Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Henry Cavill shares thoughts on 'Batman v Superman': it's a "niche" movie

By

·

November 8, 2017

Batman v Superman was met with mixed reactions from both critics and fans around the world. And while Justice League will likely address some of those criticims, Fox 5's entertainment reporter Kevin McCarthy was curious about Henry Cavill's own personal opinion on Batman v Superman.

"I think that movie is part of an arc for what Snyder's vision was -- or is -- and it's also in my mind fairly niche," Cavill said. "It's a niche style of movie within a genre. It reflects in the audience reviews and critics reviews. It's divisive. When anything is niche is going to be liked by some and disliked by others. That's the whole point of niche."

You can check out video of Cavill's comments in the video below around the 7:13 mark.

Last week Cavill admitted that Warner Bros. and Zack Snyder's previous style of movies haven't worked, but that Wonder Woman is a step in the right direction.

This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com

504 comments

OmegaCorleone
November 8, 2017
https://d2kmm3vx031a1h.clou...
1. Sammy
  November 8, 2017
  lmao this is perfect gif usage
2. AnonymousHero
  November 10, 2017
  Yeap.... that about sums it up.
Kerk Lastnameless
November 8, 2017
Hm-hm-hm, the shareholders won't agree with that assessment, if you know what I mean.
Still, gotta love Henry -- he is being as honest about the matter as he can afford.
1. Seb
  November 8, 2017
  You know what's awesome about him? The fact that these films haven't exactly been universally loved hasn't diminished his excitement. He works insanely hard for these films and actually gives a crap about the character and the comic books. He cares deeply, and even if JL fails, we can be damn sure he'll show up in the sequel anyways (or MoS 2, doesn't matter). Because his commitment is unwavering. He's not weak-minded... And then we have Ben, who can't even be bothered to work out even just a bit for JL, and doesn't do anything particularly original with the role and worst of all, seems to have no fucking self-awareness he's playing the freaking BATMAN. But no, all he seems to do is whine and bitch "because he has to stay in good shape" (which he wasn't post BvS). You know, it's these things that make me want to wish the best for Cavill, while I honestly don't even care if Ben leaves at this point, with his infinite drama (I will direct Batman... Oh wait, I won't. I will do Batman for as long as I can... Oh wait, I don't know about that). Seriously, make up your damn mind. I still want him to be Batman for continuity purposes. I think at this point a recast would destroy the DCEU, but you can't deny, even if you love Ben in the role, that casting him as Batman was one of the biggest mistakes concerning this cinematic universe. It's been NOTHING but fucking drama 24/7 ever since he was cast. With Henry, he never complains. He's grateful. He's a fan. He's not pretentious and genuinely cares deeply about the source material. It's just a matter of finding him a good director to work with and he will shine as Superman, I am 100% sure of it. Seriously, let him carry the DCEU from now on. He's freaking Superman ffs. Batman may be a better and more popular character, but when the actor playing him is just phoning it in, I can't be bothered with this shit anymore.
  1. NinjaGamer13
    November 8, 2017
    Wholeheartedly agree with your praise of Henry. Great guy.
    Don’t agree that Ben has done nothing but complain about keeping in shape and such - haven’t heard a single thing of that nature at all these past 2 years. Nor do I agree he can’t even bother to stay in shape; I really can’t tell you what shape he’s in right now, but either way, he’s coming off of alcohol addiction, so I can’t really judge him. Also disagree with your claims that he has done nothing but cause drama - he has been pretty consistently positive up until this last interview, all of the drama was 100% stirred up by the fans and journalists. He has been a great Batman and Bruce Wayne. But I do agree that it would be very bad for the continuity if he was recast.
    1. Seb
      November 8, 2017
      I don't talk to you, get away. I don't care.
      1. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        Lol love it
      2. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        You love people hating you? Lonely little autistic boy.
      3. Hunter Zolomon
        November 8, 2017
        Why the hell does he feel the need to reply to anything whats negative to the DCEU? It wouldn't be so bad if he actually worked out what subjective and objective are and what the difference is between them, its like talking to a fucking kid with him.
      4. Seb
        November 8, 2017
        Yes, he doesn't know what facts are. And also can't stop himself from misrepresenting people's words. Just look at this, I said Gal's performance as WW in BvS was mediocre (and it was. That was NOT great acting by any stretch of the imagination). And he childishly responds with "Wrong. Everyone loved her". And this is relevant, how....??? Whether or not people loved the CHARACTER in BvS has absolutely ZERO bearing on the quality of her performance. He's a complete joke.
      5. Bartholomew Hunt
        November 8, 2017
        I'd be the last one to take his side in any argument, but your opinion of Gadot's acting in BvS is not representative of the majority while his is. It was a bad example since literally any other comment he has ever made is a far better proof of his childish mentality.
      6. Seb
        November 8, 2017
        No. There's a difference between character and acting. I don't dispute that many (as in the majority) really liked Gal's Wonder Woman in BvS. But that doesn't mean that proves her acting was any good. Sure, it wasn't bad, but are you really going to tell me she delivered a performance that no one else could? Her acting performance in BvS was pretty wooden overall, that's just a fact tbh. She was there to deliver her lines, and the only reason people liked her is because she looked awesome and had good fight scenes. That didn't really require much acting talent. She did what a thousand other actresses could have done a billion times better, frankly. That doesn't mean people didn't like her, because they clearly did. But in the end, it doesn't affect her acting performance, which was decent at best. The assertion that people were raving about her ACTING performance as Wonder Woman in BvS is simply false on every level. Fact is, no one said she gave a great performance. People just liked the character in and of itself. There's a big difference.
      7. YGtrece
        November 8, 2017
        Truth
      8. Hunter Zolomon
        November 8, 2017
        Yeah i liked Gal in BvS but i agree her acting was nothing special, people liked her because she kicked ass and looked hot doing it, if she had no action scene then no one would have gave a toss about her in the film. Saying that i thought Gal done a fantastic job in WW and thought she really started to own the role but i do think Patty Jenkins was a big reason for that, it will be interesting to see how Gal is in JL with Snyder directing her again.
      9. YGtrece
        November 8, 2017
        My opinion was she brought a palatable earnestness to her role that was evident in her character’s curiosity and pure intentions for helping humanity
  2. Talia
    November 8, 2017
    Typically, I'd try to defend Ben, but I'm honestly wearing out my patience with him. Even after the entire Weinstein scandal, he isn't still trying to cling to possibly the only studio who will still hire him? And for such a glamorous, well sought after role too. The guy should take a good look at Kevin Spacey. House of Cards is completely cancelled and rumor says that he might never work in Hollywood again. If Ben dumps the Batman role, there's a high chance he'll go down that same rabbit hole. Does he really want to risk it all at this point?
    1. NinjaGamer13
      November 8, 2017
      Why do you people keep assuming things? Ben said he wants to stay in the role as long as he is allowed. WB is the only one who can be blamed if he ends up leaving. But that’s not even happening; he’s flipping contracted for at least one more movie! Why does everyone forget this? Ben was probably grumpy or joking in that interview, and either way, the guy asked him if he was going to be in another TWO movies. How could he respond to that when nothing has been written up for that??
    2. Seb
      November 8, 2017
      Well, I don't give a shit what he did in his personal life. His """"offense""""" was touching a woman inappropriately for 1 second. No one has made accusations of assault or rape against him, so comparing him to a piece of shit like Weinstein is clearly fallacious. What Ben did isn't different from what millions of WOMEN do on a daily freaking basis. I've never seen men whining about it. What he did was technically wrong, but is was minor and it was 10 freaking years ago, so I really don't care.
      Also, Ben is very talented. He's a great director and has made 3 fantastic films, out of the 4 he's done. He has other options, so he doesn't "need" to be Batman.
      What bothers me the most, is his complete lack of gratitude and frankly, his laziness when it comes to his commitment. All he fucking does is switch positions every damn second. "I will direct it, or no, I won't". It's the same thing over and over again. Even when he "debunks" the rumors, it comes across as disingenuous and forced. I just can't be bothered to care about someone like him, when he clearly doesn't want to commit.
      1. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        For the last time he wasn’t like that. He said FROM THE BEGINNING it was never sure he was going to direct it.
      2. Seb
        November 8, 2017
        I. don't. care.
        Seriously, I don't give a fuck what you say, don't reply to me, it has no use. I don't read your rhetoric anymore. Even if it's just one sentence. You're wasting your breath. Go away.
      3. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        Don’t. I don’t care, either. But just know that I will correct fallacies where I find them, if not for you, then for those who are reading. If you say something blatantly false, I am compelled to address it.
      4. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        You're mother was a whore who dropped you on your head as a baby. Correct that.
      5. Bartholomew Hunt
        November 8, 2017
        Oh my gosh, cracked me up!
      6. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        Lol, actually, she wasn’t. Corrected.
      7. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        She clearly was though. Corrected.
      8. Talia
        November 8, 2017
        At this point, it doesn't matter if his actions were on par with Weinstein or not (if they were, I wouldn't even be defending him at all prior to this). I don't even think what Spacey did in a moment of drunkedness deserved getting House of Cards cancelled. The thing is at the moment, Hollywood is in the process of expulsing any or all people in the entertainment business connected to sexual harassment claims because of the huge public outcry. Leaving the DCEU might prove to be a very risky move for Affleck's career at this point, just saying. I assume his PR guy is sounding the war horns already if it hasn't occurred to him yet.
      9. Seb
        November 8, 2017
        Yeah, but even Spacey and Affleck aren't comparable. Multiple people have accused Spacey of harassment or what have you. What Affleck is guilty of is relatively harmless. Spacey was accused of sexually harassing a child. The difference is too big to make sound analogies. Affleck's career will be just fine so long as he continues to direct great movies, and there's no reason to suppose he won't or can't.
      10. Adam Gallacher
        November 8, 2017
        To be fair to Affleck I think he was put under pressure from the studio to direct. He thought he could but obviously decided he couldn't. His personal life has been under the public eye and he has had many other problems. I think he also finds the criticism past couple of years especially hard since he went from a Hollywood joke to gaining a great reputation as a film maker. Also got his passion project Live By Night slaughtered and I think that was a wake up call that he could not be batman and a director at the same time and I think it's directing where he excels at. So he has a lot of other things going on the Cavill doesn't. Plus Cavill is a fuckin beast and total gem of a guy. Not everyone can be like him
      11. Seb
        November 9, 2017
        He could be Batman and a director at the same time. Why do people keep saying this? He directed, produced, wrote and starred in The Town all by himself whilst doing other movies at the same time. Sorry, if he can do that, why can't he do Batman and direct at the same time? Exactly what's the difference here? Because I don't see it. There is none. People act as though the role of Batman is a huge burden for him. If that's the case, I don't even want him to play Batman, because such a lack of excitement and dedication pisses me off. The role of Batman isn't any different than other roles he's done. You could argue he has to stay in great shape, but really?? Look at JL production photos, he was CLEARLY not in that good a shape. Heck, he was actually carrying some fat. That's a complete lack of commitment to the role and proves he doesn't have to do anything BUT show up on set and remember his lines. Don't expect me to feel sorry for him. It's his job, and he's had way more intensive work-schedules in the past, yet he never complained.
        The only reason, and I really stress the ONLY reason as to why Affleck seems to be indifferent and bored of this universe, is because it was critically panned. If BvS had been universally praised, there's no question whatsoever he would be far more inclined to do more of these films, regardless of his personal issues. WB and Snyder fucked this universe by rushing it and literally not caring if the films are any good (see, Batman pre-production drama, SS, BvS, etc). Now they are all panicking and pretending they don't know what the root cause is. Then we have morons like Kevin motherfucking Tsujafagot who can't help themselves BUT to make the same mistakes over and over and over again. "What you didn't like the heavily cut version of BvS? Here you go, the extended version. Nice to see EVERYONE agrees this is a way better version of the film. So what about JL? You know, I thought it would be a good idea to not make the same mistake again, but screw it, let's cut away EVEN MORE footage from the film, because clearly that's a smart idea." - Kevin, aka the retarded CEO of WB.
        All this drama and blatant lack of quality filmmaking is the reason why Affleck wants out, clearly.
      12. Adam Gallacher
        November 10, 2017
        The Town and even Argo can never compare to the huge role of Batman. If he fucked up those films no one would give a shit. Unfortunately cbm fans and the Internet circus around it can be toxic. He's a huge batman fan himself so even more pressure. Add to the fact that BvS was destroyed by critics and his solo batman film would be the next batman film after Nolans universally loved Trilogy you got to imagine the pressure. Also Affleck never said he was directing the new Batman, it was some WB head (possibly Tsjuihara) and then after lots of hearsay Affleck finally said he was directing it and you can go back on my own comments on this site I was never 100% sure he was because in interviews he never seemed comfortable with it. At the end of the day myself and the majority of people who seen BvS said Afflecks take on batman and Bruce Wayne was the best thing in the film. He was also praised in the SS cameo. And he has been said to be a highlight of JL. So regardless if you think he's committed or not (I think he is to a point) he does the job. You may have hit the nail on the head that it is who he is working with that is making him second guess fully commiting publicly
      13. Seb
        November 11, 2017
        So you agree, the only reason he wants to leave is because they fucked up this universe. Yeah, that's entirely my point.
  3. Bartholomew Hunt
    November 8, 2017
    While I agree with the overall sentiment of what you wrote, Cavil can't act for shit. His talent is very limited, and he has very little charisma on screen. Gadot is arguably still inexperienced herself, but at least she's oozing charisma.
    1. NinjaGamer13
      November 8, 2017
      He’s a fine actor
    2. Seb
      November 8, 2017
      His real life charisma (which exceeds Gal's as far as I'm concerned) is made invisible by directors the likes of Snyder. His nihilistic take on Superman didn't allow Henry to use his actual persona in order to shine in the role. And yes, he's not a great actor by any means, but he has time to grow. And he's still a solid actor nonetheless.
      1. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        ZACKS TAKE WAS NOT NIHILISTIC. This is objectively a misinterpretation, and one of the biggest problems facing Zack’s movies. BvS was a TESTAMENT to Superman’s ideals of hope and faith and altruism! It had those things tested by the cynical real world, only for the world to be proven wrong with Superman’s ultimate selfless act. The end of BvS was the final stamp proving once and for all that Superman and what he stands for is right and true and good.
      2. Bartholomew Hunt
        November 8, 2017
        Though you're entitled to your opinion, claiming Cavil has more charisma than Gadot is just ridiculous. He has the worst face acting ever seen. He doesn't know how to emote for shit. He's a poor casting just like Ben. That said, I do admire his work ethics and passion for the character which is hell lot more we can say about Ben, who just doesn't give a fuck and acts as if playing Batman is a fucking chore.
      3. Seb
        November 8, 2017
        In real life, I mean.
        Gal has more on-screen charisma, and that was largely due to Patty's great directing. In BvS, she wasn't very noteworthy to say the least. Irl, Gal's "charisma" and good will can come across as a bit forced. Whereas Henry is genuinely like that.
      4. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        Wrong again. Everybody loved WW in BvS.
      5. Bartholomew Hunt
        November 8, 2017
        Let's agree to disagree.
      6. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        Cavil can’t emote? Lol. Just because your eyes were closed throughout MoS and BvS doesn’t mean he can’t face act. His face has always accurately represented what it should in every scene. And he can do it superbly well, too, as in the senate explosion scene.
        Awfully presumptuous of Ben’s personal feelings there.
      7. neodymium
        November 8, 2017
        Leave em. Ben is still Batman. Henry is still Superman. Gal is still Wonder Woman. And they're appearing in Justice League and these insatiable whiners are still going to show up to watch the damn movie opening night front row and center. They're not fooling anyone.
        Their complaints are irrelevant. Bypass bruh.
      8. Seb
        November 8, 2017
        First, have I ever said anything that would suggest I want this universe or JL in particular to fail? No.
        Second, have I ever said I want ANY of these actors replaced? No.
        Third, have I ever implied I'm not excited about these films regardless? Not even close.
        Fourth, I actually didn't watch BvS opening day (watched it a month after release) and didn't watch SS at all, because of terrible reviews. I also didn't see WW in theaters. So yeah, I actually am not as dishonest as you so dishonestly suggest.
      9. Seb
        November 8, 2017
        "Ben, who just doesn't give a fuck and acts as if playing Batman is a fucking chore."
        I strongly agree with that. Perfectly summarizes why I won't even care if he leaves. In fact, I dare say I'll be happy.
      10. Talia
        November 8, 2017
        I hope they cast Armie Hammer in his place. Armie was going to be Bruce Wayne in George Miller's version of the JL anyway.
      11. Seb
        November 8, 2017
        I know but I really can't see him pull off Bruce Wayne. Affleck had the advantage of his age. He looked weary and could pull off a more brutal character than he's used to. Armie Hammer is too much of a giant (literally) slog, I don't want him as Bruce.
      12. Rust
        November 9, 2017
        I never really was on board with that. He just doesn't feel like Bruce to me.
        I'd pee if he were Hal though.
      13. Sammy
        November 8, 2017
        I personally thought Cavill worked well in Man From UNCLE, though. He isn't the best actor by any means, but he can be charming when the material lets him, I suppose. Henry seems like a really cool guy in real life and I don't even think he's bad as Supes, just hope he has a chance to show how cool and charming he can be. It's almost frustrating to look at such wasted potential. And like you said below, Gal has a LOT of charisma in WW, even though she wasn't in BvS (again, personal opinion), so maybe having a new type of material will let Henry shine as much as Gal was allowed to.
      14. Isaac Dodunski
        November 8, 2017
        Yeah. It feels like every character in a Zack Snyder film has resting bitch face and no charisma. With the right director I think Henry has the potential to be a great Clark Kent/Superman.
  4. neodymium
    November 8, 2017
    Your opinion on Ben is wrong...and harsh.
    Besides, there's more to life than being Batman for adoring fans. People have lives. He's not just playing Batman, he's starring in his own life. He does a lot of good in the world. Please don't reduce his life's passion to a Batman movie.
    1. Seb
      November 8, 2017
      And when have I done this? I've said the exact opposite of what you accuse me of saying.
  5. Kerk Lastnameless
    November 8, 2017
    You know when recast will not destroy DCEU? When it has enough characters people care about, aside from Batman. Look at people's reactions to WW -- I've heard many say, "Ok I'll watch JL just because she is in it." That's exactly the carrier DCEU needs. Once people are invested in the other members, nobody will really mind if Affleck is replaced.
    1. Seb
      November 9, 2017
      That's true.
  6. fluxCAPS
    November 9, 2017
    The usual marvelite bullshit!
    Even critics who didn't like BvS think that Affleck's portrayal of Batman was one of the better things about the movie.
    "That said, Affleck's Batman is the closest we've seen on screen to Frank
    Miller's nasty Dark Knight, the aged and anguished crime-fighter who,
    when he debuted 30 years ago"
    http://www.guidelive.com/mo...
    "Ben Affleck steps into the midnight black uniform of Batman, his chin
    resembling a cinder block beneath his mask. The actor delivers a
    concrete performance as Bruce Wayne, a vigilante billionaire so
    battle-weary that he retains a perpetual three-day stubble."
    http://www.startribune.com/...
    " -are mixed in with Bruce (Ben Affleck, fitting the role just fine)
    brooding over his place in the world and his legacy, to which his butler
    Alfred (Jeremy Irons, who could use more to do) replies with perhaps
    the film's best line: "Even you've grown too old to die young."
    http://www.hollywoodreporte...
    Try harder troll.
    Or better yet, piss off back to Collider where you belong!
    1. Chad-Michael SImon
      November 9, 2017
      Thank you for this expose, but Seb said nothing negative about Ben Affleck's performance on screen. Not one word. We don't know what his opinion is of this Batman. His comment was concerned only with Affleck's attitude and behavior in interviews and the newsfeeds.
      Ben and I are the same age... I wouldn't complain if a major motion picture studio was paying me to stay in the best shape of my life, paying for a trainer and training, so I can look my best on camera. When he complained about it once, it was humorous. Complain about it constantly, and we don't care to hear about your movie star problems.
  7. Chad-Michael SImon
    November 9, 2017
    Do you know what's also awesome? Paragraph breaks! :-D
    No, seriously, you make great points, all. I love how you summed up with, "let [Cavill] carry the DCEU from now on. He's freaking Superman." Superman has always been the pinnacle of DC, the front man, the one all other heroes look up to, including Batman, while Batman in character has never been the PR guy. He's in the shadows and likes it there.
    Okay, so maybe it's fitting that the actors are cast to type. I just imagine Bruce Wayne/Batman being less douchey. lol
    The feeling we get is that the filmmakers don't have confidence in Superman as a character, and all of their decisions are based on this fear that modern audiences would reject a Boy Scout version of him. Chris Evans has proved that theory wrong at every turn, delivering an amazing Captain America. As with any film, success is in the writing and portrayal, not in catering to marketing perceptions.
    So, while I applaud Cavill's continued exploration of why the earlier films didn't work, it's folly to suggest the executive producers pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into creating a niche film.
    1. fluxCAPS
      November 9, 2017
      Au contraire :
      "And then we have Ben, who can't even be bothered to work out even just a
      bit for JL, and doesn't do anything particularly original with the role
      and worst of all, seems to have no fucking self-awareness he's playing
      the freaking BATMAN"
      Clearly you just scanned Seb's comment.
      Affleck is the best Batman/Bruce Wayne we've ever seen on the big screen, that's not just my opinion, it's the general consensus.
2. Bartholomew Hunt
  November 8, 2017
  BvS left anywhere between 200 to 500 million dollars on the table. Fanboys don't seem to get that $870M is a failure, especially when it was reported that the movie needed to cross $800M just to break even.
  1. Seb
    November 8, 2017
    "Good movies can come up short at the box office, the aforementioned Blade Runner 2049 (and its predecessor) are prime examples of that."
    Sure, but that's not the end of the story.
    How much more money would Blade Runner 2049 have lost, if it had been badly received?
    So yes, while good reviews don't equate to good box office grosses, it still remains an irrefutable fact that good reviews ALWAYS lead to HIGHER grosses. Higher doesn't mean high. It means more than what it would have grossed if the film were badly received.
    This just goes to prove that, BvS was frankly, a total box office disappointment.
    1. Fréaláf Hildeson
      November 8, 2017
      You write that because BvS got bad reviews, it is a total box office disappointment.
      That is not how the world, or logic, work. A movie that makes $870 million on a $250 million budget is very successful, every studio would love more of those.
      1. Hunter Zolomon
        November 8, 2017
        Add another 100-150 million marketing as well so around 350-400 million all together and yeah that gross isn't great for WB as they won't get that much back themselves from that. WB were expecting a billion at least, the fact they panicked like mad post release shows they weren't happy. I suggest doing research on how the box office works along with movie budgets and marketing.
      2. Fréaláf Hildeson
        November 8, 2017
        You're the one who should look up how the box office works if you think $870 million worldwide and $330 million domestic is "panicking".
      3. Hunter Zolomon
        November 8, 2017
        Yeah great domestic but worldwide result isn't good. If WB were happy then they wouldn't be demanding a 2 hour cut for JL, they wouldn't have done all those re-shoots to SS to force a feel what the trailers had, there's loads more they have done as well if you look what clearly shows they are panicking. I fucking work at cinema so yeah i know how this shit works but hey you're a BvS fanboy aren't you so facts and logic goes over your head.
      4. Fréaláf Hildeson
        November 9, 2017
        The last 4 DC movies have grossed $3.1 Billion, and on average more than the MCU. When do you think Warner should really panic?
        Is Disney panicking with Star Wars? It must be a complete failure since they reshot 1/3 of Rogue One and half of Han Solo (after firing most of their directors)! That is, if one were to use your braindead fanboy logic instead of looking at actual numbers.
      5. Hunter Zolomon
        November 9, 2017
        Why do you keep bringing Marvel and Disney into things? You that insecure or something? Anyway Rogue One made over a billion at the box office so no shit Disney aren't panicking with it and The Last Jedi will be the biggest film this year. As for Solo well i don't think that will be that big considering Disney is the only one who wants that film and could be the first low point for them Star Wars wise.
        Yeah so DC films have made 3.1 billion? It doesn't change the fact BvS under-performed and the way WB have acted since that film has proved it did especially when it had a massive budget and marketing campaign, WB were expecting at least a Billion with it. MoS also under-performed as well hence why Batman was in the "sequel" as the lead and MoS2 is nothing but rumors, its only because SS and WW over-performed that thinks have evened out for them.
        You clearly don't follow this type of stuff and let your fanboyism get in the way of facts and logic.
      6. Fréaláf Hildeson
        November 9, 2017
        MOS too? The first successful Superman movie since Superman II (1980)? OK I get it, if it is a DC movie it always "under-performs" and is "disappointing" - and you can forget all the normal rules of box office.
        If you are a blind fanboy.
      7. StarTheory
        November 8, 2017
        Theatres also take 45% of the cut.
      8. Seb
        November 9, 2017
        It doesn't matter. WB was projected to gross WAAAAAAAY more than it actually did. I'm talking Avengers type of money. So yes, it was without a doubt a disappointment.
  2. Black=most hated most imitated
    November 8, 2017
    That (800 mill) was its estimated gross before it came out. It didn't reach that ,but It still made plenty of money.
3. NinjaGamer13
  November 8, 2017
  That's the thing. 800m is HORRIBLE for that movie.
  Batman and Superman was an event. It should have been amazing. It could have easily passed Avengers if it was good.
  The second week dropoff showed how horrible everyone thought it was. It was garbage.
4. Fréaláf Hildeson
  November 8, 2017
  Just like Spider-Man+Iron Man and Thor+Hulk were poised to do $1B+ if those films were better received among non-fanboys. They would have been significantly more profitable if more people watched them, like every movie. What a stupid thing to say.
  In the real world, $870 million is great by any standards - and BvS was one the few successes for Warner last year.
  1. Hunter Zolomon
    November 8, 2017
    No expected Spider-Man to make a billion, its final gross was actually about right. Thor will be looking at around 700-800 million and again no one expects a billion.
    "In the real world, $870 million is great by any standards - and BvS was one the few success for Warner last year." Not when you don't get much of that back, WB don't get the whole 870 million you know.
    1. Fréaláf Hildeson
      November 8, 2017
      Spider-Man + Iron Man, the two biggest Marvel superheroes, were not supposed to reach $1 billion? I see, fanboys are moving the goalposts.
      "WB don't get the whole 870 million you know."
      Yeah no shit. We are talking about box office numbers, what is your point?
      1. Hunter Zolomon
        November 8, 2017
        It wasn't Spider-Man and Iron Man though it was Spider-Man with an extended cameo from Stark and that was how it was sold, only a deluded fanboy would think it would top a billion especially when Spidey isn't as big as he once was.
        You're making out 870 million is impressive and great amount for WB so thats why i brought it up, fact is a Batman film making less then Billion with Superman and WW as well in it is pretty bad especially when the film cost 250 million to make plus another 100-150 million marketing and 45% cinema cut as StarTheory pointed out, yeah that 870 million sounds a lot and it is but WB clearly weren't happy with that and for a Batman plus Superman film that's a disappointing number
  2. Fréaláf Hildeson
    November 8, 2017
    "The single most iconic superheroes in our culture."
    Yet until Man of Steel, Superman didn't have a single hit since Superman II.
    Superman Returns grossed $391 million wordwide.
    On the other hand Spider-Man 3 made $890 million and that was 10 years ago. Spider-Man is easily more iconic today.
5. Kerk Lastnameless
  November 8, 2017
  Yeah. I don't claim to know the math of stock market but Blade Runnder's failure ostensibly coast WB $80 mln, whereas BvS seems to have broken even. Yes, we can speculate on expectations and whatnot, but the pure net result is in favor of BvS.
wasn't
November 8, 2017
for me. thank you.
NinjaGamer13
November 8, 2017
Letdown? It went above and beyond most of my expectations. Sorry we didn’t have the same experience.
1. DudeofSteel1Million
  November 8, 2017
  Speaking of IMDB....
  Long time, no see Legend.
  1. DudeofSteel1Million
    November 8, 2017
    We ended up in the same place.
    1. Reverse_Flash
      November 8, 2017
      IMDB...the trolling, the spamming, the fanboy wars...
      Creating sock accounts of Furious_Styles77, waggelaar, OdumC, Gannicus, etc.
      Those were the days
      1. Reverse_Flash
        November 8, 2017
        Yes, lol.
        I cloned serveral DC haters and trolls. My real account was Claude_1. Also had a Reverse_Flash account.
      2. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 8, 2017
        Ha... I knew you sounded familiar.
        Clearly, you haven't changed much.
      3. Reverse_Flash
        November 8, 2017
        What do you mean?
      4. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 8, 2017
        Not that the people you were making sock accounts of were far from trolls themselves (waggelaar was definitely a troll for one), but it's still quite sad of an activity.
        In any case, makes sense you've "pretended" to be OdumC in particular. You sound a lot like him nowadays. lol
      5. Reverse_Flash
        November 8, 2017
        Sad for whom?
        lol
      6. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 8, 2017
        For you.
        ;)
      7. Reverse_Flash
        November 8, 2017
        Actually that was fun, lol.
      8. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 8, 2017
        I'll bet.
        ;)
    2. Reverse_Flash
      November 8, 2017
      IMDB poster.... no suprise.
      1. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 8, 2017
        No surprise to discover you as one either.
        Making "Enemy lists" are IMDB MO.
        ;)
    3. Mark
      November 8, 2017
      Chris does also own Spider Man News as well if you want to discuss Marvel in depth.
2. NinjaGamer13
  November 8, 2017
  Spawning stupid memes from people who didn’t get the movie wasn’t their fault, just the haters’. It’s a travesty, really.
Clyde Lain
November 8, 2017
I sort of agree. Although I loved BVS, TC and UE, I can understand why some people didn't like it. That being said, I think that the amount of hatred was TOO over the top. BVS, while divisive, is better than MANY CB movies that received higher critical scores.
1. NinjaGamer13
  November 8, 2017
  And others, yes
2. Clyde Lain
  November 8, 2017
  I was going to see it, but to be honest, all of the reviews of it being "fun, fun, funny", and no talk about the story, plot, and character development was just a turnoff. Don't get me wrong, I like levity and funny moments in movies, I just don't like forcing comedy down my throat, and from what I've seen from reviews, it's just that. Although I'm not a Thor comicbook fan, my understanding of the synopsis of Ragnarok is that it leans more to the serious side, sort of apacolyptic. I just can't see how you can make a comedy out of a story that is supposed to be the end of Asgard. Thor is the weakest link when it comes to the MCU's solo characters, so it seems that in order for Marvel Studios to remedy that, they basically used the same formula for GOTG and transposed it to Thor: Ragnarok. Thor = Starlord, Valkyrie=Drax (out for revenge), Loki=Gamora (anti hero), and Hulk= Groot (The big green brute).
  1. Clyde Lain
    November 8, 2017
    The part that got me, in the trailers, was Thor, the god of thunder, being neutralized by electricity, lol. I dunno, I might just have to check it out on KODI.
  2. Knight-Errant
    November 8, 2017
    If you’ve seen Big Trouble in Little China, it’s essentially the exact flow of humor. In fact, if they remake that movie, Hemsworth should star as Jack Burton.
    Having said that, I’m not completely convinced BTiLC works as a comic book movie.
    1. Clyde Lain
      November 8, 2017
      Okay, well I know I’m not that interested. I’ll catch it on Kodi. I haven’t been too impressed with Marvel lately. GOTG2 was trying too hard to be funny, and in Spider-Man Homecoming, I empathized more with Vulture than I was rooting for Spider-Man. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying those movies were bad, just grossly overrated. Logan and WW were the big winners for me.
      1. Knight-Errant
        November 8, 2017
        I didn’t care for GotG & the only thing making volume 2 interesting was Kurt Russell. I really only cared for the Spidey stuff in Homecoming; I thought the cast mates & teachers stuff just muddied the movie. So did the Iron Spider suit.
3. BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
  November 8, 2017
  You mean civil bore..
4. Clyde Lain
  November 8, 2017
  Civil War is arguable, BUT DEFINITELY better than Thor 1 and 2, Ironman 2 and 3, X-men 1 and 3, Superman Returns, X-Men Apocalypse, The incredible Hulk, The Amazing Spiderman 2, X men Origins Wolverine, and Daredevil. Those are just a few I could name off the top of my head. These movies, received higher RT scores, but BVS was better than all of these movies by a mile.
  1. NinjaGamer13
    November 8, 2017
    Civil War in many ways was the exact same plot as BvS. But they did it SECOND, and they did it differently - in a style unsure if it was a comedy or a drama, with what felt like gratuitous HOURS of action with only a few scenes of story peppered throughout, with the main fight completely lacking all sense of realism and stakes, with just okay cinematography and music as opposed BvS’ breathtaking cinematography and music, without giving any justice to its titular character and his storyline, and with completely senseless character introduction shoehorned in to promote Homecoming.
    ...However that was only my first viewing’s impression. I need to see it again to judge more accurately and see if I was wrong the first time about anything.
    1. Clyde Lain
      November 8, 2017
      I agree. Civil war was ALL Civil and no war, MANY plotholes and the "heros" had character inconsistencies, but it was a great entertaining spectacle nonetheless.
      1. neodymium
        November 8, 2017
        Civil scuffle..*snicker*
      2. Spenddollarz
        November 8, 2017
        civil bore
    2. El Maybe
      November 8, 2017
      "with the main fight completely lacking all sense of realism and stakes" And you enjoyed BvS?
      The "big" confrontation between Batman and Superman could've easily been avoided if instead of starring one of the dumbest moments in the film Superman actually told Batman what was really going on (seriously, his mother was in real danger but after a few listen to me's and you don't understand's he just starts throwing Batman around because...?)
      This nonsense eliminated all the tension and stakes of the fight which ends up being boring and dumb. And I'm not even taking into account the fact that the reasons that led them to fight were pretty fucking stupid to begin with. I'm not a big fan of Civil War, but the fact that a person dislikes its main fight for the reasons you stated above and yet this same person loves BvS's main fight shows this person is beyond blinded.
      1. Knight-Errant
        November 8, 2017
        I would’ve actually guessed Kent would’ve allowed himself to take the beating if it meant saving his mother & getting Batman to listen.
      2. El Maybe
        November 9, 2017
        Exactly!
    3. HeyNotHeMan!!!!!!!!!!
      November 8, 2017
      "they did it differently" >> yes , in a BETTER WAY
      "with what felt like gratuitous HOURS of action " >>action was fun & enjoyable, not just destruction porn
      "with just okay cinematography and music" >> BvS just proved that those are not enough to save the movie , btw with the exception of zimmers, junkiexl soundtrack was just noisy and loud
      "main fight completely lacking all sense of realism and stakes" >> maybe, but I cared for tony after the climax revelation than superman's death
      "without giving any justice to its titular character" >> and BvS did justice to its characters right????
      "completely senseless character introduction shoehorned" >>see wonder woman
    4. Knight-Errant
      November 8, 2017
      For comparison, what stakes were in BvS? What stakes should’ve been in Civil War?
      And wasn’t Diana shoehorned in BvS to promote her movie?
5. Bartholomew Hunt
  November 8, 2017
  I watched it as well and it was a fun movie. The RT ratings simply reflects that. The vast majority of the critics and audience thought it was enjoyable. Don't look for a narrative that isn't there.
6. Reverse_Flash
  November 8, 2017
  Civil War is miles above BvS.
  Never I thought I would like a Captain America movie over a movie with Batman and Superman, my 2 all time favorite superheros.
  Even the fight between Iron Man and Cap/Bucky was far better than the fight between Batman vs Superman. It had some cool an unpredictable moments and it had a lot of rage behind it. The BvS fight had poor motivations (Superman being forced and Batman being irrational). It was pretty one sided with Superman getting his ass kicked and falling for the same trick twice and then culminated with Martha.
  1. Sammy
    November 8, 2017
    I'll agree with you over the last fight in Civil War. I was bored through most action during the film, but that one was great, angry and messy the way it was supposed to be. But I will say that the end of the film itself kind of killed my excitement for what had taken place, as after all that shit, after freaking ripping off poor Bucky's arm, Tony is all cool helping Steve again, like, really? The absolute lack of consequence ruined Civil War for me and I wanted to love it so bad. Oh well. I'll always have Winter Soldier.
    1. NinjaGamer13
      November 8, 2017
      My exact experience
    2. Knight-Errant
      November 8, 2017
      I wouldn’t say “lack of consequence”. Half the Avengers are fugitives of the world due to the Accords. Plus, at this point, won’t characters such as Spider-man, Wasp, & Captain Marvel (provided she’s still existing in modern times) have to sign the Accords to operate legally?
      1. Sammy
        November 8, 2017
        Fair enough, but I don't think they'll stick to the Accords gig for long (if it lasts until Infinity War at all, I'll be surprised. Did they get mentioned in Homecoming? I haven't had a chance to watch that yet). And I was speaking about consequences in character relationships, sorry. It was disappointing that the conflict ended in a kind of yeah sorry I ripped off your best friend's arm, I'll hook you up now. I either expected to see Tony reminiscing about the idea of the Accords and realizing it was a mistake or full on just sticking to his beliefs, if that makes any sense. Ending in a "hey, they're still friends!!!111" just like the whole airport scene even after a fight that was nothing like the airport scene just rubbed me the wrong way. Apologies if I make no sense, I just have a lot of mixed feelings about this film and it's hard to explain.
      2. Knight-Errant
        November 8, 2017
        They don’t mentioned the Accords in Homecoming. If the ending would’ve gone a different way, it might have.
        It was Steve who reached out to Stark at the end. I read that as Steve realizing there are still things bigger then this disagreement.
        I didn’t get the impression Stark regrets the decision to back the Accords, just that things ended the way they did.
        Ultimately, just like with MoS, we won’t really get to see how things play out until the next movie.
      3. Sammy
        November 8, 2017
        Interesting. I sort of hope Stark realizes at some point how much of an idiot he's been since, what, Ultron? IM3? Because, good lord, I can't stand him anymore. And he used to be my favorite MCU character. Steve would be the guy to still reach out to him, though, he's a perfect human with strong morals sprinkled on top haha And you have a good point, I just expected something clearer by the end, like Tony implying "yep I'll still be a moron" or "oooops I need to stop being a moron" rather than just a YAY FRIENDS, but I see what you're saying and I thank you for the insight!
      4. Knight-Errant
        November 8, 2017
        I’m not quite sure Stark was being an idiot (some would say a different characterization in CW). It made sense for him to back the Accords, despite his refusal to give up his tech in IM2. Stern wanted to take the suit verses him being apart of the Accords & being able to provide input into it.
        I think he still justified the decision to build Ultron because it was to save the world & allow his ‘coworkers’ to live normal lives. I think he still justifies the Accords because it was supposed to be a compromise to get Pepper back.
        These are all essentially my takeaways after multiple views. They could easily be misfires.
      5. Knight-Errant
        November 9, 2017
        A disservice to the comic? So rather then the US government require them to be registered to control them, a special counsel of the UN is doing it to control them. Both resulted in a group of presumed ‘good guys’ criminals.
        I would expect the MCU status will be gone after the next 2 Avengers movies, just as it changed after about 2yrs in the comic books.
        Not sure it was fan service. They planted the seeds since Avengers.
  2. NinjaGamer13
    November 8, 2017
    Yeah but you’re a troll so
    1. Reverse_Flash
      November 8, 2017
      It's NinjaGamer13, again...
      lol
7. Sammy
  November 8, 2017
  I feel like the amount of hatred might come from expectations, among other things. I mean, you have a movie with the goddamn Batman punching Boy of Steel in the face and it's still super underwhelming, and that makes some people feel betrayed over how much they expected from the film and how little they got from it. That's not how I feel, since my biggest problem with BvS was wasted potential, but I do like to wonder why other people hate it with so much passion. Dunno.
8. Silvina
  November 8, 2017
  Same here, but I think it has to do with Ragnarok being the current big blockbuster. People just like it, that's all, is not that everyone's saying Ragnarok is "the best Marvel movie ever".
9. disqus_DC8wxVhCM3
  November 9, 2017
  It should have a much higher score on rotten tomatoes. What bullshit. Critics are idiotic morons. They didn't like Wizard of Oz or Blade Runner when they first came out.
Diego!
November 8, 2017
I don't get this... what does niche stand for? I don't understand. I googled it but the definition was confusing
1. Seb
  November 8, 2017
  "unique" I guess. Something that deviates from the norm.
2. NinjaGamer13
  November 8, 2017
  It means something that appeals mostly to a particular group or taste or style. Usually it refers to like a really artsy aesthetic or something that is either loved or hated, or is known for being loved by a certain kind of people.
3. Bartholomew Hunt
  November 8, 2017
  Niche usually pertains to a small group of people.
4. Milo Yiannopoulos
  November 8, 2017
  It stands for an area that means heavy specialty in taste. A little crevice between wide swaths of opinion or taste. The one unknown wine that select few find and appreciate and understand.
Kryptonian Knight
November 8, 2017
I agree with Cavill BvS is a niche film and when I speak of BvS I speak only of the superior UE, I will never refer to the mess that was the theatrical cut and not Zack's true vision. And it's a film that I will always enjoy for many reasons including the ambitious nature of the film itself, it takes massive balls to attempt what Zack did and I respect any film maker who's willing to go beyond the norm to fulfill his vision.
1. NinjaGamer13
  November 8, 2017
  He really did something completely apart from what we have expected superhero movies to be, and the level we set them at. Pushing boundaries and breaking the mold is usually something that is praised as avant garde and bold. It’s too bad it was apparently too avant garde and bold for most of the critics.
  1. Kryptonian Knight
    November 8, 2017
    I believe if the WB execs never meddled and allowed the UE cut to hit the theaters to begin with the results would have been way more positive, divisive still but much better.
    1. NinjaGamer13
      November 8, 2017
      Undoubtably! We can even see some of that in the few reviews people have made separately for the UE. I wish they would’ve made a new RT page for that. Though, to be honest, the hate for the theatrical version was overblown just as well, I think.
  2. NinjaGamer13
    November 8, 2017
    He didn't give us anything unexpected. Dude's a hack. End of story.
    1. NinjaGamer13
      November 8, 2017
      A+ trolling, so burned right now
      1. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        You are. You get burned enough to need to 'correct' everyones opinions. You are a sensitive little f4ggot.
      2. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        I correct falsehoods. And it’s because after nearly 2 years of senseless beating that has been popularized on the internet in regards to something as simple as a movie, I find that is necessary. But regardless, that has nothing to do with your comment and my reply to it, nor does it have anything to do with bundles of sticks :P
      3. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        Hey little autistic boy. You don't correct falsehoods. You just cant accept the majority opinion that this film sucked, and try to correct everybody to see things in your flawed way. Oh, and when I called you a f4ggot, it wasn't referring to a bundle of sticks, but the slur.
      4. pw1x
        November 9, 2017
        What's with all this majority opinion bs? Go find another line and get in it!
      5. NinjaGamer13
        November 9, 2017
        Better not to financially support the movie
      6. pw1x
        November 9, 2017
        Apparently my metaphor went over your head
Talia
November 8, 2017
To you. Not everyone shares that sentiment. Aside from a somewhat intriguing plot, Blade Runner 2049 had lots of scenes that were much too long, visuals were not well-lit half the time (I know they were trying to go for the silhouette effect, but it got annoying after a while) and it was a ear splitting audio disaster that had me running out the theater at the end. BvS, on the other hand, had a much more appealing soundtrack, more nicely lit visuals, the UC was cut to perfect length and aside from a problematic third act, the rest of the story did the job of keeping me at the edge of my seat.
1. gonzzCABJ
  November 8, 2017
  BR2049 had brilliant audio, imho. Probably the best sound wise experience I ever had on IMAX. And I personally loved the slow, sober pace. It's one of those movies you just breathe in
2. Hunter Zolomon
  November 8, 2017
  I find it funny how the Snyder fanboys downplay Blade Runner 2049 or outright hate it, its almost like they don't like it that an actual deep film what is hailed as masterpiece is out now and is used in arguments as to why BvS isn't those things.
  1. MrMovies
    November 8, 2017
    I didn't hate the film, but to call it deep is laughable. It does nothing to explore the human condition like the original did. It needed to be trimmed significantly, and Jared Leto's scenes were ultimately pointless.
    1. Black=most hated most imitated
      November 8, 2017
      If people think br2049 was deep they must think family guy is a great parenting instructional show.
      1. MrMovies
        November 8, 2017
        That's too extreme a comparison. To me, I just didn't see anything particularly deep about the movie. The Tears in rain monologue was full of far more depth than anything in Blade Runner 2049.
    2. Hunter Zolomon
      November 8, 2017
      Well plenty disagree with that although i agree the original does it better, either way Blade Runner 2049 is far deeper then BvS is.
      1. MrMovies
        November 8, 2017
        Not really.
      2. Hunter Zolomon
        November 8, 2017
        Yeah it is but then i don't expect people who think BvS is deep and a masterpiece to get a film like Blade Runner 2049.
      3. MrMovies
        November 9, 2017
        Nice strawman. Nowhere did I say that BvS was a masterpiece. I simply stated that it was deeper than BR2, which isn't that deep of a film. It had deeper aspirations for sure, but fell short because it wanted to live in awe of the original rather than do its own thing. They should've abandoned Deckard and moved onto an original tale set in that same era living in his shadow, sort of like The Bourne Legacy but actually good.
3. MrMovies
  November 8, 2017
  It's really only been praised for the visuals dumbass. Honestly, what about it explored anything deep outside of a small comment on Replicants being able to reproduce? As a big Blade Runner, it was a disappointment with a boring plot and disturbing amount of misogyny. And I still don't understand why they would hire a replicant to kill other replicants- at least with the original no one knows whether Deckard is human or not.
  1. MrMovies
    November 17, 2017
    It really doesn't. It defines humanity as the ability to love, and we see this through K's bond with Joi, Deckard's past bond with Rachel, the girl and the horse, etc....Choice really has no impact on the narrative because everyone, including the Replicants, does whatever they want in this film. I have no idea how you even came to that conclusion. Not even the first Blade Runner was about choice- it was all about love. That's why those questions asked to the replicants are about their reactions to sad scenarios.
    No, a lot of critics were just praising the visuals. I saw no one outside of some people on the Ebert forums actually examining the film's sci-fi layers. Not to mention the amount of waste and sexism in that film is just nauseating.
    Still enjoyed BvS more than it :)
    1. MrMovies
      November 17, 2017
      Bro, choice has nothing to do with it because it's a natural thing. It's like me saying the Replicants blink- yeah, they do that, but it's not driving the narrative because it's a natural thing. The idea of choice was explored in Phillip K. Dick's The Minority Report (and Spielberg's subsequent adaptation). Choice has nothing to do with Blade Runner because it's about the ability to have emotions, which is what theoretically should separate the replicants from humans (hence why the test is about their emotional reaction to sad scenarios).
      The Nexus 8's do have that power, hence why K is able to do whatever he wants. No where in the film do we see him struggling with a decision. Seriously, point me to an example of where he actively struggles to do something Terminator 3-style.
      Buddy, you were the one who brought up the initial comparisons to BvS, not me. Believe it or not, some of us review movies independent of other movies- I was only focused on BR2049 when I was watching it.
      1. MrMovies
        November 17, 2017
        You're just running around in circles. Nowhere in the film does K struggle with his programming. Humanity was very much defined in the film as the capacity to love, hence why the idea of replicant reproduction is taken as a serious threat.
        It's not a struggle if we don't see it played on screen.
      2. MrMovies
        November 17, 2017
        Yet he doesn't have any problem diverging from it....
      3. MrMovies
        November 17, 2017
        Yeah, I think you're delusional. No choices are made, and even his directives change considering Robin Wright decides to change.
      4. MrMovies
        November 17, 2017
        No, he doesn't make that choice because 1) he tells Joi and 2) no one besides her asks him about it because they're not concerned about that- they only care about the child.
        He does make those choices but they aren't STRUGGLES. That's what you're failing to understand. That's like me saying "Oh, Batman makes the choice to save Martha Kent from KGBeast." Yeah he does, but he doesn't struggle with it at all because it's not something that's hard to make.
        You're literally framing the debate as replicants can't do anything outside of their programming, but that has proven to be blatantly false in both the original BR and the sequel. There is no struggle because making choices is not what is theoretically hard for Replicants, it's exhibiting emotions.
        No I didn't. I like Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford and was a fan of both the original Blade Runner and Arrival. I went into this film expecting to love it, but came out disappointed. I know that's going to be hard for you to grasp, that anyone could possibly hate your favorite movie of 2017, but it happened sweetheart. No need to demonize me dumbass.
      5. MrMovies
        November 18, 2017
        1) Uhh, no. I don't know how you got that- at best she's his girlfriend, but I really didn't see anything that sexual about their bond outside of the attempted kiss which they stopped. And it doesn't matter if she's not his superior, he still tells her.
        2) Omg, I cannot believe you are this dense. That's my point- HE HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE CHOICES. It's not some conflict that you are portraying it as. He can make all the damn choices he wants because it's not hard.
        Yes, you're absolutely right, it was facilitated by his humanity SHOWCASED/BROUGHT ABOUT by his emotional connection to Joi, NOT the damn choices he makes. That's my point- Blade Runner defines humanity as the capacity to feel emotions particularly love, not the ability to make choices. Again, that was Dick's Minority Report.
        I'll just requote what I said on Roger's Thor review since you never responded to that last post of mine:
        "The whole time I was watching BR2, I couldn't help but think just how much of the budget was wasted on pointless things. In the original Blade Runner, everything about the sets and props was picked for a specific reason from the Chinatown in the beginning showcasing the mixing of cultures right down to the language and food, to the toy shop at the end expanding upon the emotional spectrum of the replicants and how they're metaphorically treated like junk themselves.
        What exactly was the point of the giant nude pink hologram? We already know the sex industry is big. What was the point of those giant feminine statues in front of Deckard's building or that giant Elvis projection? What was the point of having the memories be in a steel factory? Why does Deckard's daughter have strong memories about snow?
        The answer was none of it had a point. So much of the film was just about creating cool visuals and not actually telling a deep story. You could literally have trimmed an entire hour from the film and it wouldn't have changed the film in any noticeable degree."
        Well Denis did a terrible job indicating that because at no point while I was watching the movie did I think that K was having a tough time overcoming his programming.
      6. MrMovies
        November 18, 2017
        Yeah, you're delusional. Stay in your safe place buddy.
      7. MrMovies
        November 19, 2017
        Nope, just realized how delusional you are when you can't even see common sense or continue to make the same misreadings in my comments.
      8. MrMovies
        November 19, 2017
        I literally laid out the film's themes and plot points in plain view dumbass. Not my fault your mom didn't teach you to read.
4. Talia
  November 9, 2017
  All you've said is subjective. Let me give you some actual numbers - during its run, BvS earned a worldwide total of 873mil while Blade Runner only made 241mil. Some articles have proclaimed Blade Runner a financial disaster. I don't like Blade Runner, and during my screening, saw at least 5 people walk out of the theater midway (those were just the ones in front of me, I don't know how many walked out of the theater behind me), but I can understand how it speaks to a niche audience. Even more so, to this day there are a considerable amount of people who think that BvS:UC is a masterpiece - I'd dare say they might even be in larger numbers to those who enjoyed Blade Runner to the extent that you did. So don't try to demean the love people have for a film that you don't like in order to prop up the one that you do. You have an opinion, fine. Other people have opinions too. In their eyes, you're the fringe minority, so what's the point of even maintaining that position when you can't substantiate it?
  1. Talia
    November 9, 2017
    I've never once claimed BvS to be a superior film, scroll up to read my comments again. More people saw BvS than Blade Runner, that much even you'd have to agree with. Blade Runner is a niche film that attracted a niche crowd that reflected the much smaller numbers, resulting in a score reflecting the sentiments of fans of the genre. It isn't surprising they scored well. BvS opened to a much larger crowd, one that spanned way beyond its niche audience, which would then logically result in mixed scores and mixed reactions. If for some reason, Blade Runner had attracted audiences beyond its niche group of appreciators, it would suffer in a very similar way as BvS - perhaps not with the critics but certainly with the GA. I haven't heard one good comment from the people I know who're unfamiliar with the 1982 film, or the rippling effects that film had on movies since then. Again, it's no fault of BR 2049, but its true target audience is small and specific, just like MoS and BvS'. Henry is not wrong here. If BvS was nothing but the film disaster you make it out to be, there would not be people out there defending it vehemently. They aren't wrong either.
I'm Batman Man 39
November 8, 2017
Cheers to Henry for always being honest! He’s absolutely right. Even though I loved Batman v Superman, there’s no denying it’s a very niche and divisive film. I hope Justice League, like Wonder Woman, will fix that divisiveness. I cannot wait to see Henry’s fully developed and realized Superman next week!
Bartholomew Hunt
November 8, 2017
Lol, lol, lol... No shit, Cavil. Niche is a huge complement though. The film was crap, through and through. And JL seems to be just as shitty, for WB. isn't willing even to lift the social media reactions until the 15th! At 2:30 AM! What studio lifts an embargo at the middle of the night one day and sixteen hours before releasing the film?
1. NinjaGamer13
  November 8, 2017
  Troll on, Columbia, troll on.
  1. Bartholomew Hunt
    November 8, 2017
    What does it have to do with trolling? These are the facts: reviews AND social media reactionse are prohibited until 2:30 AM on the 15th! Most likely to prevent a consensus on RT. IT'S A HUGE, GIGANTIC RED FLAG.
    1. NinjaGamer13
      November 8, 2017
      The only factual statement in your entire message was that the embargo is currently set to lift on the 15th. Everything surrounding that was trolling.
      You do realize the critical darling Wonder Woman’s embargo was lifted only 4 days before its release, right? Two days early. So just chill the heck out about JL.
      But either way, it shouldn’t matter. Critics are often wrong, and they shouldn’t determine your opinion on something (it’s that ideology that has caused so many problems in our society).
      1. Bartholomew Hunt
        November 8, 2017
        Not only you're wrong, you're also misleading. Wonder Woman's social media reactions had been lifted 11 days before the movie came out!
        http://mashable.com/2017/11...
      2. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        Social media? Okay. Not reviews, though. But still no reason to pee your pants over.
      3. Bartholomew Hunt
        November 8, 2017
        https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
        Have you read this yet?
      4. curiousT
        November 8, 2017
        That was funny
      5. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 8, 2017
        Any chance I can be ranked higher on that list?
      6. Bartholomew Hunt
        November 8, 2017
        You will need to take it up with the author of the list. Alternatively, you can amp up your trolling to draw his attention to your body of work.
      7. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 8, 2017
        Don't worry. He'll probably bump me up a few notches soon enough. lol
        :P
      8. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        Yeah, I did, I loved it. Got a real kick out of it and felt flattered. Reverse-Flash posted it elsewhere; you can see my full response there. Really proves I’m doing my job well when the haters are afraid to even talk to me - you know I’m winning then. All in a day’s work *satisfied sigh*
      9. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        You're like the guy in class who think he is winning because he can eat glue faster than all the other kids who are not even trying to eat glue BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT RETARDED.
      10. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        Keep telling yourself that, hater ;)
      11. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        Lol, members 1, 2 and 4 in that list are pretty sad. Would also include OMGCrazy or whatever.
2. Reverse_Flash
  November 8, 2017
  Yup.
  It looks like WB isn't confident in JL.
  1. DudeofSteel1Million
    November 8, 2017
    You'd think they would be since Joss Whedon made it so much better.
    ;)
    1. Reverse_Flash
      November 8, 2017
      Better than "unwatchable".
      1. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 8, 2017
        But not enough to make it "fresh."
        ;)
        Now write up another list of message forum arch-enemies please.
      2. Reverse_Flash
        November 8, 2017
        I never said Whedon would make JL fresh, lol. I said he most likely improved the movie.
        I know you're dying to prove me wrong, but pretending I said things I didn't say is not the way.
        Cheers.
      3. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 8, 2017
        By cheering over a potentially rotten product? lol What an improvement.
        No, what you did was acted like he was infallible. You can pretend that you didn't all you want, but it won't change what you said.
        "We're done here."
        Cheers.
        ;)
      4. Reverse_Flash
        November 8, 2017
        Either you're completely dishonest or you have a very poor understanding of words.
        Find me a quote where I claim JL would be good or fresh.
        Hint: You won't.
      5. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 8, 2017
        First off, I'll get the easy thing out of the way; so.... we're not "done here"? You must have made your "epic exits" like a dozen times now over this particular subject and yet here you are still at it. lol
        "Find me a quote where I claim JL would be GOOD or FRESH BECAUSE of Whedon."
        Anyways, we can go through this exercise again if you wish. Please don't stomp off in a huff again before attempting to "get the last word in" when you feel it's convenient.
        ;)
        Starting off with this:
        "Sounds like we have another one of this coming boys: ROTTEN
        Even Whedon couldn't fix the movie. It's a real shame. I really wanted a JL movie that was well received, but what could you expect from the same people who made BvS?"
        So... You were CERTAIN it would be "rotten," right?
        Then you quoted the reddit users - one in particular stood out:
        "It's very Avengers-like, so yes, it seemed overly familiar."
        To which I responded:
        If that turns out to be true, it kinda/sorta flies in the face of your comment above.
        "Even Whedon couldn't fix the movie."
        I mean, not that it isn't possible this seeming premise is Snyder's, but since it's so-called "avengers-like", then maybe Whedon actually made it worse.
        To which of course you flew off the handle because I dared to insinuate blasphemy against Whedon, even though I fully acknowledged his much better track record.
        In any case, not long after, you said:
        "With Whedon on board my guess has always been 40 to 60's.
        60% being "fresh" BTW. And it's only because of Whedon..... Which is further backed up by how you again brought up the convo when you bragged to me, thinking I'd be bothered by the movie being improved (even though like I said before, I already said I hoped and wanted Whedon to improve the film).
        "You can tell Snyder fanboys are not real DC fans. Instead of being happy because the movie was improved, they whine because Whedon was the one who made it better."
        Oh, boy... Such hubris. You honestly are so binded on this front and your backtracking/contradictions are scary-forgetful.
        I am definitely not surprised you came all the way from IMDB. And to top it off, you made an "enemies" list. LMAO! That by far was the best part.
      6. Reverse_Flash
        November 8, 2017
        Not a single quote you posted is self contradictory, lol.
        And you didn't quote me saying the movie would be good or fresh.
        So yeah. Point proven.
      7. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 8, 2017
        Denial be thy name. lol
        Point proven indeed. ;)
      8. Reverse_Flash
        November 8, 2017
        Nope.
        40 to 60's has always been my prediction. I said Whedon would improve it and that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be fresh.
        You'll have to work harder to prove me wrong.
        Cheerd.
      9. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 8, 2017
        I don't know if you can count, but 60% is "FRESH". lol
        I've proven you wrong countless times now and every time I have, you've stomped off in a huff.
        And it was apparently a big enough impression to make you angry enough to list me as your number 5 "enemy." lmao
        "Cheerd" man.. ;)
      10. Reverse_Flash
        November 8, 2017
        And 40 is rotten.
        Getting my drift now?
      11. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 8, 2017
        Backtracking again now, are we? lol You said, and I quote:
        "Find me a quote where I claim JL would be good or [[FRESH]]".
        60% is "fresh."
        Had you said 40-50%, you would have a point as that's a rotten-to-rotten ratio, but you DIDN'T, so you're stuck in a corner.
        Getting my drift now? ;)
      12. Reverse_Flash
        November 9, 2017
        lmao
        https://media.giphy.com/med...
        40-60's is a range.
        That range doesn't mean the movie WILL BE fresh.
        That range doesn't mean the movie WILL BE rotten.
        That range means the movie could be either fresh OR rotten.
        You're claiming I said the movie would be fresh ONLY
        Wrong.
        If the movie ends up being 40% rotten, I would be right
        If the movie ends up being 69% fresh, I would be right
        If the movie ends up being anything in between I would be right
        lol, how old are you?
        I'm explaining something very elemental that requires little logic. Either way, I explained it so even a 10 year old can understand it.
        Cheers.
      13. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 9, 2017
        So much anger.
        How old am I? How old are 'you?' I mean, even a child can count basic numbers, but apparently you can't.
        Again, you said:
        "Find me a quote where I claim JL would be good or [[FRESH]]".
        60% is "fresh."
        "If the movie ends up being 40% rotten, I would be right"
        "If the movie ends up being 69% fresh, I would be right"
        LMAO! You really are a child as well as a walking contradiction. You just hate being "wrong", so you claim to cover a spectrum that now includes the high 60's.... That's like saying "I bet I will either win or lose the lottery."
        Anyways, you said "cheers" again and made another "grand-slamming ultimatum" . Is this your "official" stomp-out exit or will you be back for more because you "hate" being wrong even if you're fighting a losing argument?
        Cheerio. 'Till next time.
        ;)
        "
      14. Reverse_Flash
        November 10, 2017
        "Again, you said:
        Find me a quote where I claim JL would be good or [[FRESH]].
        60% is "fresh.""
        http://rs509.pbsrc.com/albu...
        lol, you know there's a difference between
        "it's going to be fresh" and "it's going to be fresh OR rotten"
        The first phrase (which you claim I said) is an asseveration that excludes the posibility of a rotten score. It means it's going to be fresh and ONLY fresh. The second phrase ackowledges the posibilty of both being fresh or rotten.
        You are excluding the "OR" part in my statement, thus you're changing it's meaning. I never said the movie was going to be fresh, because if I said "it's going to be fresh" then I'm already dismissing the possibility of it being rotten.
        Example that even 5 year old can get:
        You're about to throw a dice. I tell you you're getting a 4, 5 or 6. You tell me that if you don't get a 6 then I would be wrong.
        You are incorrect, because I didn't tell you "you are getting a 6". I told you you were getting a 4, 5 OR 6, but you excluded the other 2 numbers I told you.
        lol
        At this point I don't expect you to understand anything I'm saying, even when I'm sure an elementary school kid would get it. It's evident that logic is not your strong point. It's OK.
        Cheers.
      15. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 10, 2017
        LOL! This is hilarious. Truly. You are so desperate and egotistical to "prove" yourself "not wrong" and all you end up doing is digging yourself deeper into a hole you can't get out.
        Here's something that maybe your "5 year old" mind might understand. You ready?
        Ahem... You said:
        "Sounds like we have another one of this coming boys: ROTTEN
        Even Whedon couldn't fix the movie. It's a real shame. I really wanted a JL movie that was well received"
        Okay... So you stated a certainty that it was going to be rotten. Fine. Then you say:
        "Above 50%. I think Whedon fixed enough to make it decent."
        To which I asked:
        "I thought you were certain it was going to be rotten though?"
        To which you responded:
        "Rotten is below 60%."
        Okay, so that showcases an above 50, but below "fresh" prediction. Fine.
        Then you say:
        "40 to 60's has always been my prediction. I said Whedon would improve it and that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be fresh."
        OH... So now that includes a 60%? So that INCLUDES a "fresh" rating now? Gee, that's kinda contradictory, don't you think?
        And finally:
        "If the movie ends up being 69% fresh, I would be right"
        BAHAHA! Okay, now you're just being ridiculous. So a HIGH 60's, just below a 70%, which is fresh. That's an extra 9% in that little metric which already is an expansive "It'll either be fresh or rotten" IE "it'll either be good or bad" which ANYONE can say as it's a 50/50 chance.
        But you specifically got defensive because then you say:
        "Find me a quote where I claim JL would be good or [[FRESH]]."
        Well, guess what, pal? 60-69% is "FRESH". And no matter how much backtracking/excusing you try to come up with, you can't change the fact that you contradicted yourself and then ASKED me to point it out to you - I did. And now you're all mad I did so, hence the backtracking.
        "You are excluding the "OR" part in my statement."
        No, I am not excluding it. Rather, I am simply meeting your demands AND pointing out the contradictory nature of your statements in asking to find you a quote where you said it would be fresh (which I did) AND also pointing out how you declared it would be ROTTEN and now you "excuse" that Jekyll and Hyde behavior with "I always meant both".
        Just admit it - You hate being wrong and can't admit to being wrong. You have a massive inflated ego and any time there is an individual who "dares" to point that out, you will go to great lengths to ensure they're the one who is "wrong" even if you have to contradict/backtrack yourself. If I were to write out an "enemies" list like you did, that would be the perfect description of you. Although I wouldn't ever do that because in the end, we're on a public message forum talking about movies of guys dressing up in circus outfits and being heroes and there are more important issues than getting mad over person(s) typing words on a screen.
        So keep playing the fool and I'll still be here laughing.
        Cheers. ;)
      16. Reverse_Flash
        November 10, 2017
        Didn't read.
        Sorry but there are more interesting things right now than schooling you about simple logic. If you didn't get it so far, you will still not get it.
        Have the last word. Won't read or reply further posts.
        Cheers.
      17. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 10, 2017
        There it is. There's your infamous Walk-out defeatist statement. You may not have read my reply as you so claim (though I'm sure you at least skimmed it as it clearly pissed you off lol), but to think you're "schooling me" is beyond hilarious if you can't even "read", much less formulate a concise reply.
        Like I said: Keep playing the fool and I'll still be here laughing.
        Cheers. ;)
      18. MrMovies
        November 15, 2017
        Mentally retarded piece of fucking shit.
3. KnightReign
  November 8, 2017
  Is it possible they want to avoid spoilers getting out: the return of Superman, a Green Lantern cameo, Darkseid's inclusion. Just saying this late of an embargo release doesn't necessarily mean the sky's falling.
  1. Bartholomew Hunt
    November 8, 2017
    Wonder Woman had a big twist at the end, but once the studio knew response was overwhelmingly positive, they lifted the embargo because word of mouth is far more important. The studio must know response to JL is mixed at best; hence, the strict embargo.
    1. NinjaGamer13
      November 8, 2017
      A surprise that was already spoiled ages before release when Thewlis was reported to play Ares.
  2. Bartholomew Hunt
    November 8, 2017
    And lifting social media reactions and allow a 25-character twit is a pretty safe way to avoid spoilers.
  3. Bartholomew Hunt
    November 8, 2017
    And the return of Superman was teased in BvS and by now is the world's worst kept secret. It would be a shock if he weren't in the movie.
Captain DC
November 8, 2017
https://uploads.disquscdn.c... https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
1. NinjaGamer13
  November 8, 2017
  That gif is so awesome
Reverse_Flash
November 8, 2017
Yeah the niche of fanboys who love bad movies.
On a side note, JL still has a social media and review embargo with 9 days to go. Now that doesn't mean the movie will get bad reviews (although there's a correlation between late embargos and poor reviews), but it looks like WB are not confident in it in the least.
Let's hope JL doesn't end up being another "niche" movie.
1. NinjaGamer13
  November 8, 2017
  Haha so clever you really got us!
  Wonder Woman
  I hope for the sake of the franchise it’s universally loved. But I also hope it doesn’t lose the DC charm.
  1. Hunter Zolomon
    November 8, 2017
    Wonder Woman had the embargo lived ages before the film was out, people were allowed to post thoughts on twitter and stuff as soon as they saw it and reviews were released soon after. The fact WB haven't allowed at least Twitter reactions shows a lack of confidence, do you play video games and follow the news with them? Because when there's a embargo what doesn't lift until a day beforehand or release date then 9/10 that means one thing.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      November 8, 2017
      It happened to the It remake. It's embargo was lifted the day before the release so......
      1. Bartholomew Hunt
        November 8, 2017
        https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
      2. Schuyler Finley
        November 8, 2017
        So you're not gonna try to make a counterpoint? Sigh, it seems not everyone can put on their big boy pants.
      3. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 8, 2017
        LOL!
        What an honor; to be so "memorable" to a poster on a public message forum dedicated to talking about costumed superhero movies that he actually writes up a list of "arch-enemies" that infuriate him enough to post about.
      4. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        I know, I loved it
      5. neodymium
        November 8, 2017
        The fact that someone actually took the time to even make that is so sad. Lol
        Lives. People need to get them
      6. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 8, 2017
        It's very... IMDBish. Posters there would make lists like these almost daily to vent their rage at faceless beings whose words made them slam their keyboards in a rampage.
        Good times.
      7. BugsMeany
        November 8, 2017
        I wish IMDb had kept the forums for smaller and older films. Any kind of blockbuster, they were toxic, but everywhere else they were useful.
      8. DudeofSteel1Million
        November 8, 2017
        Yeah, I mean there were plenty of older films and TV shows I've watched or rewatched and even if their boards weren't full of activity, there were still interesting conversations to be had.
      9. Hunter Zolomon
        November 8, 2017
        Like i said 9/10, sometimes that 1 works out ok. The fact WW didn't have a strict embargo but JL does is pretty strange.
      10. Schuyler Finley
        November 8, 2017
        Why don't we act like adults and just wait instead of overacting everyday.
      11. Hunter Zolomon
        November 8, 2017
        I'm just going by what history has shown.
      12. Schuyler Finley
        November 8, 2017
        Again, just wait. Either can side can be wrong, but it's pointless to argue at this point.
      13. Reverse_Flash
        November 8, 2017
        Didn't you say you were not bother to comment here?
      14. Schuyler Finley
        November 8, 2017
        Yeah, but then I got tired of the nonsense.
    2. NinjaGamer13
      November 8, 2017
      The reviews embargo was lifted only a couple days ahead of schedule for WW. Social media, okay, but it’s still nothing to pee your pants over, as I told someone else.
      1. Bartholomew Hunt
        November 8, 2017
        And that someone else replied with this. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
      2. Human target
        November 8, 2017
        I'm very flattered.
2. Bartholomew Hunt
  November 8, 2017
  "Let's hope JL doesn't end up being another "niche" movie."
  Literally loling
3. Bartholomew Hunt
  November 8, 2017
  Probably, yes.
  1. NinjaGamer13
    November 8, 2017
    Yep, you got it! We fanboys are so silly!
Reverse_Flash
November 8, 2017
Exactly.
BvS was not a niche movie. It was a movie for the masses. It just failed to deliver.
1. NinjaGamer13
  November 8, 2017
  Interesting so many people didn’t get it, if it was a movie for the masses. And interesting so many people loved it, if it didn’t deliver.
  1. Reverse_Flash
    November 8, 2017
    Oh it's NinjaGamer13, lol
    1. ShobiNaq
      November 9, 2017
      " oh it's ninjagamer13" LMAO dead
Schuyler Finley
November 8, 2017
*looks at the comment section*
Yep, not gonna bother with this one.
1. Reverse_Flash
  November 8, 2017
  https://media.giphy.com/med...
  1. Schuyler Finley
    November 8, 2017
    Not gonna be able to do it.
  2. NinjaGamer13
    November 8, 2017
    This gif though lol
BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
November 8, 2017
http://mashable.com/2017/11...
Not familiar with the site but a curious read. Hoping its not true.
1. NinjaGamer13
  November 8, 2017
  Don’t care.
  1. BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
    November 8, 2017
    You should. Means wb going to run like cowards and will set these characters back. Might not get another jl movie who knows for how long after. Think about it. Remove the embargo at 2.50am? If you are confident release the social media reactions. It bodes well for JL.
    1. NinjaGamer13
      November 8, 2017
      True. Let’s hope those flakes can get their acts together. Let’s hope this movie can appeal to more people AND still be great. But I don’t see any point in worrying ourselves about the score ahead of time. I’m gonna wait and see it myself and just hope for the best.
      1. BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
        November 8, 2017
        Same here. I still have not bought my tickets yet. I will next week regardless of the embargo. Just way too much drama with dc films.
2. NinjaGamer13
  November 8, 2017
  As much as I’d love the agenda against these movies to die out, we just have to accept it might not.
3. Bartholomew Hunt
  November 8, 2017
  It's most likely true. A studio confident in its film, does not lift the embargo in the middle of the fucking night one day before the movie comes out.
  1. Schuyler Finley
    November 8, 2017
    It 2017 embargo was lifted around the same and critics praised the film.
  2. BugsMeany
    November 8, 2017
    I’m expecting a rotten score but I don’t know if the time of day matters that much. The WW embargo was lifted at midnight, eastern time.
4. Pit
  November 8, 2017
  Yeah, I thought it was weird that the social media embargo wasn't lifted. Specially compared to WW.
5. BugsMeany
  November 8, 2017
  Not surprised. We all saw this coming.
6. Sammy
  November 8, 2017
  Movie opens in Brazil on the 15th though. Dunno how that translates into time zones, but you might hear from Brazilian moviegoers even before the embargo lifts (as I'm assuming there'll be screenings at midnight and stuff).
  1. BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
    November 8, 2017
    Well supposedly it lifts tomorrow. We will find out finally.
7. Bartholomew Hunt
  November 8, 2017
  You imbecile, the social media reactions embargo was lifted 13 days before the movie was released. And it's true because I was keeping an eye on what critics were saying.
  1. Bartholomew Hunt
    November 8, 2017
    No, since no critic has a said anything yet. In fact, many posted that they've seen JL and that's all they can say. And "excited to talk about it" does NOT equal "love it".
    You're a real piece of work, troll.
8. Reverse_Flash
  November 8, 2017
  I'll give you some hope: That writer also predicted IT would be rotten with 45% and he was wrong.
  http://mashable.com/2017/09...
  There you have it, hope.
  http://massrealestatelawblo...
9. BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
  November 8, 2017
  All of this is driving me crazy. Really trying to stay calm. Its the Justice League, do not want it to fail.
Martin Borrego
November 8, 2017
Niche films are the best, they make for good talking point. The Shining, Blade Runner, are some of my favorites.
1. BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
  November 8, 2017
  The shining is a classic.
  1. Sammy
    November 8, 2017
    Yeah, but he also directed Maximum Overdrive, so King's taste is a little bit questionable (plus he has this idea that every. single. dialogue. from the book has to be in its adaptation because he has no idea how visual mediums work).
  2. BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
    November 8, 2017
    Not sure...I love it.
  3. Hunter Zolomon
    November 8, 2017
    Yeah so he made his own TV version whats more like his book and it ended being shit and no one gave a fuck about it.
The Walking Cuban
November 8, 2017
Good thing you didn't put divisive in the title, they would never find your body.
curiousT
November 8, 2017
What are the chances that Snyder will be coming back for MOS sequel or JL 2? He hasn't announced his next project so may be he is waiting for WB's invitation to direct one of those movies? I hope he doesn't touch DC movies again. He has badly damaged them.
1. marszttks
  November 8, 2017
  You are a complete moron.
  1. curiousT
    November 8, 2017
    And pals, here is an individual who flips out at people holding opinions different to his own. If he is so mentally weak that he can't even stand differences of opinions about movies, how does he even function in a world where people have deep religious and political differences?
    1. Alan Conn
      November 10, 2017
      NO hes right. Ur a moron bc he hasnt damaged anything.
      1. curiousT
        November 10, 2017
        Delusional idiot. Go seek treatment for your sick obsession with Snyder.
2. wash the washed-up has-been
  November 8, 2017
  Have to think Zack is very sad that Universal is closing down the Mummyverse. That seemed like the obvious next thing for him to destroy.
Harvey Bullock
November 8, 2017
https://i.imgflip.com/1z15e...
residentgrigo
November 8, 2017
The Oz Effect just (abruptly) ended in Action Rebirth and it might as well be a sequel to BvS as Cav-El turned into the Jurgens Superman rather fast. Superman being bathed in human ash due to him failing stop a mass murder. In Africa no less. Him doubting his own mission and humanity itself. Social commentary on how cynical 21st century culture got. It´s all there. Even a certain deleted BvS scene is more or less the 2nd to last page of the arc:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-i...
Cavill is obviously correct that Snydra gambled on appealing to the niche core or lapsed comic readers first and foremost but he also got closer to the core DC comics essence than any life action director before.
But you know. The 2 Superman Rebirth books quickly stopped being bestsellers so... yeah.
Don´t adapt DC comics too closely if you want to get to that billion is the lesson. Squad flew rather close to the comic sun too. Dito for MoS and even WW (Spidey still made more, so will Thor with that opening).
DCEU Phase 2 will be an interesting beast for sure. Especially if the profit margins don´t suddenly jump.
1. DudeofSteel1Million
  November 8, 2017
  Exactly. Snyder did indeed tap into the core darker elements of Superman's character that definitely shocked a lot of people seeing as how they're so used to the happier, lighter Superman.
  Honestly, it sucks to see the character of Superman treated this way; he literally can't win. When he's portrayed as the light and hopeful optimistic hero, choirs ring loud about how he's so "boring" and "overpowered" with no "problems" to overcome or "drama" to bring him down.
  Then when he's portrayed as a conflicted and lost individual, now he's a giant "a-hole" who doesn't "care about humanity".
  1. residentgrigo
    November 8, 2017
    I honestly have ZERO idea how to make that Iron-man money Superman film.
    The Donner films are flat out wrongly remembered by the public at large (he is a bully, murderer and essentially a repeat sex offender) and i like the first 2 films fine enough. Flat out adore Christopher Reeve´s acting in the role even.
    Doing a Post Crisis film Superman lead to the (monetarily profitable) shit storms we see in this very threat. Doing what Supergirl did lead to disaster within his 2nd appearance in the S02 finale and unimpressive ratings and media profile in general.
    Superman Returns speaks for itself. His last solo toon was in the 90s. Smallville is a mess and quite niche too despite 10 seasons. His toon film line stopped and will be restarted with a 2nd attempt at his death. Lol.
    His game series is shit, remains dead since Returns and Injustice made him into the core villain. What´s the lesson in all of this? He is hard to write and all but still.
    All want that big and universally adored Superman in the films and so on yet no one got the answer in the end. It´s not like Snyderverse is the only media attempt WB pulled with him in the last decade. It´s just the most successful...
    1. BugsMeany
      November 8, 2017
      Sex offender?
      1. residentgrigo
        November 8, 2017
        His mind wipe kiss in Part 2 after having sex with Lois is ... problematic. Especially if Returns is treated as the "real" Superman 3 and he randomly gropes her vagina as Clark when he pretends to fall over in Superman 1. He looked up the cooler of her panties though her clothes, even if he was dared. The 3rd and 4th film pulled weird stunts a these too and he was a voyeuristic dead beat dad in Returns. Sigh.
      2. BugsMeany
        November 8, 2017
        OMG! I see your point.
      3. Knight-Errant
        November 8, 2017
        You’re examples in the first two films are quite exaggerations. The sex was consensual and if you mentioned he was “dared(?)” to see the color of Lois’ underwear.
      4. residentgrigo
        November 8, 2017
        He literally fumbles about and then touches her pelvis in a work environment... Where do you work? The mind wipe also wasn´t consensual and the Returns version then has to raise the kid herself while he is off to star in a tie-in comic and a deleted scene.
      5. Knight-Errant
        November 8, 2017
        I work for an investigative agency. You? Did Lois come forth with a complaint? Did she have any reason to question his intent?
        I pointed out the first 2 films, not all of them. The mind wipe wasn’t, but the sex was. Hard to put the mind wipe as a sexual offender crime. If leaving a mother to raise a child without him is a sexual offense, then the NFL is in a shit load of trouble.
      6. residentgrigo
        November 9, 2017
        Have you seen these films? Like for real.
        And having the biggest comic icon of all time groping co-workers in front of the whole staff is fine as long as he doesn´t get sued by them. Get real fam.
      7. Knight-Errant
        November 9, 2017
        Nope, never saw them. I find it’s easier to comment on movies I’ve never seen.
        Again, if Lois doesn’t interpret the motion as sexual, then it wouldn’t be a sexual offense. Weren’t we just discussing how Burton shouldn’t take Affleck’s actions as sexual assault because he didn’t mean it?
      8. Alan Conn
        November 10, 2017
        I bet u seriously do find it easier to comment on shit u know nothing about.
      9. Knight-Errant
        November 10, 2017
        Some would say, much like 007, there’s very little I don’t know anything about.
  2. NinjaGamer13
    November 8, 2017
    Nailed it
2. Hunter Zolomon
  November 8, 2017
  I love how you ignore that right at the end Superman goes off to do what he does and be a hero, you are also ignoring that both him and Jor-El and well everyone are being manipulated by Dr Manhattan. Right now Supes is scared because he knows something big and powerful is coming and his emotions and doubt are being exploited with it. Superman before this arc didn't have any of these doubts and enjoyed being a hero, Jor-El and Manhattan are the ones who have exploited him and put in doubt. Comparing this to MoS/BvS is stupid because that Superman had doubt all his life and all his Superman life, he saves people yes but he questions if he should.
  "Snydra gambled on appealing to the niche core or lapsed comic readers
  first and foremost but he also got closer to the core DC comics essence
  than any life action director before." Except that Donner with Superman and Nolan with his Trilogy done it first.
Spenddollarz
November 8, 2017
people are still talking about BvS till this day good job Zack , you have created a masterpiece that no one will ever forget , and anybody still crying about Superman being dark and cynical go kick rocks that was basically how the world is right now I'm sorry that you want fantasy and happy endings but the world is not like that. Thats exactly how I expected the world to react if Superman really existed. MOS , BvS and JL is a Superman trilogy and arc he will become more like the superman you cry babies wanted saving cats out of trees with a smile on his face lol
1. Bartholomew Hunt
  November 8, 2017
  Delusional much?
2. Knight-Errant
  November 8, 2017
  “people are still talking about BvS till this day”
  To quote Batman from the 1989 movie “what people?”
  The average person? That’s great if it’s positive talk that includes more then “Batman & Superman fight, Wonder Woman is there, & Superman dies.”
  The fanboys? Not sure that’s something to be doing backflips over.
  1. Spenddollarz
    November 8, 2017
    Thank you for proving my point lmaooooo
    1. Knight-Errant
      November 8, 2017
      Your point was that really only fanboys are talking about BvS? Not sure I got that from your post during my initial read.
  2. Ezee23
    November 9, 2017
    They're still talking about it.
    1. Knight-Errant
      November 9, 2017
      Yup, on places like this site. I could go to an A-Team fansite & betting they’re still talking about the movie.
      Not certain BvS gets the same treatment as movies like The Godfather.
3. Hunter Zolomon
  November 8, 2017
  You realize that its only really being talked about on sites like this what is comic book sites, no one gives a fuck about BvS outside of the fanboys anymore. Give it 10 years and even the fanboys would have moved on to something else whats bollocks to wank over and think is a "masterpiece" and crap like that. Right now among the average person (AKA the Majority) the Nolan Trilogy is talked about more despite being older then BvS, fanboy all you want but you just remind me of the Bay Transformers films fanboys.
lowdevil
November 8, 2017
I personally think DC is trolling the trolls with the 2:30 am lifting on the 15th. They know it will be rated at 80% and open at a 280 mill weekend.
1. BugsMeany
  November 8, 2017
  Domestic? (😂😔)
  1. lowdevil
    November 8, 2017
    Yup. 480 Worldwide OW. 1.4 billion final BO.
    1. BugsMeany
      November 8, 2017
      Last question: American dollars?
BornAgainPCGamer
November 8, 2017
The release date of JL reviews has been released, the embargo lifts next Tuesday. Really hope it gets great reviews to keep the momentum going gained from Wonder Woman. Back on topic....BvS was harshly critised when released but not completely unjustly, the UE however was far superior. It wasnt completely without its flaws either but it did correct a lot of the issues people had with the film. When I seen BvS in the cinema, i was amazed at how disjointed the narrative was, when I seen the UE, it became one of my favourite comic book movies. I hope they've learned from mistakes and the DCEU thrives not just survives.
residentgrigo
November 8, 2017
@Chris DC has been running interviews with the core JLA actors in the editorial page of the books for i think 3 weeks. The Flash is this week and his is actually interesting. I would look into promoting them.
The new one (the Morrison connection isn´t new but still):
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5...
1. NinjaGamer13
  November 8, 2017
  Ezra knows his stuff. Really makes me feel better about him being in the role, even though I don’t think he LOOKS like the perfect Barry.
MrMovies
November 8, 2017
Go away fucking troll.
1. MrMovies
  November 8, 2017
  Please
  1. MrMovies
    November 9, 2017
    I just don't understand you man. You're clearly capable of deeper thinking, but choose to be a troll.
    1. MrMovies
      November 9, 2017
      But you are.
      1. MrMovies
        November 9, 2017
        Short responses intended to incite rather than encourage discussion.
      2. MrMovies
        November 10, 2017
        Alright, that's fair enough, but I feel you could do a better job catching people's attentions without short smartass posts.
      3. MrMovies
        November 10, 2017
        What?
      4. MrMovies
        November 10, 2017
        How the hell does the word "niche" trigger you? It's accurate. BvS was an experimental superhero film- it had character arcs within character arcs.
      5. MrMovies
        November 18, 2017
        Well if the shoe fits...
        No, only pieces of shit like you think it's as piece of shit. It's not a jedi mind trick- name me one another superhero film that combined character arcs within character arcs.
        It is niche because it wasn't a conventional superhero film minus the big CGI fight at the end, which either way ended with Superman dying. So yeah, a lot of what BvS did was unique.
        They had to course correct because they didn't release the ultimate cut, which several critics have said made the film positive instead of negative.
      6. MrMovies
        November 18, 2017
        It is niche, whether you want to admit it or not. You weren't a part of the film's target audience since the only superhero films you want to watch are simplistic ones.
residentgrigo
November 8, 2017
This partial soundtrack leak sounds (haha) legit as it´s hard to fake such things:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DC...
I still ain´t feeling it so the OST will be a lost cause on me for sure. Very Spider-man-y too.
Edit: Here is Steppie: https://streamable.com/a3og9
Better, yet still too close to Elfman´s past work (which i obviously liked). Weirdly long too.
residentgrigo
November 8, 2017
An alterative cover to this week´s Flash:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-k...
They better don´t redesign his film costume too hard, besides the spare parts clean-up of course. It´s sooo good.
1. John Johnson
  November 8, 2017
  Wow! I think they translate very well to the page!
Nahuel Benvenuto
November 8, 2017
he should make up his mind, MoS and BvS are the best DCCU movies so far
1. Kane
  November 8, 2017
  He did make up his mind and gave you his opinion. He believes BvS is a niche movie.
  1. Bartholomew Hunt
    November 8, 2017
    At this point, I think we all know "niche" is a euphemism for "garbage".
    1. NinjaGamer13
      November 8, 2017
      ...On this forum, as you are using it.
Orlando Furioso
November 8, 2017
To all the negative posters: will you be delighted if it fails or delighted if it succeeds? Will you be disgruntled if it succeeds?
1. Orlando Furioso
  November 8, 2017
  Not an answer but a grand statement indeed. You should be a legislator.
  1. NinjaGamer13
    November 8, 2017
    LOL
2. Schuyler Finley
  November 8, 2017
  Don't know how since he was under check in each film. BvS is a prime example.
  1. BugsMeany
    November 8, 2017
    Funny, Patty Jenkins wasn’t held down. Wonder Woman (2 hours, 21 minutes) could have used a little trimming, in fact. Were the overbearing tyrannical execs on vacation or something?
    1. Schuyler Finley
      November 8, 2017
      Maybe because they saw bigger dollar signs in BvS. And they weren't telling Jenkins to put more focus on Trevor.
      1. BugsMeany
        November 8, 2017
        "Do whatever you want, sweetie, it's only $149 million."
        Like that? No. They didn't meddle bc they didn't have to.
      2. Schuyler Finley
        November 8, 2017
        WW didn't have the box potential that BvS had.
      3. BugsMeany
        November 8, 2017
        With that budget and a June release date, they were most certainly expecting big things from it.
      4. Schuyler Finley
        November 8, 2017
        Lol, not like with BvS dude. This is like when people were trying to crap on SS's box office by saying that the film didn't hit the billion dollar mark. News flash: No one expected it to, just like with how no one expected WW to hit as big as you think it would. I'm pretty sure that as long as WW was a hit with critics and made a profit, they didn't care what Jenkins did to the film. With BvS, they wanted to hit the big mark in any possible way, which was why they told Snyder to trim the film.
      5. BugsMeany
        November 8, 2017
        He gave them an unreleasable movie. That's why.
      6. Schuyler Finley
        November 8, 2017
        How was it "unreleasble"?
        Because it was 3 hours?
        Um, The Wolf of Wall Street and LOTR films say hi.
        Because it was rated-R?
        Just remove the blood and Affleck ass, and the film is back to being PG-13.
      7. BugsMeany
        November 8, 2017
        Are you serious? Scorsese has earned his carte blanche. LOTR has source material that demands that length. Zack Snyder doesn't get to release a Batman movie 19 minutes longer than Christopher Nolan's longest.
      8. Schuyler Finley
        November 8, 2017
        Lol, says who?
        I'm not a fan of any director, but neither me, you, or anyone else can dictate the runtime of a director's film. Don't come at me with that kind of crap. People love to talk on here that fanboys just love to blow Snyder off, but they don't realize that they're doing the same to other directors. If Snyder wants to release a film that's longer than Nolan's then that's his damn prerogative.
      9. BugsMeany
        November 8, 2017
        >>> I'm not a fan of any director, but neither me, you, or anyone else ***except maybe the people who spending $250 million on it*** can dictate the runtime of a director's film.
        Fixed that for you :)
      10. Schuyler Finley
        November 8, 2017
        Wow. Out of that entire paragraph, that's all you have to say about it. Sigh, why do I even bother?
      11. BugsMeany
        November 8, 2017
        What else is there to say? What Snyder "wants" to do is hardly relevant. WB paid him a fuckton of money--massive budget plus millions in salary--to make them a movie. They get to edit the finished product. That's how it works.
      12. Schuyler Finley
        November 8, 2017
        And by doing that, they released a theatrical cut that pissed off a lot of viewers.
      13. BugsMeany
        November 8, 2017
        Oh well. It never should have been that long to begin with.
      14. jrvc
        November 8, 2017
        and why not? There has been long movies since forever and it has never been a problem before. Why is it a problem that this specific movie has that runtime? Had they left it as it was it would have been better received, as it was proven after the ultimate cut was released. FFS even the guys at collider apologised for treating Snyder as they did when they reviewed the theatrical cut.
        And even if you didn't like the contents for whatever personal reason, you can't deny that it solved a lot of problems people had with the first cut, like pacing, motives and more Kent time!
        So if the movie needed that time it wasn't a problem it was that long, just like it wasn't a problem with movies like Lord of the Rings or the frigging 4-hour cut of Gone with the Wind (which I love)
      15. BugsMeany
        November 8, 2017
        If you take a 3-hour movie and cut out important pieces of information here and there, of course putting them back will improve it. That doesn't mean it _had_ to be that long to begin with.
        Adaptations of very long books (or series of books) have no choice but to be long. Cutting characters or storylines can be treacherous. BvS, even though it borrowed from a few comics stories, was an original screenplay. The story could have been tighter. Would fans have revolted if the beloved Lois-investigates-the-bullet or Bruce-has-a-bad-dream plotlines had been cut? No, because they didn't even know about them. Unlike GWTW and LOTR, there was no source material that had to be honored.
      16. jrvc
        November 8, 2017
        Ok, that's a fair point, but again it comes down to your liking or not of some aspects. Time per se isn't the problem here, moreso for the people who enjoyed it as a whole
      17. BugsMeany
        November 8, 2017
        I agree it's better. I can't blame WB, however, for not wanting to release a 3-hour movie.
      18. jrvc
        November 8, 2017
        Ok, but if they didn't want that, why the heck did they wait until the last minute to do that? It was reported that they liked what they saw. However, two months before release they panicked, basically because, IMO, they wanted more sessions and more money. So again, whay wait until the last moment? They could have demanded that long before!
        I know I know, it's just a rethorical question, but it's that I see all this a ridiculous movement on their behalf.
        And IMHO, I don't think a 3-hour cut had made people wary of watching it, it was too hyped and, as we said before, movies with the same length haven't had problems with that.
        Oh well, we will never know what would have happened in that scenario...
        (sorry for the rant)
      19. Knight-Errant
        November 8, 2017
        Remember how much better the director’s cut of Daredevil was? It still had that stupid playground fight, but it fleshed out the Kingpin plot much better.
      20. Knight-Errant
        November 8, 2017
        I still think that’s subjective. I’m not convinced the Ultimate Cut would’ve been well received to general audiences. I enjoyed Watchmen, but think the Ultimate Edition is head & shoulders a better version. My wife loves the theatrical cut, but gets bored with the Ultimate Cut. She what I would define as a “general audience member” for this genre.
      21. jrvc
        November 8, 2017
        Well, of course is subjective as I said to the other commenter, but again, there were critics that did say that cut was better, so there was the actual possibility of it being better received. We will never now for sure though.
        BTW, my girlfriend likes the UC a lot, but she always gets bored with the fights (minus when WW appears). However he never likes fights in any type of movie so...
      22. Kerk Lastnameless
        November 8, 2017
        Yeah, this whole idea that the Ultimate Cut was so much better than the theatrical version is just a red herring invented by the Snyderians as a method to defend their idol and divert the anger of the masses from him to WB. As in, "Look, it's all WB's fault. Had they allowed UC to be shown in theaters like Snyder wanted, everyone would have understood the movie, and we'd all live happily ever after."
        It's horseshit.
      23. Bartholomew Hunt
        November 8, 2017
        There are long movies that don't feel long at all. BvS is not one of them.
    2. NinjaGamer13
      November 8, 2017
      It’s a fact that BvS was meddled with. That’s common knowledge.
      1. BugsMeany
        November 8, 2017
        Meddled with for fun? Out of spite? To make it worse? Or bc he delivered a 3-hour movie?
      2. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        To make money. Shorter runtime and lower rating = more viewings.
      3. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        To make money. Shorter runtime and lower rating = more viewings.
      4. BugsMeany
        November 8, 2017
        Is that such an outlandish reason? They spent over $250 million on the thing.
  2. Schuyler Finley
    November 8, 2017
    How is it him running wild, when they tell him to trim it down down DESPITE loving his cut? It had an "F bomb"? Big whoop. Transformers had cursing in it as well. It's a freaking PG-13 film. The only unnecessary scene was the Affleck ass shot, and similar shot like that was in X-Men DOFP but Fox didn't make a a big deal about it.
    You didn't hear Superman or Batman calling a kid a "pussy" like how Tony did in IM 3. The cartoon had indoctrination and death, but a minor character saying "Fuck" in BvS is somehow worse?! And the Hobbit were 3 hours long, and no gave a crap about that.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      November 8, 2017
      Oh for Christ's sake, the comics have worse stuff than this and kids still read them! As residentgrigo said below, Superman was BATHED in human ashes.
      And a jar of piss was in the film. Was it thrown at someone? No. Were there jokes made about it? No. It was basically Lex's "fuck you" to a senator before he killed her.
      Again, PG-13. You're making it seem as if the film was like a bad teen-horror flick. The IM 3 movie was freaking Disney and yet they were okay with letting kids hear the word "pussy". This is just nonsense.
      1. Schuyler Finley
        November 8, 2017
        You do know that the guy still had his skull, right? A simple edit and the film would've been fine. You're making this sound way worse than what it is.
        Again, a simple edit would've solved the problems. DOFP had characters being mutilated, torn apart, and die in gruesome ways, but they still had a PG-13 rating. A SIMPLE EDIT would've solved their rating problem, but they had him trim it down simply because they wanted more theater screenings.
      2. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        That didn’t happen.
        A couple of small changes to BvS UE and it would be PG-13, let’s be real. And I think I remember Snyder not expecting the R-rating and saying it was soft. And most of the fans loved the rating when it was announced.
        But like with everything, you guys have to retroactively complain so that you can justify your hate of the movie?
      3. Aheaney15
        November 8, 2017
        I think you are right, but here’s the thing: some of that “R-rating” shit could actually be in a PG-13 movie and be used. The blood splats, Affleck’s ass (by the way, who the flying hell was asking for that again?) and slo-mo shots of corpses, no. But one F-bomb used in that context as well as the other “R-rating” stuff actually could be used in a PG-13 movie.
        That said, in my opinion the stuff that made the movie rated R (including the F-bomb) didn’t benefit the film in any way. And I do agree, the studio was right in cutting out that garbage.
      4. Aheaney15
        November 9, 2017
        Yeah, again I’m not disagreeing. I thought all of the “R” filler should have been cut.
        That said, I think some other parts in the Ultimate Edition were very much necessary to the film. Why those select scenes were cut but the Knightmare and JL cameos weren’t is beyond me...
      5. jrvc
        November 8, 2017
        Well you should read more comics then, because in the most recent example that is The Oz Effect there are things happening which, using your logic, are quite violent for a child to watch and read about. And I say again that this is the most recent example, there are LOTS more!
      6. jrvc
        November 9, 2017
        it's rated teen, virtually all of them are rated teen, so no, they are not for "kids", and I even say they are for late teens, just the way murders and other gruesome crimes are depicted.
        So again, a Superman movie falling into that is not a stretch as you are implying
      7. jrvc
        November 9, 2017
        I think that that universality you talk about loks a lot like Donner's Superman, but that version doesn't correlate with the comics at all.
        Is he hopefull and optimistic and all that in the comics? Yes, he is. Is he also shown as doubtful, angry or sad? Yes, he is. Are there optimistic and hopeful stories? Yes, there are. Are there also violent and dark stories? Yes there are.
        The only thing that BvS lacked was that optimistic ending, but guess what? That's what we were going to get with JL anyway. Still today people don't realize that this was the middle chapter of a story, and just like the middle chapter in Star Wars, it was the darkest one before the dawn, just like what happened with Star Wars, and analogy that was said even BEFORE BvS release. But alas, people didn't have the patience to wait for it to come.
        So yeah, this Superman is very akin to the comics, and about the R rating, well, I don't how the heck they wnt into that because the movie doesn't have anything so bad to get that. Ironically, that rating was only in the US. In my country is your equivalent to PG 13 (only it's at 12), the same in many other countries. Maybe folks there are more sensitive or whatever, but I didn't see anything that warranted that rating
      8. Alan Conn
        November 10, 2017
        It WAS cool! REALLY FUCKING COOL!!!
    2. NinjaGamer13
      November 8, 2017
      I’m sorry but the jar scene was one of the tensest and most well-acted in the whole movie, a master stroke.
      1. Schuyler Finley
        November 8, 2017
        Well Lex does have an inferiority complex so........
      2. Ezee23
        November 9, 2017
        How do you know she thought there was a bomb? She was just unnerved/scared, that's all. You interpreting it as her thinking she's about to die is completely on you. It's your imagination running wild.
      3. Ezee23
        November 9, 2017
        She was distressed by it. Only. That's it.
        Nothing told her she was going to die, she didn't indicate that realization so the assumption that she thought that is on you. Her darting eyes are telling us and Superman that there is something wrong. The only assumption I can make about why she quickly glances in Keefe's direction is that she immediately suspected he was another plant, just like that lady from Nairomi.
        I might be mistaken about this (I'll confirm it with another rewatch) but I think Superman is alerted by a sound coming from his right, not her look. He's also worried about her distressed looks but the sound is what made him look to his right, not that she looked in that direction.
        Again, any assumptions are on you.
      4. Ezee23
        November 9, 2017
        Remember that "dreadfully frightful manner" and "impending doom" are your descriptions, no one else's.
        Yes, purposeful indeed. I'm not disagreeing with that. But like I said previously, she was distressed by the jar and that she may have been played by Lex again. Reiterating my earlier point, none of that distress gave away a realization that she knew of "impending doom", death or an explosive device. That's on you and your interpretation.
      5. Ezee23
        November 10, 2017
        Completely agreed, definitely a marker for something.Not of a realization that she knew she was about to die and definitely not of a realization that she knew there was an explosive device.
        In this instance, these "visual storytelling tropes" tell us that she distressed. No more than that.
      6. jrvc
        November 8, 2017
        She looked at him once she realised Luthor wasn't there
      7. jrvc
        November 9, 2017
        But who said she was expecting a bomb? She just felt something wrong was happening! We saw how inteligent she was and she was threatened by Luthor prior to that, exactly in the piss jar scene. That's why she reacted that way, she saw his threat again, and him not being there but leaving that guy there who was supposed to help Luthor's cause obviously wasn't feeling "correct". That's why she looked at that character
      8. jrvc
        November 9, 2017
        Again, she looked at him because she already knew he was left there by Luthor, but there's nothing that can say she knew there was a bomb there!
      9. jrvc
        November 9, 2017
        then she got the same reaction as anybody who was watching the movie, or are you going to deny that at that moment you knew something was about to happen?
      10. jrvc
        November 9, 2017
        Well then, I get your point but again we are going to put this under the "agree to disagree" fold. I liked what they did with that scene and how Luthor went as afar as turning a ridiculous comment into a threat. At least from my point of view it worked and liked the irony of the jar. But to each their own I suppose
      11. NinjaGamer13
        November 8, 2017
        Dude. You couldn’t tell what it meant? She’s figured it out the same way we all did in the moment of watching it. Not necessarily a bomb, just unnerved her, and then when we see Lex’s chair was the only one empty, she and we knew something bad was going down - who knows what, maybe a bomb.
        No, just no.
        It was a reference to a truly clever line earlier on from a very good character (Finch was fantastic), TURNED ON HER in an outrageous and baffling way - as it is meant to be - to be the harbinger of a huge twist in the movie.
        Genius. Only Chris Terrio could have thought of that.
    3. Knight-Errant
      November 8, 2017
      I’d argue Spidey falls into that same iconic camp.
      1. Knight-Errant
        November 8, 2017
        Tattoos are the defining line? Not sure “all ages” & tattoos seem accurate.
      2. Knight-Errant
        November 9, 2017
        I’ll take your word on it. I’ve seen way more Cap shields, Bat symbols, & Punisher skulls then either the S shield or Spidey’s head.
      3. Knight-Errant
        November 9, 2017
        You doubt I see more Bat-symbols, Punisher logos, & Cap shields then S-shields & Spidey head decals? I log 40-60k miles a year through a 5 State territory; I see a lot of vehicles.
        My point was that the WebHead is in the same camp.
      4. Knight-Errant
        November 9, 2017
        As a comic book fan who grew up in an era before it became a popular fad, I do take notice. And I don’t need to take tally strokes to make an unofficial poll. When you rarely see something, it jumps out at you when you do.
        Can you show me where you pulled numbers for regarding tats, shirts, decals, stickers, hats, etc.? I’m actually figuring the best selling merchandise is Batman.
    4. pw1x
      November 8, 2017
      He's not a big blue boyscout, thats your problem.
      1. pw1x
        November 8, 2017
        Key word, pop culture. The back street boys used to be a part of pop culture too. That doesn't mean its any good
      2. pw1x
        November 9, 2017
        Apparently you don't comprehension too well... Superman isnt a big blue boyscout as originally written and upheld throughout his existence; therefore, you're correct when you say he is according to pop-culture, meaning he was a some point, but not necessarily exclusively that or that he is best portrayed as such, or that it couldn't work a slightly different way, as it did so well in MOS and BVS, it just means that at a point "pop-culture perceived it that way (e.g., a campy adam west Batman); nonetheless, I'm not even sure what you're on about anymore... is your stance that parents are unable to watch MOS with their kids, hence, bad character portrayal? That sounds more like a cultural issue to me. I sat down and watched MOS AND BVS with my girls (4 and 5; 6 and 7 respectively) and we enjoyed it.
        I feel sorry for people who spend all their time trying to prove something is NOT good. What a wasteful aim of consciousness.
      3. pw1x
        November 9, 2017
        You don't spend all of your time... and here comes the bullet points to prove it. Lol
        MOS and BVS did work. I saw them; they were amazing. If only though, I could've seen what a BvS movie would be without WB running interference, dreading backlash from the loud and obnoxious pop-culture alumni.
      4. pw1x
        November 9, 2017
        Are you trying to say that in a world that's currently culturally bankrupt, that the majority opinion of that very same should determine what works? Especially art?
        Don't tell me, well thats the business... those that run the business still think its pre smart phone / social media. The reasons movies make money or don't have nothing to do with an overall interest anymore. That's old thinking. From a time when, if you wanted to really see a movie, you went to a theater. Nowadays, that might be the worst possible place to enjoy your first veiwing. Ask the NFL. They're experiencing a similar issue. I digress.
        Point being, when studios change things just so their movies make more money, we all lose... and just so we're clear, 2 things: 1. Bad, very bad movies can make a lot of money; 2. You're spend way too much of your time trying point out all the bad in this trilogy.
      5. pw1x
        November 9, 2017
        No, the cultural bankruptcy is when a piece of art is delivered, some like it others don't; the ones who like it, except it as is, but the ones that don't, demand that it be changed.
        I don't mind if you don't like lasagna, but don't tell me you don't because its bad, you'd be wrong. I know what lasagna taste like!
        You're on the wrong side here buddy, stop wasting so much of you time.
      6. pw1x
        November 9, 2017
        Meh, Art is subjective. You are not right on this one. I loved it. Thought it was all those things AND more... at the very least, it was groundbreaking.
        Let me just add one last thing and I'll stop wasting ALL your time... I hated Superman before Snyder... to be fair, Hans Zimmer gets a lot of that credit as well.
      7. pw1x
        November 9, 2017
        ... Don't you mean, there's always someone who hates something no matter how good it is?
        It IS subjective, bro... but thanks for the conversation, it kept me grounded today.
      8. pw1x
        November 9, 2017
        Again, that's just an opinion, its subjective; I loved it. I can honestly say that b4 MOS, I really didn't care either way about Snyder, wasnt much of a fan of Superman and could careless about marvel v dc... but after MOS, I wanted more. I actually saw it twice in the theater; Ive never done that.
        Again, watched BvS in the theaters, loved it and was honestly shocked by some of the negative reviews. When I discussed this film with others, they were shocked by some of MY interpretations; they failed to see the beauty that I had... because like any other piece of art, it was subjective.
        For what its worth, the pure fact that those movies are still so talked about--both ways, good and bad--says something. I've seen plenty of bad films in my time, but I have no ambition to argue at length at just how bad they were.
  3. Mark
    November 8, 2017
    Notice that the 3 hour version is labeled the "Ultimate Cut," not the "Director's Cut." That implies, to me, that Zack did not have final cut of that version, and I still maintain that Warner Home Video specifically engineered it to have an R rating to boost sales. Had WB stuck by their original promise to release a nearly 3-hour version it could have easily been done within PG-13 without butchering the story but still achieving Snyder's goal of using the DC characters to retell "Paradise Regained."
3. NinjaGamer13
  November 8, 2017
  It was, though, mostly
4. pw1x
  November 8, 2017
  Yeah I did and I loved it!
5. Kerk Lastnameless
  November 8, 2017
  I'll give Snyder due praise if the movie is good. It will not make me look any different at BvS, but I will be happy to close that chapter for good.
Orlando Furioso
November 8, 2017
I get this image in my mind when I read some of these posts: https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Browse By Topic

Browse By Year

Browse By Author

This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com