Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

I think most critics were already decided about this before they even watched it because of Afleck. I dont honestly understand the hatred for him as if you imagine a grizzled Bruce Wayne he'd be pretty high on the list imo.
 
Liefrich said:
I don't agree. They are two totally different formats and more often than not if directors attempt to stay totally faithful to the source material then it results in a mess of a film. This often upsets fan boys but I think as long as the spirit and the general plot of the film remain the same then that is fine. You simply cannot condense novels and large comic book story arcs into 2 hours of film.
Click to expand...

Ultimate cut is over 3 and a half hours, however it's slightly over 3 hours without the animated movie interwoven throughout the narrative.

Watchmen was part of my formative comic book reading years, i've got Moore & Gibbons signed editions of issues #1-5 that I treasure, i've got a lot of love for the story.

I went into the cinema expecting to hate the film, however it felt like whole panels from the comic had been lifted straight into the movie. Snyder captured the essence of the comic perfectly. The casting was really strong as well, a lot of little known actors at that time have gone on to become "household" names.

I understand why people don't like it, it's very marmite with the stylisation but for me it worked superbly, it's in my top 10 films of all time.

EDIT: Aside from 300, I don't think Snyder has done anything else much good...he's generally only a strong director if he hasn't done the writing.
 
Last edited:
Grandmaster Fap! said:
I think most critics were already decided about this before they even watched it because of Afleck. I dont honestly understand the hatred for him as if you imagine a grizzled Bruce Wayne he'd be pretty high on the list imo.
Click to expand...

I've only read a couple of reviews, but they seem to be picking on the movie being a mess rather than affleck being crap. He's, apparently, pretty good.
 
Grandmaster Fap! said:
I think most critics were already decided about this before they even watched it because of Afleck. I dont honestly understand the hatred for him as if you imagine a grizzled Bruce Wayne he'd be pretty high on the list imo.
Click to expand...

My first thought when hearing Afleck was Batman was how awful. If Batman were to be a little older (The Dark Knight Returns) and they used say, James Brolin, then that would be very good.

I'm stuck in Cardiff all Saturday dropping kids off with grandparents and picking GF up from airport so planning a double bill of 10 Cloverfield Lane and S Vs B.
 
Grandmaster Fap! said:
I think most critics were already decided about this before they even watched it because of Afleck. I dont honestly understand the hatred for him as if you imagine a grizzled Bruce Wayne he'd be pretty high on the list imo.
Click to expand...

Is it suddenly 2002 again? Affleck has had a pretty dramatic career revival in recent years. He's an Oscar winning director and was praised heavily for his role in Gone Girl. I don't think critics are still judging him for being a bit crap when he was younger.
 
Watching this on the 25th and cannot wait!

I'm confident in the film and always been happy that Afleck got cast as Batmam.

Critic reviews are pretty much always opposite to me and I feel this film will be great for fans of DC but for people who see it as a generic Superhero film will probably not get the story.

HURRY UP FRIDAY!
 
Smeghead said:
Is it suddenly 2002 again? Affleck has had a pretty dramatic career revival in recent years. He's an Oscar winning director and was praised heavily for his role in Gone Girl. I don't think critics are still judging him for being a bit crap when he was younger.
Click to expand...

Most of my friends unfortunately have this mindset. As soon as Affleck comes up when talking about BvS all they repeat is the same mantra of "he was **** in daredevil".

Since The Town, Argo and Gone Girl, i'm sold on the guy. I was like everyone else when he was announced as Bats, knee jerking that he'd be terri-bad. However from what i can see of the trailers and reading about his passion in playing this part, I have high hopes for the Batman portion of this movie.
 
Liefrich said:
I don't agree. They are two totally different formats and more often than not if directors attempt to stay totally faithful to the source material then it results in a mess of a film. This often upsets fan boys but I think as long as the spirit and the general plot of the film remain the same then that is fine. You simply cannot condense novels and large comic book story arcs into 2 hours of film.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think the comic was very faithfully adapted, and was basically used as the movie's storyboard. There was really only one change, and that was simply the mechanism used to trick the world that it was under attack and push out Manhatten.

Liefrich said:
I can tolerate Watchmen but with a more talented director at the helm I reckon it would have been a much better film.
Click to expand...

What, by someone "re-imagining" it? When you've already got a great story in the form of a comic or book, the last thing you want it some director deciding he can do it better than the source material. I can't think of when that has ever worked. Heck, Hollywood can't even remake an existing movie and make it better than the original 99 times out of 100.
 
Steampunk said:
I disagree. I think the comic was very faithfully adapted, and was basically used as the movie's storyboard. There was really only one change, and that was simply the mechanism used to trick the world that it was under attack and push out Manhatten.



What, by someone "re-imagining" it? When you've already got a great story in the form of a comic or book, the last thing you want it some director deciding he can do it better than the source material. I can't think of when that has ever worked. Heck, Hollywood can't even remake an existing movie and make it better than the original 99 times out of 100.
Click to expand...

The comic book was faithfully adapted to the film's detriment. That is essentially my point as the Watchmen is broadly viewed negatively as a film. Please explain how on earth you can faithfully adapt a lengthy novel or comic book into 2 hours of film? Do you have any examples of films that are reviewed well but stay totally faithful to the source material?
 
Sorry for the probably very obvious question but presumably BvS follows on from Man of Steel?

I'm guessing there is no follow on from Nolan's trilogy?

I've avoided all things Superman as I don't find the character interesting.
 
boxman2000 said:
Sorry for the probably very obvious question but presumably BvS follows on from Man of Steel?

I'm guessing there is no follow on from Nolan's trilogy?

I've avoided all things Superman as I don't find the character interesting.
Click to expand...

Yes hence the flashback bits to the Zod fight in MOS and no those are their own trilogy.
 
Liefrich said:
The comic book was faithfully adapted to the film's detriment. That is essentially my point as the Watchmen is broadly viewed negatively as a film. Please explain how on earth you can faithfully adapt a lengthy novel or comic book into 2 hours of film?
Click to expand...

Take out the comic within a comic, and I'd say Watchmen isn't any longer than that to read. Aren't we saying the critics are not to be trusted, but now you're using "broadly viewed" (by whom?) as a criteria? I'd only claim it did poorly amongst those that wouldn't like the comic book anyway.

Liefrich said:
Do you have any examples of films that are reviewed well but stay totally faithful to the source material?
Click to expand...

LOTR as suggested above, though you can see how messing about adding more makes The Hobbit less successful. The Martian is another example, where one act (the trip to the next hab) is edited out, and the addition of the iron man ending has been universally derided. 300 is another copy of the comic that I liked.

I dunno how well Harry Potter or Twilight was translated, because I've not read the books.

If the source material is good, I can understand editing stuff out to fit the running time or tighten up the narrative (as per LOTR), but I don't agree with the director messing about with stuff because they think they can do better by changing the story and characters. An adaptation should adapt the story/characters to the screen, not just change everything to satisfy the director's ego.
 
Watching this on Friday, not really expecting much at all from a Snyder film (I did not realise he was the Whedon of DC films :() - expecting Affleck to save it though, looking forward to his Batman...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Last edited:
I don't want to read anymore reviews but from what I can gather it's a talkie for 3/4 of the movie and action for the last 1/4 which is fine for me.

The biggest concern I have is that my 9 year old wants to see it. He's hooked on marvel but from the little I have read I don't think he will enjoy it. He enjoyed man of steel and the dark knight though.

Anyone else in a similar situation. Or offer a little guidance if I should dissuade him from wanting to see it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom