Post: #1

I went in thinking I would hate it. I actually liked it. Ben Affleck is a damn good batman.

WI (Would Impregnate) Gal Gadot/wonder woman.

Post: #2

Gal is hot but she has no ass.

Post: #3

I know...or tits. But I still would go all the way in.

Post: #4

I thought the movie was visually underlit throughout (except the party) but some shots were inspired. And the fight choreography was light years ahead of Nolan's Batman movies. The plot sucked. You don't have this spoiler tagged so I won't go into why exactly, but there are many plot points that make no sense and it takes too long to set everything up.

For a movie called Batman V Superman, there was very little of the two interacting and even less of them fighting. And Supe is lucky his mom is named Martha.

Post: #5

Haven't seen it yet.

Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman? Eh... I'd rather it was someone like Gina Carano. Isn't Wonder Woman supposed to be an Amazon or something?



Glad to hear the fight choreography was better. In Nolan's movies any fight that wasn't one on one was awful, the other bad guys would just stand back and wait their turn to get beat down. How about backing off and dumping a mag into Batman while he's beating on your friend, guys?

Post: #6

(03-28-2016 04:00 AM)weambulance Wrote:  Haven't seen it yet.

Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman? Eh... I'd rather it was someone like Gina Carano. Isn't Wonder Woman supposed to be an Amazon or something?

WW should have been this girl - Alexandra Daddario.

Post: #7

That Alexandra girl is hot as fuck. I would bang Gina Carano too.

The guy that plays superman was banging Gina. He traded her in for that slutty 19 year old.

People tried to cause a staged outrage, cause old Supes is banging a young one. He should have told all of them: I'm rich. I do what ever in the hell I want. Don't you see this S on my chest? Goddamnit I am Superman. :-p

Post: #8

Maaaaan that movie stole 2.5 hours of my life that I will NEVER get back!!!'

Post: #9

I would go raw in her and would not pull out !!!!

Post: #10

Alexandria chick nude. WBWIMPREGNATE.....unnnggghhhh.

Post: #11

Nice rack on that girl.

Post: #12

Who the hell is Supernan?

Post: #13

I liked Man of Steel. I didn't like this one as much. Major spoilers follow.

I think I've seen enough of Zack Snyder's back catalogue to have determined that he simply does not know how to make a motion picture in the sense of a flowing, cohesive narrative.

He gets the ephemera. He uses slow-motion to indicate intensity in action sequences. He cloaks the film in shadow and darkness around Batman, and even setting scenes in daylight it's a bleached palette or orange-and-black ugly contrasts. He gets in for close shots nicely and he composes shots with acceptable imbalances to left and right of frame, and obeys the rule of thirds.

The trouble is that's about all he gets. He seems to have the attention span and sensibility of a director of music videos.

Thanks to a long history of adapting comic books, he creates scenes just for the sake of getting a shot that looks identical to a panel from The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller. (I hope Miller got some fucking royalties out of the script, because while the film isn't a direct adaptation, there's a lot ripped off from it.) Most of the movie feels like the scenes are just setups to get certain images like photographs. This is a really stupid approach because comic books are not storyboards. They are two different art forms entirely; adapting a comic is no easier than adapting a novel. Snyder's done at least two of these adaptations already and he still doesn't get it.

(About the only image I found a pleasant callback to previous iterations of the Batman was Bruce's initial discovery of the Batcave - and it was a callback to Batman Begins, those of you who've seen the bat swarm scene will know what I mean. I got a visceral thrill out of it because it didn't just ape the source image - it played with it, transformed it.)

I know the source material is not exactly fucking Shakespeare, it's a comic book film, but even then it's poorly handled. A galloping horse appears early in the film for very little reason, and from that point on you can't help but hear the word "horse" across the script. I have no idea exactly what the point of that was. If it was part of an image system, it was handled appallingly badly because I was made aware of it; images in films only work if they're used subconsciously. The rest of the film is pretty similar in its treatment (I feel sick that they used Excalibur for a similar cheap, meaningless image.) Dream sequences are obvious and often pointless.

The script tries to serve too many purposes -- there are a couple of scenes that are blatant set-ups for a DC universe, and it shoehorns Wonder Woman in there somewhat awkwardly as well. In the hands of a superior director it could've done a lot better. But if this script reflects in any measurable way the work of Chris Terrio, it is a far, far cry from his work on Argo. Even for a comic book movie some of the holes in logic are mindblowing: Lex Luthor with only a dead guy's fingerprints manages to not only master the Kryptonian language but then be taught a good chunk of Kryptonian technology in the space of what seems a couple of months at best. (And no, it doesn't matter that Luthor mastered Kryptonian technology in the Donner films. For a start, this is meant to be a more 'realistic' take on Superman than the Donner films. Secondly, Luthor is never in the Donner films able to become as creative and proficient with the technology as he does in this one.)

Also teeth-gritting were the six or seven overt references to the risk of civilian casualties in the superhero fights of the film. These were direct references to fanboys' idiot complaints about Man of Steel to the effect of 'LOL SIX MILLION PEOPLE MUST HAVE DIED IN METROPOLIS, SUPERMAN DIDN'T SAVE ANY OF THEM, HE DIDN'T TAKE THE FIGHT AWAY FROM THE CITY, MOVIE SUX LOLOLOL'. Maybe the last forty minutes of MoS was destruction porn, but it was a hell of a lot more realistic about the likely consequences of invulnerable men beating the snot out of each other among large buildings. I can see the reasons they made those moves in this film, but it felt like pandering to neckbeards for the most part.

There was one good point: Ben Affleck as Batman. Whatever the film's flaws, his performance is not one of them. He's damned good, the best Batman I've seen since Michael Keaton who I rate the highest. A lot of the previous iterations of the Bat tend to get Bruce Wayne right or Batman right, but not often both at the same time. Michael Keaton is one of the exceptions, conveying a guy that's as troubled out of the costume as he is in it. Ben Affleck comes damned close to his performance. He portrays a guy really teetering on the verge of becoming unhinged, a guy who is really psychologically damaged. I've always thought Affleck carried an undertone of being an asshole to his performances; this is one of the times when that undertone works well for him. And yet when he goes in risking his life to save Superman's mother, you believe the line when he says "I'm a friend of your son." It's maybe the warmest line in the whole film. He's also ably supported by a fantastic choice of Jeremy Irons as Alfred Pennyworth, who just bounces off Affleck wonderfully. It is almost worth seeing the film just for his performance alone.

As for Gal Gadot: she doesn't have the tits for the role. You, me, and everyone in the audience knows it. It's why they put her in dresses that plunge the back and focus on her face: because there's nothing terribly feminine about her body. She strikes me as a lot more wooden than Cavill is accused of being, and I hope she takes some extra lessons in emoting before they throw her onto the screen in her own film.

I hope this film doesn't kill the franchise. There are still some interesting directions available -- the Day of the Krypton Man storyline for one -- but I also hope they decide next time to faithfully (or at least thoughtfully) adapt a single DC universe story rather than carelessly put together three or four of them.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #14

Quote:Supernan

Is that the IRT version of Superman?

Post: #15

Closest thing I could think of...

Post: #16

(03-28-2016 06:49 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  I liked Man of Steel. I didn't like this one as much. Major spoilers follow.

I think I've seen enough of Zack Snyder's back catalogue to have determined that he simply does not know how to make a motion picture in the sense of a flowing, cohesive narrative.

He gets the ephemera. He uses slow-motion to indicate intensity in action sequences. He cloaks the film in shadow and darkness around Batman, and even setting scenes in daylight it's a bleached palette or orange-and-black ugly contrasts. He gets in for close shots nicely and he composes shots with acceptable imbalances to left and right of frame, and obeys the rule of thirds.

Cloaking the film in shadow and darkness seems to be the standard protocol in movies and television these days. It's tiresome, literally and figuratively. I shouldn't have to strain to see the image when I just spent $20 on a fucking movie ticket. And the dark and brooding mood ain't your artistic expression, it's just the same shit everyone has been doing for years. Whether it's too dark, or the colors are washed out, it presents a bleak reality. It's funny that the focus on home televisions are improved color and brightness, and Hollywood responds by making shit darker and more faded than ever. If they wash out the color any more, they may as well go back to shooting in black and white.

(03-28-2016 06:49 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Thanks to a long history of adapting comic books, he creates scenes just for the sake of getting a shot that looks identical to a panel from The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller. (I hope Miller got some fucking royalties out of the script, because while the film isn't a direct adaptation, there's a lot ripped off from it.) Most of the movie feels like the scenes are just setups to get certain images like photographs. This is a really stupid approach because comic books are not storyboards. They are two different art forms entirely; adapting a comic is no easier than adapting a novel. Snyder's done at least two of these adaptations already and he still doesn't get it.

I thought the same thing. This was quite reminiscent of The Dark Knight Returns.

(03-28-2016 06:49 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  The script tries to serve too many purposes -- there are a couple of scenes that are blatant set-ups for a DC universe, and it shoehorns Wonder Woman in there somewhat awkwardly as well. In the hands of a superior director it could've done a lot better. But if this script reflects in any measurable way the work of Chris Terrio, it is a far, far cry from his work on Argo. Even for a comic book movie some of the holes in logic are mindblowing: Lex Luthor with only a dead guy's fingerprints manages to not only master the Kryptonian language but then be taught a good chunk of Kryptonian technology in the space of what seems a couple of months at best. (And no, it doesn't matter that Luthor mastered Kryptonian technology in the Donner films. For a start, this is meant to be a more 'realistic' take on Superman than the Donner films. Secondly, Luthor is never in the Donner films able to become as creative and proficient with the technology as he does in this one.)

It's obviously a setup for a DC universe picture. While the idea seems neat in a way will they really be able to pull it off? Lex Luthor figuring out how to run the ship isn't a big deal to me. He is after all, the greatest criminal mind of our time. I haven't read enough comics, but the only thing that struck me is that he seemed about as unhinged as The Joker. It was like they wanted to use The Joker, but they knew they had to stick with Superman's nemesis because Lex Luthor hasn't been on the big screen since the days of Gene Hackman (let's not mention Kevin Spacey and that travesty Superman Returns.) And Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker is going to be a tough act to follow.

(03-28-2016 06:49 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Also teeth-gritting were the six or seven overt references to the risk of civilian casualties in the superhero fights of the film. These were direct references to fanboys' idiot complaints about Man of Steel to the effect of 'LOL SIX MILLION PEOPLE MUST HAVE DIED IN METROPOLIS, SUPERMAN DIDN'T SAVE ANY OF THEM, HE DIDN'T TAKE THE FIGHT AWAY FROM THE CITY, MOVIE SUX LOLOLOL'. Maybe the last forty minutes of MoS was destruction porn, but it was a hell of a lot more realistic about the likely consequences of invulnerable men beating the snot out of each other among large buildings. I can see the reasons they made those moves in this film, but it felt like pandering to neckbeards for the most part.

I will agree that the incessant whining about the civilian body count got old. OTOH, destruction porn is getting old. Ever since Transformers, all of these action/adventure movies devolve right into destruction porn. These fight sequences would result in the deaths of thousands and cost billions in damage. As I look at it, I start to wonder if they give a fuck about the story, or is it simply a way to show off their CGI prowess?

(03-28-2016 06:49 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  As for Gal Gadot: she doesn't have the tits for the role. You, me, and everyone in the audience knows it. It's why they put her in dresses that plunge the back and focus on her face: because there's nothing terribly feminine about her body. She strikes me as a lot more wooden than Cavill is accused of being, and I hope she takes some extra lessons in emoting before they throw her onto the screen in her own film.

Wonder Woman has always served to titillate the audience. The only reason the comic book world hasn't let her die off is because IIRC, the rights to her revert back to the estate of the creator if a wonder woman story goes out of production for more than 6 months. She's meant to be eye candy. In reality, she'd be a sexual plaything for Superman. Hollywood will try to make her into a serious superhero, and this will fail.

(03-28-2016 06:49 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  I hope this film doesn't kill the franchise. There are still some interesting directions available -- the Day of the Krypton Man storyline for one -- but I also hope they decide next time to faithfully (or at least thoughtfully) adapt a single DC universe story rather than carelessly put together three or four of them.

It won't kill the franchise. What will kill it is overexposure. Did you see the trailers?
1. Captain America
2. X-Men
3. Star Trek

All of their big budget features are reboots. And they're rebooting reboots. And now they're getting to a point where they're rebooting a franchise before it's had a chance to cool off. Hollywood seems to be suffering from serious creativity issues these days.

Post: #17

Zack Snyder is one of the worst directors today. I have no idea why the studios keep giving him movies with 200 million budgets to direct because you know it's going to suck. He must have scandalous pictures of movie execs with little boys and girls on a yacht somewhere that he uses to barter these deals.

As someone mentioned above, Snyder doesn't know what a "story" means. Each movie he makes is a montage of music videos that makes no sense and provides a very unfulfilling viewing experience. Even Michael Bay knows the importance of a story (even if that story is stupid).

Post: #18

(03-28-2016 06:49 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  The trouble is that's about all he gets. He seems to have the attention span and sensibility of a director of music videos.

Thanks to a long history of adapting comic books, he creates scenes just for the sake of getting a shot that looks identical to a panel from The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller. (I hope Miller got some fucking royalties out of the script, because while the film isn't a direct adaptation, there's a lot ripped off from it.) Most of the movie feels like the scenes are just setups to get certain images like photographs. This is a really stupid approach because comic books are not storyboards. They are two different art forms entirely; adapting a comic is no easier than adapting a novel. Snyder's done at least two of these adaptations already and he still doesn't get it.

This absolutely nailed Zack Snyder's primary flaw. It's also why 300 was an iconic and memorable movie, but overall a steaming pile of shit. He doesn't film for the viewers, he films for some bizzaro sense of "homage".

Post: #19

(03-28-2016 03:40 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:   It's also why 300 was an iconic and memorable movie, but overall a steaming pile of shit.

Post: #20

Supernan... Mother Fuckerss....lol

Post: #21

THIS is Wonder Woman

Post: #22

Reposting from Forum lounge where we had a small discussion about his movie.

Lex Luther was horrific. At the beginning he seemed like he was good, since he wanted to stop Superman from being unchecked. Than he started doing that nerdy raspy voice "the red capes are coming!" or "ding ding" and is suddenly evil. He is the millennial version of lex luther, who does not have a commanding presence like the character should.

Batman killed quite a few people in this. I liked that, no half measures, but out of character for him.
When did Lois learn that Superman was Clark Kent?

Not sure why there was two funeral ceremonies. And not sure why they had to fight each other plotwise. I went to the bathroom a ton so might of missed that part.

The dream sequences were just padding, no reason for them. And the bullet subplot seemed like it would have been more interesting if developed more.

Why did they need to fight btw? I thought that was glossed over. Also the bats lifting him out of the hole was stupid too. Its was not well displayed the difference between a dream or real life either.

Post: #23

(03-28-2016 06:25 PM)kbell Wrote:  When did Lois learn that Superman was Clark Kent?

About halfway through Man of Steel.

(03-28-2016 06:25 PM)kbell Wrote:  Also the bats lifting him out of the hole was stupid too. Its was not well displayed the difference between a dream or real life either.

Funny that - I actually thought that was the one homage to earlier incarnations of the Bat that actually worked, because it was a take on Batman Begins but then twisted the homage by making it uncertain whether Bruce was dreaming or awake or not. I got a chuckle out of the homage and a nice thrill out of the imagery: it combines Bale's Batman being afraid of bats and the fact the fear helped him rise out of the pit (as he did in Rises, literally).

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #24

I'm a big film buff and was at a major film festival a couple years ago and had the opportunity to discuss editing with William Goldenberg. He's an Oscar winning editor ( and has nominated 38 times so he knows his shit) and one of things we talked about directors fucking up a movie by doing their own editing. The example he gave me was ZERO DARK THIRTY He said the director (Kathryn Bigelow) actually had compiled over 12 hours of actual footage and because they's worked together on HURT LOCKER and it was in his contract that he had final cut she had relatively little input over the final product. She let a professional editor do what he does best...edit

I got a sense that BATMAN VS SUPERMAN was another casualty of the director's ego leading him to believe he can edit. There's so many convoluted and poorly developed story lines in this movie interspersed with flashes of really cool material that I believe the makings of a great movie are somewhere laying on the proverbial cutting room floor.

Such a shame

Post: #25

(03-28-2016 08:53 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  I'm a big film buff and was at a major film festival a couple years ago and had the opportunity to discuss editing with William Goldenberg. He's an Oscar winning editor ( and has nominated 38 times so he knows his shit) and one of things we talked about directors fucking up a movie by doing their own editing. The example he gave me was ZERO DARK THIRTY He said the director (Kathryn Bigelow) actually had compiled over 12 hours of actual footage and because they's worked together on HURT LOCKER and it was in his contract that he had final cut she had relatively little input over the final product. She let a professional editor do what he does best...edit

This. I've heard Star Wars was a beneficiary of the same concept: Lucas shot a lot of footage, but his wife edited the footage (and from memory got an Oscar for it) and what emerges is a fantastic piece of work.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm