Monday, March 28, 2016

F This Movie! - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Patrick, Mike and Adam Thas are all named Martha.



Download this episode here. (101.4 MB)

Subscribe to F This Movie! in iTunes.

Listen to F This Movie! on Stitcher.

Also discussed this episode: The Hunted (2003), Conan the Barbarian (2011), The Last Witch Hunter (2015), The Big Short (2015), Skin Trade (2014), Spectre (2015), Guardians of the Galaxy (2014), Kung Fu Panda 3 (2016), Malone (1987)

71 comments:

  1. My mum is named Martha so I guess all is cool, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of my favourite quotes is perfectly apt for this superb podcast

      "I wanted Answers but I just ended up with more questions"!

      Thanks guy's, this was fun, you could do a thesis on this movie, there is so much to analyse. ..

      Delete
    2. Michael GiammarinoMarch 30, 2016 at 1:43 AM

      Is the “Martha” bit silly? Yes. Having said that, I would argue that that in itself isn't the only thing to sway Bruce's actions. For most of the movie, following the re-enactment of the Battle of Metropolis through Bruce’s eyes, Bruce does everything he can to “dehumanize” Superman. Superman isn’t a person, he’s not a man, he’s an ALIEN. It’s the political branding of the Other - the immigrant, the refugee - we find so often in right-wing rhetoric. Even Bruce’s argument to Alfred (“Even if there’s a 1% chance that he is our enemy, we have to take it as an absolute certainty”) was Dick Cheney’s point of legitimacy for the invasion of Iraq. While I’ll admit Superman’s plea to “help Martha” is a forced, contrived moment, Bruce's response is not. This entire movie up till this point, he is told that Superman is not the enemy, but he had no way of knowing that for certain. It is Superman’s plea and Lois’s place at Superman’s side that make Bruce stand down. It finally “humanizes” Superman in Bruce's eyes. He has a human mother who loves him, and a human woman who defends him. And then it goes one step farther. Just as Superman is a stand-in for God, Martha Kent becomes Bruce's stand-in for his mother, Martha Wayne. Saving her becomes the next best thing to saving his actual mother. It brings Batman back from the brink.
      I didn't think they cracked this properly in the film, but that's the general idea.
      Now please. Save Martha.

      Delete
  2. Terrific podcast, gents. Saw "BvS:DOJ" (the only thing worse than the movie's title is its acronym) Saturday overnight. It's too ambitious to be labeled a total failure, but it's a very confused and tonally-inconsistent movie. I agree with the consensus of the trio: Zack Snyder is what's wrong with this franchise. He's just too angry and unable to crack Clark Kent/Superman as a character, especially when Perry White and Clark exchange angry shouts with on-the-nose put downs by Perry of his reporter's non-existing stature. BTW, was Laurence Fishburne just bad in this movie or what? When Snyder shows the U.S. President deciding to blow Superman off the sky with a nuclear weapon, I seriously wondered why Supes would even bother coming back down to try and stop Abomination. Amy Adams is a good actor with the right material, but for the 2nd Supes movie in a row Lois Lane is an exposition-dumping, subtext-spelling shallow character that tag-teams with Diane Lane's Martha ('Martha, Martha, Martha!' :-P) in telling the audience how we're supposed to feel toward Clark/Superman because the character isn't shown earning the admiration and love from people. Contrast that with Affleck and Irons, or even Gal Godet, earning their character beats (good or bad) from what they bring to their roles.

    Adam asked Patrick what scene in the movie was the moment the movie stopped working, period. Personally it was when Supes rescues a little Mexican girl from a fire on 'Day of the Dead.' You've seen the iconic shot in all the commercials, trailers and stills of the hands from the crowd reaching out to touch Superman. And it's clear now that this scene exists solely for Snyder to get that cool shot, not to show us Supes actually rescuing the little girl (the scene starts with Supes descending from the sky after rescuing the girl) so we can see him 'save the cat' and become likable. Ditto for the Batmobile car chase scene. If Supes knew where to stand to knock the Batmobile off track then he had to have been watching the chase unfold, and had to sense or spot that Kryptonite was on the truck Batman was after. Did Supes wreck The Bat's wheels to keep him from getting the Kryptonite or because he was just a dick? These are basic storytelling questions to justify the car chase, but Snyder doesn't bother answering them because his eyes are on the stylish, marketable face-to-face between the two DC titans.

    BTW, serious question. We see Clark climbing a cold mountain and meeting with Pa Kent moving some rocks. Where was Clark going? And after he has his imaginary talk with his Pa, where does Clark actually go to? Where he was going before? Back to Metropolis? Also, as a New Yorker, the geography of Gotham in relation to Metropolis in this movie is hilarious. Based on where the Bat signal was visible from Metropolis it's about the distance between Manhattan and either Brooklyn or Queens... except both Metropolis and Gotham are basically NYC equivalents in the DC universe as far as stature. In "BVS:DOJ" there are two Manhattans, Metropolis and Gotham, within close proximity of one other. Then how come Batman gets to rescue Martha and be done in time while Supes takes longer to reach Luthor's in the just-as-close-to-Gotham crashed Kryptonian ship in Metropolis? BTW, THE METROPOLIS AUTHORITIES REBUILT ALL THE DAMAGE FROM "MAN OF STEEL" IN 18 MONTHS, AND THEN DECIDED TO LEAVE THE KRYPTONIAN SHIP WRECKAGE IN PLACE AND JUST BUILD A DOME AROUND IT? Because, you know, after 9/11 we here in NYC seriously considered leaving the remains of the planes that crashed against the towers as a permanent reminder of the tragedy that befell us. Why wouldn't Metropolis' mayor ever consider, I don't know, asking Supes to move the got damn ship away from where it crashed to free the city from the expense of the dome or the trauma of it being a permanent reminder?

    Patrick is right, bitching about this flick could be a full-time job. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's an endless spiral. We could have kept talking but it's exhausting.

      Delete
    2. Michael GiammarinoMarch 28, 2016 at 11:01 PM

      I don't think Zack Snyder is the biggest problem this franchise has. I think the studio noticed the reaction to Superman Returns and issued a mandate: look at Superman Returns, and do the exact opposite. And to the studio, Snyder's aesthetic fit perfectly with the concept they had in mind.
      Applying studio mandate, I think Snyder became enamored with the timeliness of Kingdom Come, and crafted his Superman from a melange of iterations -- Superman's Nitzschean pre-code days, the Golden Age, Modern Age, The Dark Knight Returns, Birthright, Earth One, and the "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" storyline.
      J.m., you were wondering what was going on when we see Clark in the Arctic, on the mountain, where he sees Jonathon's "ghost." Here's what I think was going on there: I think Snyder was taking some more ideas from Kingdom Come and "Whatever Happened to the Man from Tomorrow?"
      They play upon this idea of Superman trying to do good by way of mankind but always falling shirt in some way. In "WHttMoT," he killed Mr. Mxyzptlk, and went into self-imposed exile, using Gold Kryptonite to get rid of his parents before taking his leave into the Arctic. He doesn't use Gold Kryptonite in Batman v Superman, but his decision after not noticing the bomb in Congress until it was too late is the same. BvS tries to mirror the themes of Kingdom Come ("What is a hero?" "How does a hero behave?") with another theme, one that Superman poses to Lois ("There's no place for good in this world"), an opinion which Bruce Wayne concurs with at the beginning of the movie ("How many good guys are left, how many stayed that way?") and at the by the end of the movie, his opinion has changed.
      Ghostly Jonathon's confession that saving those horses on his family's farm had an unforeseen, hurtful effect on Lana Lang's family's farm is supposed to reflect Superman's own intention to do good, only to be criticized for it. Jonathan tells Clark the only thing that helped him deal with the repercussions of his "heroism" was Martha. He calls Martha his "whole world." So Clark goes back to Metropolis to find his whole world, Lois. Lucky for him he went back to find her when he did, when she was being thrown off a building by Lex Luthor. This idea of Lois being his whole world is reinforced here after Superman blames Batman for taking away his whole world in the Knightmare sequence. Flash adds to this when he says "Lois is the key."

      Delete
    3. Michael GiammarinoMarch 28, 2016 at 11:05 PM

      Auto correct is the enemy of long posts.
      *shirt should be short
      ** parents should be powers

      Delete
    4. Thanks for your explanation, Michael. As in "Prometheus," I don't doubt the filmmakers' attempts at making smart connections/references within "BVS:DOJ's" subtext. Like "Prometheus," though, the incoherent storytelling and 'no fun allowed' narrative in Snyder's movie keeps the subtle touches you listed from registering (or even mattering in the grand scheme of things).

      Delete
    5. Michael GiammarinoMarch 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM

      I think what it comes down to, ultimately, what one considers fun. As messy as the movie is, I still had fun with it. When I left my Thursday night early screening, the thought that came to mind was, "If Golan and Globus were still making movies today, and had $250 million to throw away on a Superman/Batman movie, it would probably look a little something like this."

      Delete
    6. Michael GiammarinoMarch 29, 2016 at 9:46 PM

      J.m., one more quick thing. About that car chase that Superman interrupted. You wondered if Superman could somehow sense the Kryptonite in the truck. I'm gonna say no. As far as we know, he's never been confronted with Kryptonite before. He doesn't know what Kryptonite is until Batman almost kills him with it, much later. But has Superman been staking Batman out? More than likely. And you wonder why Superman would get in the middle of Batman's pursuit and fuck up his wheels. I think it's established in the earlier scene where Clark is talking to Perry. Clark thinks this "Bat vigilante" is a rite of terror, no different than any criminal. He IS a criminal, as far as Clark is concerned. He's too obsessed with taking down the Bat to worry about KGBeast and his cargo. Or is he? I wonder if in the R cut, after he delivers his warning to Bruce, he follows the truck to its destination, sees that it's Luthor-owned, and keeps it in mind for further reference.

      Delete
  3. I have a feeling that Patrick’s birthday gift (Happy Birthday, Patrick!) could serve as an apt simile for the movie: “What’s Batman v Superman like? It’s like giving a big sugary cupcake to a diabetic.” My feelings about the director were firmed up when I was seeing Watchmen for the first time (and that’s a movie I LIKE): Zach Snyder has the soul of a pornographer. He is too in love with images devoid of any context, meaning, or – ultimately – morality. That’s why Snyder can shoot a beloved character like Jimmy Olsen in the head, and call it having “fun” with the character (and yes, he did actually say that).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael GiammarinoMarch 29, 2016 at 8:52 AM

      I don't get the offense so many people have had over the death of Jimmy Olsen. He's died multiple times in the comic, once just recently, if I'm not mistaken. He's died on Smallville. Do you think these deaths are ever permanant? Nobody ever stays dead in comic book movies. In DC lore, there's something called the multiverse. Flash need only go to Earth 2,3, 4,or 5, and bump into Jimmy Olsen. Easy fix. It's a non-issue, and it's nothing to get offended over.

      Delete
    2. You are quite correct that comic book characters die and are resurrected with regularity - just witness Superman himself. It's not that Jimmy Olsen was killed - it's the callous, almost casual manner that the film does away with him. While I would agree that DC and Warner Brothers have every right to do what they want with the material (especially if DC signs off on it), it still shows a harsh, brutal world that is contrary to what I want in a superhero movie. It's the same effect that Star Trek Into Darkness had on me.

      Delete
  4. This movie helped me finally figure out how to articulate my distaste for Superman's portrayal in this series.

    Superman and Batman are interesting characters in that they have their own tones that can be separate from their setting. Batman is a dark character and Superman is a bright character but they can both work in either setting.

    Take Adam West's Batman, for example. The setting of that show is goofy as hell and super exaggerated, but it works because Batman is still straight-faced and totally deadpan. It's where the comedy comes from and it stays true to the character.

    These movies have a very dark setting, which isn't a problem at all, but I think their portrayal of Superman falls flat because they bring him down to the setting's level of negativity. In these films he is not an optimistic character. He's aggressive, selfish, and doesn't believe in the inherent goodness of people. That just isn't Superman to me. Batman being a murderer isn't Batman to me. This series just isn't for me, which is saddening because these characters mean so much to me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the shout out but "someone" was my father's name. To clarify, I said you would just be taking a dump not dumping on the movie. Do you think we'll get to see Superman's dick in the other version? Do you think it's S-shaped?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm pretty sure it has a "S" on the tip.

      Delete
    2. It's not an "S". In my world it means "hope".

      Delete
    3. I agree. His dick is definitely shaped like hope.

      Delete
  6. I for one am also a fan of justice... and how it dawns.

    No, but seriously. This movie is atrocious. I agree that the biggest problem is Superman. They have NO IDEA who Superman or Lois Lane is. I like Superman and it's so incredibly sad to see this miserable version of the character. How could you make a movie where I don't like Superman? Man, this movie is depressing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the most telling scene in the movie is the "Superman saving people" montage, and how it's set to depressing music. Like, in 2 movies, the only person he's really taken the time to save is Lois Lane....10 times. Why is it such a burden for Superman to save people?

      Delete
    2. He repeatedly saved people in MoS. Oil rig full of people & busload full of kids in the first 30 mins alone as far as small scale saving. Also every person on the planet in the climax in terms of big picture saving.

      Delete
    3. Superman was fine in Man of Steel. Not my favorite, but fine. He got a TERRIBLE representation in BvS though.

      Brian, you're right on about the music during the montage. Just awful. I want to go watch fun and happy Dean Cain be Superman now.

      Delete
    4. I guess what I mean is during the fight scenes, he only ever breaks from angry punching to save Lois, and not any of the other hundreds who are dying from his warfare. The saving montages and cutaways are great, but they really don't mean much. He's been in fights that have leveled the city twice, and the only times he's taken a break from punching is to save Lois. Hey Superman, all these other dead women have boyfriends too, ya prick.

      Delete
    5. Michael GiammarinoMarch 29, 2016 at 8:39 AM

      Who's dying, from what warfare? Are you talking about BvS or Man of Steel?

      Delete
    6. Both. They scale but the destruction here, but there's still huge amounts of destruction to Metropolis. I'm nitpicking, but I think it's demonstrative to how unheroic Snyder views Superman. I just can't believe how little joy there is in every single Superman scene, where the scenes where he actually saves people is met with haunting music and slow images.

      Delete
    7. Both. They scale but the destruction here, but there's still huge amounts of destruction to Metropolis. I'm nitpicking, but I think it's demonstrative to how unheroic Snyder views Superman. I just can't believe how little joy there is in every single Superman scene, where the scenes where he actually saves people is met with haunting music and slow images.

      Delete
    8. Michael GiammarinoMarch 29, 2016 at 5:35 PM

      I never saw it that way. Whenever Superman saved Lois at the times you bring up, things were taken care of. In Man of Steel, when he destroyed the World Engine over the Indian Ocean and returned to Metropolis, the Phantom generator had activated and was sucking everything into it, and he got there in just enough time to save Lois. No one else needs saving at that precise moment. Zod hadn't exited the scout ship yet. In BvS, Batman and Wonder Woman seemed to have Doomsday under control at the moment. I guess my point is Superman has always been partial to Lois, putting her on a pedestal over the rest of the world. In BvS, it's even specified that if Lois were to die, he would turn on the rest of the world. Even in Superman: The Movie, when he realizes Lois died because he never had an opportunity to prevent it, he spins the world several times counter to its axis to turn time backwards and save her life. Superman loved Jonathon Kent, but you don't see him turning Tim backwards to save Jonathon's life. In that instance you could say the same thing. Only, Marlon Brando's Jor-El should have put it so succinctly: "Kal-El, it is forbidden for you to interfere with human history. You know, there are other men in that earthquake who have dead girlfriends, you prick. It's not just about you."

      You think the music playing during the "Superman saving people" is depressing? Okay. That's fine if you think so, I just don't see it. I've always thoughts it depicted the revenance of this God-like being. I never thought he saw saving people as a burden. I thought it was more like he was trying to good and the only thing he got in return for his actions from most people was cynicism, ridicule and conjecture.

      Delete
  7. What struck me was how lazily the writer's addressed criticism of MoS. So, the finale was criticized for being too destructive and morose. Should we scale back the ending, try o figure out a way have a final battle that doesn't invoke 9/11 levels of destruction? Nope, just throw in some dialogue about how it's uninhabited. Done. And that's all over the film. And no character motovation, just characters doing things to set up action scenes later. Hey Lois, why are you throwing that spear into a 30 foot puddle? Ehh, who knows.

    Also, so Superman is dead. And Clark Kent is dead. So when Superman gets resurrected, does Clark also? Won't that seem a little conspicuous. And how does Lex know Batman's identity? He's been trolling him for almost 2 years? What a long con he's set up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael GiammarinoMarch 28, 2016 at 10:17 PM

      Clark's secret has been exposed to the public in the comic. Frankly, I thought that's the route they were going the first time I saw Man of Steel.

      Delete
  8. This movie is exhausting. But also a real bummer? I think they struck gold with the casting of Batman and Wonder Woman, an I even think Cavil is capable of a good Superman, but the filmmaking had me so frustrated that none of that can shine through. The editing in this movie is bizarre. There is nothing resembling transitions (and while some of this is probably the script, a lot could be done with halfway decent editing) and the for probably half the movie I was wondering what the hell was happening for the first few moments of a scene. None of the dialogue really has any meaning, it's just word spoken by actors. And I think the most egregious problem is that there are no emotional centers for ANY character. Nothing that happens has any weight because we can't connect to anything emotionally because it frankly isn't there. And it is so disappointing because I love all the casting here, the way Batman and Alfred interact on missions is both great and (as far as I can remember) the first time we've seen that on film. And Gal Gadot manages to be charming and stunning as Wonder Woman while never having anything to do, and she knows how to do action beats, so the stuff that is her and not her stunt double she does well. Snyder is this movie's problem, and it just sucks because getting the casting right is so vital to these super hero movies, and still he squanders a great cast.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd say Alfred is the closest "BVS:DOJ" has to a character with an emotional center. When he murmurs under his breath about "if there are future generations" of Waynes while having breakfast with Bruce, Jeremy Irons' voice and body language create a moment that eludes just about every other character in the movie. No surprise, it's freaking Jeremy Irons (and Michael Caine in the Nolan trilogy) playing surrogate father to brash Bruce's vigilante fantasies. You'd think this supporting role would complement richer, better developed leading roles, instead of being the easy to spot outlier in terms of characters with internal emotions.

      Delete
  9. In comics, there are some artists who are great at drawing splash pages and cool looking images but aren't any good at putting a series of images together to construct a visual narrative. Snyder is good at creating cool moments and visuals in his movies but also struggles in putting them together to create a solid narrative (except in the case of Watchmen where he was able to use the comic as a storyboard). Synder does have a lot of talent, I just hope in the future he works on more projects that play to his strengths.

    I think it should also be noted that there have been a lot of bad movies made from screenplays Goyer had a hand in. Blade: Trinity aside since he directed it also, it's hard to blame him as a writer for what ultimately ends up on screen. At the same time though, it's also probably easy to come off looking a lot better than you actually are when you work with people like the Nolans and GDT.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good to hear from my favourite band, Orgy of Destruction, again. By the way, you say "Dick with LASER eyes" and I hear "Bette Davis Eyes". I smell a number one single!

    In all seriousness, great podcast guys. This podcasting trio rivals the "Ménage-à-trois of Stupid" as my favourite post-mortem movie examiners.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm gonna have to fall on the side of saying that this film is not that bad. Misguided, confusing, frustrating and schizophrenic? Hell yes. Calling it horrible and atrocious, the worst comic book ever made or writing endless articles on Birth. Movies. Death is taking it to an extreme level of criticism. For the biased reviewer, this film is becoming a case of nothing more than 'I told you so'. For the average film goer it's a night at the movies and, sadly, nothing more. Ben Affleck was great though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, it could have been worse. The acting is good for the most part, and there's some cool imagery. The narrative is such a mess though that none of that other stuff really matters. The movie fails on such a basic level of storytelling and editing that if you cut up all the trailers and pieced them back together with the clips in chronological order, you'd have an experience that's just about as satisfying and about 2 hours shorter. All the important story beats are given away in the trailers and the movie itself just contains the clumsy attempts to connect those beats together.

      Delete
    2. Michael GiammarinoMarch 28, 2016 at 10:12 PM

      It's my belief (until I see the R cut when it's released) that the narrative and editing issues are what happen when you rip a thirty minute chunk from a three hour movie. It's going to show.

      Delete
    3. The obvious answer to that is to not make a 3 hour movie. It felt bloated as it is, and given some of the unnecessary scenes they left in I can't imagine that the stuff they took out would have helped the narrative at all.

      Delete
    4. Michael GiammarinoMarch 29, 2016 at 5:14 AM

      Yes, the 3 hour running time is excessive. And the decision to make a $250 million niche movie was insane. But the effect would be the same if it was two hours or two and a half, and had thirty minutes cut.

      Delete
    5. Michael GiammarinoMarch 29, 2016 at 5:19 AM

      Warner Brothers released one short deleted scene yesterday. As short as it is, it gives more insight into what Lex was ranting about in his jail cell.
      https://youtu.be/s-MUzvASr8s

      Delete
    6. 3 hours is a lot of movie about a fight that lasts for 10 minutes. There's a lot of other scenes which could've been cut and there would be no effect on the narrative.

      Delete
    7. Michael GiammarinoMarch 29, 2016 at 7:05 PM

      They're doing a lot of V'ing early on, it just culminates in that 10 minute fight. (I do believe it's a little longer in the R cut.) I think it still justifies the Batman v Superman title. But that subtitle is there too, so when Batman and Superman aren't V'ing, we're dawning Justice.

      Delete
  12. A question I've never seen answered anywhere (even thought it's been brought up in reviews)...why is Wayne Manor gutted? This isn't Nolan's Universe where it was burnt down. It wasn't in Metropolis so Superman and Zod didn't do it. The reviews I've heard and read say it's shown but it's never addressed. Anyone know?

    Meanwhile, I've decided that if I want to see a couple of guys hit each other with sinks and toilets, I'll watch my BLUE RAY copy of "The Spirit". At least that movie had an actual hero AND some humor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael GiammarinoMarch 28, 2016 at 9:59 PM

      Rumor is Joker broke into Wayne Manor, beat Robin (Jason Todd) to death, vandalized the place, and then set the Manor on fire. This would be a very different take on the "Death in the Family" comic storyline. We'll find out for sure in either the three hour cut of Batman v Superman, or when Suicide Squad comes out.

      Delete
    2. "Terminator 3" and "True Lies" are my go-to movies when I want to see bathroom porcelain being shattered in people's (i.e. cybernetic organism's) skulls. Arnie's action movies really excelled in this department. :-)

      Delete
  13. I agree with all of the criticisms leveled at the movie, but my jaw literally dropped when Patrick compared it to Age of Ultron. Whedon's movie does so, so much more right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think Patrick meant that they're on the same level of quality. "Age of Ultron" is also bloated and feels unnecessary, but its eons more entertaining and a better representation of the superheroes it depicts. I got from Patrick that we've reached an era of diminishing returns with epic superhero movies in which it's tiring and no fun to watch essentially the same 'the world's at stake' scenario repeated over and over again. You don't have to be a superhero fan to feel like shouting 'Enough already!' at the glut of superhero movies we've been getting lately, and "BVS:DOJ" (I won't stop writing this acronym, ever!!! :-P) feels like the nadir of these unnecessarily bloated, epic, lengthy and not-as-fun-as-it-used-to-be cinematic representation of our childhood heroes.

      And BTW, the timing of "BVS:DOJ" getting released a couple of months after "Deadpool" can't be ignored. The latter essentially took a chainsaw of bawdy humor through the snobbery and pretentiousness that characterizes the genre (particularly on Marvel's side, but DC flicks take themselves much seriously than Marvel's). Zack's movie is exhibit 'A' of what "Deadpool" was making fun of, and I can't wait for "Deadpool 2" to stick it to 'the man' right around the time the "Justice League" movie comes out.

      Delete
    2. I can't wait for Deadpool 2 to hopefully have its way with BvS.

      Delete
  14. I'm usually much more sour on films than the F! crew, but I find myself defending BvS online quite a bit. The end fight was bad, Lois a caricature, Lex was miscast, WW wasted, Superman needs to get out of his emo phase and Batman wasn't very bright or a very good detective. AND YET. I like the themes they're going for, I like the tone, I like dropping in obscure DC references and I think there's a gem of a really great movie here. The biggest shame is Snyder just doesn't make me care about any characters, ever. I appreciate his films while having 0 emotional investment in anything going on. We need to care about these heroes and with him at the helm I don't think we ever can. Great podcast as always guys!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael GiammarinoMarch 29, 2016 at 8:41 AM

      If there was a 'like' button, I would have pressed it.

      Delete
  15. I went into this movie expecting to hate it. I agree with 99% of the issues you guys had with it; still, I had a lot of fun with this movie!

    I'll be the first to admit to my naiveness but this was the first time I have ever considered the possibility of an "evil" Superman and throughout the movie there was strong imagery that really stirred up the "Oh shit, what if!" of that idea. I felt like at any point it could have turned that way, to the point I started wishing Superman to act nefariously. Imagine the people waiting on the roof, Superman hoovers above. Cut to the neighbors wiping the ash of their neighbors remains from their eyes ala War of the Worlds! I think that change could have moved the plot more organically in many places. Also it could have justified forcing death to have consequence, which was the biggest short coming of the movie to me.

    The Wonder Woman "reveal" with the music totally worked for me to the point I wanted to stand up in the theater and pledge my fealty to her. I look forward to seeing if they are able to build that character out.

    It may be a case of me liking this movie for the movie I wanted it to be, instead of what it is, but ultimately I had a blast in the theater.

    IMAX never hurts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael GiammarinoMarch 30, 2016 at 12:53 AM

      The idea Superman could turn on a dime if something bad happened to Lois comes from this video game, which became a comic in its own right.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injustice:_Gods_Among_Us

      Delete
  16. I really really wanted to like this movie, but it is terrible. I don't think I've ever seen a movie that's as poorly paced and edited. The first hour jumps between what seems like a hundred locations and time periods. Its exhausting. Also, Superman is now basically the Punisher. This Superman wouldn't save a kitten from a tree, he'd blow the tree right the fuck up with his laser eyes. Batman is probably the best thing in the movie, his suit and the way he moves look great. With that being said, that's not my Batman. Hes a terrible detective, seems to kill without mercy, and is totally a Trump supporter. "Noone really knows if branding is torture, if that's torture it's like the lowest form of torture. We're gonna go much stronger than that Alfred". Gal Gadot looks great as a cardboard cut-out of Wonder Woman. I agree with Patrick on Eisenberg, I found him interesting. I don't think he's good, but he's doing a thing. The way the other Justice League members are introduced is garbage. As a Zack Snyder kinda-fan the whole thing just broke my heart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael GiammarinoMarch 30, 2016 at 12:44 AM

      The Knightmare vision of Superman I could see fitting your comparison to the Punisher. Maybe. The idea Superman could turn on a dime if something bad happened to Lois comes from this video game, which became a comic in its own right.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injustice:_Gods_Among_Us

      Delete
    2. Michael GiammarinoMarch 30, 2016 at 12:51 AM

      Drew: Your observation that Bruce's branding of criminals is the equivalent of torture may not be too far off.

      http://thestake.org/2016/01/25/in-bvs-bruce-wayne-is-a-neocon-espousing-the-1-doctrine/

      Delete
  17. I was glad when Patrick brought up Prometheus. I've not seen either film and have little interest in doing so. But this podcast remindes me of that also great one. I loved listening to this discussion and the fascinating break down, thoughts and confusion surrounding the film. Good job, as always.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Great podcast guys, Adam Thas would love to hear you more regularly too.

    Just the sheer volume of comments here shows that this movie if nothing else is polarising and it generates discussion...well, maybe it's not polarising because I haven't come across anyone you really genuinely likes it.

    My opinion? Well I didn't hate it and I was actually on board with parts of it; even including SOME of the 'Superman is a dangerous alien' stuff. Overall so much of it just didn't work, which is sad because I want so badly for DC to do well so we don't get a completely marvel dominated comic book movie world.

    I don't remember who exactly, but a very astute Fthismovie contributor tweeted about the movie saying that everyone seeing it just to "see how good/bad it is" is problematic because it still makes the studios a shit tonne of money, and if they're making money, are the studios going to care about quality control?

    I didn't like Man of Steel but I was never going to miss Batman v Superman Dawefiouvhoin whatever you call it...and I won't miss the next one either, even knowing that it might be diminishing returns. I know I'm not alone on that either.

    What is wrong with us?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've always felt that supporting good movies is more important than not supporting bad ones. If WB wants to crank out a bunch of bad Justice League movies and Michael Bay keeps getting to make Transformers movies it's not the end of the world.

      Delete
    2. First: Thank you. Second: I'll go see it. I'm a comic nerd and I know I'll see it, no matter how bad it is.

      Delete
  19. Update I've had "dick with laser eyes!" stuck in my head sporadically since I listened to this. Catchy shit :(

    ReplyDelete
  20. Finally watched this last night - pretty much met my (lowered) expectations - it's funny, like you guys (maybe Patrick especially) I don't HATE it, and in a lot of ways kinda like it, but I could talk about the problems I have with it for hours - fortunately you've done it all for me and the podcast provided much soothing affirmation as well as being just an hilarious joy to listen to - thank you!

    This movie is such a perfect example of something I've been thinking about after watching some of the Moon making-of/Q&A bonus features. That's a great movie that I love and I got such a sense of it being a collaborative effort, and though I don't think all great movies have to be collaborative efforts, I think pretty much all movies that are hobbled by seemingly obvious poor choices are the result of some kind of writer/director fascism where one of the dozens of people involved with making the movie can't just say, "Are you fucking crazy? Superman's referring to his mother, whilst talking to a stranger, by her first name?! The scene would work just as well if he just said 'MOM' like EVERYONE IN REAL LIFE EVER would." The thought of Batman changing his mind about Superman because he realizes he's got a mom too and she's in danger and he has a chance to save a mom's life and Superman's maybe not so alien after all is MOVING to me. But I'm in theatre thinking why the fuck did he just call her Martha and Batman's getting all freaked out about it? I don't think these sorts of horribly stupid decisions with easy fixes get made in a production where there's a free exchange of ideas happening. It happens when ONE GUY says, "I have a vision of how this whole Martha thing's going to play out with a stylish flashback, etc. and it's been chiseled into the hunk of granite that is my Artistic Genius and no one try to tell me different." It's basically the same problem as all of the Star Wars prequel movies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The Hunk of Granite that is My Artistic Genius" just might be my favorite phrase of all time.

      Delete
    2. Michael GiammarinoApril 2, 2016 at 12:54 AM

      I'm up for a discussion about the film if you are, Sol.

      Delete
    3. Michael GiammarinoApril 2, 2016 at 5:26 AM

      One little conversation starter that came to mind: there's a deleted scene Deborah Snyder described with Clark investigating Bruce Wayne. There's a picture of Henry Cavill sitting at a table in his apartment in the film (I think) looking at his laptop while Snyder is blocking the shot, and I'm thinking it might be the scene Deborah was talking about. Maybe Clark was reading up on Bruce's life, and the murder of his parents, and learned Martha's name that way. I don't know, maybe I'm reaching.

      Delete
    4. I thought you wanted to have a discussion about the film we all actually saw. :P

      It is reasonable to believe Clark would find out Bruce's mother's name was also Martha but unless you call some kind of attention to it, it is definitely a reach to suggest that such a pivotal scene was Superman's intentional gambit to stop Batman from killing him. It's far too dishonest of a moment to pull off without some kind of support for it - at the very least something like Superman talking about Lex forcing him to fight Batman to Lois and saying I'd really rather cooperate with him - his mother's name is Martha too - maybe that's some common ground to build on. Even that's not very GOOD but it at least makes the desperate moment when he's referring to his mother by her first name somewhat honest. Dishonesty is the worst kind of bad storytelling.

      I've read all of the comments - I admire your defence of the movie and love to see you loving it so much - I'm not saying you're wrong but most of the explanations just don't work for me to repair the problems I see with it.

      Delete
  21. Michael GiammarinoApril 2, 2016 at 9:05 PM

    "The film we actually saw"? You said you still kinda liked it despite your misgivings. Isn't a discussion between differing opinion more interesting than discussing it in an echo chamber? There's no right or wrong here, Sol. I'm not here to convince anyone that I'm somehow right an someone else is somehow wrong. Just get a dialogue going. Unless by liking it somehow that means I have blinders on. You reiterated the same point that was already broached -- there is a lot that can be discussed about this movie. Maybe there isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  22. There is so much wrong with this film... BUT! Snyder does get some things right, then again. These "right" snyder moves might be totally unintentional. One of those things is the opening scene. And I strongly disagree with the notion that it should have been removed. The thing about Batman is that he is a strongly traumatised individual, and he is haunted by the murder of his parents. So to get and explain why Batman does what he does, it is important for the storytelling to repeat those scenes over and over again, just like they repeat over and over again in his mind: a gun going off, Pearls flying in the air and so on. And frankly that scene is basically ripped off from "the dark knight returns" and really that is what snyder is good at, to adapt a comicbook visionally. And basically why I liked "watchmen" and "300" but it just feels like thats all he can do. He does not understand the essentials of these characters.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think there are 3 different approaches to these types of films and they all involve frame of reference. For me, I watch a ton of movies a year from all different genres from the lowest budgets to the biggest blockbusters. I take these Hollywood Super Hero films with a grain of salt, I'm not that invested in the stories and I really just watch them with the hopes that I'll be surprised or see something special that I like in them. BVS was cool to me. Not great, not bad. I like it just fine. I like Synder a lot. I think his films get butchered (Sucker Punch, Watchmen and BVS were all cut and all have "directors cut" versions) and he really knows what he's doing.

    Another camp is the die hards. The Comic Book fans or superhero movie fans who are totally into the story, consistency, casting, etc... I cannot relate therefore I have no opinion as to their reaction to this movie.

    The third, and the majority camp, are the families and people that go to about 8-10 blockbuster movies a year. That's all. Their frame of reference is based upon big budget Hollywood films. They have no idea that the director of Watchmen (a movie they may have seen and probably thought was overlong and didn't really like it) directed BVS. They are just going to see the newest superhero film that stars actors they are really familiar with and most likely fans of. All they want is to be wowed. To see Batman and Superman fight and take out the villains. They want to escape and have fun doing so because they paid for that. In this, I can see how that camp would be disappointed.

    ReplyDelete