are more moral, more upbeat, more upstanding, more EVERYTHING that is better. That's what makes them SUPERheroes.

Superman does not commit murder. Batman does not commit murder. The title of this movie might have the names "Batman" and "Superman" in it, but the characters are not Superman and Batman.

Pass.

Superman doesn't kill anyone in this movie that we see. He puts some guy through a wall so we can assume that guy is PROBABLY dead but it's never explicitly stated Superman kills him. And as for Batman killing some people, he has been known to kill villains in the comics before. The no killing rule is fairly recent in Batman mythology. There was one comic where he used a machine gun. Michael Keaton's Batman killed more people than the Joker did. Ben Afflecks Batman is the best live action Batman I've ever seen. Take into consideration the context of his character. He's old, bitter, pissed off. Robin is dead, Barbara Gordon is crippled (though her scenes were cut from the final edit) and to top it off, Superman has shown up and Bruce Wayne thinks his arrival could lead to millions of deaths. As for the movie being "not fun", that depends on your definition of fun. I find it fun to watch Batman snap people's arms and beat them to a pulp. There's not much comedy here, true, but I'd take this over Joel Schumacher's "fun" movies any day.

Batman killing people is a relatively new thing. Batmandidn't kill anyone in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or 70's. And probably not in the '80's either.

Superman apparently killed a LOT of innocent people in "Man of Steel". I turned it off out of boredom before he started killng people but that's what everyone says. Superman - the REAL Superman - would NEVER kill anyone. Ever.

Whatever impressions you have of Superman and Batman, they are not accurately reflective of the vast majority of these characters' existences. Read the stuff from the 30's - 70's to see what these characters are supposed to be.

RodeoSchro said:

I've read way too many negative reviews on this, including one with every spoiler there is. And they all have one common complaint - this movie is not fun.

You know, there's a reason why these characters are called SUPERheroes. They are SUPER. They are BETTER. That means in all areas, not just in their physical traits. They are more moral, more upbeat, more upstanding, more EVERYTHING that is better. That's what makes them SUPERheroes.

Superman does not commit murder. Batman does not commit murder. The title of this movie might have the names "Batman" and "Superman" in it, but the characters are not Superman and Batman.

Pass.

Yeah I know what you are saying. I hate the whole politics of heroes now. So tired of movies and tv shows debating that super heroes are the real threat. Writers are now trying to turn all heroes into anti-hero because it's darker and cooler . Yes tired of scenes in super heroes movies showing some senate debate about it or showing Charlie Rose and Nancy DisGrace in cameos also debating about it

EmmaMcG said: