• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

I really don't get the hate for this movie. 29% on Rottentomatoes??? Seriously? It had a few flaws, but come on. Loads of it was great - some parts absolute genius.
How can something like Age of Ultron be praised (or at least get a free pass) whereas BvS is treated as a flaming pile of trash. It's bizarre.
Do people just hate Snyder?
 
dangermouse said:
I really don't get the hate for this movie. 29% on Rottentomatoes??? Seriously? It had a few flaws, but come on. Loads of it was great - some parts absolute genius.
How can something like Age of Ultron be praised (or at least get a free pass) whereas BvS is treated as a flaming pile of trash. It's bizarre.
Do people just hate Snyder?
Click to expand...

Many people hate Snyder, for the way he directs and tells stories. That's not hating this movie *just* out of blind hatred for Snyder. That kind of dismisses the opinions of all the people who didn't like it. I've read a lot of thoughtful, smart, well-reasoned pieces about why they didn't like the movie.

As far as Rotten Tomatoes, I feel like often the premise of the site is misinterpreted. 30% does not mean the movie is graded as a 30/100, just as Age of Ultron's 75% does not mean that the consensus is that it's a C movie. It's a percentage of people who voted yes to recommending it in a binary system. I think the scores are actually very representative of my anecdotal experience. About 3/4 of the people who saw Ultron thought it was good or better and recommended it. About a quarter didn't. I would say that of the dozen or so people I've talked to about BVS, four of them loved it and would recommend it. Three more liked it but wouldn't recommend it blindly because five scenes will make no sense without DC knowledge. Obviously this is a small sample size but my point is that RT scores are not grades. And no matter whether you loved or hated BVS and AOU, it seems logical to me that the lighter, brighter, more fun movie that's a sequel to a great, successful, beloved movie is far easier to recommend to a random person. That statement has nothing to do with the quality of either film. It just makes sense that more people would recommend it to a general audience, at least to me.

Also, I find divisiveness to be a good thing sometimes. I don't really care about RT scores because many great movies are difficult to watch (for multiple reasons) and thus are hard to recommend. Also, sometimes people are spot on and sometimes they're idiots. RT scores are useful info to factor in to a movie-going decision but please keep in mind what they actually mean. DC is intentionally doing is ultra-serious, dark, and violent world very heavy on comic knowledge. Marvel goes lighter, brighter, accessible to non-comic fans and funnier. Both are cool. But one is far easier to recommend to a stranger, you know?

EDIT: My recollection of AOU's release is that it was critiqued very harshly for not living up to the first one. In my opinion, it got too much shit. But most of this is subjective so at some point there will be a movie you think is great and the public doesn't. I wouldn't assume that there's something wrong with everybody else or that everybody paid 15 bucks to go hatewatch a Snyder movie. You'll never understand it if you dismiss the entire viewpoint. Which is fine but you posted about not understanding that viewpoint so it seems like you want to. Go back and read this very thread for tons of people discussing their problems with the film. And not one of them said "Well I fucking hate that Snyder guy and that's why it didn't work."
 
Thanks cuddly. I'm not surprised some people didn't like the movie. Like any movie it's got problems. But I don't understand the blind hatred (like the idiot reviewer who posted that he was shaking in anger after watching it - seriously, dude, you've got issues.) or people dismissing it as COMPLETE GARBAGE. And, yes, Snyder might be weak on certain things - but he's bloody brilliant at other things. People have gone completely binary over this - that's what I don't really understand.
(By the way, I'm not meaning so much on this forum - here people are always more thoughtful and reasoned. Constructve criticism is great. I just feel sorry for Snyder and co for the hate backlash they've received for what is an obvious labour of love for them and what in many ways is a great film (and in a few ways... definitely not)
Anyway, I AM looking forward to the different fanedits. And I AM looking forward to watching it again on BR. :)
 
^Agreed on all counts. The crazy negative hyperbole is ridiculous and in my opinion, of no real critical value.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I just want to point out that 2003's Daredevil has a 44% rating while BvS carries a 29% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.....

So, 2003's Daredevil is better than BvS?  Is this the Twilight Zone or a massive conspiracy?
 
musiced921 said:
I just want to point out that 2003's Daredevil has a 44% rating while BvS carries a 29% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.....

So, 2003's Daredevil is better than BvS?  Is this the Twilight Zone or a massive conspiracy?
Click to expand...


No, it means that a higher percentage of people recommend it to a general consumer. Those aren't equivalent statements.

Also, you could probably find many people who like the Daredevil DC more than BvS. Who cares? People have different taste, man. A bunch of people not recommending a movie that everybody says has flaws isn't a conspiracy, or even strange. There seems to me to be a modern drive for a consensus on a movie, and then reaction if it differs from one's personal taste. That's weird to me. Art is inherently subjective and boiling a movie down to "recommend it or no" is fine but everybody needs to contextualize what that number means. Which is, a little useful if you generally have similar taste to the people who rated it and not useful at all otherwise. When I go to RT, I read the reviews and use the info if it's someone I trust. I really don't understand why anyone would care what 200 critics think if they're not going to read the actual words. Boiling it down to a yes/no just isn't that useful.
 
dangermouse said:
How can something like Age of Ultron be praised (or at least get a free pass) whereas BvS is treated as a flaming pile of trash. It's bizarre.
Click to expand...

IMO 'Age Of Ultron' was deeply flawed certainly but it featured characters/actors we already loved from a long run of movies we already loved leading up to that movie and they were doing things and saying things consistent with their long established characters. So when everybody already loves everything in the movie, they can forgive problems with the movie's plot/structure itself... up to a point.

Now compare that with BvS... which features mostly new characters/actors, which we have no such reservoir of goodwill towards and stick them in a hot mess of a movie, that is a radical stylistic departure from all previous Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman portrayals. I myself had some goodwill going BvS because I liked Henry Cavill's Superman quite a bit but his character's treatment in BvS was probably the worst part. So it's a perfect storm of annoying everyone, old fans and new viewers alike.
 
thecuddlyninja said:
musiced921 said:
I just want to point out that 2003's Daredevil has a 44% rating while BvS carries a 29% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.....

So, 2003's Daredevil is better than BvS?  Is this the Twilight Zone or a massive conspiracy?
Click to expand...


No, it means that a higher percentage of people recommend it to a general consumer. Those aren't equivalent statements.

Also, you could probably find many people who like the Daredevil DC more than BvS. Who cares? People have different taste, man. A bunch of people not recommending a movie that everybody says has flaws isn't a conspiracy, or even strange. There seems to me to be a modern drive for a consensus on a movie, and then reaction if it differs from one's personal taste. That's weird to me. Art is inherently subjective and boiling a movie down to "recommend it or no" is fine but everybody needs to contextualize what that number means. Which is, a little useful if you generally have similar taste to the people who rated it and not useful at all otherwise. When I go to RT, I read the reviews and use the info if it's someone I trust. I really don't understand why anyone would care what 200 critics think if they're not going to read the actual words. Boiling it down to a yes/no just isn't that useful.
Click to expand...

I was making a joke.....
 
Or use a smiley, or make the sarcasm more pronounced.
 
Here's a fun article from io9 talking about the first feature-length project featuring the Man of Steel and the Caped Crusader: 1997's direct-to-video animated The Batman/Superman Movie: World's Finest.

It takes the position that B v S isn't very good, and it has mild spoilers, so warnings on both of those counts if those are issues for you. But I think it's mostly a nice look back at a generally agreed-upon good movie starring these two characters.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/you-know-the...utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
 
^ Very funny! I enjoyed the movie, and disagree that it was such a mess (apart from the JL bits obviously shoehorned in, yuck), but great satire.

This video is more of a defence of BvS, agsint those whining Batman doesn't kill people.
He does.
A lot.
Sometimes with a big ol' smile.
And Batfleck was unhinged by this stage, so he seemed more merciful than his predecessors!


There's one for Superman as well which is quite amusing. but they missed a trick with the original Superman - remember he didn't save Lois because he was so busy saving the hundreds (thousands) of people in the town from the dam bursting. When he turned back time he saved Lois....
 
dangermouse said:
but they missed a trick with the original Superman - remember he didn't save Lois because he was so busy saving the hundreds (thousands) of people in the town from the dam bursting.
Click to expand...
Not being able to save someone isn't the same thing as killing them.
 
^ But that's all the criticism levelled against MoS in Metropolis. And that was not intentional. Superman 1 he goes back and intentionally decides to let all those people die in order to save Lois instead. For the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many (to really combine franchises, lol).
I don't have a problem with S1, I just find it... interesting. When he's cradling Lois I've always thought "but wait, what about all the people by the dam?!". Just a little quirk (not a flaw) on an amazing film. :)
 
dangermouse said:
^ Very funny! I enjoyed the movie, and disagree that it was such a mess (apart from the JL bits obviously shoehorned in, yuck), but great satire.

This video is more of a defence of BvS, agsint those whining Batman doesn't kill people.
He does.
A lot.
Sometimes with a big ol' smile.
And Batfleck was unhinged by this stage, so he seemed more merciful than his predecessors!


There's one for Superman as well which is quite amusing. but they missed a trick with the original Superman - remember he didn't save Lois because he was so busy saving the hundreds (thousands) of people in the town from the dam bursting. When he turned back time he saved Lois....
Click to expand...

Lol, about that Batman-killing-video, and in the early comics he also had no problems killing gangsters.

As to Superman 1, I think you are wrong: He saved both, Lois and those by the dam through the timetravel. If you look carefully, you will see, that after the timetravel, the ground under Lois' car didn't split, so the thing causing it didn't happen, and since it's the same thing that caused the dam to burst... qed.
 
We can probably dispense with spoiler tags at this point, can't we? :)

TM2YC said:
- The amazing security at Lex's house where the super-sensitive and incriminating mainframes are kept in an unlocked transparent room in the kitchen where at least 3 strangers are free to wonder in and out at random.
Click to expand...

Hey, it beats that of the Kryptonian spaceship that speaks English to Luthor before he even says anything (I think), then happily lets him cook up a long-banned abomination... because he borrowed Zod's fingerprints and asked nicely? Even though the ship AI seemed to understand perfectly well that he wasn't Zod.



TM2YC said:
A few more moments of unintended humour I remembered...

I've only read a few Superman comics and a few more Batman stories so I wasn't aware (Or more likely, had simply forgotten) that Gotham and Metropolis are next door to each other. I thought they were like New York and Los Angeles on either side of the USA. So I found that aspect in this movie quite confusing at first as characters moved from city to city. Did Snyder even bother to establish this geographical fact, or did he just foolishly assume every audience member knew this already?
Click to expand...
I knew from a podcast months ago that the cities were basically San Francisco/Oakland apart in this telling, which AFAIK has never been done in comics before (or at least not regularly), but that proximity was absolutely not decided by/established in MoS (where the name "Gotham" wasn't once spoken), so I can definitely see your confusion. And why was the big Wayne building in Metropolis at all? Gotham was shown to have a large downtown of its own, so why would Bruce not insist on keeping his company in his hometown?


... I give the movie a D+. It held my interest, and I didn't hate it, but I didn't much enjoy it either, and I certainly don't intend on watching it again. Affleck was indeed the best part, but nothing really made sense, and I definitely don't intend on buying a theater ticket to future Snyder movies, Justice League included. Much worse than all the MCU movies to date.
 
I think I understand a little bit where some of the negativity is coming from. I was looking at my IMdB review scores for the Harry Potter films, and saw I rated Half-Blood Prince very harshly (4/10). Now the film isn't that bad - but my expectations from reading the book lead me to be disappointed in the film.
I think many people expected a different, "World's Finest" kind of vibe - and when they didn't get that, they flipped out. I actually think the scores will go up and people will be more generally positive to the film as time goes by and people see the film on its own merits rather than on crushed expectations!
 
dangermouse said:
I think many people expected a different, "World's Finest" kind of vibe - and when they didn't get that, they flipped out.
Click to expand...
Probably.  It's certainly not the only reason for the negative response though.
 
No, there are definitely problems with the film (overstuffed, very Superman-light, overly long climatic fight) - but the overreaction to the film I think is due to unmet expectations. I'll be interested to hear reactions when the BR comes out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom