Muthafukkas had logos and everythingMan the same folks defending this today would go to town shytting on this!!
After watching BvS 3 times, I don't understand why people disliked this movie so much
- Thread starter 45123
- Start date
Muthafukkas had logos and everything
That WAS dumb as fukk, also lazy as hell.
Bryan Danielson
Jmare007 x Bryan Danielson x JLova = King Ghidorah
Muthafukkas had logos and everything
I remember someone saying Lex had a great graphic designer!
Lex giving the heroes their names and shytI remember someone saying Lex had a great graphic designer!
Pinyapplesuckas
He's A Good Man
i barely got through the first watch. boring as fukk. but if i had to give it a percentage, 28% would be wayyyy low...its probably somewhere in the 60s or 70s
Get your superhero name and symbol from a coked-up Michael Cera brehs
28% is the amount of critics on RT who "liked" it
The average score was 50%
28% is the amount of critics on RT who "liked" it
The average score was 50%
That's not what a 28% on RT means. Your first sentence means you clearly agree with the score.
Pinyapplesuckas
He's A Good Man
I just watched it last week, after all the hype and hoopla died down. Went in with an open mind and tried to keep any prior critism out of my head. This movie was pretty bad IMO for a number of reasons.
-first off, I hated the Jesse eisenberg casting when it was announced and hates just as much after watching his performance. It was too flowery and over the top. Seemed like he was playing the riddler instead of Lex
-The character motivations were not well portrayed. Like Bruce's motivations were kinda obvious but still unclear at the same time as for why he wanted to take down Superman. Same time for Superman wanting to stop Batman. It seemed forced and not natural. The way they got from point A to point B scene to scene didn't flow well at all.
-There was not enough screen time to develop Batman, Superman, Lex as well as all the other minor characters, like Alfred, Wonder women and Lois lane.-Speaking of Lois Lane, she was useless. Her only role was to make things worse by constantly fukking up and making Superman constantly save her ass. I know that was part of the central conflict, but it was still hard to watch her act clueless.
I'm usually not this critical of movies but this was a disappointment. By the time Batman faced off with Supes, I was done BC I didn't know the stakes or care any more. It got even worse by he time they teamed up together. DC is off to a bad start with this.
-first off, I hated the Jesse eisenberg casting when it was announced and hates just as much after watching his performance. It was too flowery and over the top. Seemed like he was playing the riddler instead of Lex
-The character motivations were not well portrayed. Like Bruce's motivations were kinda obvious but still unclear at the same time as for why he wanted to take down Superman. Same time for Superman wanting to stop Batman. It seemed forced and not natural. The way they got from point A to point B scene to scene didn't flow well at all.
-There was not enough screen time to develop Batman, Superman, Lex as well as all the other minor characters, like Alfred, Wonder women and Lois lane.-Speaking of Lois Lane, she was useless. Her only role was to make things worse by constantly fukking up and making Superman constantly save her ass. I know that was part of the central conflict, but it was still hard to watch her act clueless.
I'm usually not this critical of movies but this was a disappointment. By the time Batman faced off with Supes, I was done BC I didn't know the stakes or care any more. It got even worse by he time they teamed up together. DC is off to a bad start with this.
Oh and fukk the ending, I had the biggest issue with that overall. DC hasn't earned the fans trust to be pulling that shyt in their 2nd movie. It had no emotional weight and you weren't fooling anyone.fukk you DC
Superman wanted to stop Batman because Batman was acting as "judge, jury, and executioner" while taking the law into his own hands. In the Ultimate edition, we find out that the Bat brand actually marks the criminal in prison for death (it's revealed also that Lex was the one who made sure the criminals were killed and that Clark saw the evidence). Clark even goes digging for info and meets the widow of the criminal that Batman branded, and she explains to Clark why Batman needs to be stopped.
As for Batman, he viewed Superman as a threat to the human race who brought carnage wherever he went and amassed collateral damage like no other. Watch the scene where he talks to Alfred about Superman, where he explains that Superman isn't an enemy today but could become one tomorrow, and a very dangerous one at that ("20 years in Gotham Alfred, how many good guys are left, how many stay that way?). That fear is even bolstered by the Knightmare sequence, which is why I call bullshyt on people who felt that scene didn't fit in the movie.
I don't think it was truly meant to fool anyone or even hold any real emotional weight, seeing as how they literally brought him back 5 minutes later. If DC really wanted to "fool us" somehow, they wouldn't have teased the dirt rising on the casket at the end.
Lois was only an impediment because she took up so much screen time. I don't see how she was so clueless, she fukked up and had to get saved twice in the whole movie, first time in the desert, second time being trapped in the water. Lois is actually the only one in the movie who uncovers Lex's plan and sees through the funky business, if you watch the Ultimate edition you'll get to see more of that take place. I do agree though that in the theatrical version the character development was too sparse to go around.
Muthafukkas had logos and everything
I agree that part was stupid, BUT that's the epitome of a petty complaint
Man the same folks defending this today would go to town shytting on this!!
They were 10 second teasers, it's not like their whole origin stories were introduced in the e-mail
Like I said, that e-mail part was fan service to the max, and it did its job because it got me hyped just as a post-credits Marvel scene would. And if that e-mail segment was actually in the postcredits as opposed to being in the regular cut of the movie, you would not be complaining about it, I guarantee it.I don't get this, the Batman in this movie was evidently intended to be different from the typical portrayal of Batman on-screen, as was heavily emphasized by Affleck and even the movie itself. Batman is jaded and cynical after 20 years of fighting crime in a still corrupt and decrepit Gotham, and has lost his hope and faith in humanity, which is later restored by Superman (another part that's emphasized in the movie itself). He brands people, "kills" people with his car, takes less precaution when it comes to human life because he don't give a fukk. He's even got the suit Robin died in encased in his batcave as a reminder of how fukked up things were and still are. He's haunted by his parent's deaths, he outlived his own father and has fukked up nightmares about his mom's grave, and just watched aliens come down and make things even more fukked up. And meanwhile, Lex is manipulating all those fears with those "you let your family die", "I am your ghost", etc letters
I'm not defending the internal logic of the movie, I do agree the plot was muddled and hole-filled due to the fact that there was just too much going on. I even said the day the first trailer came out that it made little sense as to why the world was vilifying Superman. But I think what the movie was trying to get across was that Superman needed to be put in check instead of running around like an almighty God answering to nobody, and that the popular imagination eventually got the better of the public perception after witnessing all the death that followed Superman, which was what turned people against Superman (and Lex knew this and used that to his advantage). Again though, I'm not gonna defend this stuff or hold it against people if they didn't get it, because that's just too much unnecessary critical and emotional scrutiny for a superhero movie.
But to clear up the explosion part, what happened was they thought it was weird and suspicious that Superman did nothing to stop the bomb when he can see through things and has super hearing, so they thought he let it happen.
Doomsday wasn't meant to be controlled, he was literally about to punch Lex to death when he came out the womb but Superman stopped it. Lex wanted an uncontrollable monster who could kill Superman and who did. Now how Lex was able to make it, what with using Zod's blood and overriding the Kryptonian ship and whatever, I won't defend that either because that comes down more to whether you have a problem with the basis of the lore and not so much the reasoning of the plot/characters.
Last edited:
that email was one of the laziest things i've seen in a movie of this magnitude.
basically. the audience barely cares about superman after the first two movies and then they pull that.
the two biggest emotional moments in the movie (martha and
death) had no impact because they were set up so poorlywhat was the point then?
the death of the protagonist is meant to evoke an emotional response in the viewer who has come to care about him/her over the course of the story. but since DC assembled a horrible cast of story tellers, it had no weight and no impact
the rest isnt worth responding to because i already know the answers from the tone
Last edited: